Do We Have Maps in Our Belfry?

In my last blog series I asked whether the social turmoil that now surrounds us could simply be framed as Capitalism vs Socialism. In this post I would like to look at Capitalism vs Socialism from a slightly different perspective by using the lens of what cognitive scientists call cultural cognitive maps. Sure, we often politely suggest that a person’s struggles with mental difficulties result from “bats in the belfry.” However, we rarely if ever refer to these struggles as “batty maps in the belfry.”

Do we actually have bats in our minds? No. Do we actually have maps in our minds? No. These are but metaphors that allow us to get an idea of what is going on in our minds without pursuing advanced degrees in cognitive science. Does society have cultural maps in our shared cultural mind? Metaphorically speaking, yes. And these shared cultural maps have been studied by cognitive scientists. One book—in my relatively bat-free mind—that has given us the clearest scientific view of cultural cognitive maps has to be Changing Visions—Human Cognitive Maps: Past, Present, and Future by Ervin Laszlo, Robert Artigiani, Allan Combs, and Vilmos Csányi.

In this post I would like to present a brief summary of Changing Visions as a way of shedding light on the current conflict between the cultural cognitive maps of capitalism and socialism. Hopefully my summary of Changing Visions will help the reader understand how and for what reason cultural cognitive maps get setup, why they might clash (as we see today), and what if anything we can do to shift cultural cognitive maps so that they better map individual experience to shared cultural experience. As content creators will often say, let’s get started.

Brief Evolutionary History of Cognitive Maps

Before we get started looking at Changing Visions, it would be a good idea to get a sense for the evolutionary history of cognitive maps. For this I would like to turn to the work of neurobiologist Antonio Damasio and his book Feeling & Knowing: Making Minds. I covered Damasio’s evolutionary model showing how we became cognitive mapmakers in an earlier post Beyond Thoughts & Prayers: Bridging Brain Research to the Public Sphere (Pt 3), which came out in March, 2024. (If you are familiar with that post, feel free to move to the next section.) For our purposes here, allow me to present an excerpt from that earlier post, which I have lightly edited.

— (begin excerpt) —

• First Cells (such as bacteria) without nucleus — 4 billion years ago
• Photosynthesis —3.5 billion years ago
• First Single Cells with nucleus — 2 billion years ago
• First nervous cells — 500 million years ago
• Fish — 500-400 million years ago
• Mammals — 200 million years ago
• Primates — 75 million years ago
• Birds — 60 million years ago
• Hominids — 14-12 million years ago
• Homo Sapiens — 300 thousand years ago

I have included the above table from Damasio’s book Feeling & Knowing: Making Minds Conscious as a way of drawing attention to the enormity of evolutionary time. It’s huge. It shares much in common with geological time. Both evolutionary and geological processes are often measured using time intervals consisting of millions of years, heck, billions of years. It’s easy to talk about going from unminded organisms to those with minds while forgetting the immense amount of evolutionary time such a transition requires.

Over billions of years of evolution, Damasio imagines that simple organisms, like bacteria, began to develop discrete “organelles” (simple organ structures like a stomach or breathing apparatus) as well as discrete sensing structures such as eyes or ears. As these discrete organelles and sensing structures began appearing, an evolutionary challenge presented itself: how to coordinate the activities taking place within this collection of organelles and sensing structures? Thus were born nervous systems, again, over millions if not billions of years. However, organisms with discrete organelles and sensing structures that are connected and more or less coordinated by a nervous system, does not a minded organism make. Really? I hope evolution puts in for overtime.

Damasio imagines that a nervous system in essence creates a grid, a grid that is capable of creating … wait for it … maps. Yes, maps. The nervous system with its grid-like nature is capable of mapping its environment, both the environment of the body (via the various organelles) as well as the environment of external reality (via sensing structures). As Damasio puts it, “The grid-like anatomy of all these neural structures is ideal for the purpose of activating neurons in a patterned fashion so that varied designs, in varied dimensions, can be ‘activated’ rapidly and wiped out just as rapidly.” Simply, for minds to come onto the scene we first need maps or images. Without maps or images there can be no minds [emphasis added to this excerpt]. Organisms that have the ability to create maps or images could be said to be minded but they are not yet conscious. For consciousness to develop, Damasio argues that we need some way to store maps or images and then, most importantly, some ability to inspect those maps and images. This is where the various structures of the brain come into play.

