The Ritual Angle

muaddib wrote:So this is interesting because I think it gets into semantics, although I won't blame you if you want to accuse me of stretching. In these moments when you solve some problem by going straight to the heart of it, is the problem one of strict necessity, or is your underlying motivation based on some value? The reason I ask is because even a process done with an emphasis on pragmatism/efficiency can still be symbolic (e.g. it represents progress).

Yep, you are stretching it.

You're saying rituals don't have to be prescribed or repetitive in any way, and just have to represent something. That's not rituals you're talking about, it's symbolic thinking and behavior. Which definitely is a defining human feature (very closely tied to language). So to me it sounds like you're stretching and conflating "meaning" (a fundamental aspect of symbolic thinking) and "ritual" (a fundamental aspect of structured societies), or at least reversing the ontological relationship.

On the other hand, you're saying Confucianist thought is what inspired your reasoning. And Confucianism really is all about rituals in the strictest sense of the word. So it sounds to me like you're applying some reverse logic there to rationalize feelings or hunches that you already have, which I suppose amount mostly to personal preference.

Speaking of personal preference, I don't know that much about ancient Chinese philosophers, but still, my favorite one is Zhuangzi. We are at odds, my friend.

The opposition to ritual appears childlike to me. Like some youngster at odds with the rules his parents are trying to enforce, coming to the conclusion “all rules are bad”. You know, you can make up your own rules. And if you still despise them maybe do a better job then.

I think our problems stem from diluted connections. I would describe a ritual as a conceptualized habit for the masses which in the best of cases facilitates natural behavior tailored towards the situation we're in.

Like what would be a good ritual for parents that had a child to have better chances to form a connection?
I don't think a baby shower does the trick.

Our relations have never been weaker, every ritual, may it have been good or bad in the beginning, is transformed into a capitalistic materiel battle and we wonder why hundreds of thousands minors in the US get lured into commercial sex trade every year.

The Confucians had their perspective of order; so they argued for the respective ritual to see this order enforced.
Before we argue rituals we have to argue order.
If we have an order then rituals are a great means for solidification.

If there were rituals facilitating connection between parents and their kids, I think some of us wouldn't be here.

zeno wrote:

muaddib wrote:So this is interesting because I think it gets into semantics, although I won't blame you if you want to accuse me of stretching....

Yep, you are stretching it.

You're saying rituals don't have to be prescribed or repetitive in any way, and just have to represent something.

Actually, I'm starting to think we're misunderstanding each other simply because of how loaded the word ritual is. When I raised the possibility of stretching things, I figured someone might argue for a harder line between practical and symbolic (this whole topic really isn't entirely a settled question for me; I'm still trying to put the pieces together, like I mention below).

I like your word prescribed though because while I haven't said that they have to be (maybe I should have), that is, with a major disclaimer, largely what would distinguish an effective and a hollow ritual. The disclaimer is that it's not so much whether society prescribes the ritual, but circumstances, nature, the issue at hand, etc. I didn't want to make it a matter of society and/or circumstances prescribing the ritual though because I wanted to include other possibilities, like rituals you see in psychological disorders.

zeno wrote:That's not rituals you're talking about, it's symbolic thinking and behavior. Which definitely is a defining human feature (very closely tied to language).

Well, yes and no, I am emphasizing that rituals are symbolic behavior, but the key thing is they exist in the physical world (unlike language). I totally agree with you that the capacity for symbolic thinking is necessary for ritual and language, but I'm more interested in what comes after ritual or language, not before it.

This is kind of a tangent from my main interests, but I have started wondering if ritual behavior is in some subtle ways more fundamental than language. Yes, I know that sounds weird and unorthodox, but I can give some arguments for it if you want me to. The gist of it is that ritual symbols are grounded in physical reality while language exists in abstraction.

zeno wrote:So to me it sounds like you're stretching and conflating "meaning" (a fundamental aspect of symbolic thinking) and "ritual" (a fundamental aspect of structured societies), or at least reversing the ontological relationship.

