FAQ
It is currently Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:43 am


Author Message
Unity+
Post  Post subject: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2014 10:23 pm
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 1:42 pm
Posts: 25

Offline
(I posted this topic on another forum, but since it isn't getting attention, I thought I could get some thoughts from this forum).
Sorry if I couldn't make a good title for the speculation, but that is all I had.

NOTE: Religion is not, in this paper, associated with the metaphysical aspects. It is only related to its effect in a group. Also, prosperous has many definitions, but in this case has the definition of stability in relation to goals and agendas of a society. The definition in relation to the idea may change to better suit the idea.

Also, this idea is still in progress. Later on, the idea may not work out in the end. however I have been thinking about the idea and thought I might post it here to get peer review. I never planned to even have the paper read by others because I have no experience in political science, but thought the idea might explore somethings. Of course, I might be wrong.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-fG ... sp=sharing

Quote

Summary of idea: Religion is a necessary "myth" in order for a political system or economic system to be prosperous. This is due to its panoptic elements in a society(the works of Michel Foucault go into greater detail on the more complex Panopticon) set by religion. This can be seen in real life experiences of history and experimentation that has been done. Examples are the United States democratic capitalist system and a Buddhist society that has successfully adopted the Communist system, but with an instilled religion. An experiment done with Rhesus monkeys shows how the physical model of the Panopticon, developed by Jeremy Bentham, has had an effect on implementing the idea of "sin" into Rhesus monkeys. Any system has the possibility of being prosperous, whether it is Capitalism or Communism, if a religion is implemented within the people in order to implement the Panopticon ideals within that society.

This draft is incomplete. It is all that I have written so far.

EDIT: I have left the Buddhist community example nameless because I remember watching a documentary on a Buddhist society(can't remember where) in one of my classes that showed a "prosperous" community that lived on the ideals of Communism. If anyone could give a reference to this society, I would be glad. I wonder why I don't keep my lecture notes for certain classes. :oops:

References:

Jeremy Bentham's Panopticon letters: http://cartome.org/panopticon2.htm

Michel Foucault's book: http://zulfahmed.files.wordpress.com/20 ... punish.pdf

NOTE2: Some of the papers I have cited in the paper are from my college library. I don't know if they are accessible anywhere else. If you need a quote from the sources, I can happily provide them.

NOTE3: The equations in the paper are more in-theory than actual logical equations. They are a template as to what the equations might look like.

NOTE4: The human function is something to describe human error, as in case examples with the Black-Scholes model and how it failed to account for the human element, or error. When a group used it as a way to discover its implications, it began failing to a certain point. There is another documentary that talks about this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKXwBD4Ji4k

The documentary later talks about how it failed because of worldly events(the human element/error).

I don't know if this would be just classified as a hypothesis or simply just an idea, so the title is that way because of this.

_________________
"An American monkey, after getting drunk on brandy, would never touch it again, and thus is much wiser than most men" - Charles Darwin


Top
Rory
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2014 12:23 am
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1921

Offline
Yes, it is essentially a hypothesis. The null hypothesis would be that religiosity has zero impact on national prosperity. There is always the problem in political and social sciences that it is impossible to control for confounding variables; you cannot demand of a populace that they temporarily lose their religion while you gauge the resulting effect on national prosperity! As such it is not possible to establish with confidence any causal relationship although you may, by analysing data relating to religious habits and economic wellbeing, be able to establish associations. Any single instance of a prosperous and secular nation will immediately refute the hypothesis that religion is necessary for national prosperity.

_________________
If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim


Top
Rory
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2014 12:43 am
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1921

Offline
You might want to include commentary on the fact that digital surveillance of citizens has now filled the vacuum left by secularisation. It strikes me that such behaviour management methods may work to increase productivity in the short term when workers are presented with linear work flows but for the types of work that are more convoluted and involve higher order thinking/creativity/talent/initiative then such methods will only stifle productivity. Quite apart from the issue of productivity, the requirement to blindly submit to authority figures stunts personal growth. If a person is doing commendable things only because they were instructed to do them then they are not necessarily a good person; they only know how to obey.