In terms of consciousness Damasio reveals something that I find astonishing. He essentially suggests that the maps or images generated by a nervous system that simultaneously interacts with the body and external reality, have a unique quality: they are accompanied by feelings. Or, using organic systems concepts, nervous systems allow the internal and the external to come together in such a way that feelings emerge. Feelings are emergent properties arising from organic systems. Feelings then are hybrids if you will, part body, part mind. It is for this reason that Damasio sees no conflict between body and mind. “An astonishing consequence of this peculiar arrangement is that feelings are not conventional perceptions of the body but rather hybrids, at home in both body and brain,” Damasio tells us. He continues, “This hybrid condition may help explain why there is a profound distinction but no opposition between feeling and reason, why we are feeling creatures that think and thinking creatures that feel” (italics in original).

In case your head is not spinning at this point, there’s one more important point that Damasio makes, one concerning the self. Damasio states:

[A]ll that occurs in the mind—the maps of the interior and the maps of the structures, actions, and spatial positions of other organisms/objects that exist and take place in the surrounding exterior—is constructed, of necessity, by adopting the organism’s perspective.

In other words, through the process of the nervous system simultaneously mapping both the interior and exterior realms, the resulting images are “stamped” with not only a “north arrow” establishing orientation and the organism’s perspective, they are also stamped with the organism’s sense of ownership that in turn forms the foundation upon which our sense of self rests. Mic drop!

— (end excerpt) —

To recap, Damasio makes the following postulations:

• An organism that has the ability to map its environment could be said to possess a mind, is minded.
• An organism that has the ability to store maps and inspect those maps could be said to be conscious.
• Conscious organisms possess feelings that are hybrids, part biological (maps of the viscera) and part conceptual (maps of the environment).
• These hybrid maps—part biological, part conceptual—allow for the emergence of our sense of self, a self that owns these maps and through this ownership, is oriented in space and is able to make self/not self or self/other comparisons.

At the risk of being glib, all that we are arises from these cognitive maps, from these maps in our belfry and, I guess you could say, in our belly. Given how important these cognitive maps are—our whole sense of self and being arise from these maps—it is surprising how little attention has been placed on cognitive maps. One of the main reasons I was initially interested in Bowlby’s theory of attachment stems from the fact that his theory is in many ways a theory of how we develop as cognitive mapmakers and how we use cognitive maps to not only navigate the so-called real world (i.e., our environment) but also the world of social relationships. And, yes, Bowlby was greatly influenced by the work of developmental and cognitive scientist Jean Piaget, considered to be the father of spatial cognition and cognitive mapping.

— oOo —

Today we are caught up in a maelstrom resulting from the conflict of two cultural cognitive maps—Capitalism vs Socialism—while at the same time knowing very little about cultural cognitive maps in general. So now we turn to Changing Visions for insight and clarity. In many ways Changing Visions is the manual or guidebook that allows us to make sense of today’s turmoil. I should point out that we could just as easily turn to the work of psychoanalyst Carl Jung in the areas of depth and archetypal psychology for insight into cultural cognitive models. We will look at an example of Jung’s work at the conclusion of this post.

Changing Visions—A Guide to Cultural Cognitive Maps

Since we are guided by our own individual cognitive map and by that of our society, attention must be paid to both. (The Authors of Changing Visions)

I would wager that you are familiar with some aspect of cultural cognitive maps without recognizing it. Let me throw out a list of terms and concepts that likely fall under the rubric of cultural cognitive maps:

• Worldview
• Paradigm
• Cultural Frame
• Ideology
• Cultural Narrative
• Archetype
• Propaganda
• Advertising

So, yes, volumes upon volumes have been written about topics such as worldviews, or ideologies, or even advertising, however, I’m not sure this idea of cultural cognitive maps has entered the conversation. Let’s see what the Changing Visions authors have to say. (For simplicity, I will refer to the authors of Changing Visions as The Authors, or just Authors.)

Changing Visions looks at shifting cultural cognitive maps across time starting with the ancients of Greek and Roman times. I simply do not have the room to mention all of these many shifts. So, allow me to mention three that I think are particularly important.

Jesus and His Invitation to the Upper Brain and Executive Functioning

As the Authors point out, life under Roman rule could be harsh. Suffice it to say that an outer reality that is harsh and brutish is often difficult to map, cognitively speaking. “[T]hey lived in an immense state over which they had no control and which ruled for the benefit of a handful of military and civilian authorities” write the Authors. Under trying times the Authors point out that it is imperative that “the match between … social cognitive map and … environment” be maintained. They continue, “When the match breaks down, people are confused, lost, and alienated, as they were in the Mediterranean when Alexander arose, and later with the ascendence of the Romans.” During periods of confusion people will naturally try to find or create any cultural cognitive map that has the potential to work, that is to say, allows the individual to map his/her experience to the social milieu. The Authors present three such attempts in response to the harshness people encountered under Roman rule:

• Cynics—proclaimed the artificiality of all conventions.
• Epicureans—advised that the search for meaning be limited to a carefully controlled garden.
• Stoics—proclaimed that, although there was a universal law, few ever got to glimpse into it or could predict its effects.

