On Henotheism

beyond polytheism & monotheism
an invitation to gnosis

epistemological, neurotheological & depth-psychological remarks

© Wim van den Dungen
Antwerp, 2004 - 2008.

Table of Contents

Abstract
Introduction
Definitions

1. Epistemological arguments.

1.1 Two logical systems and three branches of logic.
1.2 The limitations of formal syntax.
1.3 The plurality of semantics.
1.4 Pragmatism or the variety in action.
1.5 Non-Fregean representations.
1.6 Truth and epistemological pluralism.
1.7 The problems of polytheism.
1.8 The problems of monotheism.

2. Neurotheological arguments.

2.1 Three types of brain software.
2.2 Archaic software and the polytheist representation.
2.3 Limbic software and ante-rational henotheism.
2.4 Frontal software and the monotheist representation.
2.5 Towards a rational henotheist representation.

3. Depth-psychological remarks.

3.1 General remarks on the law of the psyche.
3.2 Polytheism and the collective unconscious.
3.3 Monotheism and conscious rationality.
3.4 Henotheism and psychic equilibration.

Epilogue
Bibliography

Abstract

Monotheism defends the numerical singularity of the Divine, or God = {1}. This statement implies there can be no "second" next to God, reducing Divine infinity (expressed as the full-empty set of "all possibilities") to firstness, or : {Ø} = {1}. On the other end, polytheism worships a finite or infinite variety of independent Divine beings, or God = {{A}, {B}, {C}, ..}. Mostly, if not always, this goes hand in hand with an ante-rational approach to life. Indeed, the logical problems invoked by polytheism can not be accommodated by rational thought.

In-between and beyond both, henotheism maintains the essential unity of God, hand in hand with a variety of theophanies, S elf-manifestations or cogitations of God, giving rise to and sustaining creation and humanity. However, all Divine realities are permutations of firstness.

Everything and everyone is in The All and The All is in all.

Henotheist theology has historical roots in Ancient Egyptian religion, Pagan Hermetism and Hermeticism. Today, it is at work in the East in Brahmanism (Hinduism) or in Taoism and is part of the Western Mystery Tradition.

In this essay, and with various arguments, the case of rational henotheism is defended, i.e. Divinity as an essential unity with & in existential diversity. The Divine is a singular unity manifesting in plural diversity.

God The All is One in the Beginning, One in the Permutations and One at the End.

The firstness of the Divine is not in conflict with this diversity. The sole God is not against the other Deities, but Self-manifests as Divine Names, Attributes, Presences, Hierarchies, Gods & Goddesses, etc. Such a bi-polar concept of the Divine does not eliminate the notion of firstness, for in the hierarchy of Divine Names, "1" or "I AM" remains the "summum bonum" (cf. the Decad of the Pythagoreans, or 'Kether", the "Crown" in Qabalah).

The radical departure called for, is the end of the numerical dogma of monotheism, i.e. The All above and against Its own Images. The existentials of God (the Names, Attributes, Deities) offer various ways to worship God, although in essence always the same God is worshipped (cf. the Sufism of Ibn'Arabi). Henotheism is not monotheistic, but theomonistic. Orthodox Christian Trinitarism comes closer to henotheism than expected. Contemporary Paganism (Hermeticism, Theosophy, Western Tradition, Occultism, New Age, Wicca, Kemetism etc.) is henotheist.

Introduction

Although exceptional, the direct experience of the Divine is an intrinsic part of humanity's wide array of possible experiences. This "visio Dei experimentalis" (Thomas Aquinas) is however non-casual, and usually occurs when a complex set of conditions are fulfilled (giving rise to altered states of consciousness). Because of this complexity, religious experiences and mystic states are very rare.

Even yogi's & monks exercise daily. As the impact of these spiritual limit-experiences is often tremendous, leaving lasting effects, the procedure is best channeled. Preparations are necessary but never sufficient : the most diligent of devotees may have to wait for years before his or her consciousness truly alters. Even after many unions, sudden periods of "dryness" may still ensue. Only the few realize a mature spirituality, able to profoundly invest in God. Too strong and too weak emotional attachments (positive or negative) make such a study unrewarding. Especially in the beginning, worldly activities often block further spiritual growth. Loinprès emerges in the serene and clear sobriety of dawn or in the utter stillness and concentration of the night (cf. the "midnight mystery").

"And again I say to You : 'It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of the needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'"
Matthew, 19:24.

Only divested of all superfluous stuff can sparks of the true meaning of God's Being be discerned. Our incapacity to experience God, brought upon ourselves by constructing walls around the soul, encapsulating its intellect and organ of inner, intellectual, intuitive perception and prehension, does not prove that God does not exists. Although today it is fashionable to understand God as the exclusive datum of faith, we are equipped to directly experience God's existence(s) (or gnosis). The proof of the pudding is in the eating. This is what most, if not all mystics teach (irrespective of their religious affiliation).

A typical example. Beginning spirituality is often characterized by  Divine nearness (producing exclusive states of joy, euphoria and enthusiasm). However, after this profound initial elation, long periods of "dryness" follow, triggering frustration and the felt remoteness or non-existence of God. These are illusions we bring about on ourselves. We need to find rationalizations not to change our bad habits and ill character, like our lack of trust, sincerity and true love. Suppose our spiritual efforts are deeply entrenched and regular (despite being lukewarm), then is it possible, when the time is ripe, that a new "jubilatio" ("mentis" or "cordis") lights up. This mature spirituality praises God for being there and for nothing else.

Indeed, most beginners throw the baby out with the bath water. In this early stage of our spiritual itinerary, we "trust" God conditionally (Does God really exist ?), need swift "results" and so relinquish our spiritual exercises too quickly, resulting in immature experiences of God that haunt our memory until our bodies die. The dryness is a test most students fail. These crucial early spiritual manifestations, covered up with later mundane experiences, are done away (repressed) as childish auto-suggestions, hallucinations or hypnotic effects ...

We fail to realize how difficult it is for a human being to open up enough and create the necessary conditions for God to manifest. The "easy way", so does it seem, is to keep the filters and reject God ... Indeed, as Kierkegaard affirms, religion is a "jump" in the absurd, for the "infinite" is to be caught by the "finite" ...

Very early in history, these difficulties led to specialization, at first organized around a "special" individual (like the Upper Paleolithic and Neolithic) "shaman", and later by a regulated priesthood, worshipping one of the many possible Self-manifestations of the Divine. It is this spirito-communal organization which gave rise to the religions.

The registers are divided : the substructure of the direct experience of God (gnosis, mystical union, samâdhi, satori) is super structured by a theological framework, a set of concepts regulating the semantics of the interpretation of the experience. As the direct experience has an intimate, dominant core-meaning of its own (namely the confrontation with a unique object, the "totaliter aliter"), such superstructures tend to encapsulate each person's right to experience "his" ("her") God to the advantage of "our" God, the object of worship of the various religions in terms of a specific, common religious language. Hence, mystical experiences (of solitary mystics), religious experiences (as in popular piety) and spirito-communal experiences (in fixed groups like churches, lodges, monasteries & religious schools) represent various intensities of the same experience of God, ranging from esoteric to exoteric. Despite the fact of their exclusivist soteriology, no religion holds a monopoly on God. Indeed, religious diversity annuls this.

Historically, distinction is made between four theo-ontological models of the Divine :

1. Semitic model : God is One and Alone. He, the sole God, is an unknown and unknowable Divine Person, Who Wills good and evil alike (cf. Judaism & Islam) ;

2. Greek model : God is a Principle of principles, the best of the best (Plato), the unmoved mover (Aristotle), the One even ecstasy does not reveal, impersonal and in no way evil or tainted by absence or privation of being (Plotinus), the First Intellect (Ibn Sina), a "God of the philosophers" (Whitehead). This abstract God figures in intellectual theologies, humanism & atheism. In the latter, by the "alpha privativum" of the Divine, as in a-theism, an absolute term is produced, but this time by negation instead of by affirmation. God is reduced to an abstract & absolute "no-absolute" - in popular Greek religion, the deities are anthropomorphic ;

3. Christian model : God is One essence in Three Persons : God the Father revealed by God's incarnated Son, Jesus Christ, because, in and with God the deifying Holy Spirit. A God of Love, never impersonal, always without evil (pure of heart) and sole cause of goodness (Christianity) ;

4. Oriental model : God, The All, is One sheer Being present in every part of creation in terms of a manifold of impersonal & personal Divine Self-manifestations (theophanies), as we see in Ancient Egypt, Alexandrian Hermetism (gnosis), Paganism, Hinduism (Vedanta), Jainism, Buddhism, Taoism, Hermeticism.

These approaches underline the multiplicity of the available superstructures or ideologies built on religious life. These meta-languages transform direct experience into indirect or encoded information (traditions), while immediate awareness remains the true touchstone of spirituality.

