Faith as an emotionally powerful fantasy = visual mind-pictures which touch a ... ?

[Penelope]

Originally Posted by shawn

...it really isn't a new religion which we need, but rather a better story.
All religions have come about due to their engineers seeing that the main problem with human society is the lack of a single unifying story, which is essential if one wishes to get people working together...

(Shawn split off from TealLeaf's thread Designing a New Religion and began his own, for the reason's above.

He created the So what's the story to be? thread, within which I have commented.
Trying to leave a lengthy, carefully thought-out reply, last week, something misfired and my post never appeared.
I realized, in the intervening week, that my remarks suggest a new thread)...

Faith as an emotionally powerful fantasy = visual mind-pictures which touch a person's inner core?

& & &

Shawn,
How does one get people working together?

How did Christianity do it?
How did Islam do it?
How did Buddhism do it?

Religious cults pop up all the time throughout history. Then disappear.
Most cults do not outlive the death of their charismatic leader by more than a few years.

Were the great religions just statistical anomalies? Which survived by the luck of the draw?

I suppose a case could be made supporting this proposition. But I think some other force is at work.

& & &

During my last couple years of college, many books made a major impression on me. But one of those still resonates, today, 20-some years later.

The author was Ernest G. Bormann (University of Minnesota, USA).
Bormann is a leading theorist in Communication Theory. His principal claim to fame is "Symbolic Convergence Theory" (SCT).

Bormann's book in question analyzes how the movement against slavery in early 19th century America - the Abolitionist movement - became such an effective political and moral force during its day. (And how its legacy continues to ply its force, influencing the American conscience). Sure, much of the reason for this anti-slavery movement's success comes down to grassroots political organizing, fund-raising, etc. But Bormann argues that the principal reason for this particular movement's success was how the Abolitionists talk.
The title of the book is:

The Force of Fantasy: Restoring the American Dream (1985).

& & &

Whether one participates in a social movement or religious movement, it is crucial to get everyone ... onto the same page. Working off the same playbook.

How did the Abolitionists do it?
It came down to how they talked about the issue of slavery. Both how they talked in-house - amongst fellow members of the movement - and, also, how they verbally interacted with outsiders whom they were trying to bring into the ranks of their cause, the greater public.

What was the key to their ultimate success?
It comes down to the nature of Abolitionist rhetoric.

This rhetoric involved an elegant mixture of content and style.

RHETORICAL CONTENT
The content of the rhetoric was rich in visual imagery. The sources for the imagery ranged from the mind-pictures 19th century Americans collectively had in their heads of earlier American history, to those mind-pictures of religious and political events in world history which were common knowledge in that era, to those day-to-day images people see down at their own town square or commercial hub - the local harbor or river-landing.
In-house, this imagery helped reinforce fellow Abolitionist resolve. And it provided members a quick-sketch short-hand language for how to characterize the pertinent issues of the day.
Due to the easy familiarity of the imagery, the outsider could - with great ease - picture what the Abolitionists were talking about. The Abolitionists surrounded this listener within a familiar world, however a world calculated to bend the listener to the Abolition way of thinking.

RHETORICAL STYLE
The style of the rhetoric had some innovations of its own ...
But it keyed itself away from traditional American oration-styles - as practiced by political men like Daniel Webster - and drew more from Protestant preaching styles originating in pre-Revolution America.
The roots of this pulpit-thumping dates from the earliest Puritan days in America. And while some of this involved "fire and brimstone," the richer side of this style of preaching involved speaking directly to each individual in the pews.
Every individual was encouraged to work on themselves, to work on their inner-life, to seek personal self-improvement. The more self-aware the person becomes, the more humane this person typically becomes-toward-others.
A style of rhetoric is sought-out by these preachers and, later, by the Abolitionists that would touch a person to their inner core.

These 'visual mind-pictures' which 'touch a person's inner core' targeted listener emotions.

...

& & &

(Due to length restrictions, I continue this line of argument upon the first Reply post.)

[Penelope]

(Continued from above.)

& & &

...