_________________
If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim


Top
Unity+
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2014 1:43 am
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 1:42 pm
Posts: 25

Offline
Rory wrote:
Yes, it is essentially a hypothesis. The null hypothesis would be that religiosity has zero impact on national prosperity. There is always the problem in political and social sciences that it is impossible to control for confounding variables; you cannot demand of a populace that they temporarily lose their religion while you gauge the resulting effect on national prosperity! As such it is not possible to establish with confidence any causal relationship although you may, by analysing data relating to religious habits and economic wellbeing, be able to establish associations. Any single instance of a prosperous and secular nation will immediately refute the hypothesis that religion is necessary for national prosperity.

This is why I don't like using the term religion to describe it because of its association. I am strictly using the essential definition of it:

"A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

_________________
"An American monkey, after getting drunk on brandy, would never touch it again, and thus is much wiser than most men" - Charles Darwin


Top
Unity+
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2014 1:45 am
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 1:42 pm
Posts: 25

Offline
Rory wrote:
You might want to include commentary on the fact that digital surveillance of citizens has now filled the vacuum left by secularisation. It strikes me that such behaviour management methods may work to increase productivity in the short term when workers are presented with linear work flows but for the types of work that are more convoluted and involve higher order thinking/creativity/talent/initiative then such methods will only stifle productivity. Quite apart from the issue of productivity, the requirement to blindly submit to authority figures stunts personal growth. If a person is doing commendable things only because they were instructed to do them then they are not necessarily a good person; they only know how to obey.

The hypothesis I have brought up describes this. Essentially, in this case, the result is the dynamics of said religion. Again, this hypothesis relies on the pure essence of the definition of religion.

_________________
"An American monkey, after getting drunk on brandy, would never touch it again, and thus is much wiser than most men" - Charles Darwin


Top
Rory
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2014 10:00 am
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1921

Offline
The difficulty with defining religion thus is that it risks being all-encompassing. At what point do beliefs, culture and world views become a religion? If everybody is to be defined as religious then the hypothesis is untestable.

_________________
If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2014 11:20 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5723
Location: Iowa

Offline
That's a key point for me. This is better described as culture or social mores, IMO. Also, atheistic societies such as those in Scandanavia do quite well and are extremely prosperous, and I believe good arguments can be made that numerous non-human animals thrive despite their obvious lack of religion or economic doctrine. All of these points seem to illuminate critical weaknesses in the core idea.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Unity+
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:55 pm
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 1:42 pm
Posts: 25

Offline
iNow wrote:
That's a key point for me. This is better described as culture or social mores, IMO. Also, atheistic societies such as those in Scandanavia do quite well and are extremely prosperous, and I believe good arguments can be made that numerous non-human animals thrive despite their obvious lack of religion or economic doctrine. All of these points seem to illuminate critical weaknesses in the core idea.

Well, Atheism does not remove the whole definition of religion, as if a religion were to be also Theist. I don't think the description of Theist or Atheist describes whether a set of beliefs is religious or not. Atheistic Humanism, I think, could be seen as a religion by definition. Because of this, I think a new term would be needed to describe the concept.

_________________
"An American monkey, after getting drunk on brandy, would never touch it again, and thus is much wiser than most men" - Charles Darwin


Top
Unity+
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:57 pm
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 1:42 pm
Posts: 25

Offline
Rory wrote:
The difficulty with defining religion thus is that it risks being all-encompassing. At what point do beliefs, culture and world views become a religion? If everybody is to be defined as religious then the hypothesis is untestable.

This is why I originally felt like not posting the paper because I felt like it was more of a philosophical concept rather than a scientific investigation. However, I thought it was a scientific investigation because of the psychological concepts involved, such as the Panopticon.