The outstanding conflict in the theologies of humanity is between those who maintain God's unity is only numerical (i.e. quantitative) and those who understand God to be qualitatively One in All Possible Self-Manifestations of the selfsame God (in Divine Names, Attributes, Gods and Goddesses, the "God of Gods" included). The latter are polytheists only if God's unity is lost, which need not be the case, as history shows and this essay tries to point out. Monotheism thinks God solitary. Henotheism thinks God relational.

Max Müller (1906 -1994) coined the term "henotheism" to explain the tendency in the Vedas to make the Deities perfectly interchangeable. He wrongly believed henotheism to be a historical stage subsequent to polytheistic syncretism, which identifies the Deities with each other. He also underestimated the theological sophistication of the Vedic seers. A unitary truth, underlying the many paths, gives different Names and Personifications to the same One.

"There is one Truth, but the wise call it by different names ..."
Rig-Veda, I.164.46

In later Hinduism, the One is simultaneously Many and vice versa. The same type of theology was at work in Ancient Egypt. Even the Christian Triune God retains certain characteristics of this approach (cf. Epilogue), the Qabalah as well (cf. the 10 Sephiroth).

Monotheism and polytheism are polar extremes and cannot be reconciled. Monotheism becomes radical in the light of the obvious problems caused by polytheism. But most monotheistic theologies fail to distinguish between polytheism and henotheism, and hence misunderstand this other path to the selfsame God.

All extremes are to be avoided. Both monotheism and polytheism lead to a series of problems, and express both ends of a spectrum, in which henotheism occupies the middle ground and also moves beyond it.

Three theo-cosmogenic models of the Divine return :

1. Immanentism : God and creation are the same, and so there is no Divine essence outside creation, for Divine essence equals Divine existence. God maybe the subtle "pneuma" of the universe (cf. Stoic Pantheism) ;

2. Transcendentism : God and creation radically differ, and so only God is real, ideal and creator (cf. radical theism). At best, creation is God's Image. In any case absolute essence (The All) remains a degree "higher" than relative existence (creation) ;

3. Creationism : God includes creation, and so although there is a distinction between essence and existence, the latter is the Self-manifestation of God's ineffable essence (the latter encircles creation in all possible directions - cf. pan-en-theism). The All is in everything and everyone (immanent) and all is in The All (transcendent).

The first two are classical models and define a spectrum : God is either identical with the universe or absolutely different and thus alienated from creation.

If God is one with nature, it becomes unclear how God's essence can be defined. Where can this subtle "logos" be found ? In matter and its entropy ? The concept itself becomes obsolete (is replaced by mathematical & physical ideas) as soon as the description of nature is enough to define God (naturalism).

If God does not touch creation, it is difficult to maintain the independent nature of existence, or to attribute, next to God, a positive meaning to nature, or even to understand the universe as created. As God is the only Real, all the rest is -per definition- unreal (cf. neo-Platonism & Vedanta).

Creationism ascribes a positive value to creation. Nature (material as well as psychological) is real. Nature may be sacralized as the many theophanies of God, the Great Architect or Intelligent Designer (First Intellect, the Pen, etc). Essence (transcendent, ineffable and absolute) and existence (immanent, verbal and relative) are held apart, but existence is not devoid of creative Divine Presences, for all happens in God.

The world as a cogitation of The All (cf. Memphis theology), does not alienate The All (the One Thing - cf. Tabula Smaragdina) from Its creation. The balanced approach of Loinprès (Porete) is the hallmark of genuine mystical theologies. In Platonism, both ends of the Divine spectrum were divorced. Aristotle too projected the perfect movement "outside" the sub lunar sphere of becoming. Although the unmoved mover is the final goal of all of creation ("telos") and a pure act, this Principle of principles remains remote and abstract (not a living Divinity, a Person as in the religions).

Exclusive transcendentism sees God as absent and remote (cf. the "Deus absconditus"), and thus denies the world any substantiality. Exclusive immanentism or pantheism sees God as devoid of hidden interiority, promoting presence and nearness to the expense of the history of the world itself (namely its finitude, entropy and singular origination).

God The All Farnear encompasses both views. As essence, The All is unknowable. As existence, The All is in everything & everybody, while we all are in The All. Viewed from The Absolute All, nothing is Real except The All. Viewed from the relative world, all things are real, because of The All in which they were, are and become.

DEFINITIONS

Divine - God - Religion - Religions - Mysticism - Theism - Polytheism - Monotheism - Pantheism - Pan-en-theism - Monolatry - Henotheism - Deism - Atheism - Agnosticism

DIVINE : what belongs to Deity or the Deities

This term denotes all things belonging to God (viewed as numerically one, monotheism, qualitatively one, henotheism, or numerically plural, polytheism). The only qualification being a meta-nominal, "supernatural", meta-nominal phenomenon (either part of nature, pantheism, or transcending nature, theism).

GOD : the One Greatness excelled by nothing
GODS & GODDESSES : the Great Ones for whom nothing greater exists

A definition of God is impossible. "Infinite, eternal, absolute, etc." are limit-concepts, like "the One Greatness". God is "that than which none greater can be conceived" ("aliquid quod majus nihil cogitari potest"), Anselm of Canterbury (1033 - 1109) said. Because such an all-comprehensive concept, were its referent not to exist, would not be all-comprehensive, God exists. Only the concept of the Being of God implies existence or instantiation.

Although Kant showed the fundamental flaw when this kind of reasoning is applied to beings other than the Supreme Being (or Beings), it still detains an intuitive core : the perfection of a concept like "God" is harmed by attributing it anything negative or imperfect, such as inexistence, ineptness, inertia etc. Because this is only the case for "God", the argument is tautological and hence a failed ontological proof of the existence of God.

When focusing on the logic behind Anselm's argument, we realize he did not find a way of inferring God’s actuality from His mere possibility, but a way of inferring God’s existence from His sheer Being. The latter is not distinct from His existence. The direct experience of this Being moves beyond the tautology, introducing mysticism. Here were read God as the only Being worthy of worship. The Divine is then praised for being there.

RELIGION : to unite

From the Latin verb "religare", religion.

In sensu lato, religion is the joining of the part with the larger whole. The latter may be nature viewed as a totality, or a comprehensive perception as in orgasm or religious experience (cf. "yoga" from the Sanskrit root "yug", meaning "yoke").

In sensu stricto, the word points to the "totaliter aliter", i.e. a radical otherness called "Divine". This involves a Supreme Being or Beings, either transcending nature or representing, for example, a subtle, fiery, logoic "pneuma" at the head of the natural order (as the Stoics assumed). For thematical distinctions between religious & mystical experiences, consult my Introduction to a Colorful Recital (2002).

RELIGIONS : the social organization of religious experience

Organized worship according to a "canon" established by a founder (plus a founding message and/or text) and/or his or her followers (plus a tradition). As soon as a spiritual group is formed, a rule of order is called for (cf. the rise of Christianity or monasticism). At a certain point, this group-form becomes quasi independent and a goal on its own. Religions are therefore defined by two pillars : the original teachings + the traditions (the so-called "magister fidei"). To evidence the authentic core besides the dross, both need deconstruction.

MYSTICISM : direct, immediate experience of God

From the Greek "mustikos", hidden, secret.

The "visio Dei experimentalis" is the authentic core of all religious experience and hence of all religions. It is the "secret" in the heart of faith and the living soul of all human spirituality. Without it, religion is a dry and unrewarding experience. With it, a direct experience of God becomes possible ...

THEISM : a Divine reality exists !

From the Greek "theos", God.

The existence and continuity of creation is owed to only a single Supreme Being (monotheism), a single unity of Supreme Beings (henotheism) or a plurality of Supreme Beings (polytheism), distinct from creation (but not necessarily transcending it). The Divine order is both omnipotent & omniscient. In this definition, theism exceeds monotheism to encompass polytheism and henotheism.

POLYTHEISM : many Supreme Beings

There are many Supreme Beings. This manifold causes the created order to come into being, sustains it and participates in its creativity and enfoldment. These Beings, transcending and/or coinciding with the natural order, are not interconnected, do not spring from a common source, are co-eternal from the beginning, form an atomized Divine order, are mutually exclusive, while each has its own specific, irreducible domain or field of activity.

Insofar as these Divine beings are headed by an absent "Most High" Deity (a "Deus absconditus"), a mild form of polytheism is defined. Insofar the role of this "Most High" can be assumed by various Deities, monolatry is defined. Insofar as such a Supreme of the supreme is absent, archaic or primitive polytheism is indicated. This construction works well in mythical and pre-rational modes of cognition. It is already difficult to maintain its stability in proto-rational conceptualizations and it is in direct conflict with the principles of reason.

MONOTHEISM : only "1" Supreme Being

There is only a single Supreme Being, the sole God. This God is alone and causes the created order to come into being, sustains it and participates in its creativity and enfoldment. This solitary Being, transcending the natural order, does not share its Divine nature with anything else, has no "second" and so is Absolutely Alone. All other beings to whom Divine status may be attributed are essentially powerless and derive their illusionary status from the sole One. Insofar as this sole God dictates only one way of worship (of that One), we speak of strict monotheism. Insofar as the One may be worshipped in multiple ways, theomonism is defined.