This is good because it could clear up a couple things. The first is that I'm not mainly concerned yet with how rituals manifest in society, but how they influence the individual. The second is that I'm definitely not proposing that ritual comes before meaning. The main way I am reversing is by suggesting that maybe ritual comes before a lot of what we consider typical human nature, not the other way around. The language vs. ritual thing I mentioned above would also probably be an inversion of the normal order, but I think that's more of an interesting side-question.

zeno wrote:On the other hand, you're saying Confucianist thought is what inspired your reasoning. And Confucianism really is all about rituals in the strictest sense of the word.

So I thought this too until less than a year ago, which is why studying and thinking more about Chinese philosophy really set this train of thought off. While Confucianism did become very rigid and superficial at points in history, the Confucians apparently weren't just interested in ritual in a formal sense.

They were analyzing the psychology and political implications of it, and how it permeated all aspects of life. So in some cases, they started generalizing it into a process that we might not normally associate the everyday English word "ritual" with. What's really interesting is that even the other schools of thought like the Legalists started talking about the importance of ritual for governing (though coming from a very different POV).

zeno wrote:So it sounds to me like you're applying some reverse logic there to rationalize feelings or hunches that you already have, which I suppose amount mostly to personal preference.

Well, like we've talked about before, I do have some core beliefs, and some of them definitely do create a bias on this subject.

The whole reason I'm so interested in this idea though is precisely because it really has been a big change for me. I've never really liked rituals, and even now, the thought of actually being part of some ceremony still makes me cringe. Since my perspective started changing though (which started with a full-on, light-bulb moment), I can honestly say that it just seems to be... working. Despite the past several months being really exasperating in ways, I can sense myself becoming less misanthropic overall, and I even have moments where it feels like my emotions are stirring again, like the engine still isn't running, but someone's actually found the key and trying to turn the ignition.

I realize that could just be a coincidence, and the real cause could be anything from the weather to the placebo effect. From where I stand though, it seems like this line of thinking is genuinely getting me somewhere.

zeno wrote:Speaking of personal preference, I don't know that much about ancient Chinese philosophers, but still, my favorite one is Zhuangzi.

That's the funny thing; if I had to pick, I still wouldn't consider myself a Confucian either. And that may be the ultimate irony of it all. Like Dalloway said here...

Dalloway wrote:I would describe a ritual as a conceptualized habit for the masses which in the best of cases facilitates natural behavior tailored towards the situation we're in.

... I think we'd all agree that the best rituals are the ones in tune with the dao and the natural way of things.

zeno wrote:We are at odds, my friend.

Yes, we are, but that's ok. I don't expect to win you over, but I'm determined to make sure you don't consider this a waste of your time

Dalloway wrote:The Confucians had their perspective of order; so they argued for the respective ritual to see this order enforced.
Before we argue rituals we have to argue order.
If we have an order then rituals are a great means for solidification.

This is actually getting towards where I ultimately wanted the conversation to wind up (largely because it's the part that isn't very clear in my mind).

Even if everyone is tired of this conversation by now, I still think it's been a good one. A part of me expected a slightly pro-ritual thread in the schizoid forum to go over like a rank fart in an opera-box, but it didn't turn out that bad. Whatever the answer is, the question seems to touch a nerve for all of us posting.

I didn't answer at first because I wasn't sure what you're getting at. It's a curious starting point. Like arguing whether or not laws are helpful without saying what the content of the law is.

I think you sometimes don't care to define a ground because you're not planning to touch it.

muaddib wrote:The gist of it is that ritual symbols are grounded in physical reality while language exists in abstraction.

Really? I would say sound is an oscillation of particles; very much a physical reality. The meaning of the words exist in our heads as well as the meaning of the ritual, no difference there. Not to mention the fact at the moment, unless you're religious and believe in something like a soul, there certainly isn't a way to exclude the notion of a physical counterpart to what we call knowledge.

To say it's more fundamental you would have to prove a more profound influence. And even then to argue it's because of some perceived physical manifestation appears adventurous to me.

muaddib wrote:like the Legalists started talking about the importance of ritual for governing (though coming from a very different POV).

Which is?

muaddib wrote:... I think we'd all agree that the best rituals are the ones in tune with the dao [...]

