What parallels can be drawn from dolls and god(s)?

Perhaps the doll can pose as an analogy (albeit reversely) to that in which believers call God:

“God made man in his own image” ... “man made god in his own image”...

The doll is a popular cult and has a large following – such reminds me of god in some ways.

There is a doll in every country and every culture has its own depiction.
But which doll is the correct interpretation?
And how do we measure which doll is right or indeed wrong?

a) Originality perhaps?
b) Accuracy in human likeness?
c) And/or other?

If we are to use choice B as a barometer then whose human likeness are we measuring?
(Let’s use the doll Barbie for example.)
Barbie; although appearing incredibly life-like in her facial features is still not an accurate portrait of my own likeness and many other females for that matter. Thus in another context the human likeness of Barbie is not accurate at all.

But if we are to take into account not just the features alone but the whole figure then in reality the Barbie doesn’t actually proportionally correspond to any female mortal.

Hmm...but what if the doll is meant to be abstract?


If we are to use choice A as a measurement of which god doll is genuine then who is indeed the original doll? Afterall an original must exist in order for there to be a counterfeit. Is the original not likely to hail from the earliest people? So in order to find the original do we look to the earliest people? But an original can still be improved and not necessarily even locally. However there will always be an original even if not relevant in today’s society.


And what about choice C? What other factors could there be to determine which is the right doll (if any)?

***

Can we truly understand other societies cross culturally?

As an African who grew up in the Diaspora, I have always in my childhood perceived the Barbie doll as a seemingly innocent toy. Nothing s[i]e[/i]xu[i]a[/i]l, nothing chauvinistic, nothing exploitive and nothing detrimental to one’s self esteem. Today I regard the Barbie as a symbol to all those things and more that hadn’t even crossed my young innocent mind at that tender age.

But my African father coming from a nuclear animist background had perceived the Barbie doll as an idol; no different to those fetishes he left back home in Nigeria.

Whose perception is correct? My father’s or mine? Or were we both wrong or both right?

But having said all that...if my father had presented me with the native idols of his society what if I at that tender age saw them as just dolls?

The reality is, art is subjective so any sufficient interpretation may still stand.

But what informs our various interpretations? Understanding? History? Motive? Function? Culture? (Mis)Education? Etc...

Nigerian christians after reading this thread and realising that their religion is just a foriegn idol

@op, there's no rship btw doll nd God judging from ur post. You said God made man nd man made God, Man made doll...but then doll didn't make man. Let's use a little math...if god made man=a, man made god=b, and man made doll=c. It then follows dt b=c but not a. U get? Dt means dt doll equals 'god dt is man made' BUT d true God is NOT 'man made'. Again, perception is affected by exposition so d basic thing dt affects our interpretation is EXPOSITION. @logicboy get exposed right

emöfine2: What parallels can be drawn from dolls and god(s)?

Perhaps the doll can pose as an analogy (albeit reversely) to that in which believers call God:

“God made man in his own image” ... “man made god in his own image”...

The doll is a popular cult and has a large following – such reminds me of god in some ways.

There is a doll in every country and every culture has its own depiction.
But which doll is the correct interpretation?
And how do we measure which doll is right or indeed wrong?

a) Originality perhaps?
b) Accuracy in human likeness?
c) And/or other?

If we are to use choice B as a barometer then whose human likeness are we measuring?
(Let’s use the doll Barbie for example.)
Barbie; although appearing incredibly life-like in her facial features is still not an accurate portrait of my own likeness and many other females for that matter. Thus in another context the human likeness of Barbie is not accurate at all.

But if we are to take into account not just the features alone but the whole figure then in reality the Barbie doesn’t actually proportionally correspond to any female mortal.

Hmm...but what if the doll is meant to be abstract?


If we are to use choice A as a measurement of which god doll is genuine then who is indeed the original doll? Afterall an original must exist in order for there to be a counterfeit. Is the original not likely to hail from the earliest people? So in order to find the original do we look to the earliest people? But an original can still be improved and not necessarily even locally. However there will always be an original even if not relevant in today’s society.


And what about choice C? What other factors could there be to determine which is the right doll (if any)?

***

Can we truly understand other societies cross culturally?

As an African who grew up in the Diaspora, I have always in my childhood perceived the Barbie doll as a seemingly innocent toy. Nothing s[i]e[/i]xu[i]a[/i]l, nothing chauvinistic, nothing exploitive and nothing detrimental to one’s self esteem. Today I regard the Barbie as a symbol to all those things and more that hadn’t even crossed my young innocent mind at that tender age.

