Personal Transformations: Moving from Violence to Peace

USIP, Apr 07: Personal Transformations: Moving from Violence to Peace

Quote:

---

This report is neither exhaustive nor definitive. Rather, I seek to take a closer look at the phenomenon of transformation through several individual cases. How it is that in societies at war, surrounded by ideologies of violence and experiences of threat, some people nevertheless become seekers of peace, advocates and practitioners of nonviolent conflict resolution?

Summary

• Just as people become religious extremists, some of them abandon extremism and embrace peace. For some this change is a spiritual transformation, similar to religious conversion.

• Under certain circumstances stress, crisis, and trauma appear to play an important role in the process of change.

• Geographic relocation may be important for some. Migration involves novelty, insecurity, and instability, conditions that enhance vulnerability and, perhaps, openness to change.

• The transformation experienced by religious extremists involves a reorientation in outlook and direction but does not necessarily imply an alteration in basic personality structure.

• A key factor in the transition is personal relationships. Change often hinges on a relationship with a mentor or friend who supports and affirms peaceful behavior.

---

Hi Jed,

Thanks for posting this. The profiles I've read so far match quite closely what I was trying to get at in another thread about "struggling with God" and the ability of someone to have very strong religious beliefs that are "fundamentalist" without resorting to violence to impose those beliefs.

Marc

A "real" religious extremist would be most angered by the attempts to create "heaven on earth" or attempts to "influence God." Therefore, the true religious extremist would feel no need to physically coerce others. (Or to commit acts of violence "in the name of God.")

What is loosely interpreted as religious extremism is actually a form of lack of confidence in the power of the worshipper's chosen deity. Is my God such a weakling that His Will can be defeated by the sight of a woman's face?

Religious insecurity is a much more appropriate label to apply to those who convert on the tip of the sword, and who commit acts of violence and use the religious "excuse" for pursuing violent means to an end.

"Just as people become religious extremists, some of them abandon extremism and embrace peace. For some this change is a spiritual transformation, similar to religious conversion."

This phrase is just downright insulting and disingenuous. It implies that religious extremism is violent and one cannot be religious and embrace "peace". About what I expect from the rabid humanist.

Hi 120mm,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 120mm

A "real" religious extremist would be most angered by the attempts to create "heaven on earth" or attempts to "influence God." Therefore, the true religious extremist would feel no need to physically coerce others. (Or to commit acts of violence "in the name of God.")

---

I'm not so sure about that. There's some interesting precedent for a belief that people are "commanded" to "build heaven on earth" - the Mennonites and Ahmish are non-violent examples. And, as for influencing God, there are tons of examples of that :D (mainly Christian and Jewish).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 120mm

What is loosely interpreted as religious extremism is actually a form of lack of confidence in the power of the worshipper's chosen deity. Is my God such a weakling that His Will can be defeated by the sight of a woman's face?

Religious insecurity is a much more appropriate label to apply to those who convert on the tip of the sword, and who commit acts of violence and use the religious "excuse" for pursuing violent means to an end.

---

Now, this I agree with totally! Let me toss in one additional psychosis that also seems to play out in addition to a lack of confidence in their God(s). In religions that are based on a guilt-sin complex, there may also exist a complex that says that God chooses only to act through individual humans. These humans must "hear" God and their ability to hear God is decreased by any personal sin. Therefore, in order to hear God better, they must get rid of personal sin as much as possible. Since sin derives from temptation and temptation from the Devil it is, therefore, imperative to eliminate all the sources of temptation that may be eliminated.

This type of psychosis appears to have been one of the major factors in the witch craze's instigators (i.e. Spengler and Kramer) and, I would suggest, is a major one in large parts of the Islamist movement.

Marc

Most really good lies are very close to the truth. As a practical matter, those who divest themselves of "sinful" items, and practice prayer and meditation, are able to gain "wisdom".

Effort spent pursuing reproductive, or pseudo-reproductive activities, for example, result in the consumption of limited time and resources. Time spent meditating or "praying" free from distraction can be used to develop wisdom and "a long view", regardless in one's individual belief system.