Monotheism proclaims a dualistic relation between God and the world, wherein God is a Being who controls events from outside of the human world. Emphasis is put on the numerical "firstness" of God, or (God = {1}).

PANTHEISM : only One supreme natural being

From the Greek "pan" and "theos", the universe = God.

There is only One Supreme Being, the One, sole God, a "logos" who does not transcend the natural order ; the One and the world coincide. Everything part of the natural order is therefore in essence Divine and sub summated by the One, the supreme God "of nature". There is no transcendent essence outside nature, and therefore creation is not caused by anything outside the natural order. Naturalistic auto creation (auto generation) is effectuated with nothing except nature or the universe is conceived as uncreated and eternal.

PAN-EN-THEISM : all in The All and The All in all

From the Greek "pan en theos", all in God.

God (singular or plural) is truly different from the natural order, but existentially Present in every element of creation as a manifold of Self-manifestations of Divine Names, Attributes, Gods & Goddesses, the abstract differentials of nature, of the world in action (creationism). There is nothing outside God, who is both transcendent (theism) and immanent (pantheism). Creation happens in, by and for The All. God encompasses creation in all directions, but transcends it. All in The All and The All in all.

MONOLATRY : One Supreme Being exists, but reversibly so.

From the Greek "monos" and "latreia", service.

A "Most High" is acknowledged, but not universally or irreversibly. In Ancient Egypt, especially in the Old Kingdom, various Supreme Beings were called "the Great" ("wr" or "aA"), and worshipped as such : Atum-Re and Osiris are strong examples (but any "god of the city" was also "the Great"). Only in the New Kingdom is a New Solar Theology at work, focusing, in the Late Ramesside Era, on the Greatest God before and within all beings (Amun). Then the provisional nature of oneness and greatness looses ground (although, to the affects, it was never lost).

Monolatry is consistent with mythical & pre-rational thought.

HENOTHEISM : One in all Divine Beings & all Divine Beings as One

From the Greek "hen" and "theos", The One God.

Divine Beings or Powers cause the created order to come into being. They are expressions, Self-manifestations or theophanies of one and the same great God. These Supreme Beings, transcending and/or coinciding with the natural order, are interconnected, spring from a common source (before or simultaneous with creation), are not co-eternal from the beginning, do form a concerted Divine order, are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Although each has its own specific, irreducible domain, cooperation, interchanges and adjustments between these remains possible, although not necessary.

Insofar as some of these Beings transcend the natural order, pan-en-theist henotheism is defined. Insofar as all of these Beings coincide with the natural order (the source of Them is simultaneous with creation), pantheist henotheism is being defined.

DEISM : a Divine reality exists !

The existence and continuance of creation is owed to One Supreme Being. Transcending creation, God does not interfere with the natural order of creation. The natural laws are defined from the beginning and God does not alter them (miracles are impossible). There is no "revealed" religion. God is absent, except in the laws of nature. The experience of God is only possible within these laws.

ATHEISM : a Divine reality does not exist !

There is no Divine Being or Divine Beings. There is nothing Divine in ontology (no theo-ontology). There is nothing transcendent, supernatural nor "pneumatic" in the natural order. The latter is the only existing order. There may be a natural hierarchy, but not to accommodate a Supreme One, omnipotent, omniscient Being, nor an indifferent deist God (atheism = a deism).

AGNOSTICISM : maybe a Divine reality exists or maybe not ...

There may be a Divine Being or Divine Beings. There may be a transcendent, supernatural or "pneumatic" natural stratum. The latter may be the only existing order. If a natural hierarchy exist, it may imply a supreme, omnipotent, omniscient being. But, these propositions may also all be untrue.

Insofar as it can never be decided whether these propositions are true or not, radical agnosticism is defined. If a decision about them is postponed to the future, prospective agnosticism sees the light.

The  superstructure conjectured here is a possible pan-en-theist henotheism. The transcendent essence of God is One but never single and manifests in "millions" of immanent Self-manifestations.

1. Epistemological arguments.

These arguments are draw from the nature of human knowledge, in particular the limitations and possibility of the cognitive system. As the rules of "true knowing", and a comprehensive epistemology have been developed elsewhere, only those arguments which are specific to the present text will be presented.

As no epistemology is possible without the rules of logic, we shall deal with these first.

The arguments of this section may be summarized as follows : both logic and epistemology show the limitations of a formal, imperative, closed and complete system of rules. Rooted in the Greek miracle, these represent exceptional expert-systems.

Non-linear (chaotic), suggestive, non-formal, open and incomplete calculi serve to understand the limitations and possibilities of human knowledge and existence better (cf. my Chaos, 1996). The less this is understood, the more thought is imprisoned by a series of linear, closed and formal propositions, which do not reflect the ways of the natural order and its elliptic evolution. Any exclusively formal thinking is entrapped by an ideal system (of thought) bound to be in conflict with the evolving reality of the facts.

Applied to our main theme, the defense of henotheism, the conclusion will be that monotheism represents the theological counterpoint of formal, Fregean logics and all types of idealistic epistemologies. To posit a single God Alone, a Supreme Being above, beyond and also against all other Deities, is to introduce an exclusivist, monolithic, brontosauric mindset of the Divine, eliminating variety and complexity. Such a model of God favors the elimination of all other mindsets. Its adherents will receive the right to develop a conflictual ethical system ("we" versus "they") and dismiss the core of the religious attitude, to wit : universal peace profound.

1.1 Two logical systems and three branches of logic.

Let us distinguish between Fregean and non-Fregean logics. This fundamental division is recent, for traditional, classical and non-classical logic is Fregean throughout.

It was Aristotle who initiated Fregean deductive reasoning by eliminating the contents of the propositions and judging their validity exclusively on the basis of the truth-value of the logical operators : not, and, or and if-then. The importance of this kind of approach is unmistaken and has eventually developed into the imperative algorithms used by most of our computers. Every step of the argument can be checked using formal rules, devoid of semantics. Given the initial positions (the axioms), a series of hypothesis may be inferred which, when proven correct, turn into theorems. This formal calculus does not allow or has difficulty with stochastic variations (the element of probability & chance) or non-linear attractors (the element of chaos). This could be seen as the logic of formal representation, the way of the linear straight line (instead of the non-linear curve). Formal logic tries to develop closed, complete & consistent representations, in which no "bugs" or randomness occur. Moreover, although impossible, it also invokes completeness, i.e. the calculus foresees all possible logical situations beforehand.

Non-Fregean logics are non-formal representations in mini-worlds by analogy. Problems are isolated and transferred to such a representation or register. In this "small" world, the problem is solved and then reintroduced into the main frame of the argument. In this elliptic way, the argument do not follow an imperative course, but as the river, adapts to the ever changing circumstances. There is no attempt to represent the whole or to seek complete solutions. Para-consistency (the fact paradoxes always remain present within the system) is not fought (but efficiently handled) and there is no absolute, but relative predictability.

Dialogal, ethical and political logics are good examples of non-Fregean calculi. Aristotle would call these rhetorical, but there is more to them than a bag of tricks to convince an audience. In fact, chaos-theory has shown that most, if not all, living systems are non-linear and function according to the tenets of non-Fregean calculi. Recently, the study of Artificial Intelligence has shown the importance of non-imperative algorithms, able to process novelty and randomness, as well as multiple userware inputs. Non-Fregean systems are therefore the way of the curve, not the line.

These two broad and general systems have three branches : syntax, semantics and pragmatics. The first rules the rules, the second contents and the third application.

Fregean systems tend to reduce contents to syntax, and symbols to signs. They inflate structure, and attribute truth exclusively to the form of the argument. Indeed, semantics is more than just the identification of certain signs with certain meanings. In non-Fregean approaches, symbols "throw together" a wide array of meanings and fuse these together, so as to form a dense semantic core around which a variety of meanings circumambulate, defining a particular and unique semantic field.

In living systems, the use of natural symbols is common. Natural languages are able to convey a complex network of meanings with a relatively small number of symbols, as art and non-verbal communication shows. In this synthetic, connotative area, formal logic is unable to penetrate and its analytics is completely off the mark. This shows both systems have to work complementary, but in "real life" formal logic proves to be the exception (the architecture or backbone), whereas elliptic systems are the rule (the evolution, the symmetry-breaks). To implement imperative commands, architecture is necessary, but to organize the suggestive, representational, analogical and symbolical reality of cognition, the bare structures of formal logic are too frigid.

1.2 The limitations of formal syntax.

Syntax is a way to organize the flow of thought. Structure allows a body of data to stand erect and without it only an amorphous mass results. Non-Fregean logic has syntax, but it is not exclusively formal (although formal elements persist). Non-formal organization works with the analogical principle which is open and comparative (whereas formal syntax is defined by its internal axioms and allows for distinctions relative to the elements of the system only).

