posted February 14, 2013 12:47 AM            

quote:

---

[Violence and the Sacred] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Girard

If two individuals desire the same thing, there will soon be a third, then a fourth. This process quickly snowballs. Since from the beginning the desire is aroused by the other (and not by the object) the object is soon forgotten and the mimetic conflict transforms into a general antagonism. At this stage of the crisis the antagonists will no longer imitate each other's desires for an object, but each other's antagonism. They wanted to share the same object, but now they want to destroy the same enemy. So, a paroxysm of violence would tend to focus on an arbitrary victim and a unanimous antipathy would, mimetically, grow against him. The brutal elimination of the victim would reduce the appetite for violence that possessed everyone a moment before, and leaves the group suddenly appeased and calm. The victim lies before the group, appearing simultaneously as the origin of the crisis and as the one responsible for this miracle of renewed peace. He becomes sacred, that is to say the bearer of the prodigious power of defusing the crisis and bringing peace back. René Girard believes this to be the genesis of archaic religion, of ritual sacrifice as the repetition of the original event, of myth as an account of this event, of the taboos that forbid access to all the objects at the origin of the rivalries that degenerated into this absolutely traumatizing crisis. This religious elaboration takes place gradually over the course of the repetition of the mimetic crises whose resolution brings only a temporary peace. The elaboration of the rites and of the taboos constitutes a kind of empirical knowledge about violence.

If mimetic disruption comes back, our instinct will tell us to do again what the sacred has done to save us, which is to kill the scapegoat. Therefore it would be the force of substitution of immolating another victim instead of the first. But the relationship of this process with representation is not one that can be defined in a clear-cut way. This process would be one that moves towards representation of the sacred, towards definition of the ritual as ritual and prohibition as prohibition. But this process would already begin prior the representation, you see, because it is directly produced by the experience of the misunderstood scapegoat.[11]

---

For example : In relation to the Judeo-Christian situation we can see aspects of this in full swing.

quote:

---

In Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World, René Girard discusses for the first time Christianity and the Bible. The Gospels ostensibly present themselves as a typical mythical account, with a victim-god lynched by a unanimous crowd, an event that is then commemorated by Christians through ritual sacrifice — a material re-presentation in this case — in the Eucharist.

The parallel is perfect except for one detail: the truth of the innocence of the victim is proclaimed by the text and the writer. The mythical account is usually built on the lie of the guilt of the victim inasmuch as it is an account of the event seen from the viewpoint of the anonymous lynchers. This ignorance is indispensable to the efficacy of the sacrificial violence.

---

Anyhow its vast topic with many tributaries of which I myself am still looking into, but I find it fascinating and a very plausible hypothesis as to the ancient roots of religion...

I also think he is relatively incorrect in in relation to the Judeo "exception"... as it has many other ancient aspects besides the Jesus iteration.

Ill try posting some more on that later.

posted February 14, 2013 01:40 AM            

And it is also worth mentioning that the theology of the "Eucharist" is a creation of the Roman Church as a sacrament

posted February 14, 2013 02:34 AM            

quote:

---

And it is also worth mentioning that the theology of the "Eucharist" is a creation of the Roman Church as a sacrament

---

Im not sold on that by any means : http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum21/HTML/000504.html

I bring up the Jesus scenario as a basic example:

However I'm more interested in looking at religion as a whole and not getting caught in the minutia such as what % of a possible "fictional crowd" felt Jesus was innocent or not.

Id prefer if the debate leaned towards the psychological relationship of religion and its devotee's as it has evolved over the ages, and how and why it started.

For those happy with the Bible as the literal truth, this is not the thread for you -.-

(Ive posted about that many times in other threads)

posted February 14, 2013 04:09 PM            

His theory is actually in reference to far more ancient psychological problems that leans towards such type(s)of events occurring over the ages to appease Freudian-esq needs/desires...

Ill try posting my breakdown of that situation later.

posted February 15, 2013 10:46 AM            

quote:

---

If two individuals desire the same thing, there will soon be a third, then a fourth. This process quickly snowballs.

---

Is that because the thing is essential, like food? Maybe there's a plant that someone discovers is edible or medicinal, demonstrates its value, and then creates a demand?

quote:

---

Since from the beginning the desire is aroused by the other (and not by the object) the object is soon forgotten and the mimetic conflict transforms into a general antagonism.

