Religionus control systems

From ssaunde@olc.edu Sat Oct 27 08:47:44 2001

Received: from ssaunde by igor with local (Exim 2.05 #1 (Debian))
        id 15xUkQ-0003tm-00; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 08:47:44 -0600
Received: from mail.olc.edu
        by fetchmail-4.6.4 IMAP
        for <ssaunde/localhost> (single-drop); Sat, 27 Oct 2001 08:47:42 MDT
Received: from weird-jeep.neonova.net (mail.gwtc.net [137.118.129.3]) by mail.olc.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13)
        id VRMA8GCR; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 08:18:35 -0600
Received: from [64.251.161.39] (HELO igor)
  by weird-jeep.neonova.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.8)
  with ESMTP id 38106099 for ssaunders@olc.edu; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 10:25:40 -0400
Received: from mail by igor with local (Exim 2.05 #1 (Debian))
        id 15xHWY-0003VB-00; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 18:40:30 -0600
X-Failed-Recipients: csgnet@postoffice.cso.uiuc.edu

···

From: Mail Delivery System <Mailer-Daemon@olc.edu>
To: ssaunders@olc.edu
Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender
Message-Id: <E15xHWY-0003VB-00@igor>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 18:40:30 -0600
Sender: Samuel Spence Saunders <ssaunde@olc.edu>
Status: RO
Content-Length: 2125
Lines: 48

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.

A message that you sent could not be delivered to all of its recipients. The
following address(es) failed:

  csgnet@postoffice.cso.uiuc.edu:
    SMTP error from remote mailer after RCPT TO:
    <csgnet@postoffice.cso.uiuc.edu>:
    host mail.gwtc.net [137.118.129.3]:
    571 csgnet@postoffice.cso.uiuc.edu we do not relay

------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------

Return-path: <ssaunders@olc.edu>
Received: from ssaunde by igor with local (Exim 2.05 #1 (Debian))
        id 15xHLq-0003UP-00; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 18:29:26 -0600
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 18:29:26 -0600
From: Samuel Spence Saunders <ssaunders@olc.edu>
To: Control Systems Group <csgnet@postoffice.cso.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Psychology of religion
Message-ID: <20011026182926.B13369@olc.edu>
Reply-To: ssaunders@olc.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
Sender: ssaunders@olc.edu

{From Samuel Spence Saunders (26 October 2001:17:55 MDT)}

I usually try to avoid topics like this. I thought I should mention, as a
possible model, a suggestion made by one of my undergraduate students in a
class discussion last week. She noted that something which we might label a
spiritual urge or need appears to be essentially universal in humans. This
might indicate an intrinsic variable. She suggested that religions might
then arrise from action of the (re)organizing system acting (in a particular
cultural context) to build control systems to bring this "sprititaul need"
to its genetically programmed reference. Changes in religion might be
expected when these control systems are no longer successful in controlling
the relevant error.

Samuel
--
Samuel Spence Saunders, Ph.D. | If man chooses oblivion, he can go right
saunders@gwtc.net | on leaving his fate to political leaders.
ssaunders@olc.edu | If he chooses Utopia, he must initiate an
                                > enormous educational campaign-immediately
                                > R. Buckminster Fuller

[From Bill Powers (2001.10.28.1103 MST)]

{From Samuel Spence Saunders (26 October 2001:17:55 MDT)}
[My student] suggested that religions might
then arrise from action of the (re)organizing system acting (in a particular
cultural context) to build control systems to bring this "spiritual need"
to its genetically programmed reference. Changes in religion might be
expected when these control systems are no longer successful in controlling
the relevant error.

I don't think the problem can be solved quite that directly. Before we can
make sense of religion, I think we need to get more specific about what
"spiritual needs" are. Given a list of needs that at least some people call
spiritual, we might be able to understand some of them in more mundane
terms, and relate them to more ordinary kinds of goals.

I've been told from time to time that I'm a "very spiritual" kind of
person, but to tell the truth I don't know what such comments mean. I don't
separate my experiences or goals into spiritual and non-spiritual types.
Maybe someone else can clarify this sort of language.

Best,

Bill P.

{From Kenny Kitzke (2001.11.1)}

<Samuel Spence Saunders (26 October 2001:17:55 MDT)>

<I usually try to avoid topics like this.>

I am glad you needed to be unusual in this case. Could you explain why this
is a topic you like to avoid?

I wish you would allow your student(s) to do some posting and dialoging on
CSGNet. It would be nice to get some fresh perspectives and have someone ask
some new questions which could be viewed innocently without impugning
anyone's motives.

<I thought I should mention, as a possible model, a suggestion made by one of
my undergraduate students in a class discussion last week. She noted that
something which we might label a spiritual urge or need appears to be
essentially universal in humans.>

It seems to me that there is a universal human spirit that is
inherent/intrinsic in all humans which is not found in any other known living
thing. But, I would not claim that a spiritual urge (meaning an urge for a
supernatural reality) is universal.

<This might indicate an intrinsic variable.>

I would like to hear more about that from her. Has she studied Chapter 14 or
B:CP? Bill seems to relate such variables to survival, which he views as the
highest human goal; the maintenance of life (something I would not see the
same way in all people).

<She suggested that religions might then arise from action of the
(re)organizing system acting (in a particular cultural context) to build
control systems to bring this "sprititaul need" to its genetically programmed
reference. Changes in religion might be expected when these control systems
are no longer successful in controlling
the relevant error.>

This does seem to have some similarities with Bill Power's reorganization
system theory. If "religion," whatever that means, is a system concept
variable, how did it get a reference value? Was it build up from beliefs?
Did it come about from some "reorganization" system unique to humans to help
ensure personal or species survival?

The student should note some particulars about Power's theory. Survival is a
learned concept; not an inherent or genetic one. His reorganization system
senses physical quantities intrinsic to the organism (intrinsic reference
levels are genetic, not learned). Is religion, or an urge for things
supernatural, some physical variable? Are they variables which are genetic
and not learned?

I am reasonably comfortable that religion is a systems level variable which
is subject to some degree of control by human action. I can't see it as
anything physical, unlearned, random or universally genetic.

But, what your student calls a spiritual urge is something that may uniquely
define humans compared to other living things, say horses, who do not possess
a human spirit. Best I know, horses have a horse spirit inherent in their
own unique genetic structure which has certain intrinsic needs and mechanisms
that relate more to what we call animal instincts with systems that control
for them.

Her concept would fit reasonably well in my Twelfth Level as some reference
perception that a particular human might have as a variable of "self" value,
purpose or meaning for which they act in various ways to attempt control in
order to reduce error from a lack of satisfying purpose.

I hope you'll share my belated comments and those of others with your student
and encourage her to comment.

Respectfully,

Kenny