rainbow walking

This is a discussion that has splintered off a previous topic from the EoG forum. Since it covers a wide range of subjects I hope it will fit best in this forum.

rw: Yes, I suspected as much and should have made the effort to define my position on this concept…sorry. I’m defining competition from a philosophical perspective such that even moving a muscle requires competition with gravity. Keep in mind that my arguments are based on a view of the paradox of man’s survival, such that every breath of air, every morsel of food, every thought is a reaction to the paradox.

Not that we’re always consciously aware of it, only that our lives are defined by this struggle and we’ve developed sophisticated responses to allow us the freedom of existence under the pressure. Thus we enjoy good movies and music and throwing ourselves into a project or losing ourselves in a good novel, family outings and hobbies...like these discussions. These are all escape mechanisms that take us out of the loop momentarily. We also embrace worldviews that satisfy our questioning of this underlying pressure thereby allowing us to enter into the sophistication of our cultures without having to constantly focus on the angst. After awhile we learn to repress it and this too is a survival mechanism.

From here on I will use the term “paradox” to describe this angst underlying all men’s lives. By that term I mean to include every aspect that the “two sides of the same coin” analogy would fit. Things like competition/cooperation, maximum freedom/maximum control, good/evil, love/hate, peace/war, life/death.

I view the paradox, along with the resulting angst, as the driving force behind all worldviews and ideologies developed in response to it. That’s why I can’t reject your spirituality or another man’s atheism or another’s political position out of hand. I want to examine each for several reasons. In the case of the spiritual worldview I must admit it affords man a pressure relief valve that can work…the “letting go” you speak of, is the walking away from the angst by accepting a tenet that this life is not the do-all-end-all of your existence. It’s a way out from under the pressure. But it’s also a way into greater pressure as I will demonstrate and this is not unique to theism but is true of all ideologies.

I’m faced with a world history telling me that none of these worldviews allow man to live in peace, either with himself or his neighbor. You seem to feel this is a result of competition and that those who claim to embrace your worldview and violate its basic tenets are practicing false theology. I happen to think the problem runs much deeper and is related to the paradox.

I see all ideologies as pressure relief valves that fail to function as effectively as men like to believe. I see the ideologies as leading to complexities and sophistications that gravitate towards more and more freedom restrictive controls until men are forced to introduce new ideologies to compete with these controlling factors and it all takes on the appearance of a “dance with the devil in the pale moonlight” never ending struggle. And it often leads to bloodletting in the larger ideological strains as they reach a crescendo of inner competitiveness.

What you call “false theology” is nothing more than a reaction to the tendency towards this phenomenon of controls. The “false theologians” who take these ideologies down a path of confrontation that leads to bloodletting are men who view this inner turmoil as being a result of pressure from other ideologies that are competing with their own. They allow themselves to be deceived into believing that if only these other ideologies were silenced ours would work the way it’s suppose to. Only problem is, constituents of the other ideologies are feeling the same way towards his ideology. And the reality is, the ideology itself has failed to deliver the goods, not because it is a bad ideology, but because it is driven by the same paradox that forces man to complexity and ultimate control and ultimate revolt against such control. Every ideology is a ticking time bomb. It’s inescapable. Some go out with a fizzle and some with a bang and man gathers up the pieces and trudges on.

All ideologies begin with good intentions and then gravitate, inevitably, towards less and less freedom. With each new convert comes the potential need for more and more controls. The need for education arises to ensure each convert understands all the basic tenets of the ideology. The need of regulating all the facets of the ideology in practice arises to ensure the best teachers and practitioners are in positions that best reflect their talents and the process can’t escape the political expression. All through this process complexity leads to control and control leads to the re-surfacing of the angst and dissent rears its ugly head. Then methods of preservation are introduced along with rules and disciplinary procedures and greater complexity leads to greater controls. And the dance grows more feverish.

The paradox is inescapable even in the midst of ideological repression. I think you used Cain as an example in one of our previous discussions, so let’s look at Cain’s example again. (Ever wonder why man chose to call a drug that energizes the human body “cocaine”?) Here’s a man who decides to enter into competition with God’s curse against the ground and produces a crop in spite of this curse. Now the time comes to secure God’s approval, only God shows more respect for Abel’s labors than Cain’s. Cain has, no doubt, had to work much longer and harder than Abel to secure his victory over the curse, yet Abel gets all the glory. Why? Because Abel displayed an amazing degree of creativity in electing not to compete against the curse. He goes into animal husbandry and God honors, not his efforts, but his creativeness. The message should be clear: Controls, (the curse), are best addressed by creativity which, when you follow the text, inevitably leads to confrontation and bloodletting and Abel’s murder. Yet the murder led to Cain’s excommunication that led to a new tribe and the paradox marches on. Good-evil-good-evil-good-evil.

