Rethinking Science, Myth, and Meaning

Beyond the Divided Realms: Rethinking Science, Myth, and Meaning

For centuries, Western thought has been shaped by a fundamental division: the material and the symbolic, the physical and the metaphysical. This split, enshrined in Galileo’s vision of science, has driven immense progress but has also created blind spots—particularly when it comes to understanding meaning, consciousness, and the role of myth in human life. What if this division is not inherent in reality, but rather a product of how we construe experience?

Science as Modern Mythology

Joseph Campbell argued that myth serves four key functions: the mystical, cosmological, sociological, and pedagogical. In modern times, science has largely taken over the cosmological function—offering a coherent narrative of the universe. Yet, it has struggled to fulfil the mystical function: the ability to evoke awe and a direct experience of the sublime. While figures like Carl Sagan and Brian Cox have made strides in infusing science with this sense of wonder, the challenge remains: Can science provide a foundation for myth that speaks to both intellect and experience?

The problem is compounded by the fact that much of science operates on the assumption that mathematical structures exist in a Platonic realm, separate from human cognition. But what if these structures are not external realities, but second-order meanings—projections of symbolic processing rather than inherent features of the universe?

A New Ontology: Meaning as Process

Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) provides an alternative framework: it treats meaning not as a fixed property of the world but as a dynamic process. From this perspective, human experience is construed as two distinct domains of first-order meaning: (i) the material and relational (what exists and how things relate), and (ii) the mental and verbal (consciousness and symbolic activity). The latter enables the creation of second-order meaning—metaphenomena—through projection.

In this light, mathematical truths, quantum wavefunctions, and even theological concepts may not describe an external, objective reality, but rather emerge from the way consciousness structures experience. The mystical impulse, then, is not an archaic relic but an attempt to reintegrate these levels of meaning.

Mythic Gravity: The Collective Unconscious as a Semiotic Field

Myths can be seen as gravitational wells within the collective unconscious—semiotic attractors that pull meaning toward them, reinforcing certain interpretations of reality. This view aligns with Edelman’s Theory of Neuronal Group Selection, which suggests that consciousness itself is shaped by adaptive value. If myths persist, it is because they continue to structure experience in a way that is evolutionarily advantageous or psychologically compelling.

If scientific narratives are to serve the function of myth, they must recognise this gravitational pull—not merely dispensing knowledge but offering a framework that resonates with lived experience. The image of Earth from space, as Campbell suggested, could form the foundation of a new planetary mythology. Yet, the resistance to such a shift—seen in phenomena like the Flat Earth resurgence—suggests that old mythic structures do not yield easily.

Toward an Integrated Vision

Rather than discarding myth in favour of science, or vice versa, a more holistic approach would recognise that both emerge from the same cognitive processes. Myth is not the opposite of rational inquiry; it is a parallel means of structuring meaning. The challenge is to develop a mythology that speaks to both the intellect and the soul, grounding awe in an understanding of the universe that is neither purely materialist nor purely transcendental.

Fire is not something to be stolen from the gods—it is already within and all around us. The question is not whether to embrace it, but how to tend it wisely.