But my African father coming from a nuclear animist background had perceived the Barbie doll as an idol; no different to those fetishes he left back home in Nigeria.

Whose perception is correct? My father’s or mine? Or were we both wrong or both right?

But having said all that...if my father had presented me with the native idols of his society what if I at that tender age saw them as just dolls?

The reality is, art is subjective so any sufficient interpretation may still stand.

But what informs our various interpretations? Understanding? History? Motive? Function? Foreign? (Mis)Education? Etc...

While there could be many interpretations/versions of the doll,this does nothing to show that there is still NO one True Doll out there.Picture a village where there is a certain rumour going round that there is a brutal animal that is causing havoc in the community.Some say it could be a lion, others swear that it had spots and therefore it could be a leopard.A few say that this animal must be a hyena since the heard its cunning laugh during the night.

The question here for a skeptic is not, who to believe, the question and , the beginning point of the Skeptic is, does such an animal exist in the first place.Do the rumours of attack and death on villagers correspond to a non-human sort of being?

Once indeed these rumors of a havoc-causing creature are established,then the skeptic moves onto the next question.Which of the accounts above are most consistent with the said animal attacks.

In the Case of God, we can start with the question, Does a God exist in the first place? Are there sound arguments for the existence of a God?Then secondly, we can move onto the second question, Which version of God is correct, based on observations of the universe, human nature, and lastly, which concept of God makes any logical sense.

Therefore the fact that there exists a myriad of religions and interpretations of god, it does not follow that a creator God does not exist.Its like saying since there are many theories of the origin of the universe, then it follows that none of them is true.

it is easy, in most cases to examine the existing observations of the physical and metaphysical nature of the universe to conclude which version of god is most consistent with our current experiences.

It is also easy to examine each concept of God and see whether it is consistent with its own definition.

ATMC: @op, there's no rship btw doll nd God judging from ur post.

The idea was that a doll like god is present and captured in some sort in every society. So I thus used the two entities as a point of comparison.

You said God made man nd man made God, Man made doll...

I never said that, I cited those famous quotes to actually highlight my reverse analogy.

but then doll didn't make man.

That’s not the point. I used dolls as metaphors to examine different interpretations and what can be or is considered legitimate or not and according to whom or what.

Again, perception is affected by exposition so d basic thing dt affects our interpretation is EXPOSITION.

Yep or lack of it. So in the absence of such what do we thus turn to? Explanations are not always given so we may consider other things when interpreting a subject especially that in which we’re not familiar with.

@logicboy get exposed right

+1

Hello dear friend. It is a pleasure say hello.
I understand that anyone who makes a doll, doll materializes its IDEA (of woman or girl). Possibly this "idea" of the wrist has a purpose ... For example, I think the barbie woman looking for a perfect model (with the Western sense of perfection).
In another thread, you and I saw some beautiful African dolls, these dolls were due to another concept of wrist ... the idea of the manufacturer is very different from who created the barbie. But both are dolls.

I understand that when we speak of God, each of us is the "manufacturer". May see the same God in different ways, and does not cease to be God.
Indeed, I believe that there are parallels between the dolls and the concept of god.

In both cases we are talking about elements that have no empirical referent (exist different dolls, but there is no THE DOLL).

Continuing the analysis (off topic)), I have never accepted the physical image of God ... I understand that if there is no god in human form. The human being is the "doll maker" in developing his concept of God.
Unfortunately, some of these "manufacturers" to all of us want to impose their own concept, creating a state of dictatorship of thought. Jesus is the case of blond and blue eyed god ... or a white beard sitting on a cloud playing the harp ...
I send my warmest regards!

@AlvinPlantinga The heading was merely employed to evoke an imagery of god as that stood to be the comparison.
This particular topic is not focusing on the debate of whether such an entity as god exists or not although this topic allows for consideration of such entity’s existence. My main focus was more concentrated on contextual interpretations and how these can affect one’s analysis thus what is used to measure the truth of another’s reality.

Following from your analogy: and in certain societies there is often accorded greater legitimacy to one account (sometimes possibly even more) - based on what exactly is the angle I’m looking at. And which indeed is the greatest factor in shaping our own interpretations.
I guess you could say I’m looking at this in a more anthropological way than a scientific or even spiritual angle.