You think people here could define dao? And even if the majority could, you think they'd agree?
From what I've read people take rituals for nasty superimpositions, which isn't quite congruent with dao.

muaddib wrote:This is actually getting towards where I ultimately wanted the conversation to wind up (largely because it's the part that isn't very clear in my mind).

Well then how about a practical application?
Devise a ritual that you think would have helped you and, of course, would be helpful for society.

A lot of abuse happens because of isolation. The family that tied their 7-y.-o. with wire up and put him in a closet for days never had visitors. The child thought he's to blame because he didn't knew any different.
I think a family should be connected to at least two other families in the area. A child at age 8 and 12 has a ritualized week living with another family, with the option of a prolonged stay.

Dalloway wrote:If there were rituals facilitating connection between parents and their kids, I think some of us wouldn't be here.

Like breast feeding? Bedtime stories?

muaddib wrote:Actually, I'm starting to think we're misunderstanding each other simply because of how loaded the word ritual is.

I don't know, it still sounds to me like you've had an epiphany that feels very consistent to you but has a hole in it that you can't put your finger on quite yet. And then you're calling it "rituals", but you're freestyling the meaning of the word as you go. And ultimately the hole is defined by what surrounds it, not the other way around.

If you were really arguing for rituals, I think you would have started from concrete examples.

I like your word prescribed though because while I haven't said that they have to be (maybe I should have), that is, with a major disclaimer, largely what would distinguish an effective and a hollow ritual. The disclaimer is that it's not so much whether society prescribes the ritual, but circumstances, nature, the issue at hand, etc.

But then what's the difference between "following a ritual" and "applying common sense"? I don't think it makes sense to call something a ritual if the person or group subject to it doesn't feel like it's mandated by a person-like entity. Nature doesn't prescribe anything unless you see it as a god.

I didn't want to make it a matter of society and/or circumstances prescribing the ritual though because I wanted to include other possibilities, like rituals you see in psychological disorders.

Okay, so what is there in common between "social rituals" and "OCD-like rituals"? I think it's the sense of coercion. "You just have to do it, or else". You believe you'll be (at least somewhat arbitrarily) punished if you don't do it. Not as a result of the action or inaction itself, but as a result of how it will be judged. If it brought you intrinsic reward, it wouldn't be a ritual, because symbolic mediation would be redundant.

Well, yes and no, I am emphasizing that rituals are symbolic behavior, but the key thing is they exist in the physical world (unlike language).

I'm with Dalloway on this one. Language is physically mediated, just as much as rituals. With the level of generality you're talking about so far, there is nothing in the universe that doesn't exist physically. And isn't a silent prayer in the morning a ritual anyway? Clearly the key thing there has nothing to do with anything physical.

This is kind of a tangent from my main interests, but I have started wondering if ritual behavior is in some subtle ways more fundamental than language. Yes, I know that sounds weird and unorthodox, but I can give some arguments for it if you want me to.

I doubt I'll even know what you're talking about if you don't.

The main way I am reversing is by suggesting that maybe ritual comes before a lot of what we consider typical human nature, not the other way around.

Well it wouldn't be "typical" (or, especially, considered as typical) if it weren't ritualized, would it?

I think you're letting a lot of circular reasoning slip in without realizing it.

The whole reason I'm so interested in this idea though is precisely because it really has been a big change for me. I've never really liked rituals, and even now, the thought of actually being part of some ceremony still makes me cringe. Since my perspective started changing though (which started with a full-on, light-bulb moment), I can honestly say that it just seems to be... working. Despite the past several months being really exasperating in ways, I can sense myself becoming less misanthropic overall, and I even have moments where it feels like my emotions are stirring again, like the engine still isn't running, but someone's actually found the key and trying to turn the ignition.

I've been through something similar, but for me it wasn't "rituals", it was routine.

Can you give any examples of those recent things in your life that you would call rituals?

I have the following ritual:
whenever I leave my apartment I have to check that everything's hunky-dory and nothing's been left on - then I have to say, "If I die today my flat's OK."
Otherwise I can't leave.
Once I forgot to perform this ritual, and then I had to come back across town to do it, and missed my appointment.
Other than that I have a lot of routines, but not quite rituals.