The moral of the story: Ideology leads to controls that leads to more creative ideologies to avoid the controls that leads to confrontation between ideologies and bloodletting ensues, (or factions splitting off to form new ideologies that follow the same path), that leads to new tribes and ideologies that lead to controls that lead to more creativity and more competition and the never ending dance with the paradox.



Because these ideologies are tied to our means of repressing the angst we become endeared to them and view them as more crucial to our existence than our existence itself. We simply couldn’t go on living at peace within ourselves without them. That’s why we embrace them in the first place. They do work to a certain degree, but they also lead to complexity and control and then the angst surfaces in another form. The angst is created by our survival need to repress the fear that arises from our understanding of our mortality. Our mortality is that one uncontrollable restriction to that “ideal freedom” you make reference to. Thus we often find ourselves in a catch-22 position. People react to this in different ways but they always resist the controls if those controls aren’t in their hands or range of influence. The control and the controller is another facet of the paradox. Inescapable and inevitable.

Now, you may disagree with my assessment of this phenomenon, (and likely will), but you should now be able to understand where I’m coming from. I am getting the impression that you view my replies as a direct assault against your personal interpretation of your spiritual based ideology, and in one respect it is, but not personally addressed at you in any specific way and not intended to tear down your beliefs but to dissect them in search of the control mechanisms that lead to the schisms that lead to pressures that lead to bloodletting.

I suppose I could conduct this examination using some other ideological expression but I am most familiar with theism so that familiarity affords me the best view. But the levers are present in all ideologies and the effects are the same across the board. This too is inescapable.

The fact that many men, such as yourself, are able to function smoothly within your respective ideologies does not negate history. It proves that many more men are not able to function so smoothly and I am curious as to why you choose to label them as false religionists or equate them with “wolves” rather than realizing they are men who have not found the peace you have, even though they have embraced the same ideology as you have. Don’t you ever wonder about this, or is it just easier to write them off by inserting them into these ready-made pigeon holes? Perhaps, within your group, you are one of the fortunate who get to handle the controls?

I have also observed that the men in control are quite content with the status quo, until the pressure of competition reaches an untenable level. It’s most likely true that the man with the controls feels more insulated from the paradox than the man under control. I would venture a guess that this is the driving force behind the control tendency within all ideologies. This is also why the “letting go” only lets go so far and then finds itself compelled to “take control”. It’s another integrated aspect of the paradox.

Perhaps we can make more progress if we take a philosophical view of this discussion. I often view these message board discussions as our ancestors likely viewed their fireside chats out under the stars, long before modern technology made it more a matter of preference than necessity. These cyber-fires can actually be quite productive for everyone warming their feet by the shimmering coals of men’s minds. You have to wonder how many ideologies were formed and deconstructed sitting around such fires, later to surface as guiding lights for a season until someone somewhere, sitting around another such fire, devised a brighter one.

Now I fully realize that every time I introduce another lever of manipulation or controlling aspect of a theistic ideology you’re liable to claim it’s just an example of the “wolves” among the sheep and this dance can go on ad naseum. We’ve got to get beyond this “demonizing” and divisive defense mechanism if we’re going to make any progress. I also understand your “Father” theology and its myriad applications to every situation and I’m not trying to deconstruct your personal interpretation of your faith, so continuing to refer to these interpretations also doesn’t gain us much real estate in finding a way to transform the “wolves” back into sheep. I think we both agree that theism can be an effective means of transforming wolves into sheep but where we seem to be talking past one another is on the subject of preventing the sheep from transforming back into wolves.

We can’t afford to allow ourselves to pretend that the sheep, who display characteristics of the wolf, weren’t ever really sheep to begin with, especially if you believe theism is natural. If it’s natural that means that all men begin as sheep. The reality is likely much different. I am of the opinion that all men are both sheep and wolf rolled into one and it doesn’t take as much to bring out the wolf as it does to bring out the sheep.