These 'visual mind-pictures' which 'touch a person's inner core' target listener emotions.

Over time, the Abolitionists adjusted and fine-tuned this means for targeting listener emotions. They chiseled this way-of-talking, by degrees, into an increasingly more effective and powerful tool for delivering the Abolitionist message.

And history has proven that this message did, indeed, come to resonate with a large number of Americans ...

In 1860, America elected as President the nation's most accomplished Abolitionist speaker Abraham Lincoln. The way Lincoln talked about issues influences how Americans - to this very day - talk about civil rights (and similar social and moral problems).

& & &

Many assume that an historical inevitability was involved in the fight again slavery. Which may be true. A different kind of 19th century protest movement might have gotten the job done, too. But, then, the ramifications of this victory might have had far bitterer results over the long-term. More divisive results.

Martin Luther King, the Feminist Movement, Gay Rights, etc. - they all might have had a very different legacy upon which to build. A much steeper climb. America might still be half in the bigoted dark ages if it hadn't been for Abolitionism's visual mind-pictures which touch a person's inner core.

& & &

Why did Christianity continue to resonate after Jesus died?

Is it simply the 'story' of Jesus?
Or did Jesus the Man, like Lincoln, have a way of talking in strong visual images with an informal talking style which cut deep into an individual person's soul?
A manner of talking (or a rhetoric - 'a technique') which invoked powerful emotions in listeners. A manner of talking to other people that, after Jesus died, his followers adopted as their manner of talking, and this in turn was adopted by new converts as their manner of talking ... up to the present era ... ?

Maybe the key to the Christian message lies within the novel character of its rhetoric ... that the emotion of "the Christian story," in fact, is here - in the manner of talking to individual persons. Not in the "story itself," as powerful as that story is.

Likewise the reason why Islam survived the death of Mohammed. His followers hooked into the content & style of how Mohammed delivered his message. And this is what gave his message its power, and its unique affect upon the lives of people, as Mohammed's way of talking got passed along from generation to generation.

And, similarly, with the followers of the Buddha.

& & &

Whatever this technique might be ...
This technique of talking which puts followers of a cause on the same page with each other, allowing them to work off of the same playbook - there might be a better word for it than the one Bormann uses - to describe the character of this manner of communicating, this way-of-talking. But I, actually, like Bormann's word ...

Fantasy.

A successful social movement or successful religion develops an extremely compelling (and unifying) fantasy about how the world works and should work. It does this thru its imagery and speaking style (thru its 'symbolic convergence'). People buy-into the fantasy because it is emotionally compelling.

& & &

Fantasy is to theology what a theory is to science.

Its truth is pragmatic - how effectively this fantasy sells its message.

Originally Posted by shawn

... a single unifying story, which is essential if one wishes to get people working together.

Shawn,

If Ernest Bormann is correct ...

"To get people working together" ...
The one perfect story is probably NOT what you should want.
A story is, by its nature, an on-going project.

What you should want is the fantasy which gestates that story.
This is what is going to get people working together.

& & &

And ...
A pretty good place to start might be with the Abolitionist's fantasy ...

Visual mind-pictures which ... Touch a person's inner core.

[shawn]

A "series of ideas" is a more wordy way of saying "a story", which is what I mean.
I am not hung up on the word "story".
We could use another word...or term.
Every people group, religion/cult, and such all have in common a central "story" or "series of ideas" which is central to all that proceeds from them.

IE) G-d created man in 6 days; people evolved by chance; so-and-so was a prophet of God; we are the chosen; we believe this and so are going to heaven and all others are going to hell, etc, etc.

The issue I am on about is that all of these ideas/stories tend to be divisive and lead to an "us and them" mentality.
But there are many ideas contained in all the worlds religions, etc, that have excellent worth, ideas of merit, which should be taken from the framework they are currently in and placed into a whole new framework.

I know that trying to get all of humanity to have harmony seems the impossible dream, but it is better than the reality we have.

[Avi]

Originally Posted by Penelope

Visual mind-pictures which ... Touch a person's inner core.

