Religious control systems

CSGnet Archive CSG2001
1

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.1028.1230)]

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.

Does your student have any idea how evolution might have led to such an
intrinsic variable? I can't think of any.

Bruce Gregory is an ex-patriot.
He lives with the American
poet and painter Gray Jacobik
and their canine and feline familiars in
Pomfret, Connecticut.

2

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.1028.1230)]

>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.

Does your student have any idea how evolution might have led to such an
intrinsic variable? I can't think of any.

Bruce Gregory

One of the evolutionary psychological "storys" that is told is the conjecture
that human beings as infants become aware that their crying evokes the attention
of enourmous all powerful spirits that care for them. In later life the memory
of this relationship, and the magical or spiritual power of speech becomes, when
slightly transformed the capacity of prayer to evoke mercy, or whatever, from an
all powerful spirit world. Is there reason to credit this conjecture? It
doesn't depend upon an "intrinsic variable" but it does has its source in the,
as far as I know, in the relationship between parent, infant and speech or at
anyrate a percursor of speech.

Best
  Bill Williams

···

______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/

3

As I said, the variable itself is not really clear. What is the common
element behind religion and sprititual experience ? Perhaps something like
"satisfaction", "consistency", "well-being". Perhaps that state at the end
of the method of levels where there are no more levels to go up ?

I agree that identifying the intrinsic variable is key to this notion, and
until it is identified the idea is just a speculation.

···

On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 12:29:41PM -0500, Bruce Gregory wrote:

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.1028.1230)]

>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.

Does your student have any idea how evolution might have led to such an
intrinsic variable? I can't think of any.

Bruce Gregory is an ex-patriot.
He lives with the American
poet and painter Gray Jacobik
and their canine and feline familiars in
Pomfret, Connecticut.

--
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

4

[From Dag Forssell (2001.11.2 - 20.05)]

[Kenny Kitzke (2001.11.01)]

<Rick Marken (2001.11.01.1330)>

<It's good to see you being skeptical of the ideas proposed by mere humans
(in this case, by Bill Powers) but your skepticism about human ideas seems
to be rather selective. You are very skeptical of the testable ideas about
human nature that were proposed by Bill Powers in the mid-1900s (as well
you should be) but hardly skeptical at all of the untestable ideas about
human nature that were proposed by Mark, Matthew, Luke and John in the
first century AD.>

This is the kind of baiting and hitting below the belt using your speculative
perceptions of what others do or believe that upset people. To put the shoe
on the other foot for example purposes, some CSG folks seem to think this
propensity of yours may have driven certain accomplished PCT advocates off
this forum and from attending the conference. It neither will drive me off,
nor is it worth any further response IMHO.

Kenny, If by "some CSG folks" you are referring to my posts over the past
two years, you have misunderstood what upset me. CSGnet is for discussion
of PCT, which is a very physical understanding of our nervous system,
supported by simulions, modeling of this physics. PCT is not based on
appearances, as is religion. Religion is a valid topic for discussion, as
you will see if you read the issues of Closed Loop you have on your copy of
the PCT CD.

I cannot remember that you have discussed religion in terms of PCT. You
prefer to discuss PCT in terms of religion. As I understand you, you assert
all kinds of stuff about your particular religion, making it very clear you
think they are fact, while you have no supporting evidence whatsoever (as
nobody does when it comes to religion). You have made so many rather
outrageous claims in favor of your particular religion and against numerous
other religions, that you are not discussing, you are advocating. CSGnet is
not a forum for advocating religion.

You will remember how you asked me for my interpretation of respect just
over a year ago. I suggested that if you make claims on CSGnet, and you do,
you have very much willingly acquiesced to be rebuffed. To me, Rick's
remark is right on the mark, completely appropriate and not offensive in
the least.

Best, Dag

5

[From Rick Marken (2001.11.03.0920)]

Kenny Kitzke (2001.11.01)

This is the kind of baiting and hitting below the belt using your speculative
perceptions of what others do or believe that upset people. To put the shoe
on the other foot for example purposes, some CSG folks seem to think this
propensity of yours may have driven certain accomplished PCT advocates off
this forum and from attending the conference. It neither will drive me off,
nor is it worth any further response IMHO.