The limitations of formal logic become obvious as soon as the fluid arena of evolutionary processes and human communication is entered. Here, strict laws are not abrogated, but they only catch the stringent parts of the organization and these are unable to allow for an understanding of the complete picture (consisting of architecture plus momentum), especially not subtle and diverse semantic fields.

1.3 The plurality of semantics.

Semantics is the science of meaning, and various strands may be detected.

In artificial systems, meaning is subservient to the formal outline, as in imperative algorithms unable to process any meaningful datum outside the framework or definition of the software. Meaningful variations are only possible if the complete array of potential meaning shifts has been preprogrammed, otherwise the system blocks or produces nonsense. Multiple approaches are difficult and linearity optimized. Semantic fields are unilateral, and keep within the borders determined by the software, with no possibility of auto-adaptation (or autopoiesis).

In natural systems, as in evolution or the formation of the natural languages of the world, a completely different approach may be witnessed. Here, meaning is in constant interaction with its internal and external environments and adapts. Instead of stable architecture (sameness), disequilibrium & reequilibration are at work. The latter are foremost dynamical and create novelty. Intelligent adaptations imply the emergence of semantic changes and novelty. The latter introduces meaningful data which were not present before, nor are they necessary deductions flowing out of the axiomatic basis and derived theorems. They result from intelligent auto-regulation. This characteristic gives rise to a wide variety of possible meanings and calls for a plurality of semantics.

If a natural system is unable to call for such intelligent behavior, either because it does not possess the means to do so, or worse, because it sticks to the formal approach and its non-linear perspective, then deterioration and finally the collapse of the adequate functioning of the system eventuates. In all natural systems we see the opposite : formal rules are provisional and reversible. In this way, survival, complexification and adaptation, become possible and this in accord with the rules of open, non-equilibrium standards, truly elliptic and non-Fregean.

This line of argument is not exclusivist. Both architecture and momentum are necessary. Exclusivism is excluded. A description without architecture (momentum) is incomplete. Both vectors (or differentials) are to be isolated and kept together in an adequate description of any living, natural system of differential equations.

1.4 Pragmatism or the variety in action.

Observing the natural order, a variety of evolutionary processes developed over aeons unfold before our eyes, prompting us to conclude nature prefers variety over standardization. Although the core architecture of nature does work with formal, discursive, denotative standards and the linear rule of unity (these architectonic rules are already at work in the atom, as the Pauli-exclusion principle testifies, but also direct DNA-based protein production), its momentum defies such rigid symbolizations.

However, this core is surrounded by adaptive mechanisms which follow the rules of the pragmatic approach, implying utilitarism. Sensitive to small changes, these processes work to satisfy immediate conditions, and find an "intelligent" path from crisis to crisis (equilibrium being the exception). Over long periods of time, new architectures are discovered (and implemented). However, the process itself was never without architecture (or without momentum). So when external or internal pressures throw the intelligent system out of order into crisis, turbulence and catastrophe, and by doing so raise the probability of spontaneous, autogeneous auto regulation, the texture adapts by implementing changes which allow its survival and continuous complexification in the light of these new circumstances. This explains why nature is a system inviting creativity, multiplicity, heterogeneity, variation and ongoing differentiation. In all these cases, the logic behind the process avoids a formal, linear and Fregean description. The latter tool is more of an exception raised to the throne of exclusivity by modernist science. In a postmodern context, both architecture and momentum are taken into account, and the underpinning model is based on irreversibility and non-equilibrium.

If a system does not know how to adapt to the ever changing environments, if it is not truly chaotic, then it cannot be called intelligent and will eventually stop evolving and meet certain death (cf. chaos-theory). It is necessary to be able to develop a wide spectrum of actional patterns causing conflicts with the environment, for homogeneity has no outstanding characteristics and so no potential conflicts. Without conflicts, as in the outdated equilibrium model, no evolution is possible, for architecture is the strong and tenacious sculpture of sameness, of structures resisting increasing entropy. These are homogeneous and isotropic : every point of the form sustains every other point of its morphology. The Newtonian world view promoted the "closed box" model, a Carnot-cycle and the identification of "energy" with "heat" (although "energy" is a differential product and heat the result of movement, i.e. differences). Closed systems are artificial exceptions. Their study favored our knowledge of the enduring, perennial semantic fields at work in the language of natural evolution. However, every thing is continuously in interaction with everything else. The momentum of the universe itself makes us aware of the dynamical properties of existence and the non-equilibrium of complex trajectories, i.e. the "open box" model (as in string-theory).

Conflicts throw the system out of balance, and this deregulation calls for a reequilibration promoting higher levels of complexity and increased energy-expenditures. Without conflict, only slow changes are possible and the overall evolutionary tendencies of nature are aborted in favor for inertia and conservatism. The latter are constructive insofar as the core architecture of a system is concerned, but detrimental to its growth if applied to its actional spectrum.

Growth-through-conflict goes hand in hand with a paradigm of action seeing equilibrium as the stable zone between non-equilibrium, the latter being more fundamental. This implies intelligent, constructive conflict is in accord with the logic of nature, moving along non-linear avenues. Creative conflict means the outstanding features of systems confront each other. Such a confrontation brings out the adaptive and intelligent features of these systems and invite them to grow by becoming more complex, using a more refined energy-pattern to avoid catastrophe. In this way, living systems move towards greater and greater complexity (negentropy), as it were evolving from amorphous matter to rarified consciousness. Systems trying to stop this flow, are detrimental to the stable core architecture necessary to facilitate evolution, and therefore dangerous. They move against the pragmatics of nature itself.

1.5 Non-Fregean representations.

Classical deductive interference is not the only knowledge manipulation tool available. In general, representation of knowledge in a symbol operating system is a way to predict, prepare, control and guide behavior, to invent new solutions for problems and a new style of activities, etc. Natural and artificial intelligent systems do not have an optimal universal knowledge representation, nor a technique useful for all purposes. Intelligence is more related to adaptations to new situations, without loss of identity, than the expression of an absolute plan or "grand story". Because of this important realization, our intellectual orientation towards unity ("universitas") has to be redefined, allowing analogical approaches and the cross-reference between deductive and non-Fregean calculi. Instead of the conservative "status quo" of the paradigmatic core, scientists should invest time to study the periphery of their disciplines and cross-reference their investigations. Reality is more than a "nature morte".

The limited use of deductive inference in natural intelligent systems is explained in terms of certain restrictions, namely the operations of formal logic and its "dry bones" (Hegel). The strong architecture of these abstract rules is eroded by the by-passing momentum of real life. Reduced are : the creative abilities and swift adaptations of intelligent systems, i.e. their capacity to take action based on incomplete, partially incorrect, maybe inconsistent information, articulated in a symbolic system composed of confused concepts and ill defined terms. This is done by defining mini-worlds, an non-Fregean calculus which does not replace but supplement closed and complete logical worlds.

In classical, Fregean, analytical reasoning, underpinning the rational mode of thought, the structure of the symbols used as knowledge representations by natural and artificial intelligent systems bear no relations to the structure of what is denoted, although the Fregean approach represents a structure of a procedure identifying the denoted. In contrast, in the non-Fregean, synthetical (intuitive) calculus, a mini-world representation or depiction is a structure giving information about the structure of the thing denoted. Hieroglyphic script exemplifies this approach.

In Fregean logic, syntactically well-formed expressions often denote nothing, even though they adequately express procedures for attempting to identify a referent (which is their strong point). Failure of reference is hence a commonplace. In an analogical representation, small syntactic changes (in how a thing is represented) very likely corresponds to small semantic changes (in what is represented). In formal logic, the smallest change blocks the imperial line of command of the algorithm.

In non-Fregean logics, constraints in a problem situation (represented in a mini-world or register), can be expressed by constraints on the kinds of syntactic transformations which may be applied to the representation. Only a finite number of possibilities have to be generated. Likewise, a great many facts about a single object may be stored in a relatively economical way (cf. the use of determinatives or meaning-signs in Middle Egyptian). Important changes in the world can be represented by small and simple changes in the representation. On a map, for example, changes in the world are expressed by moving buttons or markers on the map.

Algorithmic, classical and non-classical logics require closed, consistent and complete systems. In Western culture, these logics have been given a dominant role to play, although they are not the hallmark of intelligence, but only the formal architecture of past learning and expertise. They are conservative, monolithic and uncreative as any solid architecture would be. Once a great number of expert systems (closed software) have been assimilated, the question remains : How to adapt to novel situations and, worse, to fraud, deception, entrapment and formal nonsense ?

Given the axiom of consistent closure and completeness, no formal calculus can tackle these, for the smallest change in a representation stops the progress of linear construction and edification. It is good to know a lot, but better to process the data. Because formal systems always need all possible expressions, no absolutely adequate referent can ever be found (except in abstract worlds). The best referent fits the model, but never completely, and the difference eventually "bugs" the system and its capacity to continue to solve problems. As imperative systems are taught to define objects absolutely, they can only be made operational (effective) by allowing them to dismiss certain observable data or facts, which runs against the logic of natural intelligence and its empirical-formal reasoning.

