More questions

• The Holy Spirit and Affect Theory by Sharon Willoughby, 6/4/98
  • Affect within religious experience by Don Nathanson, 6/7/98
    
    

I want to make it clear that I was NOT suggesting that religious/mystical experiences are pathological. I think that pathology exists when a normal system becomes dysregulated in a way that cannot be corrected (without help) and causes dysfunction in some area of an individual's life. Perhaps cult experiences would fit this bill, but certainly not those we're discussing. As you point out, the experience of being filled with the Holy Spirit is self-limiting and does not lead to dysfunction for most people. I compared it to mania because I was wondering if it may be essentially the same process of upregulation of the system, not due to a persistent biological error, but due to a script. I wasn't saying it persisted after the "script had run" so to speak. I believe this is what you were saying when you said, "Those who remain equally excited outside such venues may be assessed for the possibility of a defect in affect regulation, which defect may come from hardware (as in Bipolar Illness) or from software (a script that makes one skew to the rest of us)."

I am interested in understanding the "normal" system - that is when the system is functioning within the general limits that it has evolved with. I know I only have a simplistic understanding of Affect Theory (I have not read Tomkins yet because I can't afford his books right now - sorry!) so I really appreciate any and all feedback. The experience of receiving the Holy Spirit involves obvious upregulation of interest/excitement and enjoyment/joy and I am trying to understand it as a normal experience. Would you mind explaining more about the "ideological script"?

One thing I was confused about was the fact that the experience looks painful (flailing around, agonized expressions, fainting, convulsions) but is perceived as very positive. Your comparison to the intense affect expressed at rock concerts made me realize that I was not making an accurate observation. Extreme excitement DOES look like extreme anguish (I also thought of sex - someone who didn't know about sex might certainly think it looked horribly painful). I was seeing a contradiction that may not exist. Now I wonder though about the intensity of any affect. For example, is intense anger part of the appeal of sports? Do extreme risk takers want intense interest/excitement or fear/terror or does it matter? Is it simply the intensity of the experience and the subsequent release that is craved regardless of the particular affect involved? What is the evolutionary significance of this? Does one need to enjoy fear/terror in order to successfully hunt a lion terrorizing one's family?

I also wondered about the suggestibility involved in the religious experience (due to it or necessary for it?) As you point out, it is a type of mass trance. Perhaps a discussion of hypnotism from the point of view of Affect Theory would be interesting too. As a teenager I worshiped with a Pentecostal group and really tried to accept the experience because it IS supposed to be so joyful (and also was trying to "fit in" with my peers in my church youth group) but it didn't work for me. Religion is very private for me and, although I certainly felt a very personal and alive connection with God, I felt very exposed and phony when I tried to express it physically.

By the way, I don't think I mentioned that I have been thinking about this in particular since I saw a report on one of those "news" shows (20/20 or something) about a preacher who is leading a revival in Florida and is planning to take it around the country. It showed many people having the physical experience of receiving the Holy Spirit including one woman who believed that an injury to her neck had been healed and that a very prominent shaking of her head that she's had since the moment of the healing was proof from God that she was healed. I started wondering about the biological mechanism behind what happened to this woman and that led to a general consideration of the whole emotional experience. I admit that I personally have a rather strong fear/terror reaction when confronted with the Religious Right which colors my thinking about the leaders of these kind of revivals but I really am trying to think logically about how this particular phenomenon works in the affect system.

Don, you said that, " Entertainments that allow me to experience and express excitement at a level and duration normally forbidden by commonly accepted cultural rules are worth their tariff." Does this include drinking? Drug use? Development of new psychoactive drugs to enhance enjoyment or excitement? If not, why not? Is there something inherently bad about an artificially induced emotional high vs one that is "natural"? I mean these as real questions about how these different things are processed according to Affect Theory.

You also said that, "The normal affect system has a clearly identified OFF button, and I think that most religious systems take care to turn off high density affect before their parishioners leave the hall." For "most religious systems" that may be so, but my understanding of the purpose of a revival is to sustain a level of excitement that attracts converts and spreads the Holy Spirit to others so I think that the opposite is true.

No Replies