Dag Forssell (2001.11.2 - 20.05)--

Kenny, If by "some CSG folks" you are referring to my posts over the past
two years, you have misunderstood what upset me. CSGnet is for discussion
of PCT, which is a very physical understanding of our nervous system,
supported by simulions, modeling of this physics.

I afraid I still don't know what upset you, Dag and you message doesn't
help me much. Were you upset because I discussed something other than
PCT?

PCT is not based on appearances, as is religion.

I don't understand this either. It seems to me that PCT, like any
science, is, indeed, based on appearances (called data). Religion, it
seems to me, is more like mathematics, which is based on assumptions
(called axioms).

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

6

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.1103.1307)]

Rick Marken (2001.11.03.0920)

I afraid I still don't know what upset you, Dag and you message doesn't
help me much. Were you upset because I discussed something other than
PCT?

Dag's comments seem to be explicitly addressed to Kenny. Particularly since
he goes on to say, "To me, Rick's
remark is right on the mark, completely appropriate and not offensive in
the least. "

> PCT is not based on appearances, as is religion.

I don't understand this either. It seems to me that PCT, like any
science, is, indeed, based on appearances (called data). Religion, it
seems to me, is more like mathematics, which is based on assumptions
(called axioms).

Explanations are always based on assumptions and I tend to favor a
minimalist set of assumptions. I assume that the world which individuals
encounter consists of two elements: their experiences and the stories they
tell about these experiences. One thing I find interesting is the number
and kind of stories that an individual holds immune to challenge as well as
the sorts of challenges the individual is willing to entertain. In science,
there is broad agreement that higher level stories (theories) can always be
challenged by lower level stories (observations). In religion, higher-level
stories are largely immune to challenge. The highest level stories are
absolutely immune to challenge. Anyone who raises such a challenge is
likely to be labeled a heretic. Once you know which stories a person holds
immune to challenge you can save yourself much grief by avoiding
discussions that the person might see as challenges to those stories.

Bruce Gregory is an ex-patriot.
He lives with the American
poet and painter Gray Jacobik
and their canine and feline familiars in
Pomfret, Connecticut.

7

[From Rick Marken (2001.11.03.1745)]

Kenny Kitzke (2001.11.01) to me:

This is the kind of baiting and hitting below the belt
using your speculative perceptions of what others do or
believe that upset people.

Dag Forssell (2001.11.2 - 20.05) to Kenny --

Kenny, If by "some CSG folks" you are referring to my
posts over the past two years, you have misunderstood what
upset me. CSGnet is for discussion of PCT, which is a very
physical understanding of our nervous system, supported by
simulions, modeling of this physics.

Me to Dag --

I'm afraid I still don't know what upset you, Dag, and your message
doesn't help me much. Were you upset because I discussed something
other than PCT?

Bruce Gregory (2001.1103.1307) to me:

Dag's comments seem to be explicitly addressed to Kenny. Particularly
since he goes on to say, "To me, Rick's remark is right on the mark,
completely appropriate and not offensive in the least. "

Yes. I know that Dag was talking to Kenny. But Dag was explaining why he
thought my remarks to Kenny were "completely appropriate". I'm glad that
Dag thought my remarks were appropriate but I didn't understand Dag's
explanation of why he thought so. I am interested in Dag's explanation
because I have made remarks in the past that I thought were completely
appropriate and got something considerably less than Dag's approbation.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

8

[From Rick Marken (2001.11.04.0920)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.1103.1307)--

In science, there is broad agreement that higher level
stories (theories) can always be challenged by lower level
stories (observations). In religion, higher-level stories are
largely immune to challenge.

It's not so much that the stories themselves are immune to challenge
(disturbance) as that the people who care about these stories are very
good at protecting them from challenge. This, of course, is true in both
religion and science. People, being control systems, can become quite
skillful at acting to defend their beliefs, scientific or religious,
from challenge.

I think what distinguishes religion from science is not the inherent
"immutability" of the stories but, rather, the _attitude_ required of
those who believe in these stories. Science requires an attitude that
does not come naturally to control systems: a willingness to revise
one's stories (beliefs) when those stories are clearly contradicted by
evidence. It's this willingness to subject one's ideas to test and to
revise those ideas if they are proved _wrong_ that distinguishes science
from religion.

