Stubbornness and Religion

I am finding myself more and more in the opinion that humans are stubborn irrational beings. It is but the finest stroke of luck that we have managed to make it this far, to have a society so relatively enlightened. (I say relatively since in many way we have lost a good deal of sense, and it may cost us the very life of our planet.) It seems that some sort of memetic description of ideas is probably what most likely exists. This is essentially a model that pits ideas in an evolutionary battle amongst each other, the most fit surviving. Unfortunately fitness can be gauged in many ways and some destructive ideas very good at propagating themselves are bound to survive. Take for example religion.

Now by all accounts religions, and the Judeo-Christian ones in particular, are based on some outlandishly outdated principles. Primity reeks through them and particularly out of their "holiest" of texts. Whether it goes by the name "Torah" or "Old testament" the Pentateuch is a disturbing archaic book. A cursory reading of it would lead to the obvious conclusion that its authorship could not be attributed so well to any group other then a iron age tribe from the Near East. The practices of this tribe are strikingly similar to all the other tribes around it and in its own time would not seemed very different from them. Really it could have been any of these ancient state religions that survived, but as it happened the winner of this battle was the ideas of the Yahwists.

What is more then a little surprising is that Yahweh, by all accounts, seems so unsuited for the role of today's generic "God". Yahweh is a war god, an honor god and on the rare occasion a forgiving god. He creates pacts with his people by slicing up animals, giving his subjects extraordinary tests and even having them slice off their own foreskins. Misbehaviour is treated with the utmost vengeance and entire nations are wiped out due to some growing tendencies. Ultimately it is usually the sweet smell of the burning of some animals flesh which convinces him that the worthiness of his people is intact, thus sparing their lives. Clearly, this is all very different from the wise, patient, benevolent, unintrusive, and omniscient god that most imagine today. Certainly there are similarities. He still demands your utmost devotion and will torture you after death to "cleanse" you if you do not follow this. He supports only one nation truly, whether this be the Christians, Muslims or Jews. By and large though, these two gods are really of separate species and maybe even separate genus.

Even this new version of god, filled with his hypocrisies and vagaries is hardly tenable. This is a god that our cool indifferent reality provides no evidence of. This could even be extended into a reverse watchmaker argument of sorts. When there is a single path in the desert to a spring, and beneath this path land mines are planted, one can only assume that a malevolent being or an indifferent psychopathic being placed them their. This is a far more accurate portrayal of our universe then a fine elegant creation like a watch. Believers convince themselves that all the horribleness of our world is humanities fault and we are lucky to deserve even the occasional kiss of goodwill from our creator. They will make claims like, "Look the entire building fell killing hundreds but a beam fell in a certain direction protecting a few children in the basement. We should thank god for this miracle." Statements like this reveal not only an impoverishment of the intellectual faculties but of the moral senses as well. Are we to believe that everyone in the building brought this terrible fate upon themselves, while god gracefully gave undeserved help to these few children? What of the helpless toddlers next door? Even the silly comic book superheros we invent have more compassion then this despicable deity.

So now I return to my original point on the stubborn irrationality of people. There really seems no greater testament of this to me then humanities absolute refusal to shed their iron age superstitions and to embrace an age of evidence and reason. Yet if so many of us seem to share this problem, then it must say something about all people, even those who do not share these beliefs. I see no other place to examine this phenomenon other then at the point in our minds in which ideas or confronted with conflicting ideas. The question is, why are some ideas chosen by the mind over others? A simplistic view that only took rationality into account would claim that the most logical ideas would win out. Yet it seems that the mind would probably be much more accurately explained with some sort of holistic system that viewed belief system as the culmination of different mental forces. To build a model like this would be quite complex and so for simplicity sake it seems that the memetic model is most adequate at explaining a process in which the slow influx of more "fit" ideas can multiply in the mind thus taking over control. However, this does seem a simplification and I think requires more thought on my part.

Self and Self Identity

Interesting. I am not a hundred percent sure I got that but I am sure I will get it with time.



I should start by stating that, for me, Self and Self Identity are not interchangeable but are quite connected.

There is the Self a being of its own within us all that changes with every second. It is affected by thought, emotional state, physical state (hunger/full, sexually satisfied/sexually frustrated, etc.,), natural inclinations and the degree in which we let it dictate or dictate over, and any other interaction beings have. This follows in many peoples footsteps, John Locke for one.

At this point, you should remember that the Self and Self Identity somewhat combine to a certain degree, since Self Identity is the understanding of each human of their Self or of humans Self.

