Idol Worship

[sunspot]

This topic of discussion is not concerned with primative worship of idols but with the psychology behind the affect. Before posing a question, I would like to create a little background with an example.

 

The easiest example to see is cutting edge fashion. Every generation of young people have certain styles that are the cutting edge. These clothes create a subjective enhancement of the individual both within their minds as well as via feedback from others in the environment. This affect is not fully logical but is mostly subjective. If one was to get a dog to look at the lastest styles, they would probally just sniff at the object to see if it was food or maybe piss on it. They would not become involved in the human subjectivity.

 

If one looks back at the leisure suit fashions of the 70's and early 80's, this was cutting edge in its day. But today it looks rather silly. This clothing still creates a subjective affect, but usually one of humor.

 

The magic of objects appears to be a human subjective reaction. The object has this magical power for good or bad and by wearing it, the individual recieves the magical power of the objective. One may feel better about themselves, while the feedack from other humans in the environment will give one an extra bonus of subjective magic. The person under the object is still the same, with or without it, but they become veiled with its subjective magic when they wear it. The magic, is like the story of Cinderella; eventually the clock reach twelve the magic dies.

 

The question is, is the subjective magic of objects a conditioned response or is it an internal human subjective reaction or a combination of both?

[ecoli]

I'm not sure if "magic" is the right word for it, but I see what you're getting at. Basically it's the nature vs. nuture question in a different suit. There's really no concrete answer, AFAIK. You could perhaps think of reasons why changing styles is evolutionary advantageous, perhaps it makes sense if you're a business to want styles to change. We don't really know enough about the brain or genetics to answer this question yet.

 

I hope somebody can give a better answer.

[mimefan599]

Perhaps the fashion trends are another way to seem different, but all of the followers follow the fashions to blend in so as not to stick their necks out in case of harrassment. Things all too often change from a desperation to be different so as not to stick to things certain people dont believe in to a need ot blend in a croud. Its a self-esteem issue all of the way.

[sabbath]

The subjective magic of objects...let me rephrase that.

 

The subjective effect which objects evoke in the human mind.

 

On the question whether it is the effect of conditioning or sole human subjectivity I do believe that it is of both. It must be. And that's the only support I can give that statement.

 

Yes, perhaps it is an issue of nature vs. nurture in a different suit.

 

But the question is whether we are born with biases or inclinations towards a certain object characteristic. Are we born to like red, or blue, or black more than we like other colors? Are we born with a preference for plaid or plain? These biases or inclinations, if we are born with them, may be what you call sole human subjectivity.

 

And as ecoli said we don't know enough yet. We don't know if there is a gene responsible for these biases.

 

Until we know this, no one can answer your question fully.

 

What is certain though, is that conditioning does influence the subjective effect of objects to man. In fact conditioning affects human subjectivity entirely.

[alice]

I don't think biases and inclinations have anything to do with genetics at all. We are not born with inclinations or biases. I think it is solely based on how you are raised, your environment, your education...your likes and dislikes. Your reaction to the world is based on your personal thinking...yes, how you were nurtured. The same way that the personality of a person is not based on genes...it's on how your family molded you...how they made you who you are. Genes have nothing to do with it...i think the answer to that question leans more on the conditioning of a person.

[sabbath]

of course genes might have something to do with it...as it is, there is currently no research that can prove this. but it doesn't mean that genes have nothign to do with it.

 

take you and me for example. we're twins but we're different.

 

relatively, we were conditioned/brought up similarly. but we have different personalities, biases, or what you may call subjective inclinations.

 

and the interesting fact is that we're phraternal twins. that makes our genes different, and hence, different personalities. though i know that conclusion is quite crude. but you get the picture.

[sunspot]

A good example of nonconditioned subjectivity occurs in the viewing of art work. If one goes to a museum and sees a particular artwork for the first time, if it is good art it will induce a subjective reaction. Some love it, some hate it, other drift off in their imagination to many different places. It seems to show something inside humans connected to human object subjectivity. The conditioned response may make use of this subjective affect stemming from objects.