_________________
"An American monkey, after getting drunk on brandy, would never touch it again, and thus is much wiser than most men" - Charles Darwin


Top
Rory
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2014 10:28 pm
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1921

Offline
It might help to clarify which aspect of belief/cuture/worldview is being investigated in relation to prosperity:

i) the means by which individuals acquire the set of beliefs/culture/worldview e.g. faith, authority, tradition, reason
ii) the actual beliefs themselves e.g. theism, atheism, humanism, other
iii) the means by which the espousal of those beliefs is ensured e.g. societal coersion, unwritten convention, pressure from authority figures, independent decision

In reality only people who live in complete isolation and have done so from birth can be said to lack belief/culture/worldview. By the time a person has come of age to be able to comprehend what it means to make an independent reasoned decision their psychology has already been clouded by external influences.

One potentially interesting experiment, that has probably already been performed and made available in the literature, would be to observe how people's behaviour changes when they are conscious vs unaware of being watched by an authority figure. You could then also see how people's behaviour changes when the stated value system of the authority figure changes.

_________________
If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim


Top
Unity+
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2014 10:53 pm
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 1:42 pm
Posts: 25

Offline
Rory wrote:
It might help to clarify which aspect of belief/cuture/worldview is being investigated in relation to prosperity:

i) the means by which individuals acquire the set of beliefs/culture/worldview e.g. faith, authority, tradition, reason
ii) the actual beliefs themselves e.g. theism, atheism, humanism, other
iii) the means by which the espousal of those beliefs is ensured e.g. societal coersion, unwritten convention, pressure from authority figures, independent decision

In reality only people who live in complete isolation and have done so from birth can be said to lack belief/culture/worldview. By the time a person has come of age to be able to comprehend what it means to make an independent reasoned decision their psychology has already been clouded by external influences.

One potentially interesting experiment, that has probably already been performed and made available in the literature, would be to observe how people's behaviour changes when they are conscious vs unaware of being watched by an authority figure. You could then also see how people's behaviour changes when the stated value system of the authority figure changes.

Out of those options, the last one fits best, although the other two options are factors.

There was an experiment done with Rhesus monkeys, which I include within the paper:

Quote:
On a more primitive level of the concept, an experiment was done with four Rhesus monkeys involving their interaction with an object when in different environments. The test involved both having the monkeys being isolated with an object and then being with another Rhesus monkeys with the object. The punishing act involved using blasts of air on the monkeys. Whenever an isolated monkey began manipulating the object, an air blast was used and the monkey would be punished. When a “naive” monkey was put in the same room as the punished monkey, the two monkeys’ interactions would be observed. The test was repeated to determine possible error. After the experimentation was done, the data showed that “the manipulation tendency of a subject was affected by the presence of a second subject.” This type of system is described in Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, where physical punishment is what implements the ‘internalized gaze’ of control. Foucault's modification of the system involves something similar, but instead of using physical punishment as the catalyst into an “ordered” society, social pressures are used, described as the ‘internalized gaze.


I have been looking both online and in my college library for such an experiment, and have failed in doing so. The Rhesus monkey experiment is the only one in relation to the hypothesis. Of course, I admit my googlefu has been lacking recently.

_________________
"An American monkey, after getting drunk on brandy, would never touch it again, and thus is much wiser than most men" - Charles Darwin


Top
Prometheus
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2015 1:43 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 8:58 am
Posts: 314

Offline
Unity+ wrote:
NOTE: Religion is not, in this paper, associated with the metaphysical aspects. It is only related to its effect in a group. Also, prosperous has many definitions, but in this case has the definition of stability in relation to goals and agendas of a society. The definition in relation to the idea may change to better suit the idea.

Summary of idea: Religion is a necessary "myth" in order for a political system or economic system to be prosperous. This is due to its panoptic elements in a society(the works of Michel Foucault go into greater detail on the more complex Panopticon) set by religion. This can be seen in real life experiences of history and experimentation that has been done. Examples are the United States democratic capitalist system and a Buddhist society that has successfully adopted the Communist system, but with an instilled religion. An experiment done with Rhesus monkeys shows how the physical model of the Panopticon, developed by Jeremy Bentham, has had an effect on implementing the idea of "sin" into Rhesus monkeys. Any system has the possibility of being prosperous, whether it is Capitalism or Communism, if a religion is implemented within the people in order to implement the Panopticon ideals within that society.


Given the definitions of religion and, particularly, prosperous you have given, are you not in effect saying for a society to have stability of goals and agendas it needs common goals and agendas (provided by 'religion')?


