The SpiritWiki - Recent changes [en-gb]

Connection Experience

Michael — Mon, 21 Sep 2026 15:02:32 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:02, 21 September 2026
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{navmenu}}		{{navmenu}}
	<h1 class="customtitle">{{FULLPAGENAME}}</h1>		<h1 class="customtitle">{{FULLPAGENAME}}</h1>
	<blockquote class="definition">A '''Connection Experience''' (a.k.a. '''Connection Event''') is a discrete, short-term psychological, emotional, and physical experience of [[Connection]] that is sufficiently above one's average daily [[Consciousness Quotient\|CQ]] (i.e., [[Normal Consciousness]]) as to be perceived as a ''qualitatively'' different state of awareness, consciousness, and being. Phenomenologically, it is often ~~experienced~~ as a connection to something ~~more than~~ the ~~isolated, individuated, ego, i.e., a connection to nature, other people, God, and all that~~.		<blockquote class="definition">A '''Connection Experience''' (a.k.a. '''Connection Event''') is a discrete, short-term psychological, emotional, and physical experience of [[Connection]] that is sufficiently above one's average daily [[Consciousness Quotient\|CQ]] (i.e., [[Normal Consciousness]]) as to be perceived as a ''qualitatively'' different state of awareness, consciousness, and being. Phenomenologically, it is often felt as a connection to something outside the boundaries of the physical body.
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

Line 20:		Line 20:
	===Syncretic Terms===		===Syncretic Terms===

	[[Connection Experience]] > {{#ask:[[Is a syncretic term::Connection Experience]]}}		[[Connection Experience]] > {{#ask:[[Is a syncretic term::Connection Experience]]\|format=ul}}

	===Related LP Terms===		===Related LP Terms===

	[[Connection Experience]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related LP term::Connection Experience]]}}		[[Connection Experience]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related LP term::Connection Experience]]\|format=ul}}

	===Non-LP Related Terms===		===Non-LP Related Terms===

	[[Connection Experience]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::Connection Experience]]}}		[[Connection Experience]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::Connection Experience]]\|format=ul}}

	==List of [[LP]] Connection Experience Types==		==List of [[LP]] Connection Experience Types==

	[[Connection Experience Types]] > {{#ask: [[Is a::Connection Experience Type]]}}		[[Connection Experience Types]] > {{#ask: [[Is a::Connection Experience Type]]\|format=ul}}

	==List of Connection Outcomes==		==List of Connection Outcomes==
Line 41:		Line 41:

	[[File:Connection Experience.png\|alt=A mind map of the concept of the LP Concept of Connection Experience\|thumb\|Connection Experience]]		[[File:Connection Experience.png\|alt=A mind map of the concept of the LP Concept of Connection Experience\|thumb\|Connection Experience]]

			This connection could be to anything—to God, to the Gods, to demons, the devil, natural spirits, guides, ancestors, the cosmos, or even the mouse in the house.

	George Harrison's Song "That Which I Have Lost" is about somebody's connection experience (https://open.spotify.com/track/5WFyiX3E0BgTgN6YKFID7O?si=838657bbf1ea4418)		George Harrison's Song "That Which I Have Lost" is about somebody's connection experience (https://open.spotify.com/track/5WFyiX3E0BgTgN6YKFID7O?si=838657bbf1ea4418)

Religion of Humanity

Michael — Sat, 19 Sep 2026 14:58:36 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:58, 19 September 2026
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 2:		Line 2:
	<h1 class="customtitle">{{FULLPAGENAME}}</h1>		<h1 class="customtitle">{{FULLPAGENAME}}</h1>
	<blockquote class="definition">		<blockquote class="definition">
	The '''Religion of Humanity''' is ~~Auguste~~ Comte’s proposed secular and scientific replacement for traditional theology. It is the spiritual and moral dimension of his [[Comprehensive Framework]], intended to unify humanity under a rational, ethical, and empirically grounded moral order.<ref name=":0">Auguste Comte, ''The Catechism of Positivism; or, Summary Exposition of the Universal Religion,'' trans. Richard Congreve (London: John Chapman, 1852).p. 274. https://archive.org/details/artofcreationess00carp</ref> According to Comte, the "practical sphere of religion is the improvement of human order, its physical, intellectual, and moral improvement."<ref name=":0" /> Religion is the cohesive glue which helps implement a [[Comprehensive Framework]] ~~'''~~because it "regulates each one’s individual nature” and “forms the rallying point for all the separate individuals.'''”<ref name=":0" />		The '''Religion of Humanity''' is August Comte’s proposed secular and scientific replacement for traditional theology. It is the spiritual and moral dimension of his [[Comprehensive Framework]], intended to unify humanity under a rational, ethical, and empirically grounded moral order.<ref name=":0">Auguste Comte, ''The Catechism of Positivism; or, Summary Exposition of the Universal Religion,'' trans. Richard Congreve (London: John Chapman, 1852).p. 274. https://archive.org/details/artofcreationess00carp</ref> According to Comte, the "practical sphere of religion is the improvement of human order, its physical, intellectual, and moral improvement."<ref name=":0" /> Religion is the cohesive glue which helps implement a [[Comprehensive Framework]] because it "regulates each one’s individual nature” and “forms the rallying point for all the separate individuals.'''”<ref name=":0" />
	</blockquote><blockquote>"'''Love as our principle, Order as our basis, Progress as our end'''"</blockquote>		</blockquote>
			<center><blockquote>"'''Love as our principle, Order as our basis, Progress as our end'''"</blockquote></center>

	==Concept Map==		==Concept Map==

Inherent Potential

Michael — Sat, 19 Sep 2026 14:21:06 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:21, 19 September 2026
Line 13:		Line 13:
	[[Human Development Framework]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::Human Development Framework]]\|format=ul}}		[[Human Development Framework]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::Human Development Framework]]\|format=ul}}

	[[~~Full Actuation~~]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::~~Full Actuation~~]]\|format=ul}}		[[Inherent Potential]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::Inherent Potential]]\|format=ul}}