Of course, scientists, like religionists and other ideologues, are just
human (i.e., they are controllers) so their inclination is to protect
their ideas from disturbance. Some scientists have gone so far as to
fake data in order to protect their ideas from disturbance. Scientists
who do this kind of thing are behaving like religionists, which means
they are acting like normal human beings, trying to keep their
perceptions under control.

Science demands something of humans that transcends their "baser"
(controlling) nature. In this sense, a true scientist is far more
spiritual than any religionist. A religionist only controls; a scientist
also communes. Perhaps this is one reason why people see Bill Powers as
a spiritual person. They see that Bill is the highest form of spiritual
being: a truly scientific individual.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

9

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.1104.1335)]

Rick Marken (2001.11.04.0920)]

Science demands something of humans that transcends their "baser"
(controlling) nature.

In my view, science simply calls for controlling a different set of
perceptions. "Peer pressure" is very strong among the scientists I know.
Scientists do not want to be perceived by their peers as making unsupported
claims. The support is provided by observations and models.

In this sense, a true scientist is far more
spiritual than any religionist. A religionist only controls; a scientist
also communes. Perhaps this is one reason why people see Bill Powers as
a spiritual person. They see that Bill is the highest form of spiritual
being: a truly scientific individual.

I wouldn't touch that with a ten-meter pole :wink:

Bruce Gregory is an ex-patriot.
He lives with the American
poet and painter Gray Jacobik
and their canine and feline familiars in
Pomfret, Connecticut.

10

[From Rick Marken (2001.11.04.1130)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.1104.1335)

In my view, science simply calls for controlling a different set of
perceptions. "Peer pressure" is very strong among the scientists I know.
Scientists do not want to be perceived by their peers as making unsupported
claims. The support is provided by observations and models.

It seems to me that "peer pressure" would work against what I was
describing as the scientific attitude. The scientific attitude, as I
described it, is the "willingness to subject one's ideas to test and to
revise those ideas if they are proved wrong". Scientists who look to
their peers for approval are not likely to make observations or test
models that would lead them to conclusions that differ radically from
those currently accepted by their peers. Indeed, I think "peer pressure"
is the main reason why the claims of PCT (notably the claim that
behavior is the control of input, not output), and the observations and
models on which these claims are based, have not been seriously
considered by behavioral scientists.

Best regards

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

11

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.1104.1622)]

Rick Marken (2001.11.04.1130)

Bruce Gregory (2001.1104.1335)

> In my view, science simply calls for controlling a different set of
> perceptions. "Peer pressure" is very strong among the scientists I know.
> Scientists do not want to be perceived by their peers as making unsupported
> claims. The support is provided by observations and models.

It seems to me that "peer pressure" would work against what I was
describing as the scientific attitude. The scientific attitude, as I
described it, is the "willingness to subject one's ideas to test and to
revise those ideas if they are proved wrong". Scientists who look to
their peers for approval are not likely to make observations or test
models that would lead them to conclusions that differ radically from
those currently accepted by their peers.

In science you can draw different conclusions from your peers, _if_ you can
support those conclusions with persuasive evidence. Peer recognition is
more important than peer approval.

Indeed, I think "peer pressure"
is the main reason why the claims of PCT (notably the claim that
behavior is the control of input, not output), and the observations and
models on which these claims are based, have not been seriously
considered by behavioral scientists.

As I have stated several times, I think the reason PCT is ignored is
because it does not represent a solution to the problems "behavioral
scientists" are trying to solve. Until behavioral scientists adopt the
perspective that control is the central phenomenon, they are unlikely to
see the merits of PCT

Bruce Gregory is an ex-patriot.
He lives with the American
poet and painter Gray Jacobik
and their canine and feline familiars in
Pomfret, Connecticut.

12

[From Rick Marken (2001.11.04.1700)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.1104.1622)

In science you can draw different conclusions from your
peers, _if_ you can support those conclusions with persuasive
evidence.

It seems to me that evidence is just evidence. The persuasiveness of
evidence is determined by the person (actually, by the references of the
person) evaluating it, not by the evidence itself. At least, I think
that's the way one would look at it from a PCT perspective.

