I want to describe two different ways of believing something- organic and compositus. Compositus belief spreads itself by convincing people to subscribe to a list of doctrines. Organic belief spreads itself by getting people to *see* something, it is more like a vantage point than a list of doctrines. Unfortunately, this can make it very hard to spread organic beliefs. It’s difficult to proselytize a gestalt or way of seeing the whole.
It's interesting that you feel that what you are describing as organic belief is more stable, as I feel like the typical story of religions is that the first generation of followers are true believers who really get it, while subsequent generations just go through the motions and are more interested in the external trappings than the real ideas.
My second thought on this is whether "belief" is really the right framework to analyze this concept, or is it more some sense of group solidarity or shared goals that is relevant (and the parts about belief are secondary or just a description of a way of looking at the group relationship).
My third thought is that this reminds me of Wilfred Bion's group therapy concepts a bit, particularly the part about Work Groups vs. Basic Assumption Groups, or in general the idea of looking at different modes of actions of group behavior.
I think this might be a good way too of identifying when a split is *neccesary*, which is sometimes the case. Does the division go to the 'way of seeing things, as a whole'? If so, a split may be a better option than the confused outcomes of an organisation in a permanent tug of war of irreconcilable positions
typo? You have the term "artificial" in "Organic belief is much less defensive than artificial belief", perhaps an artifact from before you called it "compositus"
That's an interesting thought.
It's interesting that you feel that what you are describing as organic belief is more stable, as I feel like the typical story of religions is that the first generation of followers are true believers who really get it, while subsequent generations just go through the motions and are more interested in the external trappings than the real ideas.
My second thought on this is whether "belief" is really the right framework to analyze this concept, or is it more some sense of group solidarity or shared goals that is relevant (and the parts about belief are secondary or just a description of a way of looking at the group relationship).
My third thought is that this reminds me of Wilfred Bion's group therapy concepts a bit, particularly the part about Work Groups vs. Basic Assumption Groups, or in general the idea of looking at different modes of actions of group behavior.
Thanks for your post!
I think this might be a good way too of identifying when a split is *neccesary*, which is sometimes the case. Does the division go to the 'way of seeing things, as a whole'? If so, a split may be a better option than the confused outcomes of an organisation in a permanent tug of war of irreconcilable positions
typo? You have the term "artificial" in "Organic belief is much less defensive than artificial belief", perhaps an artifact from before you called it "compositus"