Skip to main content

What's an Idiogen?

How about making a parallel for religion with language that goes like this:

Languages - Language - dialect - idiolect

Religions - Religion - Religious Sect - idiogen

The point is, for example, that that attack on religion always characterises it as monolithic or sectarian which it isn't. All religious people have an unpredictable personal variant on religious belief too.

And what you say and your private opinions are similar probably to many other Christians and Muslims. For example, the "idiogen" of a Muslim woman will probably be idealistic and hopeful about the future of women in Islam in a way that her religion as a whole or her particular religious sect would not approve of. So she keeps it to herself. She values her community above her idiogen.

Talk to most Christians, of course, and you will find that each person, no matter what their church says, often has quite a rich and individualistic spiritual life. Most Catholic women, I believe, expect that at some point there will be women priests and that priests will be allowed to marry. But they don't openly say it. It's their private hope and belief. They keep quiet because they value their community above their idiogen.

Look at Vatican II and what a revolution that was. Well, who knows, if these extreme right wing Poles and Germans ever get their claws out of the papacy, you might get a Vatican III. And I think you will have to have a Vatican III. Because the Catholic church is held together by women in truth.

Of the non-conformists. Well their name defines them doesn't it. But the problem with the non-conformists may be when your idiogen takes the place of a community religion, it negates community worship. That sort of ever so personal and private belief defeats half the purpose of a church, which is to share religious feeling and serve and help other people in a community or a family.

Non-conformism is a problem when your own little variant becomes a selfish and all inclusive personal religion of one.

Perhaps the best church for someone with a religion of one to hide in is the Quaker church. You don't need to say anything or really believe anything everyone else believes or hold onto an ideology. You just have to learn the art of silence. Well, this is my experience of it:

So people have their own variant of religion, an idiogen, which they hold in abeyance because it contradicts the belief of their religious sect. Christian sect or Muslim sect. Well perhaps there is a better way of saying idiogen. For example:

"personal variant of a mainstream religion or individual and personalised set of religious or mystical beliefs"

However Idiogen is shorter and parallels the word "idiolect" which is a term to describe an individual variant of a language - dialect.

Now the point about individual idiogens is that they may differ quite a lot from the actual religion the individual believer belongs too. Perhaps a Catholic woman will hold different views about the desirability of woman priests and contraceptive methods to the mainstream religion. She may, but she will probably put them on the back burner in order to participate in the wider Catholic community, she won't make an issue of them.

The logical consequence of this is to have a sort of Kinsey report of religion. To find out, somehow, what Muslim women really thought of the position of women in their society and publish it. To find out what Catholic women really think of birth control and abortion and exclusively male bachelor priests.

The results would help catalyse change. Research as Lutheranism. Hidden liberalism and modern social values are inside individual believers. Let them out.

I think it's a useful term.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Aerogramme from Lisa and Richard

To: Mr & Mrs J. Hall, Box 49 Eikenhof (TVL) Johannesburg Afrique du Sud. 28.3.76 Dear John and Nola, Today a week ago we were still in New Delhi with Eve and Tony and the boys and the whole thing looks like a dream. We arrived on the 28.2 in New Delhi and were happy to see the whole family fit and in good health. The boys have grown very much, Phil is just about the size of Tony and the twins are above average. We stayed untill the 22nd March, as our visa ran out and we did not want to go through all the ceremony of asking for an extension. It also got hotter and I don't know how I would have supported the heat. The extra week would also have passed, so we decided not to go to all the trouble with the authorities and leave on the 22nd. I cannot tell you how happy we have been to see such a lovely family, so happy and united. It is rare to experience sucha thing and we have both all the reasons to be proud of them (when I say goth I mean you and us ). There is su

Guardian: Kate Harding's reactionary censorious blog on CiF

It should go without saying... ....that we condemn the scummy prat who called Liskula Cohen : "a psychotic, lying, whoring ... skank" But I disagree with Kate Harding , (in my view a pseudo blogger), posting her blog in the Guardian attacking bloggers. It's a case of set a thief to catch a thief. The mainstream media is irritated by bloggers because they steal its thunder and so they comission people like Kate Harding , people with nothing to say for themselves, apparently, other than that they are feminists, to attack bloggers. I'm black. So I can legitimately attack "angry white old men". I'm a feminist, so I have carte blanche to call all anonymous bloggers "prats." Because yes, that is her erudite response to bloggers. No I don't say that the blogging medium can't be used to attack progressives in whatever context. Of course it can. But to applaud the censorship of a blogger by a billion dollar corporate like Google, and moreov

Guardian books blog fringe: Norman Mailer

FLASHING THE GUARDIAN -- A BOOKS BLOGGERS' REBELLION :  The unheroic censor with a death wish Part 1: In which Norman Mailer stars in an experiment in search engine optimisation By ACCIACCATURE 3 February 2009 When Norman Mailer died in 2007, informed opinion – in the blogosphere, people who had read at least two of his books – was split. The army of readers who saw him as one of the most despicable misogynists writing fiction in the 20th century was perfectly matched by warriors on the other side, who raged that the label wasn’t just unwarranted but tantamount to heinous calumny. Before commenters returned to bitching-as-usual, tempers were lost on literary sites all over the net in debating temperatures high enough to bring to mind tiles burning off space shuttles re-entering Earth’s atmosphere. After I'd agreed to a spontaneous suggestion by our good friend Sean Murray -- a pioneer and stalwart of the comments section of The Guardian’s books blog – that we re-