And then I started imagining that one day, we could have a rationalist ceremony like this; with all the emotions, but without the bullshit. I viewed the ongoing ceremony as a prototype of something better.
Actually many modern western wedding ceremonies are on a good way toward that. As many people are paying less and less commitment behind their nominal religion their wedding ceremonies consequently carry less and less weight on the scripture and more on the athmosphere, the ceremony (which by its structure supports the promise) the feelings (which are loosend by such celbrations), the music (which also works on the emotions), and lots of customs which all help to bring all involved together and by the facilitated exchanges support the couple.
Those people use the effects of the ceremony and the traditional willingness to participate in the ceremony without neccessarily believing the scripture or more than paying lip-service to it.
The question is: How to progress from here? Weddings outside of a church are usually not as grand. But maybe they can be made so (if you want to use this device at all of course).
The longer I think of it, the more it becomes clear that any ceremony is analogous to a technical device which makes some outcomes more likely than others. In this analogy a ceremony is like a pump which brings the actors/particles sufficiently close together that in this mood/field certain interchanges (commitments/reaction) are more likely to happen. And afterwards when the ceremony/pressure is over the commitment will not simply undo because of the same reasons the molecules formed will not (likely) revert.
A ceremony is a machine that uses emotions to change people.
For some people this may be a sufficient reason to hate ceremonies. Because they are typically designed by someone else, and may support goals we don’t agree with. Or the idea of some process predictably changing my mind feels repulsive.
The problem is, “changing my mind using emotions” is what happens all the time. No ceremonies, not even other people are required. The mere fact that I feel hungry, or tired, or lonely, or angry, is enough to change my mind. If these influences happen all the time randomly, usually without providing me any benefit, what’s wrong about using the same process deliberately to bring me something that I want?
My emotions are subject to thousand biases. I may believe that something is important, and yet not feel strongly about it; I may even forget it quickly. I may believe something is harmful, and yet not feel repelled by it. Modifying my emotions to fit my beliefs could be very helpful. (Also risky, if my beliefs are wrong. But that does not mean that having random emotions is safe.) I would like to have a machine to give me the emotions I want to have. (Similar to the “remoralization” spell in Night Watch.)
A ceremony is a machine that uses emotions to change people.
This is a great little phrase. And, in the church, I think ceremony is a useful or harmful machine in the ways you mention. And I think the potential for emotion-alteration is greater in a ceremony than just regular life. Not only at weddings, but in all kinds of formalized ceremonies—funerals, baptisms, worship services, etc.
Generally, it seems to me that adherents of religion enjoy the experience. It is meaningful and sometimes even euphoric. And it “gives them the emotions they want to have.” It’s a win for them in every sense...apart from having to accept nonsense. But they don’t seem bother with that aspect from my experience. (In that way, it all functions like an anti-fatalist mechanism for the believer...)
It’s a win for them in every sense...apart from having to accept nonsense.
Which is exactly why I’d love to have the ceremonies without the nonsense. To feel rational, strongly and reliably. (Well, more reliably than using other methods.)
A ceremony is a machine that uses emotions to change people.
You talk about it as if it were ovious/well known.
Is there actually any theory which does apply technical theories like particel dynamics, thermodynamics and/or process optimization theories to human social behavior patterns thus actually exploiting this analogy of ritual=machine?
Is there actually any theory which does apply technical theories like particel dynamics, thermodynamics and/or process optimization theories to human social behavior patterns
I know that one :-) I especially liked the part where the student discovered that the predictions were met better than ‘possible’ (probably by some convergence speed theorems).
Some theory which doesn’t try to predict aggregate outcomes of human actions (that wouldn’t work for longer time spans for the same reasons whether cannot be forcast precisely—chaos theory).
I thought about some theory which models smaller structures like transactions, rituals, customs, ceremonies and measures and predicts their frequency and ‘success’.
Actually many modern western wedding ceremonies are on a good way toward that. As many people are paying less and less commitment behind their nominal religion their wedding ceremonies consequently carry less and less weight on the scripture and more on the athmosphere, the ceremony (which by its structure supports the promise) the feelings (which are loosend by such celbrations), the music (which also works on the emotions), and lots of customs which all help to bring all involved together and by the facilitated exchanges support the couple.
Those people use the effects of the ceremony and the traditional willingness to participate in the ceremony without neccessarily believing the scripture or more than paying lip-service to it.
The question is: How to progress from here? Weddings outside of a church are usually not as grand. But maybe they can be made so (if you want to use this device at all of course).
The longer I think of it, the more it becomes clear that any ceremony is analogous to a technical device which makes some outcomes more likely than others. In this analogy a ceremony is like a pump which brings the actors/particles sufficiently close together that in this mood/field certain interchanges (commitments/reaction) are more likely to happen. And afterwards when the ceremony/pressure is over the commitment will not simply undo because of the same reasons the molecules formed will not (likely) revert.
A ceremony is a machine that uses emotions to change people.
For some people this may be a sufficient reason to hate ceremonies. Because they are typically designed by someone else, and may support goals we don’t agree with. Or the idea of some process predictably changing my mind feels repulsive.
The problem is, “changing my mind using emotions” is what happens all the time. No ceremonies, not even other people are required. The mere fact that I feel hungry, or tired, or lonely, or angry, is enough to change my mind. If these influences happen all the time randomly, usually without providing me any benefit, what’s wrong about using the same process deliberately to bring me something that I want?
My emotions are subject to thousand biases. I may believe that something is important, and yet not feel strongly about it; I may even forget it quickly. I may believe something is harmful, and yet not feel repelled by it. Modifying my emotions to fit my beliefs could be very helpful. (Also risky, if my beliefs are wrong. But that does not mean that having random emotions is safe.) I would like to have a machine to give me the emotions I want to have. (Similar to the “remoralization” spell in Night Watch.)
This is a great little phrase. And, in the church, I think ceremony is a useful or harmful machine in the ways you mention. And I think the potential for emotion-alteration is greater in a ceremony than just regular life. Not only at weddings, but in all kinds of formalized ceremonies—funerals, baptisms, worship services, etc.
Generally, it seems to me that adherents of religion enjoy the experience. It is meaningful and sometimes even euphoric. And it “gives them the emotions they want to have.” It’s a win for them in every sense...apart from having to accept nonsense. But they don’t seem bother with that aspect from my experience. (In that way, it all functions like an anti-fatalist mechanism for the believer...)
Which is exactly why I’d love to have the ceremonies without the nonsense. To feel rational, strongly and reliably. (Well, more reliably than using other methods.)
You talk about it as if it were ovious/well known.
Is there actually any theory which does apply technical theories like particel dynamics, thermodynamics and/or process optimization theories to human social behavior patterns thus actually exploiting this analogy of ritual=machine?
Psychohistory) :-D
I know that one :-) I especially liked the part where the student discovered that the predictions were met better than ‘possible’ (probably by some convergence speed theorems).
But no. I thought more about something along the lines of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_Economics (actually mentioned on your link).
Some theory which doesn’t try to predict aggregate outcomes of human actions (that wouldn’t work for longer time spans for the same reasons whether cannot be forcast precisely—chaos theory). I thought about some theory which models smaller structures like transactions, rituals, customs, ceremonies and measures and predicts their frequency and ‘success’.