The Judeo-Christian 10 Commandments have an undeniably practical purpose. A person who makes the choice to attempt to apply them to his/her own life won't go too far wrong.

The train appears to leave the tracks about the time that application departs from one individual doing this to themselves for personal reasons and decides to apply it to others.

Quote:

---

The train appears to leave the tracks about the time that application departs from one individual doing this to themselves for personal reasons and decides to apply it to others.

---

Absolutely!

Amen ( no pun/sarcasm intended)

Hi Folks,

Well, you know I really can't let unanimity go unchallenged.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 120mm

The train appears to leave the tracks about the time that application departs from one individual doing this to themselves for personal reasons and decides to apply it to others.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Odom

Absolutely!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goesh

Amen ( no pun/sarcasm intended)

---

I would have to say that the decision to apply ones beliefs to others is not only very common but, in the absence of other suitable "technologies" for attaining "wisdom", probably mandatory.

All of our legal codes are based on certain metaphysical, primarily "religious", beliefs and attitudes. Consider, by way of example, the Western, Christian based concept of "marriage" with all of its limitations such as having a single spouse and, even more limiting, of the opposite sex? This is an inherently "religious" behavioural attitude that has been forced on some people (e.g. the original Mormon Church, Cambodian refugees in North America, Muslims in North America, etc.).

How about the Anglo-Complex cultural trait of respect for individual choice and it's corollary of both "agreement to disagree", democracy and the rule of law? These derive from the weird blending of several religious traditions including, most recently, Puritan concepts (Cromwell had a bit to say about that :D).

Note that I am not saying that it should be this way, merely that it is.

Marc

Quote:

---

Note that I am not saying that it should be this way, merely that it is.

---

No argument from me just a personal comment: that inevitable tendency is why I believe (speaking as a lifer NRA member by the way) that the most important platform in the US and generally Western systems of government is the separation of church and state. Organized religion is by definition organized to impose a way on its followers and at the same time expand the following.


Tom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

Hi Folks,

All of our legal codes are based on certain metaphysical, primarily "religious", beliefs and attitudes. Consider, by way of example, the Western, Christian based concept of "marriage" with all of its limitations such as having a single spouse and, even more limiting, of the opposite sex? This is an inherently "religious" behavioural attitude that has been forced on some people (e.g. the original Mormon Church, Cambodian refugees in North America, Muslims in North America, etc.).

How about the Anglo-Complex cultural trait of respect for individual choice and it's corollary of both "agreement to disagree", democracy and the rule of law? These derive from the weird blending of several religious traditions including, most recently, Puritan concepts (Cromwell had a bit to say about that :D).

Note that I am not saying that it should be this way, merely that it is.

Marc

---

I would respond to the western religious attitudes toward marriage as being primarily practical. Homosexual marriage has no practical biological/social purpose, therefore it is not viewed as legitimate. In fact, there is no history of same-sex marriage, even among the Ancient Greeks, that I can think of. Homosexual acts are not generally useful to a society/biosphere, except as an act of domination, and therefore they are not viewed as legitimate, except for by a minority of brain-washed and repeatedly beaten by PC police individuals.

The concept of marriage being of one man to one woman is actually a good strategy for in-group/out-group peace, in that the pressures to gain "mating opportunities" lessen when more younger males can attain mating opportunities, as the natural order of things appears to be multiple females mated to older/more powerful individual males in a society. (I'm shamelessly stealing that concept from Van Der Dennen's work) In a small society, fighting for it's proverbial genetic life, multiple females to single males is a quite successful way to pass good genes and to keep the non-mated males fighting for additional mating opportunities.

Hi 120mm,

Just before I get into my responses, let me note that they are meant in the spirit of debate and no "attack" of a personal nature at all is intended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 120mm

I would respond to the western religious attitudes toward marriage as being primarily practical. Homosexual marriage has no practical biological/social purpose, therefore it is not viewed as legitimate.

