A tendency toward animism (Is this the same?
Meaning to give objects human characteristics...)
MIGHT lead to "religion" (a slippery word) in the
sense that a person who self-negates and
attributes their actions circularly to the
necessity exhibited (in their observation) to
certain objects which "require" being placated in
order that the person can find *self* completion
in the good characteristics of these objects of
desire (as in idolatry)... animism might lead to
religion in the case of deliberate self-promotion.
I say this because heathenism (self-as-god)
suggests power in the form of physical
accomplishment (through the attainment of control
over such objects). BUT, the basic assumption of
distinct objects which act as a system to negate
individual promotion suggests that a single
omnipotent "object" doesn't exist (except perhaps
as a symbolic scepter... this is a Catholic idea,
or a monarchistic argument).
As to a bicameral split: This is an argument for emotion... such that no single *thought* is without its opposite. As such, two perceived "truths" must be resolved to a single feeling state which can't be represented in an objective way (but which may be felt, as in "love" between two such individuals). While this DOES resolve to a type of "faith" in the basic notion of "good", the type of "god" that this tends to suggest is one which is un-accessible to humankind. This is a protestant notion of god as spirit and establishes an ethic for social behavior but doesn't establish a moral code for individual behavior. Such a religion is pagan... and is given lip-service by "rote" but is never internalized as an active force.
As to the good-mother/ bad-mother split: This really resolves to a trinity (good-mother, bad-mother, NO-mother-- or mother at odds with herself). As this suggests good self, bad self, and ultimately NO self; it manifests most often in *mysticism*, atheism, and scientific skepticism.
You have left out an important observation-- "Presence". As self-observation suggests that there is "something" which exists, and as this something has observable effects, and since these effects can't be attributed to chance (without violating the first observation... that what exists DOES exist rather than-- by chance-- existing only sometimes or possibly not at all); thus, a primary cause is suggested which acts lawfully.
Religion is the action of a causative agent (an
individual) working within the arena of effect
(which is *aware* of this action as regards the
change it causes). This "effect" circularly
requires that the agent question his own existence
since the manifestation of change is not explained
completely through observing the immediate effect
(bringing about *consciousness*). This allows for
the justification of one's actions according to
the logic defined by that which precedes the
individual's existence (it allows for
*self-consciousness*... as realized symbolically
through the subtraction of one's effect as this
relates to the beginning assumption that one is
prime cause).
Being *present* in the moment and realizing one's immediate effect, one sees the causative "self" and discovering this intuits a prime cause which includes self but which transcends the immediate.
----Original Message Follows----
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 13:02:06 -0700
To: virus@lucifer.com
From: Freespeak <f-prime@activist.com>
Subject: virus: Why People Believe in Religion
Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
In my opinion, there are three fundamental reasons
why people believe in religion.
The first factor is the human predilection for
anthropomorphism. See '#TL05AB: ANTHROPOMORPHISM
AND
[The above was inspired by the book 'Faces in the
Clouds:
The second factor is what remains in the human
brain
The third factor can be inferred from Al Siebert's
book,
RELATED PHENOMENA'
<http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl05ab.htm>.
A New Theory of Religion' by Stewart Guthrie --
mentioned
on this list some months ago.]
and psyche from our "bicameral heritage." See 'The
Other
Side of Religion'
<http://www.buildfreedom.com/otherside.htm>,
with particular emphasis on 'Appendix - The
Biological Basis
for Religion.'
'Peaking Out: How My Mind Broke Free from the
Delusions
of Psychiatry.' It could be called the
"aggrandized-noun"
phenomenon. It derives from Melanie Klein's
insight she
called the "good-mother/bad-mother split":
"...each infant
experiences two different beings in its life
powerful, nurturing, comforting, all-knowing being
and
a bad, hurting, dangerous one." [Look up "Melanie
Klein"
in the Index.]
These factors may also illuminate why certain
memes are
more powerful than others.
Frederick Mann
-- -------------------------------------------------- ------------ Best Freedom Site on the Web -
<http://www.buildfreedom.com/>.
Freedom/Liberty Portal -
<http://www.buildfreedom.com/ft/>.
International Libertarian Network, USA Coordinator -
<http://maxpages.com/libertarian>.
Freedom & Financial Independence Lists -
<http://www.buildfreedom.com/ourlists.htm>.
-------------------------------------------------- ------------ B. Lane Robertson LIST: mindrec-subscribe@makelist.com WEB: http://www.window.to/mindrec BIO: http://members.theglobe.com/bretthay ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com