---

So in the example I gave, the focus shifts from being about self-preservation against starvation and disease, to self-preservation against others stealing resources?

quote:

---

At this stage of the crisis the antagonists will no longer imitate each other's desires for an object, but each other's antagonism. They wanted to share the same object, but now they want to destroy the same enemy.

---

Then again, so is religion. Hmm.

posted February 15, 2013 04:41 PM            

I keep saying, I'm going to post about it later!

I will, but Im just still looking into various aspects of it myself -.-

posted February 16, 2013 05:07 PM            

So to paraphrase Mr Price:

His says René Girards basic ideas stems from notion that all society began as a way of making peace from class warfare and ultimately the war of all against all. You have two classes, countries or clans etc, locked in deadly combat. Who knows who started it after and after a while it doesnt matter because each side sinks to the level of the other. Becoming the Monstrous Double".

All is on the point of destruction. And finally since nobody will admit they are in the wrong. They hatch the strategy of blaming a third party. Saying we have been put up to this conflict that nobody really wants, and somebody has tricked us into it. And who could that be?

So they find a scapegoat, an already marginalized group, Jews, Gypsy's, Witches etc. It must be their fault, or that of an individual who has some kind of power be it magical or influenced and that's how they have insidiously created this situation. If we can just get rid of them this will solve the problem!

This then becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, as they do find the person or the group and they put them to death. Soon after the event they begin to think better of this Person/Group. They start saying: You know that person really should be understood as a savior. Because look whats happened with the mere sacrifice of their life! The whole problem/conflict was solved. Peace was brought and salvation came. So I guess that person WAS the savior.

Yet now we bare the guilt for having not recognized them as such and put them to death. So then the people cannot live with that guilt, and start creating secondary and tertiary scapegoats characters. Who deceived us into thinking that this savior was really a culprit? Maybe a Judas figure and so forth

Girard says this kind of mob scapegoating behavior happened again and again (Indeed just look at the History of Religion and its ties to brutal violence over the ages of marginalized groups/people). But the knowledge of it has been repressed!

The violence and the urges towards violence vicariously routinize in religion and as Freud suggest: The Original Sacrifice is forgotten yet remembered, half remembered symbolically in the form of animal sacrifice, remorsefully repeating the sacrifice of the scapegoat in a safe form, [The Eucharist, Art, Cross necklace(s) and so on].

The Original sacrifice has to remain forgotten or it wont work, and eventually if people do forget what happened and their religion and ritual begins to become more refined with LESS having to do with sacrifice, the violence may erupt again.

Enormously fascinating theory as It determines that all archaic religion came from this mass violence and its cover up!

As Robert M Price says: "Is the theory compelling in its ingenious treatment of the evidence? It certainly is, yet does that mean Girard really has a window into the past? Impossible to know!"

By just looking back over the past 2000 years we see this pattern of Violence and Religion erupting again and again!

posted February 16, 2013 10:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Padre35:

Eh, to me it seems like an attempt to marry Sociology to Philosophy with dubious underpinnings and -0- regard for individual action.

In essence, an attempt to become a religion while eschewing religion.

---

Dubious underpinnings?

As it stands your Rebuttal is to say that that Girards theory is forming a religion of anti-religion, regardless if he is correct in his assertions about the origin of archaic-religion.

...?

That is not a refute of the arguments, that is just and unbelievable cheap shot at Girard.

You are going to have to elaborate on your answer much further than that.

If you feel he is completely wrong, please point out where and how?

posted February 16, 2013 11:08 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lei_Kuei:
Enormously fascinating theory as It determines that all archaic religion came from this mass violence and its cover up!

---

I'd have to think about it longer to see how much it clicks with me...have to take the theory for a test drive, so to speak.

posted February 16, 2013 11:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lei_Kuei:
Dubious underpinnings?

As it stands your Rebuttal is to say that that Girards theory is forming a religion of anti-religion, regardless if he is correct in his assertions about the origin of archaic-religion.

...?

That is not a refute of the arguments, that is just and unbelievable cheap shot at Girard.

You are going to have to elaborate on your answer much further than that.

If you feel he is completely wrong, please point out where and how?

---

Nah, not taking a swipe at Girard, however it does seem to me he is dealing in the Mass construct the same as the religion he is speaking of, which to me merely points out the failing of both to recognize individual action and choice in the mix.

IE, the imprimatur is "this is how EVERYONE" thinks rather than an observation of the mass man operates and thinks and reacts.

Which as I mentioned earlier, is sloppy thinking, it is not sharp, it approaches dullness with yet more dullness.