If, as you say, this is the result of “under-development’”, then it aught not be difficult to expose the areas of under-development. But this isn’t as easy to do if you feel you are on the defensive and I wonder why you feel this way at all? Perhaps a self-examination of the ideological repressors isn’t such an easy task.

I would gladly invite you to examine my atheism if it were a positive ideology but it’s really just a rejection of theistic ideologies, so there’s not much there to examine. I do, however, hold to a naturalistic ideology for the moment but may even reject this ideology if, and or when, I discover its control mechanisms.

To make a long story even longer, feel free to ask me any question you think may be relevant to this fire-side discussion, if knowing more about me will help ease your anxieties in this discussion. I’m not afraid, (or at least I don’t think I am) to discuss my worldview, such as it is, to see if the same discrepancies arise, which they likely do.

I have examined a great many ideologies and found none of them exempt from these pressures. They are all designed by men looking for a viable repressor of the angst of his mortality…the paradox of his existence…every single one. I embrace science because it has been successful in beating back this paradox to some degree, but I also cannot deny that its successes can have a debilitating effect on man’s psychology as well as provide “wolves” with the tools to destroy all of humanity…so it isn’t exempt from criticism at all. I could take the route of Camus and move to the check out line at Wal-mart, but this to me is just a cop-out. Entering into a competition with my survival instinct is a no win situation. If I win I lose.

Ultimately I have all but concluded that there is no ideal repressor of the paradox…that it must be defeated else man will be. So I offer this as a means to get us back on track rather than continuing the cat-and-mouse game our discussion has appeared to have devolved into. I turn the floor back over to you and await your response.

Mike

RW, I apologize for coming across as defensive and perhaps acrimonious. I appreciate your pushing of the envelop in determining the cause of ideology or of ideology gone wrong. My basic frustration has been what appeared to be a blaming of religious ideology for so many of the world's problems. My underlying and overarching intent (beneath and transcending the tangents that I inserted to try to clarify my position) has been to suggest that these problems you describe in society do not stem from ideologies, but that various ideologies are manifestations of either a fearful competing for life or a joyful cooperation.

Perhaps I have been a bit hard headed about this point. Perhaps I've taken it too far. My sheep/wolves metaphor was not about religious membership, but about these two underlying or transcendent world views that I believe go beyond theology. Another way of making the same point was to suggest that science is an ideology as much as religion is, and that science is no more to blame for originating interpersonal angst than religion is. I think we have also interpreted the Cain story differently, although this is a tangent. We find several references to acceptable offerings of the firstfruits of the fields throughout the later books of Moses. To me this indicates Cain's trouble wasn't about the type of offering (meat vs. vegetal), but it was about the intent. I think Cain misunderstood the purpose of sacrifice. This view is consistent with another example of God's rejection of sacrifices (this time meat offerings) recorded in Isaiah chapter one. In this chapter the Lord calls their efforts "vain," and suggests instead that they instead "relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow." He reminds them of what true religion is, because they had begun to think they could win his favor by making offerings while warring amongst themselves causing "bruises" and "sores" and the country to become "desolate." THIS was Cain's problem. He thought to placate God while still hating, and viewing himself in competition with, his brother.

But anyway. I think you have described an interesting point of view. I think that when things go wrong they probably follow a path very similar to what you described. Only I don't think that specific ideologies necessarily came first. We could do the chicken and egg argument all day, of course, but I think it is important to see ideology both as possibly a cause and as a result. And this was why the Father metaphor was important. Because being in a relationship with a parent naturally implies a power inequality, which can then be interpreted either as enmity or a necessity for cooperation. Thus, several ideologies can result from the natural position of finding ourselves subject to a parent. But such ideologies do not necessarily cause, nor do they necessarily result from, those original disparities in size, knowledge, power, etc. that are our first experiences in mortality.
Disparities exist, but it is how they are interpreted that is important. So yes, with that caveat--that it didn't necessarily start with ideology or theology or religion, but that such are among many possible manifestations of the state in which we find ourselves--I am willing to pursue your discussion of the possible effects of such ideologies.

