[lit-ideas] Re: Violence as Destruction of Doubt
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 18:15:17 -0400
> [Original Message]
> From: Orion Anderson <libraryofsocialscience@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 9/16/2005 10:08:43 AM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Violence as Destruction of Doubt
>
> The "infidel" is the inner part of us that "doesn't believe" what we
> believe we believe (on a conscious level). We project or externalize our
> non-belief onto other group that symbolizes our own non-belief. Then, we
get
> angry at people in that group because their lack of belief threatens our
own
> belief.
>
Let me see if I can paraphrase this. I think there's a lot of merit to what
you're saying. Let's take the first part of your sentence first.
Basically you're saying that we think we believe something (for example,
using a non-religious example, an overweight person might desperately want
to be thin), but deep inside it's another matter (the person is overweight
because, say, it protects them from having to be sexual or the fat serves
them in some other way). The part deep inside is going to be the driving
force, and however much our overweight friend thinks they want to be thin,
they'll continuously sabotage their diet. The part deep inside that runs
the show is what you're calling the infidel. It's why so much behavior is
counterintuitive and counterproductive.
Moving into the second part of the sentence, your example in your paragraph
below illustrates what would happen if a person had no "infidel", i.e. was
instead convinced to the core of his being of his faith, say a belief in
Jesus. Such a person will not be bothered by another person's doubt in
Jesus. He might even feel sorry for him. If, however, that person deep
inside has a doubt about Jesus, another's expressing a doubt will tap into
their own repressed doubt. To avoid feeling the repressed doubt, the other
person must be eliminated. We can't eliminate the infidel within, but we
can project him and eliminate the infidel without.
Let's try this on for size. It's original to me (as far as I know). We
here in this country think we're religious. At the same time the Islamists
think they're religious. However, no matter how religious we are, most
Americans would never consider dying for their religion, while the
Islamists do. Therefore, they clearly love God more than we do since
they'll die for him and we won't. That might spark a sense of doubt of our
religious conviction and fuel our need to eliminate the infidel (our
projected sense of not serving God as well as they do). Or, we have to
distance them by telling ourselves there's something wrong with them so we
don't have to face our inferior belief. There are many other variables,
such as control issues and the like, but unconscious motives certainly are
in bold face on the list.
Andy Amago
> Some Christians say that Jews didn't believe in the "empty tomb," in
> the resurrection of Christ. Jews are "doubting Thomases." If a person were
> ABSOLUTELY SURE that Christ was resurrected (if there was no doubt), then
> there would be no reason to be ANGRY at the Jewish non-believer. If
someone
> tells me that I don't have a lamp on my table now, I don't get angry at
the
> fact that person "does not believe," because I see the lamp.
>
> We get angry at the non-believer when we have our own INTERNAL DOUBT
> (the infidel within).
>
> Just as excessive belief can be a response to doubt, so excessive
> doubt can be a response to considering that an idea might have some merit
or
> truth.
>
> With regards,
>
> Richard Koenigsberg
>
> __________________________________________________
> IDEOLOGIES OF WAR AND TERROR: JOIN THE LISTSERV:
> Over 460 people responded to our initial invitation. You still have the
> opportunity to become a charter member of this exciting listserv that
> seeks to unravel the psychological sources of ideologies of destruction.
> To participate, simply send an e-mail to:
> oanderson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> __________________________________________________________
> Library of Social Science
>
> Richard A. Koenigsberg, Ph. D., Director
> Telephone: 1-718-393-1081
>
> Orion Anderson, Communications Director
> Telephone: 1-718-393-1104
>
> Website for RICHARD KOENIGSBERG
> http://home.earthlink.net/~libraryofsocialscience/
>
> Website for THE KOENIGSBERG LECTURES ON THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CULTURE AND
> HISTORY
> http://www.conflictaslesson.com/why_main.html
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