The Authors give us this bottom line: “All these schools, and the rhetoricians who proclaimed that truth was relative, were recording the experiences of people living in a world they could not map.” Today I would argue that the many calls for the relativism of postmodernism likewise represent “the experiences of people living in a world they cannot map” (paraphrasing the authors). More on this theme when we look at the Jung example to come.

There was one response to the harsh realities of Roman life that has stood the test of time: Jesus’ call to enter the realm of the upper brain and Executive Functioning.

The Authors point out that when confronted with the limiting circumstances of life in Roman times, the Jews, rather than fight against imposing forces or retreat to greener pastures, decided to develop a whole new conceptual system, one based on the workings of the upper mind and Executive Functioning: ethics. As the Authors put it, “[T]he Jews did not do things because they could, which would have been limiting indeed, given their environmental circumstances; they did things because they were good.” In essence, the Jews “introduced the concept of ethics” and invited all to embrace life lived out of the upper brain. An example here would be Jesus encouraging us to “turn the other cheek” in the face of adversity. I would also suggest that Jesus’ parables were designed as ways of developing the Executive Functions of self-reflection, perspective-taking, and empathy. “Morality is the language in which social cognitive maps are expressed,” write the Authors. It might be a stretch, however, it could be said that the Jews developed the cultural cognitive map of ethics and morality that was then popularized through Jesus’ life and writings. This is a cultural cognitive map that is (thankfully) with us today and governs much of our lives. Heck, many professions (including counseling) have codes of ethics. Medical doctors today still abide by the Hippocratic oath “First Do No Harm.”

Before we move on, allow me to give you the definition of cultural cognitive maps that the Authors present:

[A] societal cognitive map is the set of shared symbols describing a collective environment and prescribing the organized behaviors appropriate to preserving social stability in that environment.

Calvinism of the 16th Century

John Calvin was a Protestant reformer from the 16th century. As the Authors write, “Calvinism motivated people throughout the ranks of secular society to work for themselves.” Thus was born the image of the rugged, self-sustaining individual, the same image that would propel the formation of a new nation, America. The rise of Calvinism tracked the rise of private property. It also laid the foundation for the cultural cognitive map of capitalism. As the Authors write, “A man on his own estate stood alone beyond the bounds of society. He could do whatever he chose, and no one had the right to invade his land and object.” The Authors continue, “But while private property gave individual rights a material foundation, independence from community [i.e., from socialism] also meant that the individual incurred private responsibilities. If he managed his land carefully and husbanded its resources well, a man could expect ‘to live off his own’ quite comfortably.” There was a downside to rugged individualism in much the same way there is a downside to solving the Prisoner’s Dilemma by going it alone. “But should he be lazy, stupid, reckless, or rash,” warn the Authors, “no one else was obliged to keep him.” So here we see the beginnings of the fight between capitalism and rugged individualism; and socialism and compassionate community, the same one Jesus advocated for. There is no right or wrong social cognitive model (a point that Lakoff makes in his work): it’s simply the one that works best to allow the most number of people to map their environment that ultimately wins the day.

The Rise of Science

The Authors write “… Galileo had to introduce a radical set of presuppositions. Basic to Galileo’s philosophy was the idea that the world exists external to and independent of the people observing it. We can stand outside nature and, provided we depend upon unbiased instruments, can reconstruct it accurately in our minds.” The problem, as Galileo saw it, was “that people had traditionally relied only upon their minds to construct an image of the world.” Unfortunately because the mental maps made by people consist of hybrids—part body and part mind—the body part often introduces distortions in forms such as “color and taste, values and morals” (quoting the Authors). The Authors give us this bottom line: “But when we take our inner experience as a guide to external reality we get a faulty picture.” So, science may have succeeded in allowing us to determine accurately the outer world, but it did so by cutting out feeling and bodily experience. “A picture of the world from which all secondary, qualitative characteristics had been cut out was so abstract that it could be applied universally, as Newton soon showed,” write the Authors. They continue, “But, as with any other new idea, this one could only be amplified by public endorsement after its utility had been demonstrated.” Simply put,

The modern cognitive map written in the language of science took the powers and characteristics the Middle Ages had attributed to God, and bestowed them on Nature…. (The Authors)

This battle between God and Nature continues today as evidenced by such things as the Intelligent Design movement, attacks on the Theory of Evolution, and even the Grand Canyon Creation Museum. Old cultural cognitive maps that used to hold sway do not go away easily. In fact, when a prevailing cultural cognitive map, such as science, begins to falter, it is not uncommon for old maps to reassert themselves. Today is one of those times as we are now surrounded by Strict Maps, Nurturant Maps, postmodern maps, and even certain authoritarian religious maps.