By the way, I'm not in a position to exert any control on anyone in my religion. I'm a teacher, both in my religious role, and in my "scientific" role. I have seen more multiplication of complexity in the latter, however, and more controls; a need for higher and higher educational training and status to perform the same functions. When I went back to school for a graduate degree after five years applied experience with a bachelor's degree, I found that in many cases I was "stepping back" educationally to move forward professionally. I was learning the names of some of the applications that I had been practicing already for years, but little else. And occasionally when I described a common application from my work experience, my fellow students as well as my professorial "ministers" seemed astonished, and had no theoretical lable for such grass roots applications. These are some of the ways the controls of "science" have become tighter and more complex. If I would further practice such applications, however, I must submit to the "ministers" of the Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing (who most likely had long since quit practicing themselves). And in turning from applied science to the theoretical (in essence excommunicating myself as a practitioner of psychology--in part because of refusal to be controlled myself by a politically controlled licensing board) I am still required to submit to the "priesthood" of my particular college or the venerable (and much higher on the heirarchy) journal publishers and/or the associations which control, license, and accredit. All of these scientific controls steadily tighten, while my particular religion has consistently remained governed by an unpaid lay ministry. You can see why, perhaps, my world view is a bit different.

Also, I don't think that I have asked you to defend your rejection of theology (atheism), or your "negative" ideology, but have mainly questioned the "positive" ideology of an authoritative science, and/or the "positive" ideology of "naturalism."

But back to the question at hand. If Ideology is to blame for society's ills, or even a contributing factor, what do you propose should be done about it?

rainbow walking

Mike: RW, I apologize for coming across as defensive and perhaps acrimonious. I appreciate your pushing of the envelop in determining the cause of ideology or of ideology gone wrong. My basic frustration has been what appeared to be a blaming of religious ideology for so many of the world's problems. My underlying and overarching intent (beneath and transcending the tangents that I inserted to try to clarify my position) has been to suggest that these problems you describe in society do not stem from ideologies, but that various ideologies are manifestations of either a fearful competing for life or a joyful cooperation.

rw: Hi Mike,

No apology necessary. I have been leaning on you a bit heavy, so I take full responsibility for our drifting into shark-infested waters. I’ve done some research, (minor) into the LDS and have surprisingly found it to have a rich history of self-inflection and to have produced some amazing intellectual self criticisms. One thing I’m not clear on is the relationship between LDS and Mormonism. I figured I’d let you clear that up for me when you feel so led. I hope we can bandy about some thoughts on this subject of ideologies and see if there may be some inherent triggers that lead to these outbreaks of violence. I want to avoid using your particular persuasion of spiritual expression to prevent alienating you from the endeavor. If you feel like comparing any ground we cover to your beliefs that’s fine by me, but I hope you understand when I use terms like religious or theistic ideologies I’m being as all inclusive as possible without (hopefully) over-generalizing. Anyway, if I do over-step my reach I’ve got you to reign me in:^D

I was searching for an apt analogy to describe this investigation and what came to mind was men flying above the earth in a jet, looking down on the different strata of clouds all jockeying for positions in the atmosphere at different levels. In my research I’ve tried to establish a sort of pecking order of ideologies that seem to permeate most developed societies. In our own American society, for instance, my view is that Capitalism seems to be the dominant ideology.

And then just below, and often rising above, is Democracy, (or some would argue Republicanism), aspect of our society from which we derive our governance. These two seem to be the predominant ideologies forming an umbrella of sorts over all others, including theism. But I would venture a semi-educated guess that theism would place a close third in our society if you include all the different versions. I’m not sure which theistic version would rise to the top, certainly Christianity and Catholicism would be right there in the midst, but we do have an admixture of various flavors to choose from. Some would argue that Jewish influence rules the roost in the area of politics, but I’m not sure about this. (My sources have rather dubious reasons for their opinions). I would say Christianity probably ranks at the top in the USA, wouldn’t you?

Anyway, having tidied up a bit our previous tug-o-war tangent I hope we can get down to some serious investigation. I may be completely out in left field with some of my speculations but, then again, I may not. Many people will likely argue that the majority of the conflicts man has historically endured were the result of psychological influences by deviant personalities…Hitler comes to mind here…and this may be true to a certain degree. I’m not prepared to write it off out of hand, but I am leaning towards a query as to how such deviant personalities always tend to find their way into what would otherwise have been a non-violent ideology, (or at least that’s how they seem to start out…or most of them). On the other hand, when I think about it Fascism, communism and some forms of anarchism all seem to call for violent revolution at the outset to replace the status quo.