As I have stated several times, I think the reason PCT is ignored is
because it does not represent a solution to the problems "behavioral
scientists" are trying to solve.

I agree. PCT is not ignored because the evidence for it is not
persuasive. PCT is ignored because the evidence for it relates to
solution of a problem (the problem of how purposeful behavior is
produced) that is not one that behavioral scientists are trying to
solve.

Best regards

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

13

[From Bill Powers (2001.11.05.0720 MST)]

Rick Marken (2001.11.04.1700)

PCT is ignored because the evidence for it relates to
solution of a problem (the problem of how purposeful behavior is
produced) that is not one that behavioral scientists are trying to
solve.

Sometimes behavioral scientists are trying to solve problems that don't
exist. In Game 6 of the Series just concluded, Reggie Sanders hit a flyball
off Jay Bell deep to center field. The center fielder watched the ball for
a second or two, then turned his back completely and ran to the place
where he thought (I suppose) that the ball would drop, and stuck out his
glove, like Willy Mays. He missed by about 10 or 15 feet. I would guess
that Willy Mays, too, missed a lot of flyballs in that situation.
Estimating where such a ball will drop is probably not very accurate. I've
seen a lot more misses than catches under those circumstances. But Willy
Mays got lucky once in a very dramatic situation, and ever afterward
behavioral scientists have tried to explain how a fielder could turn his
back on the ball and run _precisely_ to the place where it would come down
before turning around and catching it.

It's just as silly to assume that every accomplishment, however lucky and
unlikely, was done on purpose as it is to assume that purpose doesn't exist.

Last night Mary and I watched a taped program on "The Mind", in which a
wild-eyed neuro-"scientist" named Ramachandran waved his arms while
explaining in unjustifiably confident tones how blind-sight and other
somewhat puzzling pathological conditions were accounted for by what he
seemed to think was detailed knowledge of brain functions. I'm very glad
he's not out there explaining PCT to people.

Best,

Bill P.

14

[From Bill Powers (2001.11.05.1537 MST)]

Rick said:

<It's good to see you being skeptical of the ideas proposed by mere humans
(in this case, by Bill Powers) but your skepticism about human ideas seems
to be rather selective. You are very skeptical of the testable ideas about
human nature that were proposed by Bill Powers in the mid-1900s (as well
you should be) but hardly skeptical at all of the untestable ideas about
human nature that were proposed by Mark, Matthew, Luke and John in the
first century AD.>

Kenny said:

This is the kind of baiting and hitting below the belt using your

speculative

perceptions of what others do or believe that upset people. To put the shoe
on the other foot for example purposes, some CSG folks seem to think this
propensity of yours may have driven certain accomplished PCT advocates off
this forum and from attending the conference. It neither will drive me off,
nor is it worth any further response IMHO.

Kenny, I don't see what is "hitting below the belt" in what Rick said. You
have said in my hearing that you consider the Bible to be a literal
presentation of the truth about human nature. Rick says you fail to be
skeptical about the Bible, and I think that is a fair statement.

So what's your beef?

Best,

Bill P.

15

[From Rick Marken (2001.11.05.1650)]

Bill Powers (2001.11.05.0720 MST)--

Sometimes behavioral scientists are trying to solve problems that don't
exist.

And sometimes their solutions are nothing more than restatements of the
problem. I noticed this this weekend while looking over some previous "models"
of human error. It turns out that these models are really nothing more than
descriptions of the processes people carry out while performing normal,
"errorless" behavior. For example, one model assumes that people are
continuously "monitoring their actions" and checking to see if those actions
are "OK". If the actions are not OK then further "cognitive" checks are
supposedly carried out until the correct action is finally produced.

Neglecting, for the moment, the fact that actions cannot be what people intend
to produce, there is one rather significant component missing from this model
of human error: a mechanistic explanation of why errors occur at all. There is
nothing in the model that explains _why_ incorrect actions -- one's that are
not "OK" -- ever get past the "OK/not OK" check point of the continuous
monitoring process. All the model says is that there is such a checkpoint and
that sometimes it fails. But the model doesn't explain why it ever fails at
all.