---

Actually, I have to disagree with you on this. There are quite practical biological and social reasons for it, albeit not the ones normally thought of. First, from the viewpoint of producing children, absent technological (e.g. IVF) or social interventions (e.g. adoption), you are quite correct. However, from the viewpoint of raising children, homosexual couples (and this is assuming that we are restricting this to couples) are quite capable of successfully raising children. Given our species reproductive strategy, low birth rate, high per offspring resource investment, then allowing homosexual couples to raise children is an added survival benefit.

Second, raising children can also be viewed as a social purpose but, I would also argue, that a more important social purpose would be to define and constrain a particular type of relationship in a manner that is inclusive. This avoids the creation of a "class" of people whom society views as legitimate "targets" and "sources of all evil". Consider, by way of analogy, the social role played by the Jews in Europe during the 19th century or the African Americans in the US in the same time period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 120mm

In fact, there is no history of same-sex marriage, even among the Ancient Greeks, that I can think of.

---

Strangely enough, homosexual marriages were legal in Imperial Rome under some very tight restrictions. Then again, probably the only reason why they didn't exist in Greece was because we tend to conflate the concepts of romantic love, sexual practice and marriage together while the Greeks didn't: to paraphrase some of the writings at the time coming out of Thebes, marriage was for women, love was for men because you can only love an equal, not an inferior (which gives you a good idea of how women were thought of then!).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 120mm

Homosexual acts are not generally useful to a society/biosphere, except as an act of domination, and therefore they are not viewed as legitimate, except for by a minority of brain-washed and repeatedly beaten by PC police individuals.

---

Hmmm, and the radical feminazi's say the same about heterosexual relationships :D.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 120mm

The concept of marriage being of one man to one woman is actually a good strategy for in-group/out-group peace, in that the pressures to gain "mating opportunities" lessen when more younger males can attain mating opportunities, as the natural order of things appears to be multiple females mated to older/more powerful individual males in a society. (I'm shamelessly stealing that concept from Van Der Dennen's work) In a small society, fighting for it's proverbial genetic life, multiple females to single males is a quite successful way to pass good genes and to keep the non-mated males fighting for additional mating opportunities.

---

Van Dennen's work in this area does strike me as somewhat in the genre of apologetics :wry:. Actually, I would argue that a one-man to one-woman strategy is, at best, a poor strategy. Unless you have very strong extended kin groups, the resources available to raise children are, on the whole, less in the 1:1 model than in any other.

If we look at all of the marriage strategies that we, as a species, have used, there is actually quite a variety of them. For example, polygamy (1 man, many women), as a strategy, works well if your social group is likely to have high male mortality rates. This is one of the reasons why it shows up in almost all pastoralist societies and in their religions (e.g. Abrahamc Judaism, Islam, etc.). In societies where women are more at risk than men, we do sometimes see polyandrous marriage (1 woman, many men) develop - Tibet being the classic example.

Then we have examples where certain components of what we now think of as marriage serve as more of a defining characteristic: for example, the raising of children. For example, if we consider the so-called Hawaiian system of kinship, you will find that the same term is used to refer to your father, your fathers brothers and your mothers brothers (and the same on the female side "mother" = biological mother, mothers sisters and fathers sisters).

In general what seems to happen (in the long run, not the short term of a century or so) is that people adapt their marriage practices to their living environment and this, in turn, causes changes in their religious beliefs which then become hardened into legal systems. In a few cases, we have seen situations where a groups reproductive strategy has failed to adapt and that group has died out. The classic example of this is the Shakers who relied on a "conversion" strategy (basically a modification of adoption) and wouldn't change their religious beliefs when conversions dropped to nothing.

Let me go back to something I said in the last post:

Quote:

---

I would have to say that the decision to apply ones beliefs to others is not only very common but, in the absence of other suitable "technologies" for attaining "wisdom", probably mandatory.

---

My basic argument line is that, barring other technologies of attaining wisdom (defined as "right action" - a very Buddhist definition I'll admit), then religious systems will produce a "collective wisdom" that mirrors cultural survival practices.