Top
Unity+
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2015 1:55 am
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 1:42 pm
Posts: 25

Offline
Prometheus wrote:
Unity+ wrote:
NOTE: Religion is not, in this paper, associated with the metaphysical aspects. It is only related to its effect in a group. Also, prosperous has many definitions, but in this case has the definition of stability in relation to goals and agendas of a society. The definition in relation to the idea may change to better suit the idea.

Summary of idea: Religion is a necessary "myth" in order for a political system or economic system to be prosperous. This is due to its panoptic elements in a society(the works of Michel Foucault go into greater detail on the more complex Panopticon) set by religion. This can be seen in real life experiences of history and experimentation that has been done. Examples are the United States democratic capitalist system and a Buddhist society that has successfully adopted the Communist system, but with an instilled religion. An experiment done with Rhesus monkeys shows how the physical model of the Panopticon, developed by Jeremy Bentham, has had an effect on implementing the idea of "sin" into Rhesus monkeys. Any system has the possibility of being prosperous, whether it is Capitalism or Communism, if a religion is implemented within the people in order to implement the Panopticon ideals within that society.


Given the definitions of religion and, particularly, prosperous you have given, are you not in effect saying for a society to have stability of goals and agendas it needs common goals and agendas (provided by 'religion')?

That, on a basic level, is what really is the hypothesis, although it is only a basic understanding of the hypothesis. There is a more complex way of thinking about it.

_________________
"An American monkey, after getting drunk on brandy, would never touch it again, and thus is much wiser than most men" - Charles Darwin


Top
Rory
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2015 9:29 am
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1921

Offline
It is entirely possible for a nation to have stable goals and agendas reinforced by religious conviction and for those goals and agendas to be harmful rather than useful in achieving prosperity.

_________________
If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim


Top
Prometheus
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:53 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 8:58 am
Posts: 314

Offline
Unity+ wrote:
That, on a basic level, is what really is the hypothesis, although it is only a basic understanding of the hypothesis. There is a more complex way of thinking about it.


I always start with the most basic understanding as i often struggle even with that. You posted quite a lot, haven't looked at it properly yet, but it is an interesting premise - that humanity needs a common cause. I did watch the clip about the Black-Scholes equation though, i'm studying it a bit at the moment in class, but i don't appreciate its relevance to the rest of your post yet.


Top
Unity+
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2015 3:59 am
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 1:42 pm
Posts: 25

Offline
Rory wrote:
It is entirely possible for a nation to have stable goals and agendas reinforced by religious conviction and for those goals and agendas to be harmful rather than useful in achieving prosperity.

Well, harmful is merely in the frame of the people outside the system rather than within the system. If such is not taken into consideration, prosperity is merely defined by the stability of a system rather than the viewpoint of morality by external forces.

_________________
"An American monkey, after getting drunk on brandy, would never touch it again, and thus is much wiser than most men" - Charles Darwin


Top
Unity+
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2015 4:01 am
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 1:42 pm
Posts: 25

Offline
Prometheus wrote:
Unity+ wrote:
That, on a basic level, is what really is the hypothesis, although it is only a basic understanding of the hypothesis. There is a more complex way of thinking about it.


I always start with the most basic understanding as i often struggle even with that. You posted quite a lot, haven't looked at it properly yet, but it is an interesting premise - that humanity needs a common cause. I did watch the clip about the Black-Scholes equation though, i'm studying it a bit at the moment in class, but i don't appreciate its relevance to the rest of your post yet.

The relevance of the Black-Scholes equation is mainly an event that occurred when applying the model. I can't remember which clip of the documentary talks about this, but a clip begins to talk about how the equation was being used commonly by others to increase profits through the stock market. However, a unpredictable event occurred: human events(wars, famines, etc.). This is in relevance to how the human element had resulted in the destabilization of a system.

_________________
"An American monkey, after getting drunk on brandy, would never touch it again, and thus is much wiser than most men" - Charles Darwin


Top
Prometheus
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2015 12:10 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 8:58 am
Posts: 314

Offline
The failure of the model was likely that the people using it ignored the assumptions under which it was made. Apparently that's very common in economics, which i find bizarre as it's drilled in from day one in physics.