Hi Penelope, you have a very creative mind and it is interesing reading your posts. Many of your early posts were about or related to Ezekial and I would like to understand more clearly what you are trying to say. Does this quote, below, adequately summarize what you are trying to say about Ezekial ?

("Scratching around" - this isn't about Feminism, or man/woman, or whether Ezekiel is a misogynist or not. Whatever it is about ... it goes deeper!!)

Now, getting back to feminism and misogyny. I am also not a big fan of many of the Biblical approaches. So is that your main gripe ? I couldn't quite figure out what the "deeper" part is ? But assuming it is the mysogyny, I sort of agree with you about that. But isn't most of the entire Bible mysogonystic ? Does that mean that you have similar gripes with the entire Bible ?

In any event, other than the Ezekial smashing part, I have thoroughly enjoyed your posts and hope to keep reading more of them .

Also, I like the way you dish it back at the folks that complain about your style, font, etc.. You are a tough cookie .

[Tao_Equus]

The font/colour remains distracting.
The content is all very interesting but misses the reality that most paradigms are not preached to convert but are preached to the already indoctrinated, those indoctrinated through childhood. The reason the big extant paradigms survive and personality cults die out is their adoption, or usurpation, by political power holders. The methods are more about the total destruction of the previous paradigm and the forcible coercion to conversion than painting pretty or compelling pictures.

[arthra]

Well certainly Martin Luther King's speech "I have a Dream!" still resonates..

Rhetoric and speaking were probably very powerful modes of conveying ideas and building constituencies in the nineteenth century.

Consider Churchill and Roosevelt all used their unique styles to speak to peoples' aspirations and needs.. Roosevelt had his fireside chats. I suspect Churchill took some lines from Shakespeare's Plays to rally people.

What's was Obama doing during his campaign? and compare it with the other candidates.

The old preachers used the same techniques at revival meetings.

I'm not a preacher but recall addressing a village in St. Lucia at night that had no electrical power and I made a connection with how Jesus and Prophet Muhammad had no electrical power either and look what the power of God did...

- Art

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by shawn

The issue I am on about is that all of these ideas/stories tend to be divisive and lead to an "us and them" mentality.

People everywhere are essentially the same in that they have the same emotional, social, and psychic needs. But religion, as it exists, is a tool of cultural cohesiveness and identity. Religion creates the idea of specialness. We are the chosen, our way is divinely ordained, all others are inferior. But when we see another culture solving the same issues we have but in a different way with a different religion, it makes us angry because it undercuts the sacredness of our sense of specialness. If their religion/cultural values function just as well as ours, then ours loses it's special value. The rub is that when religion doesn't serve to promote identity politics it loses its power as a cultural force.

Chris

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

The rub is that when religion doesn't serve to promote identity politics it loses its power as a cultural force.

Chris

And that is a big rub. The more you look at the impact of it the more difficult it is, for me anyway, to see any merit in societies sustaining religions.

[Virtual_Cliff]

I don't like the word 'fantasy' as it has connotations of self-delusion, and I don't think that's what is meant here.

I don't know if it's helpful to think of religions as having a life of their own. They are expressions of a particular society's relationship with the divine. As the society changes so does the expression.

Eastern Orthodox Christianity is about as different as you could get from, say, a West Indian church, and all they have in common is a few key tenets of doctrine. Certainly their styles, and even the emphasis of the narrative is quite different.

Can we say Christianity has 'survived'? Perhaps 'adapted' would be more appropriate. If we look at religion as a continuum we may notice that there are closer similarities between religions than within them. In each society, people have used the narratives of their religion to approach God in different ways. Some have a basic belief centring on good harvests and success in business. Others seek a mystical union with the divine. I think it would be more enlightening to look at religion in a generic way than under their brand-names.

[Dream]

Originally Posted by Virtual_Cliff

I don't like the word 'fantasy' as it has connotations of self-delusion, and I don't think that's what is meant here.

I don't know if it's helpful to think of religions as having a life of their own. They are expressions of a particular society's relationship with the divine. As the society changes so does the expression.