	===Syncretic Terms===		===Syncretic Terms===
Line 35:		Line 35:
	[[category:terms]]		[[category:terms]]
	[[category:lightningpath]]		[[category:lightningpath]]
	[[Is a key term::~~Full Actuation~~\| ]]		[[Is a key term::Human Development Framework\| ]]
	[[Is a syncretic term::Aligned\| ]]		[[Is a syncretic term::Aligned\| ]]

Good

Michael — Sat, 19 Sep 2026 14:19:47 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:19, 19 September 2026
Line 2:		Line 2:
	<h1 class="customtitle">{{FULLPAGENAME}}</h1>		<h1 class="customtitle">{{FULLPAGENAME}}</h1>
	<blockquote class="definition">		<blockquote class="definition">
	Good is that which supports [[Full Actuation]] of [[Inherent Potential]].		'''Good''' is that which supports [[Full Actuation]] of [[Inherent Potential]].
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

Inherent Potential

Michael — Sat, 19 Sep 2026 14:16:31 GMT

Created page with "{{navmenu}} <h1 class="customtitle">{{FULLPAGENAME}}</h1> <blockquote class="definition"> '''Inherent Potential''' is . </blockquote> ==Concept Map== ===Key Terms=== World System > {{#ask:Is a key term::World System|format=ul}} Human Development Framework > {{#ask:Is a key term::Human Development Framework|format=ul}} Full Actuation > {{#ask:Is a key term::Full Actuation|format=ul}} ===Syncretic Terms=== Inherent Potential > {{#ask:..."

New page

{{navmenu}}
<h1 class="customtitle">{{FULLPAGENAME}}</h1>
<blockquote class="definition">
'''Inherent Potential''' is .
</blockquote>

==Concept Map==

===Key Terms===

[[World System]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::World System]]|format=ul}}

[[Human Development Framework]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::Human Development Framework]]|format=ul}}

[[Full Actuation]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::Full Actuation]]|format=ul}}

===Syncretic Terms===

[[Inherent Potential]] > {{#ask: [[Is a syncretic term::Inherent Potential]]|format=ul}}

===Related LP Terms===

[[Inherent Potential]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related LP term::Inherent Potential]]|format=ul}}

===Non-LP Related Terms===

[[Inherent Potential]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::Inherent Potential]]|format=ul}}

==Notes==

{{endstuff}}

[[category:terms]]
[[category:lightningpath]]
[[Is a key term::Full Actuation| ]]
[[Is a syncretic term::Aligned| ]]

Good

Michael — Sat, 19 Sep 2026 14:16:26 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:16, 19 September 2026
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 13:		Line 13:
	[[Human Development Framework]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::Human Development Framework]]\|format=ul}}		[[Human Development Framework]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::Human Development Framework]]\|format=ul}}

	[[Full Actuation]] > {{#ask:[[Is a term::Full Actuation]]\|format=ul}}		[[Full Actuation]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::Full Actuation]]\|format=ul}}

	===Syncretic Terms===		===Syncretic Terms===
Line 34:		Line 34:

	[[category:terms]]		[[category:terms]]
	[[Is a term::Full Actuation\| ]]		[[category:lightninpgath]]
			[[Is a key term::Full Actuation\| ]]
	[[Is a syncretic term::Aligned\| ]]		[[Is a syncretic term::Aligned\| ]]

Evil

Michael — Sat, 19 Sep 2026 14:15:02 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:15, 19 September 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{navmenu}}		{{navmenu}}
	<h1 class="customtitle">{{FULLPAGENAME}}</h1>		<h1 class="customtitle">{{FULLPAGENAME}}</h1>
	<blockquote class="definition">~~The word~~ '''Evil''' is ~~a syncretic~~ and ~~often misunderstood term for "~~[[~~Disjuncture~~]]."		<blockquote class="definition">'''Evil''' is that which stunts growth and undermines and prevents [[Full Actuation]] on [[Inherent Potential]].
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

			==Concept Map==

			===Key Terms===

			[[World System]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::World System]]\|format=ul}}

			[[Human Development Framework]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::Human Development Framework]]\|format=ul}}

			[[Full Actuation]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::Full Actuation]]\|format=ul}}

	==Related Terms==		==Related Terms==

	[[~~Disjuncture~~]] > {{#ask: [[Is a related term::Disjuncture]]}}		[[Evil]] > {{#ask: [[Is a related term::Disjuncture]]}}

	==Syncretic Terms==		==Syncretic Terms==
Line 24:		Line 34:

	[[category:terms]]		[[category:terms]]
	[[Is ~~used by~~::~~Emanuel Swedenborg~~\| ]]		[[Is a key term::Full Actuation\| ]]\|
	[[Is a related term::Disjuncture\| ]]		[[Is a related term::Disjuncture\| ]]

Good

Michael — Sat, 19 Sep 2026 14:12:35 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:12, 19 September 2026
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 2:		Line 2:
	<h1 class="customtitle">{{FULLPAGENAME}}</h1>		<h1 class="customtitle">{{FULLPAGENAME}}</h1>
	<blockquote class="definition">		<blockquote class="definition">
	~~The word '''~~Good~~'''~~ is a ~~syncretic~~ term ~~for "~~[[Is a ~~syncretic~~ term::~~Aligned~~]]."		Good is that which supports [[Full Actuation]] of [[Inherent Potential]].
			</blockquote>

			==Concept Map==

			===Key Terms===

			[[World System]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::World System]]\|format=ul}}

			[[Human Development Framework]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::Human Development Framework]]\|format=ul}}

			[[Full Actuation]] > {{#ask:[[Is a term::Full Actuation]]\|format=ul}}

	~~</blockquote~~>		===Syncretic Terms===

			[[Aligned]] > {{#ask: [[Is a syncretic term::Aligned]]\|format=ul}}

			===Related LP Terms===

			[[Good]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related LP term::Good]]\|format=ul}}