I asked in my OP if one can actually understand another society or at least elements of other societies cross-culturally because sometimes in order to understand a foreign culture we may have to have something similar or corresponding in a context in which we can comprehend in order to make sense of that which is foreign. Thus I used a familiar item – dolls. But even that in which one may consider a doll may be (mis)construed as an idol. If one observer is wrong and the other correct what separates the right answer from the wrong answer? One may use the dolls as idols or the idols as dolls.

it is easy, in most cases to examine the existing observations of the physical and metaphysical nature of the universe to conclude which version of god is most consistent with our current experiences.

And to that I ask what is your conclusion?

emöfine2:

The idea was that a doll like god is present and captured in some sort in every society. So I thus used the two entities as a point of comparison.



I never said that, I cited those famous quotes to actually highlight my reverse analogy.



That’s not the point. I used dolls as metaphors to examine different interpretations and what can be or is considered legitimate or not and according to whom or what.



Yep or lack of it. So in the absence of such what do we thus turn to? Explanations are not always given so we may consider other things when interpreting a subject especially that in which we’re not familiar with.



+1

there is no way one can' t be exposed, d only thing is dt exposition is in degrees...i didn't really get ur last point about interpretation.

Ptolomeus: Hello dear friend. It is a pleasure say hello.
I understand that anyone who makes a doll, doll materializes its IDEA (of woman or girl). Possibly this "idea" of the wrist has a purpose ... For example, I think the barbie woman looking for a perfect model (with the Western sense of perfection).

Interesting. I wonder how the doll in other cultures concerning the ideals of females could be studied.

Continuing the analysis (off topic)), I have never accepted the physical image of God ... I understand that if there is no god in human form. The human being is the "doll maker" in developing his concept of God.

Yes I agree the human is the doll maker in terms of moulding an abstract god.

I very much agree with everything else you said and I am of the same stance. But human beings being visual creatures may have wanted to attach a portrait to their individual/collective concept of god perhaps in an effort to make god more tangible.

I send my warmest regards!

Me too amigo

emöfine2: @AlvinPlantinga The heading was merely employed to evoke an imagery of god as that stood to be the comparison.
This particular topic is not focusing on the debate of whether such an entity as god exists or not although this topic allows for consideration of such entity’s existence. My main focus was more concentrated on contextual interpretations and how these can affect one’s analysis thus what is used to measure the truth of another’s reality.

Following from your analogy: and in certain societies there is often accorded greater legitimacy to one account (sometimes possibly even more) - based on what exactly is the angle I’m looking at. And which indeed is the greatest factor in shaping our own interpretations.
I guess you could say I’m looking at this in a more anthropological way than a scientific or even spiritual angle.

I asked in my OP if one can actually understand another society or at least elements of other societies cross-culturally because sometimes in order to understand a foreign culture we may have to have something similar or corresponding in a context in which we can comprehend in order to make sense of that which is foreign.

Ok.That's fine.

Thus I used a familiar item – dolls. But even that in which one may consider a doll may be (mis)construed as an idol. If one observer is wrong and the other correct what separates the right answer from the wrong answer? One may use the dolls as idols or the idols as dolls.

hence my point:-

it is easy, in most cases to examine the existing observations of the physical and metaphysical nature of the universe to conclude which version of god is most consistent with our current experiences."


In this case we must have a starting point.there must be an absolute definition and concept of a doll which is true and independent of any observer.
How do we get to know this definition and concept?through various deductive arguments and reasoning.My point being, it does not matter whether there are various opinions,misconception of what a doll is.ultimately in our case, there is a true definition of what a doll is, which is independent of us.

I might be off on a tangent here and may not understand what you are actually querying.Is it a question about truth,how do we get to know what is true or not.Is there objective truth?that is the notion that is some things are true for everyone no matter what others think?

ATMC: there is no way one can' t be exposed, d only thing is dt exposition is in degrees...i didn't really get ur last point about interpretation.

Yes you’re right. But I meant if a subject is taken out of context i.e. dolls. Then what other factors affect one’s interpretations. But still your point still stands because I guess our individual exposure will affect our reasoning i.e. my father’s perception of certain dolls.

AlvinPlantinga: I might be off on a tangent here and may not understand what you are actually querying.Is it a question about truth,how do we get to know what is true or not.Is there objective truth?that is the notion that is some things are true for everyone no matter what others think?