The open, efficient and incomplete calculi of analogical thought are better adapted to natural and artificial intelligence and its progress. Human survival depends on tool making. We need to develop more and better tools, especially in the area of non-Fregean, non-linear modes of cognition. The latter has been fired by the fact machines (computers & robots) are able to execute most of our imperative operations, making a certain historical type of human labor obsolete.

Because human beings are intelligent symbol manipulation systems, they need to develop analogical techniques, projection rules for interpreting fuzzy data, learning strategies for auto-adaptation, autopoiesis, and a variety of non-monotonic logics. Man has to prove his intelligence, and the new area of discovery is non-Fregean, non-linear and truly chaotic (cf. Chaos, 1996).

1.6 Truth and epistemological pluralism.

In pre-Kantian epistemologies, truth was identified with an ideal state of affairs (idealism : "consensus omnium") or the real, hard core entities given by the senses (realism : "correspondentio" - cf. Rules). Both perspectives are radical developments and move beyond the frontiers necessary to make knowledge and the growth of knowledge possible (cf. Prolegomena).

It is important to stress truth is only arrived at when the regulative (not constitutive) ideas of reason (the real and the ideal) allow for a focal point "behind the mirror", as Kant puts it. Reason is not equipped to arrive at absolute truth, and when we intuit it, our mind is not capable of identifying with it (as Plotinian ecstasy shows). Because every observation done, is made possible by virtue of the theory or mindset in which it appears (in fact, observation and mindset are simultaneous), and because every mindset or theory refers to an externality which we cannot grasp without it, and which cannot be eliminated from it, both ontological idealism and realism are superseded as uncritical theories of knowledge. This leads to an epistemological pluralism, i.e. theories cannot be eternalized and the variety of approaches of reality or ideality (of nature and man) cannot be reduced to a singular, monolithical view of things or method able to grasp it in a rational fashion (intellect or transrational methods may be possible but, in the scientific language-game, do not constitute knowledge, but only metaphysics, a theoretical activity exceeding physical restrictions).

Neo-critical epistemology is a powerful tool in moderate, modular postmodern thinking. It cannot be called "modern", for there is no ground for reason (it is autogeneous).

Hence, there is not one reality, but a plurality of realities. There is not one language, but a variety of tongues. Among these, there is an "objective language" (in casu our scientific language). Although science developed methods leading up to empirical-formal statements, objective knowledge is but one tool to understand the world, as non-verbal cognition, art, intellectual perception and mysticism amply show. Nevertheless, science remains the most reasonable tool to understand reality and ourselves.

1.7 The problems of polytheism.

In theology, the above epistemological arguments make it possible to criticize two positions : the explosion of the Divine at the expense of unity or polytheism, and the reduction or implosion of Divine variation (Gods & Goddesses) to the advantage of the single, sole God alone, as in monotheism. Arguments aim to evidence a "tertium comparationis", namely henotheism. This is the declaration of unity embracing Divine variety (Divine names, attributes, theophanies, manifestations and personifications). This option is taken by most mystics of most religions & spiritualities (cf. qabalah in Judaism, Cistercian mysticism in Christianity, Sufism in Islam, Vedanta in Hinduism, etc.).

Let us first focus on polytheism.

The divine variety introduced by polytheism does not allow for any overarching unity, i.e. a standard or rule beyond a potentially endless series of deities. The divine beings are absolutely or relatively disconnected from each other, although loose family-relationships and specific interactive patterns may characterize the mythical patterns existing between them. Ontologically, each deity is "cause sui", i.e. the cause of itself and hence a divine atom next to the myriad of other atoms constituting the divine.

Hence, the word "divine" has no other meaning than one referring to a collection or set of entities capable of creating the universe and/or events occurring in it. The question how the universe may be created by different deities and be the same universe cannot be solved. At times, creation itself is as atomized as the divine order, each deity creating this or that part of it.

In Early Egyptian polytheism (Predynastic, Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom), the activities of the deities are mutually exclusive and notwithstanding their localized and geosentimental activities, each is called "great" ("wr") and deemed responsible for the origin of the universe.

Polytheism belongs to the early stages of human cognition, i.e. its mythical and pre-rational strands (cf. my studies on the layers of our cognitive texture). Hence, in the present description of polytheism (and for that matter the henotheism of the civilizations of Antiquity), the words describing the Divine order (the various entities) are not capitalized ("gods" and "deities" instead of "Gods" and "Deities"). For either the distinction between object and subject is not made (myth) or is without fixation (pre-rational). The stage of conceptuality is only reached by means of unstable notions or pseudo-concepts.

The latter have no real identity outside their subjective use and embedding and the variations in the semantic fields are so multiple, that meaning-shifts occur which do not yield a clear discourse on the mode of activity of the entities. Alterations, variations and permutations happen, caused by local, idiosyncratic, specific, individual and contextualized events, escaping historical scrutiny (cf. "reality-for-me" - Rules).

No comparisons are operative. Because of these features, polytheism leads to endless conflicts, the constant war between the "enantia", the elements of creation. These conflicts cannot be mediated or terminated and continue as long as the universe is deemed to exist, which may be perpetually. As a result, polytheism leads to an unstable and unworkable theology, to be characterized as idiosyncratic. This may only work in isolated societies, capable of mediating this state of war between the gods & goddesses by means of standardized rituals and the localization of the domains of these deities. Such "totemizing" reduces the negative effects of the theological approach and permits the survival of the polytheism in question.

Logically, polytheism is non-Fregean throughout. This exclusivity eliminates the architecture of thought, which needs Fregean, i.e. formal standards too. No speech, discourse, communication or language dealing with the Divine can be devoid of this core architecture. If so, nothing is said and the utterances are irrational. If God is not One, there is no God.

In polytheism, creation survives by thinking the perpetual conflict or state of war between the elements. This state postpones the dreaded relapse into the primordial inertia. In fact, any organization of the deified differentials of nature points away from polytheism, for any association between the deities implies a standard.

Epistemologically, polytheism and radical skepticism (as in Hume's epistemology) are akin. Indeed, if synthetic judgments (inferring from a given state to an absent one) are deemed illusionary and only analytic statements of the factual "here and now" are possible (whereas mathematical truths are called "empty"), then no genuine comparisons can be made and objective knowledge is atomized and exclusively relative to spatio-temporality. This was the catastrophe which gave Kant his sleepless nights. Had Newton not shown that the course of an apple and the movements of the planets were ruled by the same law of universal gravity ? So how could human cognition be nothing more than direct observation ? If the Deities are called "Divine", then surely a common denominator exists, namely the "standard" of Divinity.

The latter logic is sound, must be accepted by henotheism, but has been inflated by monotheism, turning the notion of affinity and relational correspondence, into the quantitative, naked statement : there is only "1" God.

1.8 The problems of monotheism.

Religion is a living phenomenon. It supersedes discursive logic. In monotheism, sole God defines the Divine Order and the latter is conceived as a monolith in which no variation or Divine dialectics are at work. In fact, monotheism belongs to the other side of the spectrum we have been discussing.

By eliminating variation within the Divine order, one out of two positions becomes inevitable : either only the sole God truly exists (and creation is an illusion) or the all is the single One (and creation is Divine). The latter solution seems to throw ethics out of joint, for have we to accept suffering and all symmetry-breaks as Divine (as the Oriental model calls for) ? The former solution turns ontology into theo-ontology, for it becomes impossible to understand anything as absolutely real besides the single One God.

This "argument of illusion" is the option taken by the three monotheisms "of the book", i.e. Judaism, Christianity and Islam. They "reveal" God, but do not "manifest" the Absolute, nor ultimate origination (even Christ is but the Son of God and not the Father Himself). They adhere to the superessential Goodness of God, beyond created good and evil. The latter is placed in the will (of free creatures) and divorced from theo-ontology (they adopted from the Greek model the notion of "privatio boni", evil as the absence of goodness). Taken to its extreme, this position leads to the conception of creation as a universal illusion in the light of God's absolute, ideal reality.

Illusionism negates the real or ideal value of creatures, reducing them to borderline phenomena, strips of existence ("ex-histanai") between absolute being and relative nonbeing, between light and darkness.

Historically, monotheism is a violent reaction against the overall polytheisms of Antiquity : Judaism against Egyptian and Canaanite religion, Christianity against Greco-Roman polytheism and gnostic multiplicities and Islam against the "ignorance" of Arab desert polytheism. To overcome the problems of the multiplicity of Divine beings in permanent conflict, either with each other or with the created order, often with both, these new theologies assimilated Greek logic.

Judaism got Hellenized (the Second Temple), Christianity shaped a Trinitarian dogma, a personalized variation on neo-Platonic themes (Alexandria) and early Islam developed a theological system by integrating Greek philosophy (especially Platonism).

In comparison with polytheism, these monotheisms concentrate the religious efforts of its adherents toward one point, one standard, one origin. This quantitative oversimplification (or Greek linearization) assisted the manipulation of the masses by an "orthodox" minority (priests, rabbi's, bishops or caliphs).