I've found the entire video for the clip you gave, i'll watch that and get back to you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmvxZgnwwD4



Top
Unity+
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2015 2:32 pm
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 1:42 pm
Posts: 25

Offline
Is there any way I can gain access to information to regards to the chronological order in which major religions were founded? I have searched and all I have found is sites that seem to say different things. Is there an official document that states the currently known or accepted order?

_________________
"An American monkey, after getting drunk on brandy, would never touch it again, and thus is much wiser than most men" - Charles Darwin


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2015 3:21 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5723
Location: Iowa

Offline
Unity+ wrote:
Is there any way I can gain access to information to regards to the chronological order in which major religions were founded?


The wiki is pretty robust and appears well sourced in the citations section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_religion

If looking mostly for the Abrahamic and monotheistic top 3 we still see today, this page is helpful: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/globalconnectio ... wanted=all



Finally, here's a rough cut from another source:

Image

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Unity+
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 12:22 am
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 1:42 pm
Posts: 25

Offline
iNow wrote:
Unity+ wrote:
Is there any way I can gain access to information to regards to the chronological order in which major religions were founded?


The wiki is pretty robust and appears well sourced in the citations section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_religion

If looking mostly for the Abrahamic and monotheistic top 3 we still see today, this page is helpful: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/globalconnectio ... wanted=all



Finally, here's a rough cut from another source:

Image

Thanks for the information. I am trying to see if the chronological developments of religion can give insight into how the Panoptic concept may have evolved over the centuries.

_________________
"An American monkey, after getting drunk on brandy, would never touch it again, and thus is much wiser than most men" - Charles Darwin


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 12:44 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5723
Location: Iowa

Offline
Interesting idea. Sounds like it could be a cool area to research. Good luck!

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Unity+
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 1:46 am
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 1:42 pm
Posts: 25

Offline
I think this is an interesting transition that might breed further discussion:

Quote:
The earliest evidence of Hominids, such as Neanderthals[2][3] and even Homo heidelbergensis,[3][4] deliberately disposing of deceased individuals usually in funerary caches. The graves, located throughout Eurasia (e.g. the Pontnewydd Cave (Wales), Atapuerca Mountains (Spain), Qafzeh, Es Skhul, Krapina (Croatia),[3] are believed to represent the beginnings of ceremonial rites, although there is some debate about this.[5] Neanderthals placed their deceased in simple graves with little or no concern for grave goods or markers; however, their graves occasionally appeared with limestone blocks in or on them, possibly an archaic form of grave marking.[3] These practices were possibly the result of empathetic feelings towards fellow tribespeople, for example: an infant buried in the Dederiyeh Cave after its joints had disarticulated was placed with concern for the correct anatomical arrangement of its body parts.[3]


Quote:
The Neolithic Revolution begins and results in a worldwide population explosion. The first cities, states, kingdoms, and organized religions begin to emerge. The early states were usually theocracies, in which the political power is justified by religious prestige. Beginning of First Sangam period in South India.


First, religion is the concept in relation to death and sorrow, but then it transitions to a rule of power among a society.

_________________
"An American monkey, after getting drunk on brandy, would never touch it again, and thus is much wiser than most men" - Charles Darwin


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 5:09 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5723
Location: Iowa

Offline
How are you separating the belief and deity components from the social and ritualistic components of religion?

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Rory
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 10:46 am
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1921

Offline
Unity+ Please could you expand on how you are defining 'prosperous'? Earlier you suggested that the term ought not to be defined according to the economic/moral cultural standards of contemporary society - but there are various ways in which a person may believe that the culture of which they are a participant leads to prosperity when, in fact, if you remove the person from the situational context and give them time for independent thought or the opportunity to pursue other options, they will change their mind. Like in psychologically coercive relationships, the subject may believe that the micro-culture of their relationship promotes his/her own interests (prosperity) but if you remove them from that relationship and present to them new options to pursue, they will change their mind.