 

The ancient idol worship often began with a good work of art that would appear to have a magical power to make people feel something. The religion would then condition everyone with an explanation of who the power was coming from; the stone god. That would get the imagination working even further until everyone would be wipped in histeria, until some clumsy person breaks the statue, breaking the spell. Fashion is not an idol religion or is it; is it based on the same primative affect? Don't get me wrong, fashion is a fun part of life and adds fresh feelings. This topic is useful to begin understanding the spell behind the feelings and the group dynamics.

[mimefan599]

There is a gene that was discovered recently that is nicknamed the "god" gene because those who posses it seem to have an inclination towards believing in god. I don't know if it is because it makes you succeptible to certain beliefs or it makes you believe more in the unseen (a dominant archetype perhaps), but regardless the gene affects things so i think there is no question as to how genes affect biases and inclinations, though nurturing has much to do with it.

[sabbath]

A good example of nonconditioned subjectivity occurs in the viewing of art work. If one goes to a museum and sees a particular artwork for the first time, if it is good art it will induce a subjective reaction. Some love it, some hate it, other drift off in their imagination to many different places. It seems to show something inside humans connected to human object subjectivity. The conditioned response may make use of this subjective affect stemming from objects.

 

I don't understand how the viewing of art is nonconditioned. Some of us grow up conditioned to like abstract over impressionistic or detailed pictures, or quite the other way around.

 

We may view an artwork for the first time but it doesn't mean that we have not seen other styles similar or dissimilar to it. We will not be alien towards the colors used in such art also, and even the inclination towards colors are affected by conditioning and environment.

 

Even the viewing of art and the reactions from it are affected by conditioning.

[Edtharan]

The Nature vs Nurture debate tends to simplify the whole process. I think it is the combination of some "Nature" adn some "Nurture" aspects.

 

For one, we are social animals. This has evolved in us and is hardwired into us (social people usualy live longer ). These social traits will make us seek status (as part of the social structure you need to have a place in it). But if we look too much like the "heard" that will reduce our status towards the perceived average (both of your self and that of the group as a whole).

 

If you percieve yourself as below this average then you will feel better if yuo follow this average. However if you percieve your self to be above this average then it is in your interest to strike out in a different way (trend seting).

 

Human society is more complex than a simple mono culture. It has many cultures, and these cultures have many sub-cultures (and many of them intermingal and overlap). This means that there will be many "averages" to choose from. This is where Nurture plays a big role.

 

Nurture will give us an affinity to particular cultures and sub-cultures. We will then take these cultures and sub-cultures averages as a judge of our own position (this also explains the existance of cultures and sub-cultures as a large enough group that might see its self above or below the average might start to see its self as seperate from the mainstream). Also as we can have this affinity to multiple cultures and sub-cultures this will also complicate matters and provide cross "pollination" of them.

 

As each generation seeks to sperate them selve from the crowd (ie that of their parents generation) they will strike out in new directions and fasions. In modern (western) society we tend to favour the indivdual and their achievements (in other societies and cultures they may favour the family, clan, religion, etc) and so this will give us more fasions as each individual becomes a potential seed for a new sub-culture (creating a new sub-culture automatically put you at the top). This has lead to a massive explosion of new sub-cultures with which we can identify our selves with.

 

No it becomes interesting as more peopl become to associate with the new sub-culture. As more peopl become a part of it, they generate an average and therefore a chain of "rank". This means that there will be some members of below average and the desire to rise in rank, and maybe start their own sub-culture off the previous sub-culture, and so on.

 

As you can see this will lead to an ever changeing set of cultures (long term stable fasions), sub-cultures (a collection of particular fasions) and fasions (short term changes to a culture or sub-culture that makes an individual rise or fall rank with the culture or sub-culture).

 

The smaller the unit that is recognised by the culture, the more seeds their are for these changeing fasions to form around. This is why there are more fasions in todays societies and that these fasions change as fast as they do.

[ecoli]

There is a gene that was discovered recently that is nicknamed the "god" gene because those who posses it seem to have an inclination towards believing in god. I don't know if it is because it makes you succeptible to certain beliefs or it makes you believe more in the unseen (a dominant archetype perhaps), but regardless the gene affects things so i think there is no question as to how genes affect biases and inclinations, though nurturing has much to do with it.

 

reference?