So the model is no model at all. It is just a picture one can point at and say
"I think this is where something could go wrong in the behavior generation
process". The model is not a working model inasmuch as it doesn't describe a
mechanism that could produce the phenomenon the model is designed to explain:
human error.

I have developed a control model that does provide a mechanistic explanation of
human error. Briefly, objective errors (those seen by an observer) depend on
the dynamics of the subjective error (PCT error) reduction process in a control
loop. An objective error is seen when a control system fails to bring
subjective error close enough to zero before going on to the next control task.
The model can be designed to produce prescribing errors at a rate comparable to
what has been observed in studies of prescribing error (about 4/1000
prescriptions) by simply "tuning" the control system (by setting the gain,
slowing and time to perform the control task) appropriately.

It's just as silly to assume that every accomplishment, however lucky and
unlikely, was done on purpose as it is to assume that purpose doesn't exist.

Yes, indeed. Hence, the test for the controlled variable.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
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

16

[From Kenny Kitzke (2001.11.06)]

<Bill Powers (2001.11.05.1537 MST)>

<Kenny, I don't see what is "hitting below the belt" in what Rick said. You
have said in my hearing that you consider the Bible to be a literal
presentation of the truth about human nature. Rick says you fail to be
skeptical about the Bible, and I think that is a fair statement.

So what's your beef?>

A fair question that deserves an answer.

It is hitting me below the belt in this sense:

Does Rick, Dag or you have any idea, any data, any evidence at all about the
amount of skepticism I have held about the Bible before coming to my belief?
Of course you don't. Your are just guessing I came to my belief naively.

What is amazing about all this to me is that PCT proposes (or I thought it
did) that you can't know for sure what a person is really doing by observing
what he does or says, or even worse, what you perceive about what he does or
says. Yet that is what Rick seems to be doing.

Now let's look again what Rick said about me:

<It's good to see you being skeptical of the ideas proposed by mere humans
(in this case, by Bill Powers) but your skepticism about human ideas seems
to be rather selective. You are very skeptical of the testable ideas about
human nature that were proposed by Bill Powers in the mid-1900s (as well
you should be) but hardly skeptical at all of the untestable ideas about
human nature that were proposed by Mark, Matthew, Luke and John in the
first century AD.>

I seem (to Rick) to be "rather selective." IOW, Rick is questioning how I
evaluate the ideas of others. I can't read this as a compliment. Can you?
Is it not obvious that Rick is being critical of me, my behavior or my
motives concerning my assessment of your view of human nature versus what I
believe the Bible reveals about human nature? If not, perhaps you would
explain how you would interpret Rick's remark. Or better yet, Rick, what did
you intend to resolve with you remark if not to accuse me of being biased or
something?

Now, for the most ludicrous aspect of Rick's remark. He throws his own
perception out and uses it as a fact to judge my selectivity, objectivity or
integrity. Namely the idea that I am "hardly skeptical at all of the
untestable ideas about human nature that were proposed by Mark, Matthew, Luke
and John in the first century AD."

How does Rick know whether the ideas about human nature in scripture are not
testable? Has he evaluated them in detail? How does that relate to whether
I am hardly skeptical about them?

I alone know the time I have spent "testing" your ideas and those from
scripture. I have also written a study about the two. Does Rick have it,
has he commented on what I have said, or just what his impressions are of
what I said, or think or believe?

To me, that is unscientific and is hitting below the belt. If you or Rick
want to tell us why you conclude, after a detailed study, that the Bible's
view of human nature is wrong, fine. But, why is it necessary to impugn my
"selectivity" to make your point?

That is the beef. And, if you don't see it that way, fine. I guess Dag
doesn't either. But, why should he, considering his scathing analysis of
Rick's behavior?

Now you objected forcefully to my observation on this forum that Rick did not
know "diddly squat" (slang for very much) about me or my work or my beliefs.
This is a fact than could be demonstrated by asking Rick to explain why his
caricatures of me or my beliefs are complete and correct. But you have no
concern for Rick observing that I am not consistently selective about
evaluating your written ideas about human nature versus the written Biblical
when, as usual, he has no data about it at all, or at least presents none?

