Perils of prosperity

[hallenrm]

Today morning I accidentally hit a thread on Hypography related to Scientology. I had never come across this word earlier, so intrigued I tried my luck at wikipedia, and Wow, was I rewarded? There is a whole lot of information there which is indeed very exciting and revealing.

 

Having gone through the main article on scientology (on Wikipedia) my mind started excreting juices of thoughts. Is scientology a novel phenomena? What is the origin of such social phenomena?

 

My limited social knowledge reveals that scientology is not a novel phenomena. Such phenomena have been observed in many a prosperous societies, even in the ancient times. The rise and fall of the Roman Empire and that of Indus civilizations immediately struck my mind. So this phenomena, of intellectual decay that we can observe in most prosperous western countries is not a novelty at all, it is history repeating itself!

 

Whenever a population becomes prosperous by the virtue of the intellectual efforts of a part of it, a vast segment of the population is left behind, because the intellectual fruits diffuse through the society much more slowly than the economic boom that follows it. The result is a vast population which although gains from the fruits of knowledge gained by the few, has little inclination to delve into it. Instead it suffers the maladies of prosperity, hypertension and confusion to name only two. This vast population than seeks quick relief and is an easy prey to any Charlton who claims to have a panacea for all diseases.

 

In India also a mushrooming of such Charlton's has been observed lately. The rewards for the successful lure many and the scant knowledge required is available rather easily. Take for example the phenomena called Sai Baba, Rajneesh or Ramdev. They are no different than Hubbard who initiated Scientology. The only difference is perhaps the scale, IBM or Microsoft vs Infosys; Dupont vs the Tata's. The ultimate scale depends on the developing prosperity of the society concerned.

 

Is there an easy escape? That's a trillion dollar question, who will find the answer and who would pay the prize is perhaps equally unknown!

[ughaibu]

I think cult phenomena, whether destructive or benign, aren't that simple. To get an idea of the range of organisations and concepts, have a look at these pages: http://www.rickross.com/sg_alpha.html

[CraigD]

I believe hallenrm is, in essence, suggesting a positive coloration between the “prosperity” of a society – which can be objectively measured several ways (eg: infant mortality, life expectancy, average nutritional intake and quality; average leisure time) – and “intellectual decay” – which can also be objectively measured several ways (eg a decrease in: literacy rate, average years of education, standardized test scores, per capita number of scientific awards received)

 

I don’t think this claim is supported by these data.

 

In “less prosperous”, subsistence-level societies, a greater fraction of human effort is spent on subsistence and survival. For example, a marginal agricultural community faced with the choice of having literacy, at the expense of a substantial fraction of the available time of one or more adults and all children, and having enough stored food to survive winter, must chose the later – literacy is of no use to anyone if they have all starved to death. In a “more prosperous” society, children are no longer essential laborers, and all people have more time not spent on essential labor to dedicate to education, science, art. This free time can be, and often is by sociologist, termed “leisure.” The relationship between social prosperity, leisure, and intellectual accomplishment is described in many sources – my favorite is Josef Pieper’s 1951 book “Leisure: The Basis of Culture”.

 

A subsistence-level society, with little time for intellectual pursuits of any kind, will consequently have little intellectual deviance or perversity. Such societies typically exhibit religious orthodoxy (single shared beliefs), and intolerance for deviance or “free thinking”. Anything that distracts from a strong work and cooperation ethic is potenially hazardous to the community’s survival. Non-subsistence-level societies exhibit diverse ideas, and tend to be tolerant or even encouraging of deviance and perversity. Intellectual deviance and free thinking doesn’t threaten survival, and occasionally results advances in systems and technology that increase prosperity, and further increase leisure.

 

As hallenrm emphasizes, charlatanism is bad. Viewed in terms of leisure, charlatans squander and misuse their victims leisure time. For example, an intelligent person, rather than studying science, may through the manipulations of a charlatan dedicate their efforts to mysticism or pseudoscience, becoming themselves a charlatan, and influencing others.

 

The challenge, then, is to distinguish charlatans from “free thinkers”, who occasionally produce high-value ideas. I offer that one distinguishing characteristic is intent: on some level, somewhere within a social influence network, a charlatan is aware that their efforts are intended not to help individuals and further society, but to assure their financial and social well-being.