[sunspot]

I am not sure of a single god gene. If genetics were involved it should be a complex grouping of genes since one gene/one protein is not enough to define an entire complex behavior. One gene/one protein would make one chemical, that may alter one's mood, but that does not constitute everything needed to define a complex behavior. A gene grouping or cluster could be associated with one aspect of the personality software. I could see some people being more genetically dominant in certain areas of the personality software giving a greater inclination to particular things.

 

Our response to art may be conditioned if one is knowledgable about art and the various art movements, etc.. But people who care little or know little about art will still be subjectively affected by good art. The response from, such people as these, will not be pigeoned holed around a collective conditioned response. Their response will tend to be more original.

 

We are social animals. Part of our social behavior includes the subjective influence from objects. Objects gain a certain "je ne sais que". This allows humans to be on the same page within physical cultural reality. It would be hard to convince everyone to love science since many like liberal arts or religion better. But the subjectivity of objects seems to affect everyone in all walks of life. The liberal arts person loves books, the scientists love gagets, the archeologist loves ancient trash and garage sales, the religious person loves their holy statues or their religion book, the pimp love his purple cadilac. These things are easy to condition because this lower level personality software is close to consciousness in almost all people.

 

Where people begin to divide is more connected to the subjectivity of ideas. This is an extension of the magic in objects. If one goes back to history, Moses and the Jews, were among the first to downplay the magic of objects. They began to abstract god in an intellectual way, apart from pure or even connected object worship. This reflected the next higher level of the personality software, beyond the subjectivity in objects, connected the subjectivity of ideas. That is what all the different cultures are based on. Being subjective, and not fully rational, allows for endless possibilities since cause and affect do not necessarily have to apply.

 

One may wonder about injustice in the world, etc.. This is an attempt to rationalize the irrational nature of culture. There is never a good answer because one is mixing apple and oranges. However, this lower than rational level personality software is something most people are consciously aware of. This is why it is so dominant in human culture.

 

The rational personality software is even higher still and is fairly new at being conscious on a large social scale. The cause and affect relationships tends to narrow down subjective reality. This is where cultural subjective diversity becomes more narrowed until only logical relationships appear. For example, before people knew about chemistry there were endless speculation about the nature of matter. Each group would cluster together within their irrational dogma or speculations. Once chemistry became rational all the groups combined into a single group using a causual way of looking at chemical reality.

 

There is still fringe thinking both below and above the rational even within chemistry. This makes chemistry more culturally inclusive. For example, we teach lay people about the atom in terms of planetary orbits. This is not rational or true but it nevertheless allows less logically minded people to participate in chemistry. Just a little bump further and they will be able to see the logic that science has found. At the other extreme are those who see new things that do not logically correlate with existing data. After scientific experiments such ideas often turn out to reflect rationally reality.

[LeDDeNHeiMeR]

People like clthes and fashion because they were basically told hey look this is cool (and gives us money) therefore; LIKE IT! Really, its quite idiotic because really... we don't need all these different styles, but it makes more money. Especially now since everything is getting more and more expensive, people are trying to get more and more money. So someone was like "oh hey I know! lets take a really cheap product like...cotton....cut it into a bunch of different pieces...throw a few wacky colors on there....put it on a celeb and BAM! money" I do wonder what started the orignal idea that clothes could manipulate minds so easily. Because, even though back in the days of neanderthals they didn't care aout clothing as long as they wore clothing....but then it formed into jewlery like rocks and such....and eventually here we are. I'm positive you know this all already but it makes me think about it more as wondering if its actual reaction or just something that just progressed and got more important over time.

[sabbath]

i think fashion came to be because people could afford it. when wealth improved there became room for aesthetic pursuits. in the time of the neanderthal, life was all about survival. when things became more comfortable, people had the chance to think beyond fighting for existence. How to make that existence more meaningful, and yes, creative. man progressed beyond the first level of existence, which was mere survival.

[sunspot]

I good experiment is to do the opposite and see what happens. There will be an inner resistance not to go along. There will also be a change in the feeback coming from the environment both imaginary and real. In other words, the prestige or magic of objects is not fully a conscious choice. There are unconscious things also at work that are very primative. LeDDeNHeiMer sort of summarized it up in that at a rational level it seem sort of silly, but at an irrational level there is a difference set of dynamics.