I think some of the conflicting themes in theistic ideologies revolve around doctrine and dogma…which leads me to question how doctrine becomes so dogmatic as to necessitate bloodshed or lesser effects like dis-fellowship, splintering and excommunication. I’m beginning to see some correlation between asceticism and dogmatism. In the NT there seemed to be an under-current of this between certain factions of the Pharisees and the disciples of Jesus.

In the Muslim tradition I think we have a combination of conflictions to consider. For one thing their political and theistic ideologies are more closely intertwined than in the West. This also seems to be true in Jewish Orthodoxy and the politics of Israel. So I’m persuaded that too cozy a relationship can have detrimental effects on both ideological traditions.

Mike: Perhaps I have been a bit hard headed about this point. Perhaps I've taken it too far. My sheep/wolves metaphor was not about religious membership, but about these two underlying or transcendent world views that I believe go beyond theology. Another way of making the same point was to suggest that science is an ideology as much as religion is, and that science is no more to blame for originating interpersonal angst than religion is. I think we have also interpreted the Cain story differently, although this is a tangent. We find several references to acceptable offerings of the firstfruits of the fields throughout the later books of Moses. To me this indicates Cain's trouble wasn't about the type of offering (meat vs. vegetal), but it was about the intent. I think Cain misunderstood the purpose of sacrifice. This view is consistent with another example of God's rejection of sacrifices (this time meat offerings) recorded in Isaiah chapter one. In this chapter the Lord calls their efforts "vain," and suggests instead that they instead "relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow." He reminds them of what true religion is, because they had begun to think they could win his favor by making offerings while warring amongst themselves causing "bruises" and "sores" and the country to become "desolate." THIS was Cain's problem. He thought to placate God while still hating, and viewing himself in competition with, his brother.

rw: I agree that Cain misunderstood the intent. I think he came to God in a spirit of pride, maybe even arrogance, in having over-come the curse. I think he expected to be raised on a pedestal for his efforts an couldn’t swallow his pride when his expectations were trashed by a goatherder:^D

mike: But anyway. I think you have described an interesting point of view. I think that when things go wrong they probably follow a path very similar to what you described. Only I don't think that specific ideologies necessarily came first. We could do the chicken and egg argument all day, of course, but I think it is important to see ideology both as possibly a cause and as a result. And this was why the Father metaphor was important. Because being in a relationship with a parent naturally implies a power inequality, which can then be interpreted either as enmity or a necessity for cooperation. Thus, several ideologies can result from the natural position of finding ourselves subject to a parent. But such ideologies do not necessarily cause, nor do they necessarily result from, those original disparities in size, knowledge, power, etc. that are our first experiences in mortality.
Disparities exist, but it is how they are interpreted that is important. So yes, with that caveat--that it didn't necessarily start with ideology or theology or religion, but that such are among many possible manifestations of the state in which we find ourselves--I am willing to pursue your discussion of the possible effects of such ideologies.

rw: Excellent. And you raise an interesting question in the parent/child relationship. The tendency of those teenage rebellious years to be exact. There may be some similarity between that tendency and the tendency inherent in all ideologies to splinter. It may be a natural tendency. It certainly isn’t possible to create a one size fits all ideology no matter how vague the party lines, someone, somewhere at some point is going to find issues and challenge the lines. I’m still not sure how to proceed, i.e. if we’re looking at a strictly psychological factor or something more basic or something more complex. As I said in one of our previous exchanges, I see a tendency in all ideologues to complexify and gravitate towards more and more controls within. Perhaps this plays along with other factors to create an atmosphere in which thunderstorms arise…referring back to the original analogy I gave above. It might also be helpful if we allow ourselves to take the long, historical view rather than search among fads and fashions that come and go within the older traditions.

mike:By the way, I'm not in a position to exert any control on anyone in my religion. I'm a teacher, both in my religious role, and in my "scientific" role. I have seen more multiplication of complexity in the latter, however, and more controls; a need for higher and higher educational training and status to perform the same functions. When I went back to school for a graduate degree after five years applied experience with a bachelor's degree, I found that in many cases I was "stepping back" educationally to move forward professionally. I was learning the names of some of the applications that I had been practicing already for years, but little else. And occasionally when I described a common application from my work experience, my fellow students as well as my professorial "ministers" seemed astonished, and had no theoretical lable for such grass roots applications. These are some of the ways the controls of "science" have become tighter and more complex. If I would further practice such applications, however, I must submit to the "ministers" of the Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing (who most likely had long since quit practicing themselves). And in turning from applied science to the theoretical (in essence excommunicating myself as a practitioner of psychology--in part because of refusal to be controlled myself by a politically controlled licensing board) I am still required to submit to the "priesthood" of my particular college or the venerable (and much higher on the heirarchy) journal publishers and/or the associations which control, license, and accredit. All of these scientific controls steadily tighten, while my particular religion has consistently remained governed by an unpaid lay ministry. You can see why, perhaps, my world view is a bit different.

