LI/ &ai - Etymology and Memetics of Heresy - agency or dangerously unorthodox?
Has a heretic always been a bad person
?
Has a heretic always been a bad person ?
[AH]: What constitutes heresy has varied over time and between different religious traditions.
Whether or not a heretic is considered a "bad" person depends on the time and place you are taking a snapshot of. Who is labeled a heretic? by who are they labeled? according to what doctrine? For the preservation of what?
Over time, the term evolved to specifically refer to a choice or belief that was contrary to the accepted doctrine of a particular religion or sect. But that’s not what the word’s roots describe. What are we to learn from that? Here are the definitions according to BibleStudyTools.com:
Hairesis:
[1] act of taking, capture: e.g. storming a city
[2] choosing, choice
[3] that which is chosen
[4] a body of men following their own tenets (sect or party)
of the Sadducees
of the Pharisees
of the Christians
[5] dissensions arising from diversity of opinions and aims
[AH]: Passing over #1 in its war context, #2 and #3 seem to describe a relatively banal building block of growing into an adult. On a more heady level, they gesture towards what could be part of the experience we call free will. That is “making choices”.
The power of these choices is their compounding nature. They add up and become us. When strings of choices are put together, or important and repeating choices are made, we create a toroid of thinking that is both applied and received in a constant flow, with patterns that we grasp on to or dispel. Through “like thinking” a “philosophy” forms. This personal philosophy cradles and wields our “values” along with the various “schema” that justify them. It helps us navigate our mindspace and make sense of the stories our reactions are telling us about the outside world.
Given that, I find it interesting that the term eventually came to have the connotation of the “wrong” decision, that is wrong because it is outside the norm. There is probably linguistics and history to unpack there. For now we can speculate at the mind of the early civilization builders across the world. What were they thinking when they formed cities, governments, agreements, and commitments? What beliefs did they hold that deviated from “orthodox”, and did the world tell them that was ok?
From the perspective of those who define the official doctrine, a heretic might be seen as a threat to the established order and the unity of a community. But before “official doctrine” was idolized and bureaucratized into a weapon of control by institutional faith teaming up with technocratic pseudo-democratic government, it was the elders of community, and their bonds and agreements that linked official doctrine with established and ongoing order.
When dweebs and thoughtless joiners who are slaves to their valueless ambition looked to grab power, they took the “doctrine-keeping” from elders and heritage.
The introduction of the heretic as the bad person was a symptom and tool of this power grab, when in reality the usurping of heritage by supranational and religious institutions was the real heresy.
Whether the culturally labeled doctrine definers wield the power their doctrine supposes, or if they are under the control of some other who does, heresy, due its apt description of the root of the crime, becomes a useful tool for turning the crowd against detractors. It is the dunce cap of the existential learning experience, mythologized to represent a threat to good and right orderly power.
Condemned by the Inquisition
LUCAS VELÁZQUEZ, EUGENIO
Copyright ©Museo Nacional del Prado
To bear the weight of risking excommunication, imprisonment, or death in an appeal beyond the authorities to a higher value that ultimately judges the results, requires a faith in one’s heresy. If that firm grip on a value set came not from literal religious beliefs, it is still spiritual or existential with a fervent religiosity when it comes into play.
This all begs some questions,
What is the role of Heretics when an authority has overtaken people?
What role do Heretics play in helping people comprehend the authority that impacts their lives?
What’s the role of heretics in maintaining peace and stability in the social fabric of the world?
Given the spiritual and religious facts you believe to be correct doctrine or "orthodoxy", those who hold differing beliefs are considered "heretics." You may not be condemning their beliefs, but rather using the term to distinguish between people practicing "right" beliefs (your term for pious) and those who held “wrong” beliefs, according to your interpersonal, spiritual, and religious schema.
Who decides what the accepted doctrine is? How does it impact people who do not accept it? One truth is that it is meaningful. As with most manners of humanity, with meaning comes violence.
Over time, the term "heresy" seems to have become more strongly associated with beliefs or practices that were perceived to be dangerous or threatening to the established order. Those accused of heresy could then be subject to severe punishment, including excommunication, imprisonment, or even death.
One truth is that it is meaningful. As with most manners of humanity, with meaning comes violence.
LI/ &ai - Life Itself [LI] talking about heresy with ai large language models via ChatGPT from OpenAI
[LI]: What is the original meaning of the word "heresy"?
[ai]: The word "heresy" originally referred to a belief or opinion that deviated from the official or orthodox view of a particular religion or faith. In its earliest usage in ancient Greek, "heresy" (hairesis) simply meant "choice" or "selection." Over time, the term evolved to specifically refer to a choice or belief that was contrary to the accepted doctrine of a particular religion or sect.