 

This distinction can be murky and difficult to make. Many scientists have very unpleasant personalities, and are very focused on acquiring personal wealth and prestige, yet produce socially beneficial work, while many pseudoscientists are charismatic, and truly believe their efforts to be for the good of society – in some cases, correctly. Some self-admitted charlatans believe that, although they are deceiving and deluding people, the effect is ultimately beneficial. Scientific analysis reveals this to be, in some cases and to some extent, correct: Well-controlled survey-based studies have shown a positive correlation between moderate delusional thinking, happiness, and personal prosperity, as measured by health, property ownership, and other quantifiables. Conversely, very rational, skeptical people are often unhappy and socially and materially unsuccessful – the stereotypical geek.

 

As an improvement to my first criteria, I offer that a practical distinction between “good” charlatans and legitimate free thinkers vs. “bad” charlatans is a combination of intention and compassion. People who seek to influence other in order to better their own lives, while exhibiting no compassion or remorse for the effect this may have on their victims, are bad. People who deceive others, but believe they are helping them, are less bad, or may even be good.

[hallenrm]

Well put CraigD, I wholeheartedly appreciate your response!:)

 

As regards your reference to the work of Josef Piper, mu favorite is Bertrand Russell's In praise of Idleness.

 

In fact I consider myself to be a free thinker :eek2:

[ughaibu]

CraigD: Your remark, "well-controlled survey-based studies have shown a positive correlation between moderate delusional thinking, happiness, and personal prosperity, as measured by health, property ownership, and other quantifiables", is interesting, can you direct me to some sample studies, please.

At Ross's cult education forum there's considerable disagreement about which groups are "cults", "dangerous", etc, Ross particularly stresses financial exploitation and the existence of a leader, as distinguishing features of such groups. As there are plenty of counter-examples, neither of these features seem satisfactory, for purposes of definition, to me. I suggest thought control (bounded choice) and the promotion of a deviant reality, as the defining features, but this also has it's difficulties, notably that negative effects are only visible after they become established in the cult member and only to those outside the situation.

When one considers the hierarchical structure of authority in education and work environments, and the expectation that one spend forty odd years of one's life working a heavy schedule, it becomes easy to see society itself as a "dangerous group" and we the members as victims, even if happily oblivious. The same considerations apply to family structure and the indoctrination of children with parental beliefs. So, it may be that cult phenomena are an unavoidable property of human groups and the degree to which they are considered dangerous a reflection of demographics and one's own cult identity.

[Turtle]

Going outside of the Western ideas of prosperity, property, prestige, and intellectual societal development, we have the North American native tradition of the potlatch. In this scenario, the most respected (and possibley intelligent?) person is the one who gives away the most.

 

Potlatching was made illegal in Canada in 1885 and the United States in the late nineteenth century, largely at the urging of missionaries and government agents who considered it "a worse than useless custom" that was wasteful, unproductive, and contrary to the work ethic and values of the society of Canada and the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch

Web Search ResultsResults 1 - 10 of about 8,330 for potlatch tradition

 

Take that!:)

[hallenrm]

Interesting input indeed Turtle!

 

That reminds me of the temples and ashrams supported by many of such organizations in India.

 

The modus operandi is simple, amass a lot of wealth by fooling a lot of people, then spend (or should I say invest) a small portion of it to build structures so as the attract (fool?) still more. That is a business, in plain simple terms. It may act as an opium for many, and they may feel more comfortable with their life, but to what effect.

 

Are these acts useful to the society at large over a longer time frame. I am reminded of the hippie culture that became very popular several decades ago, many youngsters found it very convenient mean for a comfortable existence. Ultimately it withered off, perhaps making the society a bit more wise through the experience, same is the case with the Krishna consciousness cult.

 

These cults find devout followers, because the predominant way of life leaves many unsatisfied and unhappy. In fact this creates a market. Charlatans succeed to prosper because people are seeking easy solutions to their difficulties.

 

Here lies the limitation of the all powerful scientific knowledge! It is not able to fulfill the primary (?) needs of those who do not have to toil for food, water, energy and transportation. The prosperity they have inherited takes care of them all, but to what end!