I do this. I have to allow at least 15-30 minutes for it, or else I'll be late. Sometimes I make a checklist.

Same when I go to sleep at night, but the ritual is a little different and less involved.

Sorry, I didn't reply sooner; I got busy IRL. I understand if nobody wants to carry the thread further, but I didn't want to just drop the ball.

UK SPD wrote:I have the following ritual:
whenever I leave my apartment I have to check that everything's hunky-dory and nothing's been left on - then I have to say, "If I die today my flat's OK."
Otherwise I can't leave.
Once I forgot to perform this ritual, and then I had to come back across town to do it, and missed my appointment.
Other than that I have a lot of routines, but not quite rituals.

naps wrote:I do this. I have to allow at least 15-30 minutes for it, or else I'll be late. Sometimes I make a checklist.

I can actually have something a little like this now and then, especially checking whether I locked the door when I go out. It's not a regular habit; it's more a matter of being not clearly recalling things I just did when I'm under a lot of stress.

I am interested though, would you both say you genuinely feel better once you've gone through and checked everything?

*****************************************
Long reply to everything else below
*****************************************

Dalloway wrote:I didn't answer at first because I wasn't sure what you're getting at. It's a curious starting point. Like arguing whether or not laws are helpful without saying what the content of the law is.

Yes, my approach is sort-of roundabout, isn't it? I think part of it is that, like I was saying, all of these thoughts really started from trying to understand Confucianism better. I'm really not working from my own experiences but trying to take what I know of those ideas as premises instead.

Then there's the background in pure mathematics; give me some axioms, and I'll do my darndest to see where they go with as few particulars as possible And that one premise I'm proposing is what I'm really interested in... what if humans need ritual to feel connected to things and each other?

Dalloway wrote:I think you sometimes don't care to define a ground because you're not planning to touch it.

zeno wrote:I don't know, it still sounds to me like you've had an epiphany that feels very consistent to you but has a hole in it that you can't put your finger on quite yet. And then you're calling it "rituals", but you're freestyling the meaning of the word as you go. And ultimately the hole is defined by what surrounds it, not the other way around.

There are definitely still blurry spots that I haven't figured out, but I'm not sure it's in the definition. I don't really have a rigorous definition of ritual (which isn't very mathematical of me), but I honestly wasn't planning on having it come up. I figured we would just start from the common-sense meaning of it, then maybe tweak it from there if need-be. I don't mind talking through it though.

For now, I'm still going to stick with something like this... a ritual is a collection of physical (or perhaps "embodied" is even better) actions with some symbolic meaning (beyond immediate, material necessity). Also, there are effective rituals and ineffective ones, but to be effective, a ritual needs two things: the person performing it needs to genuinely believe in it and it does have to do a reasonable job of reflecting some facet of reality (exactly how it has to reflect reality is something I'm still not clear on).

I do think it's important to not take too narrow a definition though, and this is where I am stretching the common-sense notion a bit. For example, I'd argue a lot of seemingly pragmatic behavior is actually ritual because it has a symbolic goal beyond what's really necessary. Just think of all the serious-minded people in business that will insist on doing things a suboptimal way because "that's how it's always been done." Or for a more positive example, think of all the little details in how a craftsperson might go about things, odd little habits, how they arrange their workspace, how they periodically stop and evaluate things, etc.

Dalloway wrote:

muaddib wrote:This is actually getting towards where I ultimately wanted the conversation to wind up (largely because it's the part that isn't very clear in my mind).

Well then how about a practical application?
Devise a ritual that you think would have helped you and, of course, would be helpful for society.

zeno wrote:If you were really arguing for rituals, I think you would have started from concrete examples.

That's the thing though, I haven't figured out how to analyze or synthesize them yet. In the past, I had little practices for when I'd study books, going for walks, meditating, but I think I've outgrown any reliable rituals of my own. And all the social ones I've had experience with were mostly imposed on me (like you describe, zeno). I'm also very detached from everything right now so I was hoping that if anyone else could remember an extended period in their life when they felt really connected to life, we could look for patterns.

