Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ketzer
A rather impressively reasoned look at religion, that brought to mind a few things as I read it. "a bloke like me, who never said I am this or I am that, I didn't position anyone as 'not what I am' use them as a contrast against which I orient myself," And yet, you often end up positioning yourself nonetheless. If you are not with us, then you are not one of us, regardless of what you may be, you are other. There are spikes atop some walls to prevent one from sitting there. Those spikes may have been placed by those who erected it, but nevertheless, you can only be in or out.
Whether or not the formation of a religion is an "act of violence", it certainly often leads to it. |
Well, more like an exertion of power than an act of violence, because the 'not position' is imposed on me, and I didn't consent. The reason that it becomes increasingly violent from there violent is the following:
1) Persons A identify as a thing and force persons B into the not position so they can be used to orient the identify persons A assumed. That is done forcefully without Persons B consent.
2) Persons A need Persons B to orient their identity because without the 'others' they can't validate themselves.
3) This reliance on Persons B compels Persons A to force persons B to act in ways that validate Persons A identity.
4) That exertion of power requires resistance. There is a resistance because Persons B are pushed unwillingly.
5) Persons A become agitated because Person B don't behave in ways that validate themselves, so Persons A are compelled to exert even more power. At some point they will get the resistance they need.
6) Hence, The above escalates and leads to violence of the physical kind.
The psychological violence is enacted in step 1 if we could say psychological violence is manipulating people into a subject position they were unwilling to be in. That's why I claim the act of becoming religious is violent in nature.
Quote:
Which can lead one to ask where that violence comes from to begin with. Lions and wolves will resort to violence to protect their territory to ensure their survival. Within that territory, they are dominant and claim the resources of survival for themselves. Humans live in large societies. Those societies produce the means of our survival. Those with power and influence over that society have greater security in acquiring those means.
Do humans carve out territories within the common mind of those societies in which the alpha dictates what thought and belief will be? Do we fight like stags in rut do to determine who will dominate the herd within those territories? Is the inherent "act of violence" in creating any ideology really just an inherent act of the inherited drive to ensure survival of the human organism itself.
And to pull on a thread and start to unravel a whole other cloth, why might I have incarnated into such a world, to live a life as such a creature, to struggle for life against the other creatures? What does it say about the soul who does not recognize such boundaries? What point is there for such a soul, that does not accept the us and them paradigm, in such a world? Can it survive and thrive in such a world, or is it just prey for the predators? Must the human organism succumb to such laws of nature, or are there other, perhaps even better ways to ensure the survival of the individual without extracting the means from the whole?
|
Humans have ethical dilemmas (animals don't), and we are subject to the laws of nature, though there are different ways of imagining nature's law. I prefer the kamma paradigm as it relates well with our ethical dilemmas through such sayings as 'you reap what you sew' and 'do unto others...', but it is not sufficient to obey these rules. One has understand themselves more deeply rather that become 'something' which they are not.
I think I sound too harsh, but within the context of how terrible it gets, I think its fair enough.