So, with all due respect as my elder, I don't understand your apparent
selectivity Bill. How about explaining this all from your perception? And,
I am happy to hear your answer privately, though you may prefer public
commentary.

I had a number of private replies about my Twelfth Level ideas. All
respectful and informative whether positive or negative toward my perceptions
of human nature. That is advancing knowledge and understanding in a
constructive way without any personal accusations necessary. Nice thing this
net.

Kenny

17

from Mary Powers [2001.11.6]

[From Dag Forssell (2001.11.2 - 20.05)]

I cannot remember that you have discussed religion in terms of PCT. You
prefer to discuss PCT in terms of religion.
Best, Dag

Yay, Dag. The whole thing in a nutshell.

Mary P.

18

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.1106.1219)]

Kenny Kitzke (2001.11.06)

<Bill Powers (2001.11.05.1537 MST)>

<Kenny, I don't see what is "hitting below the belt" in what Rick said. You
have said in my hearing that you consider the Bible to be a literal
presentation of the truth about human nature. Rick says you fail to be
skeptical about the Bible, and I think that is a fair statement.

So what's your beef?>

A fair question that deserves an answer.

It is hitting me below the belt in this sense:

Does Rick, Dag or you have any idea, any data, any evidence at all about the
amount of skepticism I have held about the Bible before coming to my belief?
Of course you don't. Your are just guessing I came to my belief naively.

You are guessing what others are thinking, are you not? I don't believe
anyone has said anything about how you came to your beliefs. They are
simply claiming that you consider the Bible to be a literal presentation of
the truth. Is this accurate, or is it a distortion? Are you skeptical about
the Bible or are you not?

19

[ From Bill Williams 6 October 20001 2:20 CST ]

The anthropological investigations of religious behavior may have some bearing
upon the current discussion, especially the question of what does a religious
control system control for? Here, however, I would expect that the
anthropologist's observations are unlikely to correspond to the believer's
interpretation. So, I wouldn't expect a believer to agree with the
anthropologists approach.

···

______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/

Magic, Science and Religion and other essays
Bronislaw Malinowski 1948 Free Press

Bronislaw Malinowski observations of the behavior of the
Trobriand Islanders in the South Pacific describes the inter-
relation of matter-of-fact technique and magic.

   even with all their systematic knowledge,
   methodologically applied, they are still at the
   mercy of powerful and incalculable tides, sudden
   gales during the moonsoon season and unknown reefs.
   And here comes in their magic, performed over the
   cannoe during its construction, carried out at the
   beggining and in the course of expeditions and
   resorted to in moments of real danger.

   If the modern seamen, entrenched in science and
   reason, provided with all sorts of safety
   appliances, sailing on steel-built steamers, if
   even he has a singular tendency to superstition--
   which does not rob him of his knowledge or reason,
   nor make him altogether prelogical--can we wonder
   that his savage collegue, under much more precarious
   conditions, holds fast to the safety and comfort of
   magic?

      An interesting and crucial test is provided by
   fishing in the and its magic.
   While in the villages on the inner lagoon fishing
   is done in an easy and absolutely reliable manner
   by the method of posioning, yeilding abundant results
   without danger and uncertainty, there are the shores
   of the open ocean sea dangerous modes of fishing and
   also certain types in which the yeild greatly varies
   according to whether shoals of fish appear beforehand
   or not. It is most significant that in the lagoon fishing,
   where man can rely completely upon his knowledge and skill,
   magic does not exist, while on the open sea fishing, full of
   danger and uncertainty, there is extensive magical ritual to
   secure safety and results. p. 30.

20

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.1106.1622)]

Bill Williams 6 October 20001 2:20 CST

The anthropological investigations of religious behavior may have some bearing
upon the current discussion, especially the question of what does a religious
control system control for? Here, however, I would expect that the
anthropologist's observations are unlikely to correspond to the believer's
interpretation. So, I wouldn't expect a believer to agree with the
anthropologists approach.

I'm partial to the interpretation that a belief is a mechanism that reduces
error that would otherwise persist. (If the error can be reduced without
the belief, there is no need for the belief.) The larger the potential
error, the stronger the belief. When a belief can no longer be maintained,
reorganization seems to follow.