So, to get back to the article that Jed posted originally and bring that in, I would also note that every religious system I have studied, and that's a lot of them, contains "other technologies of achieving wisdom" or, to be more precise, contains technologies for achieving wisdom at the individual level. In most of the well know religions, this tends to be lumped together a "mysticism", but there are many other forms: the Native American Spirit Quest, the Australian Walkabout, the "fire dancing" of the !Kung San, etc. Buddhism, at least in its original form and in some of its modern day incarnations, is actually closer to being a technology for achieving individual wisdom than it is to the Western concept of "religion".

One of the things I really liked about that article was that it really got down to the core of how an individual can make the shift from compiling / reinforcing a "collective wisdom" that they are parroting to where they a) start to achieve individual wisdom and b) act to reinterpret "collective wisdom".

Folks, I didn't really intend to push too many buttons with the example I used (okay, a few I'll admit :D). I could have chosen other examples such as the idea of "universal suffrage" (tied to the theological concept of all humans being created equal) or the right of eminent domain (which comes from a really old position of the Crown/State as the earthly representative of God who "owns" everything).

What I was really after was to draw out the idea of linkages between belief, practice, social institutions and how these can be changed. I hope no one is too pissed off about my "brain-washed and repeatedly beaten by PC police" comments :D.

Marc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

So, to get back to the article that Jed posted originally and bring that in, I would also note that every religious system I have studied, and that's a lot of them, contains "other technologies of achieving wisdom" or, to be more precise, contains technologies for achieving wisdom at the individual level. In most of the well know religions, this tends to be lumped together a "mysticism", but there are many other forms: the Native American Spirit Quest, the Australian Walkabout, the "fire dancing" of the !Kung San, etc. Buddhism, at least in its original form and in some of its modern day incarnations, is actually closer to being a technology for achieving individual wisdom than it is to the Western concept of "religion".

One of the things I really liked about that article was that it really got down to the core of how an individual can make the shift from compiling / reinforcing a "collective wisdom" that they are parroting to where they a) start to achieve individual wisdom and b) act to reinterpret "collective wisdom".

---

Funny thing about religion is that its use cuts both ways. It can be a tool to heighten one’s personal growth and development. It can also be a tool to justify a refusal to grow and change.

On this discussion board, I have found opinions expressed about the hide-bound Islamists who are hiding behind a false religious outlook to justify their depredations. But, I have also found posts touting how enlightened the Western Christian attitude is.

What I would truly like to understand is the way that the cognative mind motivates the connative mind. In other words, how does one go from knowing what ought to be done to actually doing it? That is the real magic act that needs explaining. (Having said this, I have revealed my religion—a belief [or perhaps ‘hope’ is a better word choice] that we will ultimately be able to produce a rational explanation of human behavior that allows us to keep things like the recent Va Tech tragedy from happening.)

Zen may give us the tools to cut through the false perceptions of reality that we typically hold. What it does not seem to do is give us any reason for moving out from under the Bo tree once we have become enlightened.

I feel compelled to share this quotation from Robert Heinlein’s character Lazarus Long,
“History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it.” (The Notebooks of Lazarus Long, 1978)

Hi WM,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wm

What I would truly like to understand is the way that the cognative mind motivates the connative mind. In other words, how does one go from knowing what ought to be done to actually doing it? That is the real magic act that needs explaining. (Having said this, I have revealed my religion—a belief [or perhaps ‘hope’ is a better word choice] that we will ultimately be able to produce a rational explanation of human behavior that allows us to keep things like the recent Va Tech tragedy from happening.)

---

That is the "Holy Grail", isn't it :wry:. My own "belief" (?) is that such a "rational explanation" is possible, but not within the bounds of empiricist rationality. I think that the only people who have truly managed to develop a "rationality" for this area are the mystics - at least in as much as being able to integrate thought and emotion, mind and body into a single, coherent system that appears to achieve the results it says it will.

At the purely intellectual, "rational" if you will, level, I think we are slowly chipping away at the linkages. For me, one of the biggest "A Ha!" moments I ever had was when I found the linkage between ecstatic religious practice and massive surges in blood sugar levels which, later, translated into semi-conscious control over states of consciousness.