rw: Amazingly ironic that you should draw a conversation with someone touting science as the savior of the world:^D.

mike: Also, I don't think that I have asked you to defend your rejection of theology (atheism), or your "negative" ideology, but have mainly questioned the "positive" ideology of an authoritative science, and/or the "positive" ideology of "naturalism."

But back to the question at hand. If Ideology is to blame for society's ills, or even a contributing factor, what do you propose should be done about it?

rw: Hmmm…I’m not sure. I’m hoping insight into possible causitives will also suggest possible remedies.

Mike

rw: I’ve done some research, (minor) into the LDS and have surprisingly found it to have a rich history of self-inflection and to have produced some amazing intellectual self criticisms. One thing I’m not clear on is the relationship between LDS and Mormonism.

mike: Mormonism is a nickname for the LDS faith, LDS is a nickname as well But historically the term "Mormon" was applied by critics of the church because of our belief in the "Book of Mormon" (a religious record of some ancient inhabitants of America--subtitled "another testament of Jesus Christ). Anyway, we don't particularly mind the term "Mormon," but the official title is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. And LDS, of course, stands for "latter-day saints."

rw: In our own American society, for instance, my view is that Capitalism seems to be the dominant ideology.

And then just below, and often rising above, is Democracy, (or some would argue Republicanism), aspect of our society from which we derive our governance. These two seem to be the predominant ideologies forming an umbrella of sorts over all others, including theism. But I would venture a semi-educated guess that theism would place a close third in our society if you include all the different versions. I’m not sure which theistic version would rise to the top, certainly Christianity and Catholicism would be right there in the midst, but we do have an admixture of various flavors to choose from. Some would argue that Jewish influence rules the roost in the area of politics, but I’m not sure about this. (My sources have rather dubious reasons for their opinions). I would say Christianity probably ranks at the top in the USA, wouldn’t you?

mike: I think I could buy that order. But I might suggest that at our national conception theism was probably at the top, and protestantism particularly. The constitutional rights that allowed for democracy and capitalism were considered "God-given" at the time, weren't they? And the separation of church and state was intended more to keep government out of the churches rather than to keep believers out of government.

rw: Many people will likely argue that the majority of the conflicts man has historically endured were the result of psychological influences by deviant personalities…Hitler comes to mind here…and this may be true to a certain degree. I’m not prepared to write it off out of hand, but I am leaning towards a query as to how such deviant personalities always tend to find their way into what would otherwise have been a non-violent ideology, (or at least that’s how they seem to start out…or most of them). On the other hand, when I think about it Fascism, communism and some forms of anarchism all seem to call for violent revolution at the outset to replace the status quo.

mike: Yes, and although the U.S. and French "democratic" revolutions were violent, Britain's was not. Correct?

rw: I think some of the conflicting themes in theistic ideologies revolve around doctrine and dogma…which leads me to question how doctrine becomes so dogmatic as to necessitate bloodshed or lesser effects like dis-fellowship, splintering and excommunication. I’m beginning to see some correlation between asceticism and dogmatism. In the NT there seemed to be an under-current of this between certain factions of the Pharisees and the disciples of Jesus.

mike: Do you see some doctrine(s) as more innately prone to violence? Is asceticism a doctrine, or does it result from some doctrine(s)? Is it one interpretation of some doctrine(s)? Or is it an inevitable result?

rw: In the Muslim tradition I think we have a combination of conflictions to consider. For one thing their political and theistic ideologies are more closely intertwined than in the West. This also seems to be true in Jewish Orthodoxy and the politics of Israel. So I’m persuaded that too cozy a relationship can have detrimental effects on both ideological traditions.

mike: Are you looking for a universal theistic doctrine that tends toward violence (you seemed to be in earlier posts), or do you think such doctrine is religion specific?

