PCT and religion (when it is truly about the ideal or perfection) are by
definition, I would think, ultimately compatible. No religion, at least as
practiced by people, is perfect. It seems to me that we have to take a step
backwards and agree that when we discuss theory and religion, we are looking
at the past to understand what is. Hopefully, such examination leads to
understanding and to the possibility of a better future. I'm kinda trying to
focus on the here and now, though. Those of you who are interested in
background might want to read two interesting books. Ahmed Rashid's Taliban
and Yossef's Bodansky's Bin Laden. Harper's magazine this month has an
interesting article on the Gaza Strip. All this stuff seems to indicate that
the rubber band demonstration says something about real life.
Fred Good
[From Rick Marken (2001.10.18.0840)]
Fred Good writes:
PCT and religion (when it is truly about the ideal or perfection) are by
definition, I would think, ultimately compatible.
Religion is something people do (control for). A religion is a set of rules,
principles and system concept perceptions that are maintained in particular
states. The states in which all these perceptions are maintained defines the
religion. So religion is _part_ of PCT, just as is PCT itself is a part of PCT
(since PCT is itself a set of perceptions people control for). So PCT and
religion are no more compatible (or incompatible) than PCT and catching
baseballs or PCT and buying bread.
According to PCT, we control religious system concepts by varying references
for lower level perceptions, like principles (values) and programs (rituals). I
think this is where people get the idea (basically correct, from a PCT
perspective) that our values are derived from our religious beliefs. But
religious beliefs are not our only system concepts and, thus, not the only
source of references for our values and rituals. So the references set for our
lower level values and rituals must satisfy several system concepts
simultaneously. This can lead to conflict. For example, many of the
Deuteronomic laws (values) of Judaism (such as the requirement to stone unruly
children) conflict with the laws (values) of modern democracy. The solution (in
western societies, anyway) has been a long, painful process of revision of the
religious system concepts so that conflicts between religions and secular
system concepts are reduced. This process has not been perfect, of course;
there are still conflicts within certain individuals between principles derived
from religious and secular system concepts. But, by and large, the West has
reached a point where individuals can control for both secular democratic and
religious system concepts simultaneously. I think this has clearly not
happened, by and large, in the Islamic east.
Islam is no better or worse, as a religion, than any other religion. The
problem in Islamic societies is that they have not learned what it has taken
the West a _very_ painful 2000+ years to learn: how to control for secular
democratic and religious system concepts simultaneously. I think what we have
done in the West to reduce the conflict (intra and interpersonal) that could
result from simultaneous control of secular democratic and religious system
concepts is to develop the idea that religious system concepts are the basis of
_personal fulfillment_, not the basis for _social order_. That is, in the
West, some very cool thinkers in the 1700s and 1800s managed to "go up a level"
and see that system concepts (like religions, democracy, scientific theories)
are controlled for an even higher level reason. Some, like democracy, should be
controlled for the sake of the higher level goal of social order; others, like
religion and science, should be controlled for the sake of personal
fulfillment. Western thinkers realized (I think) that when you control system
concepts for the wrong higher level reasons all hell breaks loose, as, indeed,
it did on Sept. 11.
So I submit that it's not any particular religion that's the problem (if you
consider the intention to murder innocent people a problem). I submit that
there is a control level higher than system concepts -- the level at which we
find religions. These higher level systems control perceptions by setting
references for religion (and other systems concepts). It's the level that
defines what system concepts are for. It's the level that can perceive
_personal fulfillment_ and _social order_ as goals. I don't know what to call
this level -- "place in the world" perhaps -- but I think it's existence is
evident in the difference in the attitude of different cultures toward system
concepts like religion and democracy.
Best regards
Rick
ยทยทยท
--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org
[From Bruce Gregory 92001.1018.1343)]
Rick Marken (2001.10.18.0840)]
So I submit that it's not any particular religion that's the problem (if you
consider the intention to murder innocent people a problem). I submit that
there is a control level higher than system concepts -- the level at which we
find religions. These higher level systems control perceptions by setting
references for religion (and other systems concepts). It's the level that
defines what system concepts are for. It's the level that can perceive
_personal fulfillment_ and _social order_ as goals. I don't know what to call
this level -- "place in the world" perhaps -- but I think it's existence is
evident in the difference in the attitude of different cultures toward system
concepts like religion and democracy.
An interesting idea. This higher-level control system would, like all
higher control systems, have to be the result of reorganization. I agree it
seems plausible that most of the pre-industrial world has not yet
confronted situations that have led to such reorganization in significant
fractions of the population.
[
from Bill Powers (2001.10.18.1245 MDT)]
Rick Marken (2001.10.18.0840)0--
Islam is no better or worse, as a religion, than any other religion. The
problem in Islamic societies is that they have not learned what it has taken
the West a _very_ painful 2000+ years to learn: how to control for secular
democratic and religious system concepts simultaneously.
It's hard to find a level-headed way to think about religion, politics,
philosophy, and all that. I think you've found some attitudes that we all
could adopt with profit. I liked this post a lot.
Best,
Bill P.