The monotheist religions introduce a singular God. Creation (ontology) and the moral order (the activities of humanity) are no longer explained in terms of a variety of theophanies or Self-manifestations of the One, for the One God is viewed as a solitary. The declaration of unity runs against other Divine Beings : there is no god (or goddess), only The God ! Is the solitude of the monotheistic God tragi-comical ?

To think the Absolute Being alienated from (Divine) relatedness and companionship is not being serious. The Absolute must include the relative or the Absolute makes itself ridiculously redundant. The king must accept the servant to be king. Lordship implies servitude. By stressing the remoteness of God (a function of the imagined quantitative singularity), the experience of God itself is made problematic and made impossible. This is tragic. Monotheism thus ejects the core of the religious attitude, replacing it with blind, pious devotion and fundamentalist faith in "revealed truths and traditions". The results are catastrophic and run counter the peaceful intentions of God.

Because of its quantitative imperative, monotheism turns a God of Peace and Love upside down into an Idol of War and Hate. And the Devil (the anti-God) is worshipped and projected upon others. Because monotheism has never been singular, the same God is monopolized by different faiths. A remarkable situation, indeed. In fact, the reversal of advanced polytheism : as private languages are impossible, the disconnected variety tends to monolatry : the contextualized perception of unity, the standard or common ground of things "Divine" attributed to a variety of deities.

Monotheistic logic is limited by formalities and dogma. A strong example. The three major monotheist religions defined the single God in their own way, but had to subreptively introduce the counter-thesis, namely Divine multiplicity. One extreme invokes its alternative. Just as polytheism, when verbalized, spoke of an absent "great spirit" (like the later "Deus absconditus"), so monotheism negated its own premise by calling for God's nearness and presence in creation, and this despite a fanatical identification with the concept of a remote, unworldly Divine singleton.

In Judaism, the One God is essentially hidden, ineffable and withdrawn ("YHVH", Jahweh, Adonai), although in Qabalah, His Presences in creation ("ALHYM", Elohim) are acknowledged (cf. the "shekinah" and the Messiah).

In Christianity, God is one essence with three Persons, one of them incarnating in the world and allowing for the redemption of humanity as a whole (i.e. bridging the logical gap between God and His creation through a "leap into the absurd" (Kierkegaard), to wit : Jesus Christ as the unique "Son of God", who died for our sins and paid the price for our salvation). Christianity is Christocentric. The objective work of the Holy Spirit is identified with the Church, while the subjective activity (mysticism) is marginalized. Because of its Trinitarism, Christianity comes closer to henotheism than it realizes. There is no reason, except revealed dogma, why only three Divine Persons are reckoned with.

In Islam, the most radical form of monotheism, theology runs into considerable logical problems, for by negating God's nearness, as only Allah is real, creation is reduced to a Vedantic illusion. Were it not for Sufism and the Koranic notion of the "most beautiful Names" of Allah, this radical monotheism would destroy its own existence.

In these monotheist theological systems, the antinomic proposition is also articulated, for the sole God accompanies Israel (as the "shekinah"), incarnates as a perfect human being (as Jesus Christ) or Self-manifests as the "most beautiful Names" (or loci of the Self-manifestation of Allah - cf. Ibn'Arabi). This antinomic counter-thesis is necessary to save ontology.

Epistemologically, monotheism and fideist thought is naive and uncritical. Realism, i.e. the correspondence of a true proposition with reality, and idealism (identifying a true proposition with the operations of a transcendental subject and its idea of consensus) are taken for granted. By eliminating the role of the active subject of experience (co-constituting knowledge), realism deems true knowledge to be the mirror-image of facts. As all observation is co-determined by the theoretical connotations of the observer, such an openness of reality cannot be possible, and only a reality-for-us seems available. By eliminating the role of the object of experience (co-constituting knowledge), idealism deems true knowledge to be what happens in a perfect language (or discourses). Both eliminate variety, either by reducing the multiplicity of mindsets or the variety of nature. Both remain dependent of what they try to negate (realism subreptively thinks the active subject, idealism the factual nature of reality).

Likewise, monotheism tries to eliminate the multiplicity of the Divine. God is deemed single and alone, dictating the death or powerlessness of all "lesser" Deities. This tyrannical radicalization is incomplete, for if it were not, nothing would exist at all or all existing things would be God. As both conclusions, because of their absurdity, fail to meet logical, epistemological and practical standards, these theological constructs are to be rejected.

Monotheism (& polytheism) cannot be coherently verbalized. Logically, formal completeness and consistency are impossible, for certain propositions always escape such a description. Non-Fregean, analogical representations (in a cloud, a fire, the Messiah, the Son of God, the final prophet, the seal of saints or 99 Divine Names) are necessary to solve the issues of ontology and ethics, as well as allow for the organization (manipulation) of the masses by the given religious mindset.

The logical argument is simplicity itself. By claiming God = {1}, the infinite set of natural numbers N is reduced to its first number, leaving zero out of the picture. However, compared with henotheism, an infinity series of numbers is "cut off" the concept of the Divine, or formally : {1} Π {0, 1, 2, 3, ... ∞} = {1}. Why reduce the infinite Absolutely Absolute (God) to finite firstness ? In the mystical currents running through the monotheisms, infinity is recuperated by stating that in the case of God {Ø} = {1} holds. In doing so, the mysterious is only made more mysterious ...

2. Neurotheological arguments.

Let us consider the nature of the human central nervous system, the operational, material & informational input/output tool with which consciousness interacts with the world, in particular its neurotheological features. As the structure of this complex system, its relationships with human cognition and the emancipation of the brain have been touched upon elsewhere, only arguments specific to the present discussion are presented here.

Neuroscientist MacLean (1970, 1978, 1990) advanced the fertile concept of the triune brain. In the brain as a whole, he identified a three-tiered structure, called "reptilian", "mammalian" and "neocortical". This division has been used by neurotheologians to explore the meeting between religion and neuroscience (Albright & Ashbrook, 2001).

adapted from Bear, Connors & Paradis (2001)

MacLean and other researchers have observed animals whose activities depend on each of these "brains". In this way, various functions have been attributed to each of these three parts of the brain, characterized by a different structure and chemistry, yet extensively interconnected.

2.1 Three types of brain software.

Neurology puts into evidence the complexity and layeredness of the brain of the Homo sapiens sapiens. Three neuronal strands, modules or quasi independent software define a series of co-relative operations, evolved in processing specific neuronal tasks. These activities are computed by neuronal circuits featuring differences in evolutionary age, goals, plasticity and function.

The concept of the triune brain calls for three distinct layers of encoded neuronal software in the brain. The correct overall functioning of the brain is then determined by the adequate processing of data by each of these three subcomputers, as well as by their modes of possible interaction or networking. The brain is a network of systems or modules. Each system features a relative plasticity, in that some functions at times may be interchanged. The older the brain, the less likely this happens without loss of computation capacity and hence impaired physical performance.

Throughout the triune brain, a division in two is observed (it is there from the start to form the nervous system).

The embryo starts as a flat disks with three layers of cells : endoderm (the internal organs), mesoderm (the skeleton and the muscles) and ectoderm (the nervous system and the skin). Changes in the ectoderm give rise to the neural plate, a flat sheet of cells. In the neural plate a groove is formed, running from anterior (rostral) to posterior (caudal). The two walls of the groove (the neural folds), move together and fuse dorsally forming the neural tube. Out of these walls the whole nervous system develops. When folding, some neural ectoderm is pinched off lateral to the neural tube. From this neural crest derive all neurons with cell bodies in the peripheral nervous system. The process from neural plate to neural tube or neurulation occurs about 22 days after conception. 

The bridged dichotomy of the brain is the prime characteristic of the three quasi independent neuronal modules : the neocortex (or human brain), the limbic system (or mammalian brain) and the nuclei at work in the brainstem (or reptilian brain).

THE HUMAN BRAIN

The neocortex is divided in two hemispheres. This "human brain" is capable of processing complex abstract thoughts, feelings and actions. In right-handed people, the left hemisphere is verbal and serial, whereas the right hemisphere is non-verbal and parallel. Because of the stress on language, the left hemisphere has become dominant (cf. lateralization) and this despite the fact of the presence of a higher connectivity between the right hemisphere and the mammalian brain.

after Joseph, 1993, p.44

Our sense of personality, or I-ness, is computed in the prefrontal cortex of the neocortex, just behind our forehead (cf. the frontal lobe). Before anything else, the human brain is linguistic and verbal (cf. the areas of Broca & Wernicke and the angular gyrus). It is able to invent new tools, think abstract thoughts, organize complex spatio-temporal features and develop complicated social structures. It emerged in Homo sapiens sapiens (cf. the Cro-Magnon people).