	==~~Syncretic~~ Terms==		===Non-LP Related Terms===

	[[~~Aligned~~]] > {{#ask: [[Is a ~~syncretic~~ term::~~Aligned~~]]}}		[[Good]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::Good]]\|format=ul}}

	==Notes==		==Notes==
Line 17:		Line 34:

	[[category:terms]]		[[category:terms]]
	[[Is ~~used by~~::~~Emanuel Swedenborg~~\| ]]		[[Is a term::Full Actuation\| ]]
			[[Is a syncretic term::Aligned\| ]]

Full Actuation

Michael — Sat, 19 Sep 2026 14:09:28 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:09, 19 September 2026
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 7:		Line 7:
	===Key Terms===		===Key Terms===

	[[~~Lightning Path~~]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::~~Lightning Path~~]]\|format=ul}}		[[World System]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::World System]]\|format=ul}}

			[[Human Development Framework]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::Human Development Framework]]\|format=ul}}

			[[Full Actuation]] > {{#ask:[[Is a term::Full Actuation]]\|format=ul\|sort=Has sort order}}
	===Related LP Terms===		===Related LP Terms===

Line 35:		Line 38:
	[[category:terms]]		[[category:terms]]
	[[category:lightningpath]]		[[category:lightningpath]]
	[[Is a key term::~~Lightning Path~~\| ]]		[[Is a key term::Human Development Framework\| ]]
	[[Is a related LP term::Toxic Socialization\| ]]		[[Is a related LP term::Toxic Socialization\| ]]
	~~[[Is a related LP term::Healthy Socialization\| ]]~~
	~~[[Is a related LP term::Human Development\| ]]~~
	[[Is a related LP term::Seven Essential Needs\| ]]		[[Is a related LP term::Seven Essential Needs\| ]]
	[[Is a related LP term::Eupsychia\| ]]		[[Is a related LP term::Eupsychia\| ]]
	~~[[Is a related LP term::Regime of Accumulation\| ]]~~
	~~[[Is a related LP term::Human Potential\| ]]~~
	~~[[Is a related term::Self-Actualization\| ]]~~
	[[Is a related term::Humanistic Psychology\| ]]		[[Is a related term::Humanistic Psychology\| ]]
	[[Is a related term::Transpersonal Psychology\| ]]		[[Is a related term::Transpersonal Psychology\| ]]
	[[Is a related term::Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs\| ]]		[[Is a related term::Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs\| ]]

Silent Worship

Michael — Fri, 18 Sep 2026 15:46:20 GMT

Created page with "{{navmenu}} <h1 class="customtitle">{{FULLPAGENAME}}</h1> <blockquote class="definition">'''Silent Worship''' is an unprogrammed Connection Technique practiced in the Quaker tradition, in which participants gather in expectant waiting, laying aside worldly distractions in order to hear God's "still small voice" (1 Kings 19:12) and access the Divine presence within and among them.<ref>Holliday, Marsha D. "Silent Worship and Quaker Values." ''Friends General Conference..."

New page

{{navmenu}}
<h1 class="customtitle">{{FULLPAGENAME}}</h1>
<blockquote class="definition">'''Silent Worship''' is an unprogrammed [[Connection Technique]] practiced in the Quaker tradition, in which participants gather in expectant waiting, laying aside worldly distractions in order to hear God's "still small voice" (1 Kings 19:12) and access the Divine presence within and among them.<ref>Holliday, Marsha D. "Silent Worship and Quaker Values." ''Friends General Conference,'' 2000. https://www.fgcquaker.org/2000/06/01/silent-worship-and-quaker-values/</ref></blockquote>

==Concept Map==

===Key Concepts===

[[Connection]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::Connection]]|format=ul}}

[[Connection Practice]]s > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::Connection Practice]]|format=ul}}

[[Connection Procedure]]s > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::Connection Procedure]]|format=ul}}

[[Connection Procedure]]s > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::Connection Technique]]|format=ul}}

===List of Connection Techniques===

[[Connection Technique]] > {{#ask:[[Is a::Connection Technique]]|format=ul}}

===Syncretic Terms===

[[Silent Worship]] > {{#ask:[[Is a syncretic term::Silent Worship]]}}

===Related LP Terms===

[[Silent Worship]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related LP term::Silent Worship]]}}

===Non-LP Related Terms===

[[Silent Worship]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::Silent Worship]]}}

==Notes==
In unprogrammed Quaker worship, participants take the Psalmist's advice literally: "Be still and know that I am God" (Psalm 46:10). Friends meet in plain, unadorned rooms because, in such places, they are less distracted from hearing that still small voice. There are no pulpits, because all present minister to each other; benches face each other because all are equal before God. There are no prearranged prayers, readings, sermons, hymns, or musical orchestrations, because participants wait for divine leadings (guidance and direction) and power.

Silent Worship is not an empty silence but an active and expectant one. Each person pays attention to what they are feeling, learning, or being led to understand. During worship, a message may come to an individual — for personal reflection, for sharing on another occasion, or as a leading to stand and speak in vocal ministry. Spoken messages come from the heart and are prompted by the Spirit; following a message, the group returns to the silence to examine themselves in the Light of that message. Meeting for worship ends when one Friend, designated in advance, shakes hands with his or her neighbors.

The practice rests on the Quaker realization that "there is that of God in everyone." Related values include: life is sacred; God's inward presence is experienced universally; revelation is continuous; simplicity, integrity, community, and diversity are essential in the search for truth.

Practitioners report the practice as centering — a way to lay aside the narrative voice of the mind, make space for the Divine, and feel deeply connected to one another and to the sacred.