If you want a good example of what I have in mind (and isn't even religious), the tea ceremony might be a good one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tt7NBIVeMY

When I try to remember times in my life when I felt more attached to things, I could say I had beliefs that connected me to the world, but all of those eventually burned away. Now I wonder if part of the reason was that they didn't resolve anything except the immediate task; instead of returning home, each fulfillment just led to pushing a bigger rock up a bigger hill.

Dalloway wrote:

muaddib wrote:The gist of it is that ritual symbols are grounded in physical reality while language exists in abstraction.

Really? I would say sound is an oscillation of particles; very much a physical reality. The meaning of the words exist in our heads as well as the meaning of the ritual, no difference there.

zeno wrote:And isn't a silent prayer in the morning a ritual anyway? Clearly the key thing there has nothing to do with anything physical.

So I'll apologize for using vague words like "grounded"; like I said above, maybe the best way to put it is that in rituals, the symbols are embodied in the physical world. Language has a layer of abstraction in it. The actual meaning of the word usually doesn't have any particular relation to the form of the word. Now, maybe there's an argument that grammar isn't entirely arbitrary, but even then, it seems to be a matter of internal consistency, not really expressing some pattern in physical reality.

Ritual motions and objects, however, are inherently tied up with all the senses and bound by the rules of physics, chemistry, biology, etc. At least, I think that's the idea. It's an interesting question, but it's not my main one so this is really only an off-the-cuff hypothesis. The prayer example is a good one though because it's definitely a ritual in the common sense, but there are no motions or objects involved. You could say it's all language. I could see an argument that the prayer just evokes thoughts of other experiences, but I honestly haven't thought about it yet.

Dalloway wrote:Not to mention the fact at the moment, unless you're religious and believe in something like a soul, there certainly isn't a way to exclude the notion of a physical counterpart to what we call knowledge.

Well, I haven't really thought about the metaphysics of it, but even if you want to make knowledge correspond to something physical (say neurons in the brain), you'd still probably have some layer of abstraction (much like a modern general-purpose computer). That would be the real issue.

Dalloway wrote:To say it's more fundamental you would have to prove a more profound influence. And even then to argue it's because of some perceived physical manifestation appears adventurous to me.

zeno wrote:

muaddib wrote:The main way I am reversing is by suggesting that maybe ritual comes before a lot of what we consider typical human nature, not the other way around.

Well it wouldn't be "typical" (or, especially, considered as typical) if it weren't ritualized, would it?

Ah, by typical, I meant as in stereotypes of how human beings work. And it seems to me a lot of things do fit together if you just take at as an empirical fact that language actually doesn't come first...

Why is logic a learned, often uncommon skill, (and arguably only a few millennia old)? Why does tradition and habit rather than reason usually decide human affairs? Even in psychology, why isn't just telling someone about their problems enough to help them change? At the same time, why do most institutions that try to control people (schools, employers, prisons, etc.) ultimately rely on regulating little behaviors more than propaganda?

zeno wrote:I think you're letting a lot of circular reasoning slip in without realizing it.

That... is certainly a possibility. I think if it's slipping in anywhere though, it's really at that fuzzy line between what's necessary and what's symbolic. I don't really see where my definition would be circular so far, but I do appreciate corrections.

zeno wrote:

muaddib wrote:I like your word prescribed though because while I haven't said that they have to be (maybe I should have), that is, with a major disclaimer, largely what would distinguish an effective and a hollow ritual. The disclaimer is that it's not so much whether society prescribes the ritual, but circumstances, nature, the issue at hand, etc.

But then what's the difference between "following a ritual" and "applying common sense"?

This is good because it's starting to get into where it's unclear for me, though here's what I understand so far. So obviously, if one only does rituals, that doesn't help anything. It has to lead to actions that actually solve the underlying problem. With that in mind, I'd first point out that people only seem to adopt rituals in response to some sort of anxiety. So if common sense alone has always solved a problem, I don't think anyone would even consider ritualizing the issue.