Marc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

Hi WM,
For me, one of the biggest "A Ha!" moments I ever had was when I found the linkage between ecstatic religious practice and massive surges in blood sugar levels which, later, translated into semi-conscious control over states of consciousness.

---

Marct,

Next you'll be quoting Don Juan to me from Carlos Castenada's books. :wry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wm

Next you'll be quoting Don Juan to me from Carlos Castenada's books. :wry:

---

Nah... I'd be more likely to quote Dion Fortune, Hildegard of Bingham, al-Ghazali or Maimonides to you :D. Or, possibly, Shakespeare:

* This above all — to thine ownself be true;
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
o Polonius, scene iii

* There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
o Hamlet, scene v


Marc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

Nah... I'd be more likely to quote Dion Fortune, Hildegard of Bingham, al-Ghazali or Maimonides to you :D. Or, possibly, Shakespeare:

* This above all — to thine ownself be true;
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
o Polonius, scene iii

* There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
o Hamlet, scene v


Marc

---

Glad you chose not to cite Hildegard. I think she may have been suffering from the same kind of ergot poisoning that was alleged to be the real issue with the witches in Limousin and maybe even Salem, Mass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wm

Glad you chose not to cite Hildegard. I think she may have been suffering from the same kind of ergot poisoning that was alleged to be the real issue with the witches in Limousin and maybe even Salem, Mass.

---

Hmmm, given that she was running an abbey, commanding a pretty good military force and running one of the best hospitals in existence at the time, if she was suffering from ergot poisoning, maybe we should give it to a few people now :eek::D.

I'm glad you raised the ergot issue, since there is a lot of material on neuropharmacology and religious experience. I've done some study in the area (down, Stan!), and there are some really interesting correlations between type of toxin and specific experience. Hans Peter Duerr's Dreamtime is probably one of the best investigations of the links.

Marc

Dr. Marc wrote:

Quote:

---

"At the purely intellectual, "rational" if you will, level, I think we are slowly chipping away at the linkages. For me, one of the biggest "A Ha!" moments I ever had was when I found the linkage between ecstatic religious practice and massive surges in blood sugar levels which, later, translated into semi-conscious control over states of consciousness"

---

It has always seemed to me that people with disorganized thinking patterns, short attention spans, poor task persistance, odd or limited social affect gravitate to extremist movements precisely because the sense of exaltation provided and the manichean moral codes help " focus" and energize their cognitive processes. Sort of a social equivalent to self-medicating with drugs or alcohol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zenpundit

It has always seemed to me that people with disorganized thinking patterns, short attention spans, poor task persistance, odd or limited social affect gravitate to extremist movements precisely because the sense of exaltation provided and the manichean moral codes help " focus" and energize their cognitive processes. Sort of a social equivalent to self-medicating with drugs or alcohol.

---

That's a good point, Mark - although it's more likely that it's self medicating via dopamine and nor-epinephrine :wry:. My own fieldwork tended to show three major personality types: the Seeker (someone searching for transcendental "meaning"), the "natural born follower" someone searching for a cause), and the type you mention. Add to that the usual mix of cynical opportunists, badly psychologically damaged people and the occasional person who has there feces coagulated, and you have the typical New Religious Movement. On the whole, unless an ecstatic religion is a fairly strong part of the cultural matrix, it does tend to be used as a "drug".

I should point out, however, that there are a number of cultural matrices that do has strong ecstatic religious components. When you find this situation, the self medicating type is almost always excluded since they are, usually, too unstable to handle the expected changes. You certainly find that type of exclusion in most mystical traditions and in most magical traditions too; usually with a caveat that the esoteric knowledge is too "powerful" to be given away to the vast majority of people.

Marc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

I should point out, however, that there are a number of cultural matrices that do has strong ecstatic religious components. When you find this situation, the self medicating type is almost always excluded since they are, usually, too unstable to handle the expected changes. You certainly find that type of exclusion in most mystical traditions and in most magical traditions too; usually with a caveat that the esoteric knowledge is too "powerful" to be given away to the vast majority of people.