 

I think, I have said much more then I set out to. But perhaps that is my need which forums like Hypography help people like me to meet!:hyper:

[IDMclean]

The potlatch has interesting connotations in DeMausian theory, and in a number of models of both psychological and economic significance.

 

The one which I am most familiar with and more readily accept as self-evident, is of course DeMause, though I would be interested in hearing different views regarding the system of material wealth.

 

In DeMausian theory, currency, and wealth is a abstract representation of guilt. That when one trades wealth, one trades guilt. I haven't read this in a while but I do think it ties in with a number of discussions going on around hypography.

 

Money as a Poison Container

 

I hope this proves as thought provoking to you as it did to me.

[hallenrm]

When one considers the hierarchical structure of authority in education and work environments, and the expectation that one spend forty odd years of one's life working a heavy schedule, it becomes easy to see society itself as a "dangerous group" and we the members as victims, even if happily oblivious. The same considerations apply to family structure and the indoctrination of children with parental beliefs. So, it may be that cult phenomena are an unavoidable property of human groups and the degree to which they are considered dangerous a reflection of demographics and one's own cult identity.

 

Interesting thoughts indeed Ughaibu

 

Your thoughts led to me think on the questions; "What is dangerous?" and "Who is really a victim?"

 

At some level of thought we are all victims and dangerous too, but can this realization lead to anything that is useful for human existence?

 

The statements like

 

society itself as a "dangerous group" and we the members as victims

 

are indeed futile, and your arguments can be considered as a veiled support for any cult whatsoever. Covert generalizations are not really useful for any truely rational discussion!:hyper:.

 

But, everybody is free to hold an opinion and find solace in the thoughts of one's choice.

 

I hope you agree with me on that thought.

[IDMclean]

Ah but Hallenrm, what he illuminates is that society itself, viewed objectively is a cult. What the distinguishment becomes then is cult and sub-cult. (cult being short for culture).

 

It is interesting that in my belief structure I have included a set of rules from a slightly unusual sub-cult, that of the BDSM circuit.

 

Safe, Sane, Consentual. Violence is unwanted pain, weather Emotional, Mental, Spiritual, Social, or Physical. Wanted pain, is not violence. This is the distinguishment of bad pain and good pain.

 

One learns quickly, that in the world of Domination and Submission, every relationship is built on a duality of control. The key here is what is acceptable by the cult (sub-cult) principles. Anything goes, as long as everyone involved agrees with what is going on.

 

In society, with work and all that, we agree to become slaves to aquire wealth. When one becomes an employee, one agrees to the rules set out by the employer. However, the one who is truely in control is always the submissive, except where immoral action is taken (that is something which violates the three rules of Safe, Sane, Consentual). In the case of a morally proper company, the employees are allocated the greatest power and responsibility. Unions proved this in the early 20th century. As did Gandhi (Practitioner of Dominance and Submission), with the India Independence movement.

 

What this all comes down to, in my opinion, is that there are two major positions society can take. Dominance-Submission, and Egalitarian. I believe the majority's in this case is D-S, for america. Most likely, given the Socio-economic distribution schemes of the various world goverments, this would be the majority's position, world wide.

 

So what I am saying is what we have here is a matter of Moral or Immoral BDSM. Sometimes Liminal, sometimes subliminal.

 

We agree to be each other's slaves to work for a better tomorrow. I hope to one day bring down the pyramid, and make it an equal playing field.

[ughaibu]

Hallenrm: The question I attempted to address concerns the general features of what are known as "cults" or "dangerous groups". The two main points being that these groups dont appear to have any unique general features and that the negative or positive definition of these groups arises from perspective.

KickAssClown has further clarified my point and notice that Turtle's post describes a system that was considered valuable by one society but useless by another.

I'm trying to point up a difficulty in meaningfully distinguishing between what is harmful and what is necessary.

[hallenrm]

Sorry Ugahaibu if I have misinterpreted your post, but the point that I had raised in the opening post of this thread was concerning a possible link between prosperity and eruption of organizations that are often not recognized to be useful to the society at large. A few examples that I used in my post were those of scientology and ashrams initiated by the so-called god man from India.