rw: The tendency of those teenage rebellious years to be exact. There may be some similarity between that tendency and the tendency inherent in all ideologies to splinter.

mike: Here you seem to be suggesting a universal tendency again. But with adolescence as a metaphor, I don't see rebellion as a universal phenomenon. Common perhaps, but not universal. A neighbor of mine who is raising teens insisted that the generation gap is not universal. He indicated that his teens still gave him a hug and a kiss at night. And knowing his teens fairly well I believe them to be quite unrebellious. I think the key is that he knows how to build relationships with his kids, and he knows when to move toward egalitarianism with his teens. In addition, the author of the text I used to teach "Psychology of Adolescence" this semester went to some lengths (although not consistently so) to dispel the myth that adolescence is inevitably a time of "storm and stress."

rw: As I said in one of our previous exchanges, I see a tendency in all ideologues to complexify and gravitate towards more and more controls within. Perhaps this plays along with other factors to create an atmosphere in which thunderstorms arise…referring back to the original analogy I gave above. It might also be helpful if we allow ourselves to take the long, historical view rather than search among fads and fashions that come and go within the older traditions.

mike: This may also be religion-specific. I understand that you are focusing on general trends, but my church seems to be tending toward emphasizing familial closeness, and has eliminated or reduced several church-wide programs in order to allow for family initiated spirituality--although I will admit that our church is very unified doctrinally and structurally (the same structure, instructional themes, etc. exist in L.D.S. congregations around the world as in the U.S., I could attend in Japan next week and here the following and still be on the same page as my own congregation

rw: Amazingly ironic that you should draw a conversation with someone touting science as the savior of the world:^D.

mike: Oh, but I don't intend to minimize the contributions of science. My church has historically supported the efforts of science. They have also established several universities and colleges historically (including the University of Utah which claims to be the oldest university west of the Mississipi, or Missouri, or some such river), and the current president recently established a fund to enhance the educational opportunities of members in South and Central America. I only wished to emphasize that the "scientific method" is saturated in ideology.

rw: I’m hoping insight into possible causitives will also suggest possible remedies

mike: Well, I still favor the idea that children perceive the disparities in size and power inherent in parental relationships as either an impetus to compete for survival or as an impetus to cooperate. Freud would support me on both accounts (although that doesn't bring me much comfort)--see Freud's "Civilization and its Discontents." He suggested that we cooperate only after internalizing, or repressing, our sex/aggressive drives that would otherwise be naturally focused on society (or parents). We internalize because of a sense of fear resulting in power differences. And Freud suggested that our repression could either result in favorable developments (such as cooperation and ultimately creativity stemming from sublimation), or in unfavorable results stemming from maladaptive defense mechanisms. Although I don't favor Freud's causative explainations (especially the role of the Oedipal/Electra complex), I think he had some insight into general trajectories. Adler suggested a sense of inferiority that resulted from being born helpless, which resulted in a striving for superiority. Both of these views suggest an inevitably conflict-based morality.

Piaget on the other hand suggested that two moralities exist: Heteronomous and autonomous. The first results from relationships with more powerful individuals, and the second results from interactions with peers of relatively equal status. But even Heteronomous morality is not inevitably conflict-based for Piaget. He suggested that an innate respect or awe for authority figures could account for a heirarchical morality--as opposed to Freud's inevitable sense of conflict. In addition, although Piaget recognized both moralities as important for development, neo-Piagetians have emphasized more the importance of an autonomous or consensual morality that results when equals desire to co-exist. I think all three of the above mentioned views are helpful to consider, but in the realm of psychology, I favor the Piagetian approach.

(Piaget developed his views in part while observing children playing marbles together and subsequently developing consensual rules, as well as children adopting pre-existant rules from older children and parents).

Other views of morality are also non-conflict based, such as views that suggest an innate tendancy toward empathic emotional response to others. These theorists point to the mimicry observed in infants as a precursor to this tendancy to feel what others are feeling. Infants who experience love and concern will mimic those responses, and, of course, infants who experience anger or aggression from others will more likely mimic those responses. In either case, the infant is in some sense in harmony with the "other"--whether aggressing in response to aggression, or helping in response to help.

Conflict-based moralities and conflict-free (or conflict-lite) moralities described by psychologists are not dependent on theism. Although they may be more general cases of what you describe as historical religious trends.