The Scientific Mind vs. The Magical Mind
October 31st, 2010 § 2 Comments
These are some quotes from a paper I wrote concerning the ways the modern scientific mind differs from the magical mindset (or shamanic/intuitive/gnostic world view).
The difference between magic and modern science is a difference in consciousness: subjective and objective, participant and observer, voluntary and accidental. From the Neanderthal man to Francis Bacon human perception of nature and the natural universe has gone through a profound transformation.
In terms of consciousness, the scientific mind disassociates itself from all other things in order to analyze them objectively. It distinguishes intellect from emotion and is based on abstractions. Instead of being an interactive contributor to the universe, the scientific mind is a detached observer. This mentality isolates itself emotionally and mentally from nature in order to view nature as a machine.
In stark contrast to the mechanization of nature by the scientific mind, is the primitive magical mind that sees itself not as an observer of nature, but as an active participant in it. Pre-modern humans believed their consciousness was not independent or individual in relation to nature, but a part of it and that every experience was unified with nature itself: “I thus see myself as an island, whereas my medieval or ancient predecessor saw himself more like an embryo.” Therefore they gave personification to nature as a way to relate to it. They saw the earth as a body and rivers as veins in a form of macrocosm and microcosm. They believed the world was sympathetic just as they were sympathetic to nature in return, experiencing archetypes and symbols where the scientific mind saw only abstractions in accidental occurrences.
These are the main points that I really am feeling right now. Especially the last paragraph. I wrote this as a paper in one of my classes, which ended up being a really neat class, basically on the history of science. It’s amazing how much modern concepts are influenced by ancient history. For instance, did you know Isaac Newton was a Gnostic, and basically believed his knowledge was tantamount to magic?
If you want to know more check out my sources:
The Disenchantment of the World
I suspect that there are too large elements of over-generalisation and speculation above. The greater difference in the development of thought, in my opinion, is a higher degree of critical thinking, a testing of arguments and hypotheses, and so on. Notably, this is still a major difference between science and pseudo-science/esoteric/whatnot.
As a detail issue: The detached observer is an unreachable ideal, and any good scientist knows that he is a part of something else, from which he can never completely detach himself. Likewise, it is near-impossible to observe without both influencing the observed and being influenced in return.
Thanks for the comment!
Yes I am definitely over-generalizing in my post here. While I believe in what I wrote, these view points are not mine, I got them from different authors on this subject:
The Disenchantment of the World
A History of Magic
The Death of Nature
I think you misunderstand the specific argument I’m referring to here. There are many differences between a Scientific Approach to nature and reasoning, and a Shamanic/Magical Approach. But I wanted to point out that many of these differences stem from a completely opposite ways of consciously viewing this world we live in. For instance, one of the ways this manifests is that scientists believe in doing objective quantitative research, while someone with a magical approach would use subjective qualitative research. The magician believes in gnosticism, which is knowledge coming from within (which in a way can be seen as basic reasoning skills).
Before industrialization and science, societies believed that a detached observer was no ideal at all, and actually the opposite of what should try and be achieved. By the way, I’m not arguing for one way of consciousness or the other! Without the scientific method and industrialization human society obviously would be a lot worse off.