In Christianity, for example, heresy refers to a belief or doctrine that goes against the established teachings of the Church, as defined by Church authorities. Throughout history, many individuals and groups have been accused of heresy, often leading to persecution and even death. However, what constitutes heresy has varied over time and between different religious traditions.
[LI]: is it reasonable to say the word originally did not have a negative connotation? That is just described the choice one made about their belief system?
[ai]: Yes, that's correct. The word "heresy" originally did not have a negative connotation and simply referred to a person's choice or selection of a belief system or doctrine. It was not until later that the term came to have a negative connotation, as it became associated with beliefs or practices that were seen as deviating from the accepted or orthodox teachings of a particular religion.
In fact, the early Christian Church saw itself as the true "orthodoxy" or correct doctrine, and those who held differing beliefs were considered "heretics." This was not necessarily a condemnation of their beliefs as inherently wrong, but rather a way of distinguishing between those who held the "right" beliefs and those who held differing beliefs.
Over time, the term "heresy" became more strongly associated with beliefs or practices that were seen as dangerous or threatening to the established order, and those accused of heresy were often subject to severe punishment, including excommunication, imprisonment, or even death.
[LI]: that [would] imply that there was a time when religious beliefs were presented as a schema within which a young adult could choose to ground their worldview, as opposed to a matter of fact that they were expected to adhere to? If so, what were the foundational values and cultural norms that created that time?
[ai]: Yes, there have been times in history when religious beliefs were presented as a schema within which an individual could choose to ground their worldview, rather than as a matter of fact that they were expected to adhere to. This was particularly true in ancient Greece, where religious beliefs were often presented as myths and legends that offered different perspectives on the nature of the world and humanity's place within it.
In ancient Greece, religion was not a separate sphere of life but rather intertwined with every aspect of society, from politics to philosophy to literature. As such, there was no one "official" religious doctrine that everyone was expected to adhere to, and individuals were free to choose their own beliefs and interpretations of the myths and legends.
This freedom of belief was supported by cultural norms that valued individualism, critical thinking, and intellectual debate. Ancient Greece was a society that valued reason and logic, and it was expected that individuals would use their intellect to question and analyze different belief systems, including religion.
It's important to note, however, that this freedom of belief was not universal, and there were still some religious beliefs and practices that were seen as taboo or unacceptable. Additionally, the freedom to choose one's beliefs was not extended to all members of society, particularly women, slaves, and non-citizens, who often had limited access to education and were subject to social and legal restrictions.
[LI]: some hypothesize that this over-emphasis on freedom of belief, individualism and critical thinking lead to degeneracy and the downfall of Greece?
[ai]: Yes, some historians and scholars have suggested that the emphasis on individualism, freedom of belief, and critical thinking in ancient Greece may have contributed to its eventual downfall.
One argument is that the emphasis on individualism and personal freedom led to a breakdown in social cohesion and collective identity, as individuals prioritized their own interests over the needs of the community. This, in turn, made it more difficult for society to function effectively and respond to external threats.
Additionally, some scholars have argued that the focus on critical thinking and skepticism may have contributed to a loss of faith in traditional religious and cultural beliefs, which in turn weakened the moral and spiritual foundation of society.
It's worth noting, however, that these arguments are not universally accepted, and there are many other factors that contributed to the decline of ancient Greece, including economic factors, political instability, and external pressures from invading forces. Furthermore, it's important to recognize that the values of individualism, freedom of belief, and critical thinking have been celebrated and valued throughout history and continue to be important ideals in many societies today.
[LI]: there [is] recognition of a recurring pattern throughout history where individualism leads to a flourishing society, but then also leads to its downfall?
[ai]: There is some recognition among historians and scholars of a recurring pattern in history where individualism leads to a flourishing society but can also contribute to its downfall.
In general, societies that place a strong emphasis on individualism tend to be more innovative, creative, and diverse, as individuals are free to pursue their own interests and ideas. This can lead to advances in science, technology, and the arts, and can help to create a dynamic and thriving culture.
However, individualism can also lead to a breakdown in social cohesion and collective identity, as individuals prioritize their own interests over the needs of the community. This can make it more difficult for society to function effectively and respond to external threats, leading to instability and potentially even collapse.
Historically, there have been many examples of societies that experienced a period of flourishing and innovation but eventually succumbed to social, economic, or political instability. Some examples include ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, and the Renaissance city-states of Italy.
It's worth noting, however, that the relationship between individualism and societal flourishing is complex and multifaceted, and there is no simple cause-and-effect relationship between the two. Additionally, societies that have successfully balanced individualism with a sense of collective identity and social cohesion have been able to achieve long-term stability and prosperity.