{{endstuff}}

[[category:terms]]
[[Is a::Connection Technique| ]]

Affirmation

Michael — Fri, 18 Sep 2026 15:41:12 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:41, 18 September 2026
Line 4:		Line 4:

	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

	==Concept Map==		==Concept Map==

	===Key ~~Terms~~===		===Key Concepts===

	[[Connection]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::Connection]]\|format=ul}}		[[Connection]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::Connection]]\|format=ul}}

	[[Connection Practice]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::Connection Practice]]\|format=ul}}		[[Connection Practice]]s > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::Connection Practice]]\|format=ul}}

			[[Connection Procedure]]s > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::Connection Procedure]]\|format=ul}}

			[[Connection Procedure]]s > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::Connection Technique]]\|format=ul}}

			===List of Connection Techniques===

	[[Connection ~~Procedures~~]] > {{#ask:[[Is a ~~key term~~::Connection ~~Procedure~~]]\|format=ul}}		[[Connection Technique]] > {{#ask:[[Is a::Connection Technique]]\|format=ul}}

	===List of LP Affirmations===		===List of LP Affirmations===

Connection Technique

Michael — Fri, 18 Sep 2026 15:40:52 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:40, 18 September 2026
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 15:		Line 15:

	[[Connection Procedure]]s > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::Connection Procedure]]\|format=ul}}		[[Connection Procedure]]s > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::Connection Procedure]]\|format=ul}}

			[[Connection Procedure]]s > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::Connection Technique]]\|format=ul}}

	===List of Connection Techniques===		===List of Connection Techniques===

	[[Connection Technique]] > {{#ask:[[Is a::Connection Technique]]}}		[[Connection Technique]] > {{#ask:[[Is a::Connection Technique]]\|format=ul}}

	===Syncretic Terms===		===Syncretic Terms===

	[[Connection Technique]] > {{#ask:[[Is a syncretic term::Connection Technique]]}}		[[Connection Technique]] > {{#ask:[[Is a syncretic term::Connection Technique]]\|format=ul}}

	===Related LP Terms===		===Related LP Terms===

	[[Connection Technique]]> {{#ask:[[Is a related LP term::Connection Technique]]}}		[[Connection Technique]]> {{#ask:[[Is a related LP term::Connection Technique]]\|format=ul}}

	===Non-LP Related Terms==		===Non-LP Related Terms==

Connection Practice

Michael — Fri, 18 Sep 2026 15:37:57 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:37, 18 September 2026
Line 14:		Line 14:
	===Key Figures===		===Key Figures===

	[[Connection Practice]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key figure::Connection Practice]]}}		[[Connection Practice]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key figure::Connection Practice]]\|format=ul}}

	===Syncretic Terms===		===Syncretic Terms===

	[[Connection Practice]] > {{#ask:[[Is a syncretic term::Connection Practice]]}}		[[Connection Practice]] > {{#ask:[[Is a syncretic term::Connection Practice]]\|format=ul}}

	===Related LP Terms===		===Related LP Terms===

	[[Connection Practice]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related LP term::Connection Practice]]}}		[[Connection Practice]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related LP term::Connection Practice]]\|format=ul}}

	===Non-LP Related Terms===		===Non-LP Related Terms===

	[[Connection Practice]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::Connection Practice]]}}		[[Connection Practice]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::Connection Practice]]\|format=ul}}

	==Notes==		==Notes==


	"Chants, spells, dancing around a fire, burning candles, the smoke and smell of incense, are all means to awaken the 'deep mind'--to arouse high emotions, enforce concentration, and facilitate entry into an altered state. Again, Bonewits has said some of the most sensible words on this subject, observing that 'mandalas,' 'sigils,' 'pentacles,' and 'yantras' are all pictures to stimulate the sense of sight; 'mudras' or 'gestures' stimulate the kinesthetic sense; 'mantras' or 'incantations' [and prayers] stimulate the sense of hearing. The use of props, costumes, and scenery can also be seen as a method of stimulating the senses. In addition, drugs, alcohol, breathing exercises, and sexual techniques can serve to alter one's state of consciousness. According to Bonewits, these techniques function in the same way for a Witch or a ceremonial magician as for a Native American shaman or a Catholic priest. To say that these methods never cause psychic and psychological change ni the people involved is as absurd as other common attitudes--that certain religions have a monopoly on these experiences and that certain religions worship 'God' while others worship 'demons.' These techniques have existed for thousands of years and were developed by human beings for the purpose of widening their perceptions of reality, and changing their relationship to the world."		"Chants, spells, dancing around a fire, burning candles, the smoke and smell of incense, are all means to awaken the 'deep mind'--to arouse high emotions, enforce concentration, and facilitate entry into an altered state. Again, Bonewits has said some of the most sensible words on this subject, observing that 'mandalas,' 'sigils,' 'pentacles,' and 'yantras' are all pictures to stimulate the sense of sight; 'mudras' or 'gestures' stimulate the kinesthetic sense; 'mantras' or 'incantations' [and prayers] stimulate the sense of hearing. The use of props, costumes, and scenery can also be seen as a method of stimulating the senses. In addition, drugs, alcohol, breathing exercises, and sexual techniques can serve to alter one's state of consciousness. According to Bonewits, these techniques function in the same way for a Witch or a ceremonial magician as for a Native American shaman or a Catholic priest. To say that these methods never cause psychic and psychological change ni the people involved is as absurd as other common attitudes--that certain religions have a monopoly on these experiences and that certain religions worship 'God' while others worship 'demons.' These techniques have existed for thousands of years and were developed by human beings for the purpose of widening their perceptions of reality, and changing their relationship to the world."