 

I presumed that such organizations are not really useful for the human society at large, and was trying to find a connexion between the prevalence of such organizations in different civilizations and the state of the economy. Thus my attention was more focused on this issue rather than the larger issue of cults/sub cults that emerge in the emerging societies.

 

If you believe that these topics are really inter related please enlighten me!

[ughaibu]

You are looking at the matter as a member of "the society at large", there are those who contend that mainstream religions, political factions, organisations like Alcoholics Anonymous, etc, are cults in the same sense that Scientology or EST are. This doesn't appear to be connected with the state of prosperity of a society. What you have in mind seems to be more on the lines of Maslow's triangle than a factor in cults.

[IDMclean]

Also, what is observed seems something akin to the signs of empire.

 

I would ask the question. What is to say that we are not simply more aware of these parasitical sub-cults than when we are busy trying to make survival needs met?

 

I do believe there is a connection between prosperity, innovation, and sub-cult formation. I just don't know how to ask the questions yet.

[hallenrm]

What you have in mind seems to be more on the lines of Maslow's triangle than a factor in cults.

 

Many thanks ugaibhu for giving me a useful link; I wasindeed totally ignorant of the work of Maslow. After I read his name I searched for information about him on the Net and I reached a wonderful article about his work on wikipedia. According to this article the needs of a human being can be represented by five segments of a triangle, the segment at the base represents the Physiological needs which are:

 

The physiological needs of the organism, those enabling homeostasis, take first precedence. These consist mainly of:

 

the need to breathe

the need to regulate body temperature

the need for water

the need for sleep

the need to eat

the need to dispose of bodily wastes

 

When some of the needs are unmet, a human's physiological needs take the highest priority. As a result of the prepotency of physiological needs, an individual will deprioritize all other desires and capacities. Physiological needs can control thoughts and behaviors, and can cause people to feel sickness, pain, and discomfort.

 

Maslow also places sexual activity in this category, as well as bodily comfort, activity, exercise, etc.

 

The come the safety needs;

 

When the physiological needs are met, the need for safety will emerge. Safety and security rank above all other desires. These include:

 

Security of employment

Security of revenues and resources

Physical security - safety from violence, delinquency, aggressions

Moral and physiological security

Familial security

Security of health

 

These are the needs which the advances science and technology help the members of a society to meet. Once they are met it approaches prosperity.

 

Next come the love/belonging needs, and then esteem needs and at the top of the triangle is the need for Self-transcendence. These are the needs that neither prosperity nor the science and technology of today can meet.

 

Viktor Frankl expresses the relationship between self-actualization and self-transcendence in Man's Search for Meaning. He wrote:

 

The true meaning of life is to be found in the world rather than within man or his own psyche, as though it were a closed system....Human experience is essentially self-transcendence rather than self-actualization. Self-actualization is not a possible aim at all, for the simple reason that the more a man would strive for it, the more he would miss it.... In other words, self-actualization cannot be attained if it is made an end in itself, but only as a side effect of self-transcendence. (p.175)

 

Maslow believes that we should study and cultivate peak experiences as a way of providing a route to achieve personal growth, integration, and fulfillment. Peak experiences are unifying, and ego-transcending, bringing a sense of purpose to the individual and a sense of integration. Individuals most likely to have peak experiences are self-actualized, mature, healthy, and self-fulfilled. All individuals are capable of peak experiences. Those who do not have them somehow depress or deny them.

 

It is to meet these needs that cults/subcults organizations which I have been talking about originate. Whenever people realize the potential for a market for a commodity, they innovate to market that commodity to gather personal gains/satisfaction.:hihi: :cup:

[InfiniteNow]

Pyramid... triangle... eh... close enough. :cup:

 

 

Another aspect of his work is that we cannot spend the resources attaining self-actualization if we are spending time searching for food and struggling to survive. Lots of neat ideas in the geometrical figure with three sides from the front, or from above... :hihi:

[ughaibu]

How does Maslow's theory account for suicide cults like Heaven's Gate or Solar Temple? Although these could be considered to represent the triangle's apex, they are also beneath it's base.