No actually I assume full responsibility for that. It was me who went off on a tangent. Initially I was interested in the various interpretations of a common subject present across all cultures and what will ultimately render one’s version more legit than the other. For example why are certain versions of a deity given greater legitimacy or titles such as "The one true God"? By employing such title that quite clearly shows that such believers are confident that other versions are therefore false. Based on what exactly is what I was pursuing. What makes that version more real than others hence my (former) title “the one true doll”. So I was tackling this issue through dolls or at least I tried to anyway.

It was kinda like maybe all interpretations are after all legitimate if we consider what informed those particular interpretations i.e my father viewing Barbie as an idol. Even though he had his reasons there is at least something that could still be measured in his interpretation that may even support his analysis anyway – like I said Barbie has a following, is a cult and may very well even be used as an idol.

I guess it’s more about attitudes to different perception and interpretations especially if the subject is rather subjective. What would make one subjective interpretation more valid than another? And in addition what are those factors affecting our attitude to another’s interpretation?

In this case we must have a starting point.there must be an absolute definition and concept of a doll which is true and independent of any observer.
How do we get to know this definition and concept?through various deductive arguments and reasoning.My point being, it does not matter whether there are various opinions,misconception of what a doll is.ultimately in our case, there is a true definition of what a doll is, which is independent of us.

I quite agree.
If you don't mind me asking are you a scientist?
I'm curious as you always inject a scientific/philosophical perspective.

emöfine2:

No actually I assume full responsibility for that. It was me who went off on a tangent. Initially I was interested in the various interpretations of a common subject present across all cultures and what will ultimately render one’s version more legit than the other. For example why are certain versions of a deity given greater legitimacy or titles such as "The one true God"? By employing such title that quite clearly shows that such believers are confident that other versions are therefore false. Based on what exactly is what I was pursuing. What makes that version more real than others hence my (former) title “the one true doll”. So I was tackling this issue through dolls or at least I tried to anyway.

Ok, i think i get what you are asking.

It was kinda like maybe all interpretations are after all legitimate if we consider what informed those particular interpretations i.e my father viewing Barbie as an idol. Even though he had his reasons there is at least something that could still be measured in his interpretation that may even support his analysis anyway – like I said Barbie has a following, is a cult and may very well even be used as an idol.

I guess it’s more about attitudes to different perception and interpretations especially if the subject is rather subjective. What would make one subjective interpretation more valid than another? And in addition what are those factors affecting our attitude to another’s interpretation?



I quite agree.
If you don't mind me asking are you a scientist?
I'm curious as you always inject a scientific/philosophical perspective.

Just a curious mind.But i have read lots of Philosophy books,science books and articles.Your questions are very intriguing to say the least.

@Topic In my OP I wrote:...

If we are to use choice A as a measurement of which god doll is genuine then who is indeed the original doll? Afterall an original must exist in order for there to be a counterfeit. Is the original not likely to hail from the earliest people? So in order to find the original do we look to the earliest people? But an original can still be improved and not necessarily even locally. However there will always be an original even if not relevant in today’s society.

...

But I’m always intrigued by those who are rather conceptual or non-exhibitionists. Some may even have a reckoning of doll/god but:
a) never physically interpreted that entity (so possibly in another period their rendering may not have been translated or captured in any sort of tangible means thus remaining unknown in later generations and even possibly their immediate generation)
or
b) another person adapted person X’s notions into a physical interpretation.

Once indeed these rumors of a havoc-causing creature are established,then the skeptic moves onto the next question.Which of the accounts above are most consistent with the said animal attacks.

I was just thinking...what if some witnesses keep their accounts to themselves...we thus have only a limited amount of evidence/data.
The reason I was thinking about this is because some - as they call it - "believers" are rather individualistic in their approach to god. To some it’s extremely personal that they may not choose/wish to share or exhibit their belief (so to speak) although granted that is one’s own prerogative and just because they have kept that which they regard as "real" and sacred as personal should not automatically make their own concept redundant or not to be considered as possibly legitimate (although it would be impossible for the outsider to review,compare and contrast that in which is concealed). And if that person passes away so do their notions which wasn't shared.

***

@AlvinPlatinga

Just a curious mind.But i have read lots of Philosophy books,science books and articles.Your questions are very intriguing to say the least.

Ok I can identify with you there but I’m at the infancy stage. I have a lot to learn. I also find your inputs rather intriguing.