Identity Ritual

Michael — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 17:17:32 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:17, 11 September 2026
Line 13:		Line 13:
	Components of the [[Mode of Reproduction]] > {{#ask:[[Is a component of::The Mode of Reproduction]]\|format=ul}}		Components of the [[Mode of Reproduction]] > {{#ask:[[Is a component of::The Mode of Reproduction]]\|format=ul}}

	Key Terms [[Mechanisms of Reproduction]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term of::Mechanisms of Reproduction]]}}		Key Terms [[Mechanisms of Reproduction]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term of::Mechanisms of Reproduction]]\|format=ul}}

	[[Identity Ritual]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term of::Identity Ritual]]}}		[[Identity Ritual]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term of::Identity Ritual]]\|format=ul}}

	===Syncretic Terms===		===Syncretic Terms===
Line 22:		Line 22:

	=== Related LP Terms ===		=== Related LP Terms ===
	[[Identity Ritual]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related LP term::Identity Ritual]]}}		[[Identity Ritual]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related LP term::Identity Ritual]]\|format=ul}}

	===Non-LP Related Terms===		===Non-LP Related Terms===

	[[Identity Ritual]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::Identity Ritual]]}}		[[Identity Ritual]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::Identity Ritual]]\|format=ul}}

	==Notes==		==Notes==

Identity Ritual

Michael — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 17:16:59 GMT

Created page with "{{navmenu}} <h1 class="customtitle">{{FULLPAGENAME}}</h1> <blockquote class="definition">'''Identity Ritual''' </blockquote> ==Concept Map== === Key Terms === Regime of Accumulation > {{#ask:Is a key term::Regime of Accumulation|format=ul}} Components of The Regime > {{#ask:Is a component of::Regime of Accumulation|format=ul}} Components of the Mode of Reproduction > {{#ask:Is a component of::The Mode of Reproduction|format=ul}} Key Terms Mech..."

New page

{{navmenu}}
<h1 class="customtitle">{{FULLPAGENAME}}</h1>
<blockquote class="definition">'''Identity Ritual''' </blockquote>

==Concept Map==

=== Key Terms ===

[[Regime of Accumulation]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::Regime of Accumulation]]|format=ul}}

Components of The Regime > {{#ask:[[Is a component of::Regime of Accumulation]]|format=ul}}

Components of the [[Mode of Reproduction]] > {{#ask:[[Is a component of::The Mode of Reproduction]]|format=ul}}

Key Terms [[Mechanisms of Reproduction]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term of::Mechanisms of Reproduction]]}}

[[Identity Ritual]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term of::Identity Ritual]]}}

===Syncretic Terms===

[[Identity Ritual]] > {{#ask:[[Is a syncretic term::Identity Ritual]]}}

=== Related LP Terms ===
[[Identity Ritual]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related LP term::Identity Ritual]]}}

===Non-LP Related Terms===

[[Identity Ritual]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::Identity Ritual]]}}

==Notes==

{{endstuff}}

[[category:terms]]
[[category:lightningpath]]
[[Is a key term of::Mechanisms of Reproduction| ]]

System Agent

Kimi — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 17:11:14 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:11, 11 September 2026
Line 10:		Line 10:

	[[Regime of Accumulation]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::Regime of Accumulation]]\|format=ul}}		[[Regime of Accumulation]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::Regime of Accumulation]]\|format=ul}}

			Components of the Regime > {{#ask:[[Is a component of::Regime of Accumulation]]\|format=ul}}

			Components of the [[Mode of Reproduction]] > {{#ask:[[Is a component of::The Mode of Reproduction]]\|format=ul}}

			Key Terms [[Relalations of Reproduction]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term of::Relations of Reproduction]]\|format=ul}}

	===Related LP Terms===		===Related LP Terms===
Line 33:		Line 39:
	[[category:terms]]		[[category:terms]]
	[[category:lightningpath]]		[[category:lightningpath]]
			[[Is a key term of::Relations of Reproduction\| ]]
	[[Is a key term::Creative Framework\| ]]		[[Is a key term::Creative Framework\| ]]
	~~[[Is a key term::Regime of Accumulation\| ]]~~
	[[Has sort CF::55\| ]]		[[Has sort CF::55\| ]]
	[[Is a key term::Indoctrination\| ]]		[[Is a key term::Indoctrination\| ]]

Means of Mental Production

Kimi — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 17:07:41 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:07, 11 September 2026
Line 27:		Line 27:

	[[Means of Mental Production]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::Means of Mental Production]]\|format=ul}}		[[Means of Mental Production]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::Means of Mental Production]]\|format=ul}}


	==Marxism Terms==		==Marxism Terms==

	[[Marxism]] . {{#ask:[[Is a term::Marxism]]}}		[[Marxism]] . {{#ask:[[Is a term::Marxism]]}}
	==Notes==		==Notes==
			Marx introduces the concept in ''The German Ideology'': "The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the Means of Mental Production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the Means of Mental Production are subject to it."<ref>Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, ''The German Ideology'' (1845–46; repr., New York: Norton, 1978), https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b.htm.</ref> Control of the factories, in other words, brings control of the churches, universities, presses, and journals — the institutions in which a society's ideas are manufactured and distributed — and those who own the means of material production thereby rule "also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age."<ref>Ibid.</ref>

			In the LP framework, the Means of Mental Production are a component of the [[Means of Reproduction]], alongside the [[Mechanisms of Reproduction]] and the [[Relations of Reproduction]], within the [[Mode of Reproduction]] of the [[Regime of Accumulation]]. Where the other components of reproduction renew the labour force and its material conditions across generations, the Means of Mental Production renew consciousness itself, worldview, aspiration, and compliance.

			The operators of the Means of Mental Production are the [[Conceptive Ideologist\|Conceptive Ideologists]] — the theologians, scholars, textbook writers, publishers, and curriculum designers who draw the boundaries and package them as neutral description. In the [[Rocket Scientists' Guide to Religion]], control of the Means of Mental Production is the mechanism by which authentic, grass-roots spiritual systems are colonized by elites: Tanser, high priest to the autocrat Ardashir, selecting a single Zoroastrian tradition and declaring the emperor "the final arbiter of the Zoroastrian doctrine";<ref>Mike Sosteric, ''Rocket Scientists' Guide to Religion'', draft v.095, introductory unit for Athabasca University Sociology 231: ''The Sociology of Religion'' (manuscript in preparation; E.T.A. 2027), 50–51. Page references herein are to the draft PDF. Hereafter cited as Sosteric, ''RSGR draft''.</ref> Constantine's bishops determining the Christian canon and editing it in the interests of patriarchy;<ref>Ibid., 52–55, citing Bart D. Ehrman, ''Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why'' (New York: HarperOne, 2007).</ref> and the modern academic study of religion itself, with its world religions syllabi, its scholarly journals, and its [[Boundary Fetish]].<ref>Ibid., 11–14.</ref> The pattern is constant across centuries: the means change — from hand-copied scripture to the printing press to the algorithmic feed — but the relation does not. Those who own the means of mental production decide which ideas are orthodox, which are heresy, and which never get produced at all.