---

Marc,

I submit that claims to "special" esoteric knowledge beyond the reach of the hoi polloi are not limited to magical and mystical traditions. For example, this sounds a lot like the reasoning of the RC church until the Vatican put the Mass into the vernacular instead of Latin. Or do you consider the RC church in the mystic tradition?

I think that any organized group, religious or secular, has a body of knowledge that it considers esoteric. I further submit that ithis knowledge is graduated into various levels or degrees (apprentice, journeyman, master, e.g.) The knowledge of these various "secret handshakes" is passed on to those worthy enough to receive it in a series of initiation rituals of various kinds. With US Army officers, for example, it is partially codified in the various levels of military schooling one must complete to be eligible for promotion.

Hi WM,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wm

I submit that claims to "special" esoteric knowledge beyond the reach of the hoi polloi are not limited to magical and mystical traditions. For example, this sounds a lot like the reasoning of the RC church until the Vatican put the Mass into the vernacular instead of Latin. Or do you consider the RC church in the mystic tradition?

---

Oh I totally agree. Almost all human institutions are based around a differential control over knowledge. Actually, I would consider the RC church to be based on a mystical tradition, but not in its exoteric form. For example, the Vatican II shift into the vernacular actually destroyed a lot of the symbolic linkages that had been established in the minds of many practitioners. You can see this in the fairly large amount of people leaving the church including large numbers of the priesthood and monastic orders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wm

I think that any organized group, religious or secular, has a body of knowledge that it considers esoteric. I further submit that ithis knowledge is graduated into various levels or degrees (apprentice, journeyman, master, e.g.) The knowledge of these various "secret handshakes" is passed on to those worthy enough to receive it in a series of initiation rituals of various kinds. With US Army officers, for example, it is partially codified in the various levels of military schooling one must complete to be eligible for promotion.

---

Sounds right to me with the one caveate that the Guild organization you are referring to is a Western European model, and doesn't apply all that well in some cultures. There are usually recognizable similarities, though: student, someone trying to gain mastery, someone who has achieved mastery. Where the structures tend to differ is in things such as creating a "level" which has the social right to "speak" for the "guild" (aka Guild Master), or where someone has the "right" to modify "guild" knowledge.

There are some other similarities that operate as well. One thing that you find is that the right to practice any esoteric knowledge system, including military operations :D, is conditional upon passing fairly strict tests. Sometimes these "tests", actually they are rites of passage, are run by the "guild" or profession, and sometimes they are judged by the general members of the culture.

Marc

Marc

"

Quote:

---

That's a good point, Mark - although it's more likely that it's self medicating via dopamine and nor-epinephrine . My own fieldwork tended to show three major personality types: the Seeker (someone searching for transcendental "meaning"), the "natural born follower" someone searching for a cause), and the type you mention. Add to that the usual mix of cynical opportunists, badly psychologically damaged people and the occasional person who has there feces coagulated, and you have the typical New Religious Movement. On the whole, unless an ecstatic religion is a fairly strong part of the cultural matrix, it does tend to be used as a "drug". "

---

To religion I would add powerful secular ideologies - nationalism, national socialism, communism and so on. Perhaps there's a basis for a journal article entitled " The neurochemistry of Eric Hoffer's True Believer"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

Oh I totally agree. Almost all human institutions are based around a differential control over knowledge.

There are some other similarities that operate as well. One thing that you find is that the right to practice any esoteric knowledge system, including military operations :D, is conditional upon passing fairly strict tests. Sometimes these "tests", actually they are rites of passage, are run by the "guild" or profession, and sometimes they are judged by the general members of the culture.

---

If we agree that the various forms of institutional control amount to leveraging knowledge, how does one apply this to the current Small Wars environment?
Seems to me that this is the kind of tactic that would be useful in pulling potential recruits away from the terrorists and into the camp of the "defenders of truth, justice and the civilized way" (to parapahrase slightly). I am proposing an alternative spin to the traditionally WHAM approach to COIN. I submit that a part of the terrorists' appeal is a sense of belonging and growth. What alternative organizations could be supported to fill the void in a socially constructive way for the seekers who now gravitate to "Future Bombers 'R' Us"?