Moving from there, I think if an issue does provoke anxiety, then the difference comes from ritual addressing the problem in theory (albeit indirectly). Say you're able to solve the problem with common sense; since your solution is ad-hoc and only worked for that instance of the problem, you haven't dispelled the underlying anxiety (which comes from the future possibility of the problem). Somehow (and the how is what I'm still not sure about), the ritual embeds the problem in an embodied experience, then transfigures the solution into something the practicioner can believe is universal.

Now, I won't blame anyone for saying that sounds like a bunch of woo. Perhaps the deeper issue though is that a lot of common sense isn't innate. It's either built up from personal experiences or transmitted knowledge, but that process of development brings you back to how people make sense of the world.

zeno wrote:I don't think it makes sense to call something a ritual if the person or group subject to it doesn't feel like it's mandated by a person-like entity.

zeno wrote:Okay, so what is there in common between "social rituals" and "OCD-like rituals"? I think it's the sense of coercion. "You just have to do it, or else". You believe you'll be (at least somewhat arbitrarily) punished if you don't do it. Not as a result of the action or inaction itself, but as a result of how it will be judged.

I won't argue with the idea that there can be compulsion in both these situations. But what about the possiblity of social rituals that people genuinely want to do? Or personal rituals ("odd" or "normal") that one does largely at one's own leisure? What they all seem to have in common to me is some sort of symbolic, embodied action.

To focus on the cases with coercion (which I do have a lot of experience with) seems to come with a baked-in assumption that rituals can't be helpful or liberating. It's a little less direct, but wouldn't this also imply that nobody gladly embraces new rituals? Either people submit to what was already there (going back forever), or if someone spreads a personal ritual that's compelled, then somehow people are really just internalizing the originator's anxieties. I mean, it would be an interesting line of thought for sure, but it seems a little bleak to me.

zeno wrote:Nature doesn't prescribe anything unless you see it as a god.

Well, if you're truly taking passivity all the way, then no, it doesn't. If you have preferences or intentions though, even if they're just doing the bare minimum to survive, you start confronting problems. Even if you want to just do like Thoreau and plant beans, there's a time, place, and proper way of doing things. Yet you can never be 100% certain it will work out, with whatever anxiety that brings.

Dalloway wrote:

muaddib wrote:like the Legalists started talking about the importance of ritual for governing (though coming from a very different POV).

Which is?

Well, I'm still studying these things, but I'd say it seems more cynical. From what I understand, the Confucians saw ritual as a natural expression of a good, educated life, while the Legalists saw it as primarily a political tool. The way I've seen it put is that ritual is used to "educate" the people, though I don't know to what degree that's the literal meaning and what degree it's a euphemism for indoctrination.

Dalloway wrote:

muaddib wrote:... I think we'd all agree that the best rituals are the ones in tune with the dao [...]

You think people here could define dao? And even if the majority could, you think they'd agree?
From what I've read people take rituals for nasty superimpositions, which isn't quite congruent with dao.

I didn't mean to make a huge statement here. I just know that zeno, and maybe others, have a fondness for Daoists. And I know that a lot of people see rituals as inherently opposed to the true way of things (I've felt like that much of my life). I just thought this might be a good way to emphasize that maybe the best rituals express insight into reality, not obscure it.

zeno wrote:

muaddib wrote:The whole reason I'm so interested in this idea though is precisely because it really has been a big change for me. I've never really liked rituals, and even now, the thought of actually being part of some ceremony still makes me cringe. Since my perspective started changing though (which started with a full-on, light-bulb moment), I can honestly say that it just seems to be... working....

I've been through something similar, but for me it wasn't "rituals", it was routine.

Can you give any examples of those recent things in your life that you would call rituals?

So I was definitely unclear here. I haven't figured out how to apply rituals in my life yet, but the shift in perspective has helped me a lot. I'm suddenly feeling more at ease around people, even a little hopeful that I can see a way out of this emotional cage I'm in. Maybe that's just the hope feeding itself, but I figure I should give this a chance and see where it goes.

I thought about relationships, trust and stability.

Some friendships I've witnessed are unstable beyond reason;
some marriages on the other hand are stable beyond reason.
The only difference is a societal concept and the corresponding ritual, which would be marriage.

There's no ritual binding friends, so the majority is just gone at the first sight of trouble.

In this case, in my experience, language isn't able to compensate.