If your hypothesis is 'stable cultures and ideologies require stable culture and ideologies' then it is no more worth pursuing than 'umbrella ownership requires umbrella ownership'.

_________________
If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim


Top
Unity+
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:03 pm
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 1:42 pm
Posts: 25

Offline
Rory wrote:
Unity+ Please could you expand on how you are defining 'prosperous'? Earlier you suggested that the term ought not to be defined according to the economic/moral cultural standards of contemporary society

I think what I meant was it is a stable society - in the context of entropy. If a society is stable, it may have some entropy, but in the long run it remains stable. If has too much entropy, it will collapse(more would have to be said about collapse, maybe the society breaks into multiple societies that become stable?).

Quote:
if you remove the person from the situational context and give them time for independent thought or the opportunity to pursue other options, they will change their mind. Like in psychologically coercive relationships, the subject may believe that the micro-culture of their relationship promotes his/her own interests (prosperity) but if you remove them from that relationship and present to them new options to pursue, they will change their mind.

Yes but that is if you remove them from that context. The point of a Panoptic society is external forces either have no or very little effect on the society within unless external forces were implemented within the society's standards. There are many factors that are involved with this dilemma, as well, I would assume.

Quote:
If your hypothesis is 'stable cultures and ideologies require stable culture and ideologies' then it is no more worth pursuing than 'umbrella ownership requires umbrella ownership'.

The hypothesis is more in relation to 'stable cultures and ideologies require a foundation that is formed by a Panoptic society,' if that makes sense.

_________________
"An American monkey, after getting drunk on brandy, would never touch it again, and thus is much wiser than most men" - Charles Darwin


Top
Unity+
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:06 pm
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 1:42 pm
Posts: 25

Offline
iNow wrote:
How are you separating the belief and deity components from the social and ritualistic components of religion?

That is something I am still trying to figure out, to be honest. The ideology and belief/deity, although not the whole aspect necessary, seems to be a requirement for the ritualistic components of a religion to be effective. I could relate it to the placebo effect, but in reality I think I would need to delve into this aspect of the hypothesis a bit more.

_________________
"An American monkey, after getting drunk on brandy, would never touch it again, and thus is much wiser than most men" - Charles Darwin


Top
Rory
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 4:41 pm
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1921

Offline
Quote:
Unity+ wrote:
The ideology and belief/deity, although not the whole aspect necessary, seems to be a requirement for the ritualistic components of a religion to be effective


The two aspects probably reinforce one another. If you are a child introduced to a particular religion by a parent then you essentially adopt the ritual before you even appreciate the ideology; if you are an adult choosing a religion, you probably start with the ideology and reinforce with community-based ritual. Although ritual itself (in terms of turning up to a physical place of worship) is not a necessary component of religion.

_________________
If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 4:58 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5723
Location: Iowa

Offline
Part of the reason I asked is because I believe ritual is a better word here to describe your idea than is religion. What you ascribe to religion is IMO better ascribed to human ritual, especially since ritual predates religion.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Unity+
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 6:28 pm
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 1:42 pm
Posts: 25

Offline
iNow wrote:
Part of the reason I asked is because I believe ritual is a better word here to describe your idea than is religion. What you ascribe to religion is IMO better ascribed to human ritual, especially since ritual predates religion.

It might be a better term. I can see the argument, since rituals are seen with Neanderthals and their burial procedures.

EDIT: Another reason why religion was the term I used was because of the way the Panopticon, in this context, worked. Essentially, there are two ways of rule: human direct and human-indirect rule. Human direct rule is where one human/multiple are the ones in control of the system. Human indirect rule involves the existence of the "imaginary man"(and by this I mean the "being" created in the minds of individuals involves within the Panoptic society). I hope this makes sense.

EDIT2: This is also the reason why I wanted to investigate the evolution of human religion. If there is a definite transition between the types of religions formed in different centuries, it would show the evolution of the Panoptic element involved within such societies.