Self Identity is a much trickier one. It is what we decide we are. We can let it be like H. G. Mead expresses as "The Looking Glass Self" where we are what others perceive us as; very similar to labeling theory (I happen to believe they are inseparable to a certain extent, there are minute differences, but it is off topic).

Or Self Identity can be as fluid as Freud's model of the ID, the Ego and the Superego battling for control of Self Identity on a daily basis.

Or Self Identity can be Trickery. Trickery is when we allow ourselves to believe that our job, religion, sexual preference or actions are our Self Identity. Now with a name like Trickery most of us would write it off the list, but maybe we should explore it for a moment or two more.

Not only does Trickery allow actual manifestations of the Self Identity come into being, but it also allows beings to have a guide or road map, if you will. You may say Trickery shouldn't be considered a model for Self Identity, but I believe it is a model. The Mind shapes being, I think we both agree on that, at least to a certain degree, and if one's mind decides to pretend he is a lawyer, than that is what he is, in his mind, which we know basically makes it true, at least to ourselves.

The Pros and Cons for the Trickery model are quite apparent.

Pros - it allows one to feel in control to a greater extent than other models, and it allows the individual to rely on one encompassing word to express, at least in general, who they are.

Cons- its a fabrication of the mind, its not scientifically an accurate description of one's Self, and it causes riffs between different parties.

Now, all models are true, they don't act in tandem, and for some, they don't act at all, but they all can. Self Identity is Self Perception. Self makes all humans equal. Self makes man and women equal, races equal, religious beings equal. It is the thing in all humanity. Self Identity in general is really just a facade. We can let Self Identity be whatever we'd like it to be, we should just never forget of the Self.

It is interesting to note that we let ourselves define ourselves by stereotypes; "I am a Lawyer." We both know how off stereotypes are. I don't know if you remember my liking for generalities and stereotypes, but at the end of the day I do concede they are a trifle misleading.



On with the day.


Alligator

James on Self

Reading William James is enough to make one cry. Especially if that one is aware of the current state of psychology. For James makes it readily apparent that humanity has been removed from the one scientific discipline intended to explain that very principle. Whether this is appropriate or not is a discussion well worth having, but this is not my focus. My current concern is about the ideas of James, and this is quite a fascinating topic.

The first thing to mention is what I find most bothersome about James' ideas. Far too much effort is expended on justifying concepts that he very well should have let go of. These are religious concepts, and it seems that his explanations in these areas often go far beyond what any honest look at the evidence should allow. In the scheme of James ideas this seems but a small issue to spend much of my efforts on. What I really wish to examine are the ideas of his that are still worthwhile and for this I turn to the issue of self.

It should be noted at this point that I have not read very much of James. I have tasted what he has to offer and am thirsting for more. Eventually I plan to read his Principles of Psychology in entirety. Now I will just focus on the one chapter I have read (the tenth chapter of Principles) The Consciousness of Self. In this astounding section James outlines what he feels the "self" is really made of. This self involves both a self conception and a conscious ego aware of that self. It is really this ego that fascinates me most as the Thought (James' Word for a the totality of a person's "present mental state") actually gains ownership all former Thoughts. Self-hood is created through the familiarity or "warmth" that thoughts about ourselves contain (self conception.)

I find that this brilliant model of self introspection explains a version of myself that I actually deal with from day to day. It is a self that does not ever really retain a consistent "self" as an object like the "soul" would allow, yet an overall self-ness seems to emerge from my stream of consciousness. The self I experience daily doesn't, in fact, maintain itself consistently. This happens to the point in which I can look at my former self like a stranger, even though I know his every fear, desire and explanation. Yet at any moment I can retain from my former Thoughts that which I choose.

A good analogy for this model would be to separate Thoughts into days. Say I were to live life in such a way that the only possessions I would retain at the beginning of a day were those that I left in a box for myself the day before. This box would not just contain possessions but rather all my higher knowledge as well. If I were to leave myself a box full of valuable items then my next day would be much easier. There would be what to work with. On the other hand, if I left myself a nearly empty box full of as much junk as useful material I would be in a very difficult position the next day. Obviously I could take the good box and still manage to have a bad day or vice versa but on the majority of days we could assume no such sudden changes would take place. Instead a gradual lift or fall could be expected. This is basically what the idea of Thoughts is to me with one substitution. Instead of us manually filling the boxes each day, our days themselves become the contents of the next day's box.

Well there is still much to think about but I'd probably be better off if I had actually read Jame's entire book. So on I go...