Eastern Orthodox Christianity is about as different as you could get from, say, a West Indian church, and all they have in common is a few key tenets of doctrine. Certainly their styles, and even the emphasis of the narrative is quite different.

Can we say Christianity has 'survived'? Perhaps 'adapted' would be more appropriate. If we look at religion as a continuum we may notice that there are closer similarities between religions than within them. In each society, people have used the narratives of their religion to approach God in different ways. Some have a basic belief centring on good harvests and success in business. Others seek a mystical union with the divine. I think it would be more enlightening to look at religion in a generic way than under their brand-names.

So you mean -- respect & honor the divine and also respect the societies by respecting any relationship with 'the divine' rather than judging the rationality or priests of a religion. You view religion as our way of approaching God. Even in the case that you might be wrong about that, humans are too error-prone to conclusively say how God would approach each of us. To say that ignores that it is a human who is saying it. Your biggest assumption is that we are all equal. That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for humankind.

[Virtual_Cliff]

Originally Posted by Dream

Even in the case that you might be wrong about that, humans are too error-prone to conclusively say how God would approach each of us. To say that ignores that it is a human who is saying it. Your biggest assumption is that we are all equal. That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for humankind.

That's absolutely right, Dream, we can never know the absolute God. We each have a unique vision of God, and our own pathway to the divine. Religions can speak for the general vision of God in a society, but each person will have their own version of it. We are indeed equal, but not the same.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Ernest Becker wrote something to the effect that the question which must be asked of religion is: what sort of fantasy is appropriate for an adult who admits that he is afraid?

Chris

[Dream]

I am not sure I understand what you've posted, Chris. This quote struck me when I was watching King Kong. It is about a fantasy for adults who admit they are afraid:

"We could not understand because we were too far and could not remember because we were traveling in the night of first ages, of those ages that are gone, leaving hardly a sign - and no memories. We are accustomed to look upon the shackled form of a conquered monster, but there - there you could look at a thing monstrous and free."

[China Cat Sunflower]

Here’s the quote, since I butchered it.

The religious position is that to strive for anything less than the ideal is illness. …man must strive to transcend himself and he can only do this by opening his eyes to the reality of his situation. This is reality with a small “r”, not a capital. And the reality of man’s situation is that it is one of despair. Whatever idols man remains rooted to are idols designed precisely to hide the reality of the despair of his condition; all the frantic and obsessive activity of daily life, in whatever country, under whatever ideology, is a defense against full self-consciousness. It is this fundamental falseness at the heart of human striving that makes our world dance so frenziedly to such drowning-out music.

The ideal question for religion grows out of this reality of the human condition… [it] has always been a derivative of this: “What kind of fabrication would be proper to an adult who realized that he was afraid?”

Ernest Becker, The Birth And Death Of Meaning

He’s saying that the underlying reality of the human condition is despair, and that ideally religion should function as a vehicle for transcending that state of despair. But the fact remains that despair arises from the hopelessness, and innate meaninglessness of our real situation here on this planet where all life is trying to eat and conquer all other life, and we die without ever finding our true talent. So what religion offers is illusion. The illusion of coherence, permanence, and identity. But what of the man who knows his despair? The one who has seen the nature of his idols, who admits his fear? What sort of illusion, what sort of heroic channel can religion offer him? Or, what is the state of “natural” religion, if there is such a thing?

Chris

[China Cat Sunflower]

Becker makes the point that there are two kinds of despair: neurotic despair, and real despair. Neurotic despair functions as a screen for the real despair that underlies it. Neurosis is a defense against the realization of just how frightened one actually is. It gives us something to fidget with to keep us from drawing back the curtain and seeing what's really got us buggered. So in that context Becker says:

...the problem of authentic growth in a person's life is to get rid of neurotic despair so as to come face to face with real despair, and then make a creative solution of his existence in greater freedom and full knowledge.

Ernest Becker, The Birth And Death Of Meaning

It's this "creative solution" that I'm interested in. It implies a willful suspension of disbelief in order to allow an essential illusion. But how? What would such a thing, such a mythology look like in it's pristine form,

Chris