_________________
"An American monkey, after getting drunk on brandy, would never touch it again, and thus is much wiser than most men" - Charles Darwin


Top
Rory
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 11:35 pm
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1921

Offline
The untouchable transcendance of an immortal Panoptic element might lead to greater societal stability by overcoming the fallibilities of humankind - the hypocrisy of the corrupt human leader is overcome by observing the fact that even the leader is "only human". The unattainable moral standard is the silent watcher.

_________________
If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim


Top
Unity+
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2015 1:02 am
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 1:42 pm
Posts: 25

Offline
Rory wrote:
The untouchable transcendance of an immortal Panoptic element might lead to greater societal stability by overcoming the fallibilities of humankind - the hypocrisy of the corrupt human leader is overcome by observing the fact that even the leader is "only human". The unattainable moral standard is the silent watcher.

Yes, this is the model of the hypothesis, essentially. Basically, the Panoptic element, or the untouchable transcendance, is the "perfect being" which cannot be questioned, since it is merely a formation of the mind. Since this is the case, the mysterious nature of the "being" allows for both the existence and the ideology that goes along with it(Panoptic element as well) to succeed.

EDIT: In reference to an earlier post, I think an example of the "bubble effect" in regards to stable societies is the break down of religions into different sects.

_________________
"An American monkey, after getting drunk on brandy, would never touch it again, and thus is much wiser than most men" - Charles Darwin


Top
Rory
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2015 1:17 am
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1921

Offline
Ultimate objective reality as the Panopticon of Science?

_________________
If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim


Top
Unity+
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2015 1:41 am
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 1:42 pm
Posts: 25

Offline
Rory wrote:
Ultimate objective reality as the Panopticon of Science?

That would most likely be the case, although the investigation of these different Panoptic ideologies would require further investigation.

_________________
"An American monkey, after getting drunk on brandy, would never touch it again, and thus is much wiser than most men" - Charles Darwin


Top
Unity+
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 7:42 pm
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 1:42 pm
Posts: 25

Offline
Anymore thoughts? Concerns? I'm going to continue the research in regards to the chronology of religion.

_________________
"An American monkey, after getting drunk on brandy, would never touch it again, and thus is much wiser than most men" - Charles Darwin


Top
Rory
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 8:52 pm
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1921

Offline
Personally I'm just not sure how novel the hypothesis is. It would not be surprising if a Panoptic element contributed to the stability of religions. In the same way, nobody would find it exciting if you told them that online behaviour changes in the workplace depending on whether or not the employees are aware of the fact that their online activity may be monitored.

_________________
If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim


Top
Unity+
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 9:28 pm
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 1:42 pm
Posts: 25

Offline
Rory wrote:
Personally I'm just not sure how novel the hypothesis is. It would not be surprising if a Panoptic element contributed to the stability of religions. In the same way, nobody would find it exciting if you told them that online behaviour changes in the workplace depending on whether or not the employees are aware of the fact that their online activity may be monitored.

It isn't about how novel the idea is, rather about the scientific significance of it. I wouldn't really care if a person on the side of the street cared. ;)

_________________
"An American monkey, after getting drunk on brandy, would never touch it again, and thus is much wiser than most men" - Charles Darwin


Top
Rory
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 11:48 am
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1921

Offline
Quote:
Unity+ wrote:
I wouldn't really care if a person on the side of the street cared.


The point is that the person on the side of the street could already tell you what you aim to investigate.

Reinvent the wheel and he's not going to care.

_________________
If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim


Top
Rory
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 4:55 pm
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1921

Offline
One way to increase the novelty of the concept might be to, after charting the history and philosophical implications, make predictions or proposals as to how to destabilise destructive inhumane regimes such as ISIS.

_________________
If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim


Top
Unity+
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:49 pm
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 1:42 pm
Posts: 25

Offline
Rory wrote:
One way to increase the novelty of the concept might be to, after charting the history and philosophical implications, make predictions or proposals as to how to destabilise destructive inhumane regimes such as ISIS.

Well, one proposal is the injection of an external force within the Panoptic society without extreme injection, I.e destabilize the group and have the system break down into sects. With such extremes, they will be more willing to attack each other than anything, leading to self-destruction.