	==Quotes==		==Quotes==

Relations of Reproduction

Michael — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 16:44:15 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:44, 11 September 2026
Line 15:		Line 15:
	Components of the [[Mode of Reproduction]] > {{#ask:[[Is a component of::The Mode of Reproduction]]\|format=ul}}		Components of the [[Mode of Reproduction]] > {{#ask:[[Is a component of::The Mode of Reproduction]]\|format=ul}}

	Key Terms [[Relations of Reproduction]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term of::Relations of Reproduction]]}}		Key Terms [[Relations of Reproduction]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term of::Relations of Reproduction]]\|format=ul}}

	===Syncretic Terms===		===Syncretic Terms===

	[[Relations of Reproduction]] > {{#ask:[[Is a syncretic term::Relations of Reproduction]]}}		[[Relations of Reproduction]] > {{#ask:[[Is a syncretic term::Relations of Reproduction]]\|format=ul}}

	===Related LP Terms===		===Related LP Terms===

	[[Relations of Reproduction]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related LP term::Relations of Reproduction]]}}		[[Relations of Reproduction]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related LP term::Relations of Reproduction]]\|format=ul}}

	===Non-LP Related Terms===		===Non-LP Related Terms===

	[[Relations of Reproduction]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::Relations of Reproduction]]}}		[[Relations of Reproduction]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::Relations of Reproduction]]\|format=ul}}

	== Notes ==		== Notes ==

Conceptive Ideologist

Michael — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 16:43:49 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:43, 11 September 2026
Line 6:		Line 6:
	==Concept Map==		==Concept Map==

	===Key Terms===		=== Key Terms ===

			[[Regime of Accumulation]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::Regime of Accumulation]]\|format=ul}}

			Components of the Regime > {{#ask:[[Is a component of::Regime of Accumulation]]\|format=ul}}

			Components of the [[Mode of Reproduction]] > {{#ask:[[Is a component of::The Mode of Reproduction]]\|format=ul}}

			Key Terms [[Means of Reproduction]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term of::Means of Reproduction]]\|format=ul}}

			===Syncretic Terms===

			[[System Architect]] > {{#ask:[[Is a syncretic term::System Architect]]\|format=ul}}

	~~[[Conceptive Ideologist]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::Conceptive Ideologist]]\|format=ul}}~~

	===Related LP Terms===		===Related LP Terms===
Line 20:		Line 31:

	[[Karl Marx]] > {{#ask:[[Is a term::Karl Marx]]\|format=ul}}		[[Karl Marx]] > {{#ask:[[Is a term::Karl Marx]]\|format=ul}}

	~~===Syncretic Terms===~~

	~~[[System Architect]] > {{#ask:[[Is a syncretic term::System Architect]]\|format=ul}}~~

	==Notes==		==Notes==
Line 39:		Line 46:

	[[category:terms]]		[[category:terms]]
			[[Is a key term of::Relations of Reproduction\| ]]
	[[Is a term::Marxism\| ]]		[[Is a term::Marxism\| ]]
	[[Is a term::Karl Marx\| ]]		[[Is a term::Karl Marx\| ]]
	[[Is a syncretic term::System Architect\| ]]		[[Is a syncretic term::System Architect\| ]]
	[[Is a related term::Means of Mental Production\| ]]		[[Is a related term::Means of Mental Production\| ]]

Means of Mental Production

Michael — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 16:41:36 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:41, 11 September 2026
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 6:		Line 6:
	==Concept Map==		==Concept Map==

	===Key Terms===		=== Key Terms ===

	[[Regime of Accumulation]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::Regime of Accumulation]]\|format=ul}}		[[Regime of Accumulation]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::Regime of Accumulation]]\|format=ul}}

	Components [[Regime of Accumulation]] > {{#ask:[[Is a component of::~~Regime~~ of ~~Accumulation~~]]\|format=ul}}		Components of the Regime > {{#ask:[[Is a component of::Regime of Accumulation]]\|format=ul}}

			Components of the [[Mode of Reproduction]] > {{#ask:[[Is a component of::The Mode of Reproduction]]\|format=ul}}

			Key Terms [[Means of Reproduction]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term of::Means of Reproduction]]\|format=ul}}

	===Syncretic Terms===		===Syncretic Terms===
Line 18:		Line 22:
	===Related LP Terms===		===Related LP Terms===

	[[~~Regime~~ of ~~Accumulation~~]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related LP term::~~Regime~~ of ~~Accumulation~~]]\|format=ul}}		[[Means of Mental Production]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related LP term::Means of Mental Production]]\|format=ul}}

	===Non-LP Related Terms===		===Non-LP Related Terms===

	[[~~Regime~~ of ~~Accumulation~~]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::~~Regime~~ of ~~Accumulation~~]]\|format=ul}}		[[Means of Mental Production]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::Means of Mental Production]]\|format=ul}}


Line 37:		Line 41:

	[[category:terms]]		[[category:terms]]
	[[Is a key term::Means of ~~Compliance~~\| ]]		[[Is a key term of::Means of Reproduction\| ]]
	[[Is a term::Marxism\| ]]		[[Is a term::Marxism\| ]]