It is interesting to note that the Authors suggest that the Science Map got a bit of help as it ascended to a position where most people used it to map their daily experiences. The authors point out that the cognitive map of science resonated with the rise of a new class, that of the small shopkeeper. “Now individualized competitors operating in a market economy where reality was measured in [the instrument of] money must have looked very much like Newton’s descriptions of nature….” Here we see a commingling of two maps—Capitalism and Science—in such a way that each amplified the other. Today, however, we see the Science Map sustaining attacks from three sides: Capitalism, Socialism, and Religion. It is no wonder that the Science Map is on the ropes.

Looking Forward

No creature on earth is as concerned with creating images of the future as is the human. (The Authors)

• Hierarchical vs Distributed Decision-Making
• Control vs Self-Regulation
• Human vs Machine
• Routine Tasks vs Responsible Jobs
• Complementary Sex Roles

“[P]eople can’t sit back and wait for all of the uncertainties [concerning digital technologies] to be resolved,” writes Nicholas Carr in his recently released book Superbloom: How Technologies of Connection Tear Us Apart. Carr alerts that people must “make important decisions about technology from the start.” Carr gives us this bottom line: “For those decisions to be made in an organized rather than chaotic fashion, society has to come up with a shared story about the new system and its social role.” In my opinion, Carr is talking about coming up with a new cultural cognitive model that not only allows the individual to map his/her experience to the social milieu, but also “guide business and government investment, shape public opinion and consumer behavior, and steer regulatory and legal responses” (quoting Carr). There is a caution here: do not assume that an emerging cultural cognitive map is imbued with certain qualities and capabilities prematurely. The above Carr quotes come from a chapter of his book called The Democratization Fallacy. It’s entirely possible that progressives prematurely tied their wagon of universal brotherhood to the newly emerging cultural cognitive map born of digital technology before knowing its true direction and purpose: disembodied information leading to social disconnection as Carr describes in detail, and I talked about in my blog series Attachment Neurobiology and the Cutting Room Floor.

Jung on Things Seen In the Sky

Back in the 1950s toward the end of his career, psychoanalyst Carl Jung noticed a peculiar phenomenon taking place: large groups of people convinced that they had seen a flying saucer in the sky. After a bit of study, Jung postulated that what he was observing was the emergence of an archetype. He then began to wonder if this was a new archetype. After more research, Jung discovered that the “Things Seen in the Sky” archetype had a long history and would pop-up in response to the introduction of a new technology. This supported Jung’s idea that archetypal energy existed outside time and space and was manifested within time and space in response to local conditions such as the introduction of a new technology.

Jung imagined that the Things Seen in the Sky archetype represented two things: 1) an inability to map the environment as the result of the introduction of a new technology, and, 2) a dissociation of mind from body resulting from an inability to cognitively map the environment. Things Seen in the Sky represented the mind floating away from the body. Flying saucers were a modern symbol and experience representing this cultural dissociation. But what was causing this modern manifestation? Jung pointed to an obvious source: the development and detonation of the atomic bomb over Japan at the close of WWII. As a result of this technological explosion, people now had to grapple with the very real possibility that man now possessed the power to destroy the world. Jung imagined that the development and use of the atomic bomb created a reality that simply was not easily mappable, thus the experience of mind separate from body leading to Things Seen in the Sky. Jung died in 1961. At best he may have had an inkling of what the digital age would bring. Had he lived today, I imagine he might have started investigating the newly emerging Modern Myth of Things Seen in Screens?

Brief Recap

• From bees to birds to humans, we were evolved to be cognitive mapmakers.
• Those critters who possess and make use of cognitive maps are said to be minded.
• Those critters who possess, make use of, and are aware of their cognitive maps are said to be conscious.
• Cognitive maps exist on a continuum that connects the individual to the shared cultural realm.
• Cultural cognitive maps have shifted greatly over time reflecting local challenges.
• During times of shifting maps, people may find it difficult to map their environment resulting in confusion and a sense of body separate from mind.
• The best protection against the disorientation that shifting maps bring is to develop robust Executive Function skills.
• Early safe and secure attachment relationships (if all goes well) pours the foundation upon which robust Executive Function skills rest.

Postscript: I have read Changing Visions at least three times through. During one of my reads I created a set of notes. In my next post, I’d like to present these note as an appendix to this post. In this way, if a reader wishes to gain more information on Changing Visions, s/he could access these notes. Of course the best way to gain access to the information contained in Changing Visions is to grab a copy for yourself. Unfortunately it is not in the Kindle format and the hardback version is a bit pricey. Here’s the link to Changing Visions over at Amazon. I would also recommend Jung’s book on Flying Saucers.