Surrealism, Atheism, Mysticism, Anthropology (was: a short book...)

[Stefan Kapusniak]

In talk.religion.misc, Andrea Chen <fallin...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Following your example with the Bob Subgenuis parody of religion, I
>have crossposted this to a group which may be willing to discuss yours
>(and Brandon's) various points.

I wonder whether there _is_ actually anybody other than
me reading in talk.religion.misc, all those reading this
post in that group please raise your hands, and then
put them back down to your keyboard and post that you're
present [trim the newsgroups line if you do -- I mean it].

>Talysman wrote:

>> in amazement, I beheld Andrea Chen <fallin...@earthlink.net>
>> write in alt.surrealism:
>>
>> [ answering Barrett's definitions ]
>>
>> :)Religion is defined as the belief in supernatural powers (it's not
>> :)necessarily organized religion.)
>>
>> not really. I go by the social anthropology definition of religion
>> as a set of public behaviors designed to interpret and define reality.
>> this comes out of Emile Durkheim's comparative religion studies.
>> I have not previously mentioned Durkheim or anthropology here, because
>> hardcore retrosurrealists hate both.

There's a crossposted thread here from a selected bunch
of skeptic, atheism and archeaology groups were somebody
in response to a query on whether anthropology had
influenced their atheistic views, mentioned that they
had minored in anthropology and went on to assert that
they hadn't know any

There were a few comments about myth, and a quote from
a fortune cookie too. The subject is 'aa anthropology'.

I want a merge thread button. Grrrrr.

I think I'll be a real stinker add those groups to the
crosspost. Be warned.

>> the fundamental nature of religion is that it defines, through myth
>> and ritual, the various categories that every concept in the universe
>> "must" belong to, and treats as sacred anything that violates the
>> boundaries of those categories (they are treated with awe or dread.)

This argument is that it acts as a sort of filter on
both perception and thought? With perceptions that
get through to the adherent that don't fit the filter
either being seen as a lifting of the veil, or
abomination.

I don't think I'm seeing that idea quite right, or
I'm flatly disagreeing, anybody with an anthropological
bent want to help me out here?

You see, it would seem to me that this statement would
apply to pretty much to all learned reactions to
perception -- and the inner self-generated perception
that is thought -- that had been integrated down to
the level of habit/reflex [Andrea's 'buttons' being
the most prominent examples of this] whether of a
religious tenor or otherwise. Granted that much religious
instruction is devoted to the task of internalising the
tenants of that religion in the pupil down at that level,
but I would have thought so is pretty much everything
else in life from our very first breath, even if much
of it is more accidental and haphazard than intentional
instruction.

I think this would tend to make 'Religion' too broad a
concept to very useful.

Also I see a lot of religious ritual, not as part of
a matrix through which the world is viewed, but instead
as means of inducing mysticism in an environment were
it can be tethered and controlled by the social/religious
hierarchy.

For the purposes of this post [don't expect any consistency
from me], I see mysticism and religion as being in
tension. With the mystic experience being the emotional
and perceptual effect of an 'unlearning event' so to
speak. Dynamite a habit/reflex of perception/thought,
high enough up the hierarchy of dependent refexes
['switch memes'?] and you get a cascade effect of
unlearning which would leave that whole area of the
psyche 're-ploughed' and in a state of plascicity ready
for relearning and realignment toward new realities.

Do this far enough up the mental hierarchy and you
could get a realignment that could quite accurately be
described as a 'revelation' or being 'born again'.

The advantages in mysticism for religion become clear,
have your people standing by ready with your doctrine,
as people emerge from a mystic experience and they are
in an ideal state for realignment toward that doctrine.

The dangers are also clear, the work of inculcating
the tenants of the faith could be undone in an
afternoon if a subsquent mystical experience occurs
high enough up chain. Highly proficient mystics tend
to develop into heretics with horrifying regularity.

Religion can be seen then as any system of social control
that attempts to use and control the mystical process,
an 'unlearning effect', to open the individual to
internalising that system of social control.

Surrealism could be seen as an attempt to grasp this
brand in the context of art and social liberation,
rather than the context of social control.

Neu neutopianism, and similar projects, as attempts to
grasp it in the context of usenets nascent cultural
formation.

Under this model, of mysticism as an 'unlearning effect',
it is easy to see why the mystic experience is so pervasive
in human cultures. In times of stress the ability of
the human organism to sweep away once useful, but now,
in the face of changed realities and pressures, damaging
and dangerous habits and reactions even if buried at
a very deep level, would confer great competitive
advantage.

I am aware this all completely off the wall (-;

>> the obvious example is jewish kosher laws. one anthropologist (Mary
>> Tamm Stewart? I forget her name) did a little study of the kosher
>> laws and worked out how almost all were based on violations of
>> categories (frogs aren't kosher because they are a creature that
>> hops, a movement not mentioned in Genesis chapter 1 (flying, creeping,
>> and walking; pigs aren't kosher because they are hooved mammals that
>> don't chew their cud, like other hooved mammals do; etc.)

I would see this more as the natural outcome of a
legalistic approach to doctrine formation...

>> another example is the dread almost all cultures have felt for
>> human beings that violate the separation of the living from the
>> dead (ghosts and vampires are feared supernatural beings.)
[...snip...]

The were-wolf as being a violation of the seperation
between man and beast for instance?

>> what's more relevant is the bit about *organized* religion. the
>> surrealists were actually opposed to organized religion (as a form
>> of oppression,) and merely rejected certain words like "god" and
>> "religion" because of the "organized religion" taint, not because
>> of any good reason.
[...huge snip, antelopes in India, the usual pointless arguments
about who sees who as a Real Surrealist(tm)...]

Remember words _do_ function as (imperfect) carriers of
meaning, if the word "god" or the word "religion" carries
an association with a requirement to adhere to a system
of social control -- which a surrealist would presumably
see as oppressive by its very nature -- then the surrealist
would not want these concepts to 'pollute' the realigned
awareness of those who had undergone a mystical 'unlearning
event' in response to surrealist art and surrealist action.
That would be to defeat the very point of surrealism as a
liberating force.

Of course under your definition of religion, these words
may well not carry these associations. Even under my
definition the word "god" may well not.

>> a
>> although at times it seems Brandon's responses to me imply that I am
>> saying "I have my view of surrealism, you have yours." I don't agree
>> completely with Nik's "multiple truths" idea, I only agree with his
>> statements about one subjective viewpoint ("there is no god") being
>> no more valid than another subjective viewpoint ("there is a god").
>> since "god" is not defined in objective terms, we cannot design an
>> empirical test for the existence of "god" and both statements are thus
>> meaningless.
>>
>> my position is that there is, in fact, an objective Truth, but we are
>> incapable of experiencing it directly, objectively; we always perceive
>> Truth/reality through the limitations of our senses, and our perceptions
>> are themselves distorted by our conceptions. Nik says much the same
>> thing, but he then concludes "so all beliefs are true, for those that
>> believe them", while I do not. I believe that all beliefs are only
>> approximations of reality and thus all beliefs are false. (and the
>> preceding belief is itself only an appoximation of reality, because I
>> left out tautologies in formal systems, which are always true within
>> that system.)
[...snip...]

Well I think I'm with you rather than with Nik on that
one.

-- Kapusniak, Stefan m