Conceptive Ideologist

Michael — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 16:30:53 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:30, 11 September 2026
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{navmenu}}		{{navmenu}}
	<h1 class="customtitle">{{FULLPAGENAME}}</h1>		<h1 class="customtitle">{{FULLPAGENAME}}</h1>
	<blockquote class="definition">A '''Conceptive Ideologist''' is an individual who uses the [[Means of Mental Production]] to control human thought and behaviour~~.<ref>Karl Marx~~, ~~''The German Ideology'' (New York: Norton, 1978), https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b~~.~~htm</ref>~~ </blockquote>		<blockquote class="definition">A '''Conceptive Ideologist''' is an individual who uses the [[Means of Mental Production]] — the universities, presses, churches, publishing houses, and journals in which a society's ideas are produced and distributed — to construct, package, and circulate the ideas that control human thought and behaviour, typically in the service of a ruling class.
			</blockquote>

	==Concept Map==		==Concept Map==

	==Key Terms==		===Key Terms===

	[[Conceptive Ideologist]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::Conceptive Ideologist]]\|format=ul}}		[[Conceptive Ideologist]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::Conceptive Ideologist]]\|format=ul}}
Line 11:		Line 12:
	===Related LP Terms===		===Related LP Terms===

	[[Conceptive Ideologist]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related LP term::Conceptive Ideologist]]}}		[[Conceptive Ideologist]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related LP term::Conceptive Ideologist]]\|format=ul}}

	===Non-LP Related Terms===		===Non-LP Related Terms===

	[[Conceptive Ideologist]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::Conceptive Ideologist]]}}		[[Conceptive Ideologist]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::Conceptive Ideologist]]\|format=ul}}
	===Karl Marx Terms===		===Karl Marx Terms===

Line 22:		Line 23:
	===Syncretic Terms===		===Syncretic Terms===

	[[System Architect]] > {{#ask:[[Is a syncretic term::System Architect]]}}		[[System Architect]] > {{#ask:[[Is a syncretic term::System Architect]]\|format=ul}}

	==Notes==		==Notes==

			The concept originates with Karl Marx and Frederick Engels in ''The German Ideology'': "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the Means of Mental Production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the Means of Mental Production are subject to it."<ref>Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, ''The German Ideology'' (1845–46; repr., New York: Norton, 1978), https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b.htm.</ref> The ruling ideas, Marx continues, "are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships... grasped as ideas," and the individuals composing the ruling class "rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch."<ref>Ibid.</ref> His example is the doctrine of the separation of powers, proclaimed an "eternal law" in an age when royal power, aristocracy, and bourgeoisie were contending for mastery.<ref>Ibid.</ref> The Conceptive Ideologist is thus the human instrument of this regulation — the theologian, scholar, textbook writer, or curriculum designer who draws the boundaries his class needs drawn and packages them as neutral, even eternal, description.

			In the [[Rocket Scientists' Guide to Religion]], the term marks the pivot from passive bias to active ideological manipulation. [[Ontological Bias]] names the closed mind produced by rigid worldview adherence; [[Epistemic Attachment]] names the identity-level investment behind it; the [[Boundary Fetish]] names the structural result. But the boundaries of the academic study of religion, the book argues, are not merely the product of blindness — they are also the product of work, done by identifiable people, with beneficiaries. When the overt triumphalism of Tylor, Frazer, Comte, and Malinowski became embarrassing after the moral catastrophes of the twentieth century, "what Karl Marx would have called Conceptive Ideologists repackaged it in a fancy 'world religions' wrapper"<ref>Mike Sosteric, ''Rocket Scientists' Guide to Religion'', draft v.095, introductory unit for Athabasca University Sociology 231: ''The Sociology of Religion'' (manuscript in preparation; E.T.A. 2027), 13. Page references herein are to the draft PDF. Hereafter cited as Sosteric, ''RSGR draft''.</ref> — preserving the hierarchy "by other means" in the neutral-sounding language of pluralism (Masuzawa). Whether any given scholar is conscious of his service to empire is beside the point; a conceptive ideologist need not be cynical to be useful.

			The concept also frames the book's account of elite interference in spiritual systems: Tanser, high priest to the autocrat Ardashir, who selected a single Zoroastrian tradition, declared Ardashir "the final arbiter of the Zoroastrian doctrine," and suppressed the rest with "excessive bloodshed";<ref>Ibid., 50–51, citing Mary Boyce, ''Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices'' (London: Routledge, 2001).</ref> the elite bishops and scribes who, under Constantine, determined the Christian canon and later edited it in the interests of patriarchy;<ref>Ibid., 52–55, citing Bart D. Ehrman, ''Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why'' (New York: HarperOne, 2007).</ref> A. E. Waite, Freemason and architect of the modern tarot, whose system scholars have called "the most successful propaganda campaign ever launched";<ref>Ibid., 55–56, citing Mike Sosteric, "A Sociology of Tarot," ''Canadian Journal of Sociology'' 39, no. 3 (2014), doi:10.29173/cjs20000.</ref> and Helena Blavatsky, scion of the Russian Dolgorouky dynasty and matriarch of the Theosophical Society.<ref>Ibid., 56, citing Meera Nanda, "Madame Blavatsky's Children" (2010), https://www.academia.edu/27289493/Madame_Blavatskys_children_pdf.</ref> In each case the pattern is the same: control of the Means of Mental Production, construction of a boundary or narrative, and the presentation of interested ideas as the ruling ideas of the epoch.