_________________
"An American monkey, after getting drunk on brandy, would never touch it again, and thus is much wiser than most men" - Charles Darwin


Top
Unity+
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 7:29 pm
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 1:42 pm
Posts: 25

Offline
Rory wrote:
Quote:
Unity+ wrote:
I wouldn't really care if a person on the side of the street cared.


The point is that the person on the side of the street could already tell you what you aim to investigate.

Reinvent the wheel and he's not going to care.

The point of the hypothesis is to provide a standing point to other things to analyze, i.e. human thought, control, and prediction of human behavior.

_________________
"An American monkey, after getting drunk on brandy, would never touch it again, and thus is much wiser than most men" - Charles Darwin


Top
Unity+
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 1:52 am
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 1:42 pm
Posts: 25

Offline
I was focusing on analyzing the stages of religion's evolution and one thing stood out: sacrifice.

Not sacrifice for the individuals, but the sacrifice for the deity. I don't know what it will lead to yet, but could provide some insight.

_________________
"An American monkey, after getting drunk on brandy, would never touch it again, and thus is much wiser than most men" - Charles Darwin


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 4:28 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5723
Location: Iowa

Offline
Not sure the semantic difference is relevant enough to matter here, but would it perhaps be better to think of this in terms of appeasement instead of sacrifice?

Sacrifice seems so selfless and altruistic, whereas what we see with historical religious practice appears to be much more about trying to please an angry god or gods.

By example, it's about finding a way to end a drought, stop the flood, or cease the hunger, not about sharing for the betterment of others, distributing limited resources, or other similar philanthropic activities.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Unity+
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 11:07 pm
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 1:42 pm
Posts: 25

Offline
iNow wrote:
Not sure the semantic difference is relevant enough to matter here, but would it perhaps be better to think of this in terms of appeasement instead of sacrifice?

Sacrifice seems so selfless and altruistic, whereas what we see with historical religious practice appears to be much more about trying to please an angry god or gods.

By example, it's about finding a way to end a drought, stop the flood, or cease the hunger, not about sharing for the betterment of others, distributing limited resources, or other similar philanthropic activities.

That is the intention of the observation.

After looking at the concept for a while, I noticed that this, in someway, reflects the human instinct of greed. Essentially, the "greed" of the diety somehow affects the instinct of the individual. I use greed in quotes because greed can be see in many lights when pertaining to each deity.

_________________
"An American monkey, after getting drunk on brandy, would never touch it again, and thus is much wiser than most men" - Charles Darwin


Top
Unity+
Post  Post subject: Re: A Necessary Myth(Hypothesis?)  |  Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2015 7:17 am
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 1:42 pm
Posts: 25

Offline
One huge example of this, I found, is the fall of Rome.

Here is a quote about what a main factor had to do with the fall of Rome:

Quote:
The decline of Rome dovetailed with the spread of Christianity, and some have argued that the rise of a new faith helped contribute to the empire’s fall. The Edict of Milan legalized Christianity in 313, and it later became the state religion in 380. These decrees ended centuries of persecution, but they may have also eroded the traditional Roman values system. Christianity displaced the polytheistic Roman religion, which viewed the emperor as having a divine status, and also shifted focus away from the glory of the state and onto a sole deity. Meanwhile, popes and other church eladers took an increased role in political affairs, further complicating governance. The 18th-century historian Edward Gibbon was the most famous proponent of this theory, but his take has since been widely criticized. While the spread of Christianity may have played a small role in curbing Roman civic virtue, most scholars now argue that its influence paled in comparison to military, economic and administrative factors.


http://www.history.com/news/history-lis ... -rome-fell

Here, we see what I would like to call the Panoptic Bubble Effect. Basically, a Panoptic system driven by the Roman traditional code of the land became in conflict with the Christian values, which lead to a bubble effect, where the society began splitting apart causing the entropy of the society to break down. This caused the economic and government systems to collapse.

_________________
"An American monkey, after getting drunk on brandy, would never touch it again, and thus is much wiser than most men" - Charles Darwin


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Print view

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
Jump to:   
cron

Delete all board cookies | The team | All times are UTC


This free forum is proudly hosted by ProphpBB | phpBB software | Report Abuse | Privacy