THE MAMMALIAN BRAIN

In 1878, the French neurologist Broca conjectures that mammals possess a group of cortical areas distinctly different from their surrounding. This collection of neurons formed a ring or border ("limbus") around the brain stem. In his definition, the limbic cortex (or area of functionally co-relative neuronal networks)- consists of the cortical cortex around the corpus callosum (especially the cingulate gyrus) and on the medial surface of the temporal lobe (including the hippocampus). By the 1930s, it became clear that a number of these "limbic" structures were involved in emotion.

James Papez proposed an "emotion system" linking the neocortex with the hypothalamus (forming the Papez circuit), each element being connected to another by a major fiber tract (like the fornix, "arch", a major bundle of axons leaving the hippocampus).

To physically experience emotion, the neocortex is critical, but to express it, the hypothalamus is imperative. The cingulate cortex projects down to the hippocampus and the latter down to the hypothalamus by way of the fornix (cf. figures supra).

Upward hypothalamic effects (reptilian brain) reach the neocortex (human brain) via a relay in the nuclei of the anterior thalamus (mammalian brain). The Papez circuit is bi-directional :

Because of the similarity between the elements composing both the Papez circuit and Broca's limbic lobe, this group of structures is referred to as "the lymbic system" (although Broca's notion did not focus on emotion).

The "mammalian brain" and the "limbic system" are used as synonyms, although minor differences occur, the larger part of the hypothalamus being part of the reptilian brain. The middle computer is also lateralized (cf. the left and right amygdala), and computes, among other functions, emotions (ranging from intense happiness to violent rage), emotional coloration, sexuality, long-term memory and the felt "presence" of the Divine (namely in the right amygdala, the so-called "God-spot"). We shared it with the Homo Neanderthalensis, who's funerary practices suggest the earliest form of spiritual awareness (cf. the possibility of life after death and the supernatural, both absent in the animal world).

Before the rise of the neocortex, the brain was ruled by the hypothalamus. This area successfully consolidated its role as "master controller" of the limbic system as well as that of top security agent of the reptilian brain.

THE REPTILIAN BRAIN

Indeed, deep down the brain, above and in the brainstem, the so-called "reptilian brain" processes primitive functions, such as the overall level of wakefulness (waking, dream and dreamless sleep - cf. the Ascending Reticular Activitating System operating the level of wakefulness of the brain as a whole, i.e. the intensity of conscious experience), territorial instincts, basic reflexes, habits and addictions. This neuronal circuit is very connected with the limbic system. The relationships between primitive instincts and emotions is therefore very pronounced, and the network running between both computers is an ancient neuronal architecture.

In the reptilian brain of non-reptiles, the territorial imperative (cause of war) is still at work, in geosentimentality, life support and self-protection. In reptiles, the latter is often realized through deception, imitation & secrecy (cf. the treacherous serpent, the violent crocodile, the cowardly chameleon, the slow tortoise). The responsive (not reactive) nature of this brain, makes it suitable for guarding, patrolling and vigilance, which are bound to routine, precedent and ritual. The conservatism of this brain is stabilizing, and routines save energy. However, failure to adapt is one of its prime characteristics. In the brain stem, addiction & deep memory storage through dreams are processed.

The reptilian brain also houses the more violent, aggressive -even murderous- expressions of impersonal sexuality, like in vertical, hierarchical, dominant/submissive signal communication. This earliest brain and its "automatic pilot", anchor in embodied, concrete objects, events and circumstances, and are driven by the moment (exist "in the now"). They compute no emotions and process no language, except signals.

Mens sana in corpore sano ...

Although these three systems work on their own, in a healthy brain, they also work together. Their evolutionary architecture reveals two major stress-points, namely, on the one hand, a lack of networking between the older two brains (reptilian and mammalian) and the neocortex, and, on the other hand, another reduced capacity between the two hemispheres of the human brain (left versus right hemisphere). As the connections between the neocortex and the older brains (in particular the limbic system) runs via the dominated hemisphere (usually the right), the first issue entails eliminating hemispheral lateralization.

So besides intellectual intelligence, we need to develop emotional intelligence to bridge the dangerous gap between the rational thinking processed by the neocortex and the ante-rationality (in extremis : irrationality) computed by the two older brains. This cannot be done if non-verbal, emotional intelligence is deemed less important than verbalized, discursive thought. Before anything else, the dominating tendencies of the linguistic hemisphere have to be eliminated. Likewise, mindsets based on the deafferentiation (or neuronal isolation) of the linguistic brain are incomplete.

Neurotheologically, the issue at hand is the nature, function and goal of spiritual experiences. The brain as a whole is able to process spirituality, and so (although triggered by the temporal limbic God-spot), mature spirituality is, ex hypothesi, computed by a neuronal circuit running simultaneously on the three levels of the brain, to wit : acute reptilian wakefulness, strong limbic emotivity and broad neocortical intelligence.

Immature spiritualities limit spiritual experience (a category covering religious experience, trance, ecstasy, mystical experience, etc.) to the exclusive (deafferented) output of neocortical, limbic or reptilian computations. In this way, intellectual spirituality, emotional spirituality and reptilian spirituality are distinguished. In each, the dominant neuronal computer rules the others by deafferentiation (temporal elimination of the operations of the dominated circuits).

What about polytheism, monotheism and henotheism in terms of these neurotheological considerations ?

2.2 Archaic software and the polytheist representation.

Reptilian and limbic systems are unable to represent conceptual structures, and hence the influence of the immediate context cannot be cancelled. The reptilian computations add to this a localized expression of environmental interests based on the law of power (the strongest force wins) and a state of constant vigilance and wakefulness. Territorial claims are not made on the basis of geosentimentality, for no emotions are computed. Indeed, all is based on immediate survival-interests, the "here and now" of the moment at hand and the balance of the needs to be satisfied. These trigger immediate changes in attention, but the latter quickly dissipate if the object of arousal is gone. Territory is important because it allows the organism to find food and shelter. These provisions allow for an identification with the locus of activity, left as soon as the provisions are taken away or moved.

In primitive forms of polytheism, the Totem represents the past, present and future of the tribe. As an idol of the achievements of the ancestors, the Totem summarizes the past acquisitions of the community and defines the particular environmental features essential for the survival of the group in that locale, to wit : sacred animals, plants, rocks, stellar phenomena (Moon, Sun, rising stars) and the achievements of the holy men or shamans, able to control their trance and assist the community in a supernatural way.

The Totem is the present, for it brings together the forces enabling the tribe to maintain the borders of its niche (point of reference) and it feeds the community (with divine power). The hunters refer to it when they leave the village, evoking the power of their ancestors before they take the road of death (either of themselves and/or the animals they hunt). The Totem is the future because it magically assures the presence of the animals hunted near the sacred ground of the tribe. The herders carve their domesticated and fabulous animals in the wood or stone of the Totem, and so call upon their protection and fertility. Projected into the future, the Totem is the power of continuity par excellence, representing the continuity of the tribe in time.

In more elaborated forms, polytheism introduces a single deity. The latter is part of a family-constellation of "great" deities (monolatry). The cult-statues or cult-representations of the god or goddess are shielded from the rest of the world (deep down in dark caves, high up in rock, in the "most holy" area of temples, etc). The deity has a particular area of power, beyond which it can no longer exert its influence. Another power takes over. In the same area, ruled by one "great god", various lesser gods may be active and they represent a specialization of the magical effectiveness of the area. Conflicts between these lesser deities may occur, but usually a family story links them together and assures the peace of the constellation.

To all the relevant natural powers (archetypal representations of collective experiences), the Totem-deity in particular, offerings are presented. The principle is reptilian : give and receive, tit for tat. Power and control are determined by the food-stuffs present in the nome, province or region of the chief god or goddess. Hence, when a deity is fed with the wrong kind of offering, or if the requisite rituals are not performed as they should, the favors could be withdrawn, and the divine may no longer bless its sacred theatre of operations.

Cold, emotionless cruelty as well as bestial sexuality are reptilian. Likewise, some forms of polytheism demand human or animal sacrifices, ritual abuse, the spilling of "sacred blood" and other unethical offerings. Violent, sexually defined power rituals are also common. Just as a crocodile snaps its prey and devours it, the cult-deity may only be satisfied by destruction, killing and "savage" mortifications and torture. Blood may be its food. To draw its attention and blessings (to feed and be fed), the deity demands the loss of what is important to the community, like children, women, animals and the first fruits. Only by giving the best is one likely to receive the best. Refuse the deity its sacrifice, and the community will perish from lack of sustaining means ...

The deity cannot be moved, except in religious ceremonies tied up with its semantic field. It is bound to a particular place and defines itself completely in terms of it. Export the Totem and its power is gone. Import another more powerful deity, and the Totem is replaced by another. The confusion between Totem-deities is left intact, for the constellation itself is considered sacred and conflicts are included in the tale. Contradictions, paradoxes, fuzzy thinking, hallucinatory babble, etc. form an intrinsic part of any mythical language and illiterate practice. Specialization is often the practical way out, allowing deities to exist side by side.

The reptilian nature is best exemplified by the locality of the power of the Totem. Outside a given perimeter, defined geographically or functionally, no blessings are to be expected. It is nonsensical to ask a fertility god protection in war, nor will the god of the mountain be useful in the savannah.

Polytheism does not blend with a developed, literate civilization. It is a niche spirituality. Its operational principles are not affectional or conceptual. No emotional plea or mental argument will help. The only way polytheism is overcome is by a "more powerful" deity. The strongest force wins.

Is radical polytheism historical ? Written sources are often lacking. Records mostly (if not always) reveal the presence, albeit hidden, of an originator, a "great god" before everything, or they accept some deities may pull rank on. Insofar as no function is given to this "god of gods", polytheism is a fact, but if various deities are identified as this "supreme one", monolatry ensues. If and only if petitions, sacrifices and the like are made to one truly unprovisional "great god" together with (and not against) the other deities, the fringes of henotheism are reached (cf. the theologies of Ptah and Amun-Re in the New Kingdom allow us to conclude Ptah and Amun-Re are one and the same God).

2.3 Limbic software and ante-rational henotheism.

In primitive polytheism, various entities, without relational or emotional ties between them, exist next to each other. The first step away from this, is to accept one "great" deity along with a variety of other "lesser" divine beings. This primordial god or goddess is reckoned as the source of all other deities and a family-relationship or "constellation" is established. However, as various deities assume the role of "great one", in this stage the title remains provisional (monolatry). The next step is a single deity, viewed as hidden (a "deus absconditus"), and without worship (as the Egyptian "Nun", the primordial waters).

Only when remoteness & nearness are both attributed to the same, single deity, is proto-rational henotheism the case. The ante-rationality of the solution is brought to the fore by the contextual emotionality and belongingness connecting unstable pre-concepts. Memory is at work, and stories are told. But in these, the dynamical relationships between the divine entities are as important as their individual field of activity. Geographical fixation is replaced by geosentimentality. The deities form a pantheon, a family. This type is absent in polytheism, were the forces are not interconnected, but rather atomized, not parallel but rather serial.

The emotionality and belongingness involved makes these deities more accessible. Polytheistic shamanism makes way for personal devotion. Specialized states of trance are supplemented by prayer, ritual action, meditation and festive participation (dance, music, acting). The gods and goddesses are no longer remote and unavailable, but may manifest in one's home and be worshipped directly. Totem variety may continue to exist, but the overall unity of the deities is underlined, either by a divine king or a series of "national" gods, encompassing most geosentimentalities (cf. Egypt in the Old Kingdom).

The experience of the divine is made possible by the felt presence of the supernatural. Fear and awe (reptilian) are transformed into bliss and mystery (limbic). Reflex and vigilance replaced by amygdalic presence and feeling (the "holy" as "mysterium fascinans et tremendum" - cf. Otto). The impersonal is personalized, either by sacralizing animals or by anthropomorphic deities. The emotionality of spirituality is primordial and each family, clan or tribe identifies with one or a series of deities. Because of the story-line of each, no god or goddess is isolated from the rest and the distinction between the local deity and the "great one" is explicit or suggested. The latter is the "grandparent", the ancestral deity, often nameless, hidden and cosmic (cf. the difference in Ancient Egypt between the nome deities and cosmic deities like Atum-Re, Ptah, Thoth & Khnum).

Ante-rational henotheism too, rooted in mythical notions and pre-rational pre-concepts, leaves the contradictions between the deities and the inconsistencies of the story-lines intact. There is no effort to elaborate an overarching theology, for the great questions of life are answered from multiple perspectives. The latter are not exclusive, but inclusive and complementary. The "great truth" is a mosaic of different answers, to be called in relative to the geosentimentality of the seeker and his or her point of view.

A notion of "one divine reality" is present, but not operationalized as such (cf. Hornung, 1986, 1999). It is difficult to distinguish ante-rational henotheism from monolatry. Each deity with its story is one representation of the whole by a part. Insofar as the answers given exceed the constituents of this part, other representations are called in. But various "great gods" continue to exist. There is no need to articulate one "grand story", a single tale answering all questions. The need for completeness is not processed by the limbic brain, but in the pre-frontal lobe. Once the provisional nature of the "great god" is eliminated, a mature form of henotheism is possible.

In Ancient Egypt, only the sacerdotal elite, reacting against the ousted Amarna theology (cf. the "damnatio memoriae"), arrived at the fringes of such a rational henotheist perspective, namely in the Late Ramesside Period, when Theban priests viewed Amun-Re, the "King of the Gods", as "hidden, one and millions" (Assmann, 1991, 1995).

"Secret of manifestations and sparkling of shape.
Marvellous God, rich in forms.
All Gods boast of Him,
to magnify themselves in His beauty,
to the extent of His Divinity."
Hymns to Amun, Leiden 350 I, chapter 200 - ca.1213 BCE.

2.4 Frontal software and the monotheist representation.

On the other side of the spectrum, monotheism proposes a single God. No Divine intermediate entities are possible, in fact, their Divine features are rejected and completely transferred to the single, solitary Deity. Historically, this option was formulated in an ante-rational format by Atenism, and in its most radical, rational form by Islam. The distinguishing feature is the quantitative singularity. There is "1" God, and hence no Gods and Goddesses.

In the theology of Pharaoh Akhenaten (ca. 1353 - 1336 BCE), only the Aten is worshipped, for the actual Solar Disk is the sole deity. Moreover, as only Akhenaten understands the Aten, the rule "only the Aten and his prophet Akhenaten" is valid. Conceptually, Atenism refuted the other deities, but in practice the contrary was the case. The people as well as the nobles surrounding Pharaoh continued to worship the "old" pantheon. As Atenism had no priesthood or holy book, it was bound to go extinct with the death of its prophet, a fate shared by all revealed religions (Moses is not of history but of memory, Jesus of Nazareth wrote nothing, Muhammad likewise).

In early Judaism, the worship of Divine images was rejected. Not only is God one and singular, but no icon is available (no sacred image, no window with a view on this remote solitary Deity). Although God is not directly accessible, He nevertheless revealed His law. The latter is an abstract written word, valid in all circumstances. The exclusive mediator is not a Divine human person (like a shaman, a priest or a Divine king), but a holy book, revealing the sacred history of God and His people, underlining the covenant made between them. This focus on a single, imageless God (Abrahamic faith), named "I am that am", revealing the Mosaic law, makes Judaism the first rational system of theology.

Incipient before Hellenism, this theology developed thanks to Greek rationality and by the time of Philo Judaeus, turned into a full-blown rational monotheism, i.e. a system of religious thought using the rational mode of cognition. This should not be confused with "rationalism", which is one of the phases of rational thought. Early Judaism is not rationalistic ("cogito ergo sum" is not accepted), although to articulate its tenets, it made use of the rational mode and later embraced Greek conceptual rationality (as Christianity and Islam would also do).

The reason for introducing such a monolithic concept, is in tune with how the pre-frontal lobes process data, aiming at logical completeness, consistency and the use of the linguistic abilities of the dominant hemisphere (cf. the importance of prayer, lectio and recitation). Indeed, if a variety of Deities are acknowledged, each will (to underline its Divinity) claim to have created "heaven and Earth" and a competition will ensue.  By decontextualizing God, the prefrontal turn invalidates such limbic geosentimentalities. The experience of God is mediated by the "holy operation" of the pre-frontal cortex, to wit : sacred words and traditional constructs. The direct limbic experience of the Divine is often made suspect and rejected by the "doctors of faith", exception made for the founding mystic, Son of God or prophet (as well as their direct companions and eye-witnesses).

Because only few interconnections between the limbic system and the pre-frontal hardware exist, the experience of God is has to be processed via the artistic hemisphere and thus subjugated by the linguistic functions (Broca and Wernicke) of the dominant side of the neo-cortex (the left hemisphere in right-handed people). Music and art may assist the experience of the Divine, but to the monotheist, God is before everything else interested in sacred words (and fundamentalists shun music altogether). Prayer is thus the repetition of the sacred discourse between God and man, a return of the actuality of the founding words of the tradition, kept secret in God's holy books ...

Logical completeness and the authority of the final clause, are the prerogatives of the dominant pre-frontal lobes in particular, and the neo-cortex as a whole in specific. With the strong verbalization of religion, conceptualizing man's quest to unite with radical otherness ("totaliter aliter"), the direct experience of God is invested with constructions processed by the linguistic cortex (the dominant hemisphere of the neocortex). These circumambulate holy texts, used to develop a dogmatic theology, exclusively based on what has been revealed (to the few).

Discursive thought forces God to express Himself exclusively through words. Are these "old wine bags" ? The poetical, analogical and historical value of monotheist writings is made clear by studying the three holy books of the "people of the book". These monotheist religions, aiming to control the masses and reacting against polytheism, have fallen in identical but opposed traps than polytheism. In protecting their rationalistic heritage, they developed the most rejectable fundamentalisms and fostered exclusivist theologies. On the one hand, they reject the direct experience of God, but on the other hand, they feel themselves forced to reintroduce it subreptively (cf. the Qabalah, Christian mysticism and Sufism). This sho