			==Quotes==
	<blockquote>The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the [[Means of Mental Production]], so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the [[Means of Mental Production]] are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch. For instance, in an age and in a country where royal power, aristocracy, and bourgeoisie are contending for mastery and where, therefore, mastery is shared, the doctrine of the separation of powers proves to be the dominant idea and is expressed as an “eternal law.”<ref>Karl Marx, ''The German Ideology'' (New York: Norton, 1978), https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b.htm</ref> </blockquote>		<blockquote>The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the [[Means of Mental Production]], so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the [[Means of Mental Production]] are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch. For instance, in an age and in a country where royal power, aristocracy, and bourgeoisie are contending for mastery and where, therefore, mastery is shared, the doctrine of the separation of powers proves to be the dominant idea and is expressed as an “eternal law.”<ref>Karl Marx, ''The German Ideology'' (New York: Norton, 1978), https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b.htm</ref> </blockquote>

Line 34:		Line 42:
	[[Is a term::Karl Marx\| ]]		[[Is a term::Karl Marx\| ]]
	[[Is a syncretic term::System Architect\| ]]		[[Is a syncretic term::System Architect\| ]]
			[[Is a related term::Means of Mental Production\| ]]

Epistemic Attachment

Michael — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 13:32:43 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:32, 11 September 2026
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 34:		Line 34:
	==Book Terms==		==Book Terms==

	[[Rocket ~~Scientist~~'s Guide to Religion]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::RSGR]]\|format=ul}}		[[Rocket Scientists' Guide to Religion]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::RSGR]]\|format=ul}}

	{{endstuff}}		{{endstuff}}
Line 42:		Line 42:
	[[category:rsgr]]		[[category:rsgr]]
	[[Is a key term::RSGR\| ]]		[[Is a key term::RSGR\| ]]

	[[category:terms]]		[[category:terms]]
	[[Is a keyword::Spiritual Theory\| ]]		[[Is a keyword::Spiritual Theory\| ]]

Boundary Problem

Michael — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 13:30:09 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:30, 11 September 2026
Line 42:		Line 42:
	==Book Terms==		==Book Terms==

	[[Rocket ~~Scientist~~'s Guide to Religion]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::RSGR]]\|format=ul}}		[[Rocket Scientists' Guide to Religion]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::RSGR]]\|format=ul}}

	{{endstuff}}		{{endstuff}}

Boundary Fetish

Michael — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 13:29:56 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:29, 11 September 2026
Line 34:		Line 34:
	'''The fetish is structural, not incidental.''' "The boundary fetish... is not an accident or a relic of a less enlightened age. It is structural. It is what the academic study of religion has repeatedly been mobilized to produce."<ref>Ibid., 14.</ref> Every world religions syllabus listing a dozen "major" traditions and relegating the rest to "primal religions" draws a boundary and performs an identity ritual: "this is what we are, and this is what they are, and never the twain shall meet."<ref>Ibid., 14.</ref>		'''The fetish is structural, not incidental.''' "The boundary fetish... is not an accident or a relic of a less enlightened age. It is structural. It is what the academic study of religion has repeatedly been mobilized to produce."<ref>Ibid., 14.</ref> Every world religions syllabus listing a dozen "major" traditions and relegating the rest to "primal religions" draws a boundary and performs an identity ritual: "this is what we are, and this is what they are, and never the twain shall meet."<ref>Ibid., 14.</ref>

	'''Every boundary collapses under empirical attention.''' Hunter-gatherers are not especially animistic, and magic "is either reserved for special circumstances or is an adjunct to ordinary techniques," not mistaken for everyday causation;<ref>Malcolm Hamilton, ''The Sociology of Religion: Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives'' (London: Routledge, 2001), as quoted in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 9.</ref> Frazer's own evidence casts magicians as the "direct predecessors of our physicians, surgeons, and scientists";<ref>Frazer, ''The Golden Bough'', 62, as discussed in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 7.</ref> the sacred/profane distinction is meaningless among the Azande, the Huichol, and West African peoples;<ref>E. E. Evans-Pritchard, ''Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande'' (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1937); Barbara G. Myerhoff, ''Peyote Hunt: The Sacred Journey of the Huichol Indians'' (London: Cornell University Press, 1974); Jack Goody, "Religion and Ritual: The Definitional Problem," ''The British Journal of Sociology'' 12, no. 2 (1961): 142–64; as discussed in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 17.</ref> Wicca and Thelema are deeply social;<ref>Starhawk, ''The Spiral Dance: A Rebirth of the Ancient Religion of the Goddess'', 20th anniversary ed. (New York: HarperOne, 2011), as cited in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 17.</ref> and Smart's substantive elements are found throughout Hollywood, sports, the Boy Scouts, the New Age movement, and science itself (see [[Boundary Problem]]).<ref>Ninian Smart, ''The World's Religions'' (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); as synthesized in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 18–25, 41–44.</ref>		'''Every boundary collapses under empirical attention.''' Hunter-gatherers are not especially animistic, and magic "is either reserved for special circumstances or is an adjunct to ordinary techniques," not mistaken for everyday causation;<ref>Malcolm Hamilton, ''The Sociology of Religion: Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives'' (London: Routledge, 2001), as quoted in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 9.</ref> Frazer's own evidence casts magicians as the "direct predecessors of our physicians, surgeons, and scientists";<ref>Frazer, ''The Golden Bough'', 62, as discussed in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 7.</ref> the sacred/profane distinction is meaningless among the Azande, the Huichol, and West African peoples;<ref>E. E. Evans-Pritchard, ''Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande'' (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1937); Barbara G. Myerhoff, ''Peyote Hunt: The Sacred Journey of the Huichol Indians'' (London: Cornell University Press, 1974); Jack Goody, "Religion and Ritual: The Definitional Problem," ''The British Journal of Sociology'' 12, no. 2 (1961): 142–64; as discussed in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 17.</ref> Wicca and Thelema are deeply social;<ref>Starhawk, ''The Spiral Dance: A Rebirth of the Ancient Reli[[Rocket Scientist's Guide to Religion]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::RSGR]]\|format=ul}}
			gion of the Goddess'', 20th anniversary ed. (New York: HarperOne, 2011), as cited in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 17.</ref> and Smart's substantive elements are found throughout Hollywood, sports, the Boy Scouts, the New Age movement, and science itself (see [[Boundary Problem]]).<ref>Ninian Smart, ''The World's Religions'' (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); as synthesized in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 18–25, 41–44.</ref>

	'''LP resolution.''' The boundaries do not exist, and the definitional quest for them is itself part of the problem. "Humans are complex and creative. They do not honour the boundaries scholars attempt to impose."<ref>Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 48.</ref> Unless the goal is to demonstrate European, scientific, or patriarchal superiority, boundaries need not — and should not — be asserted. Abandoning the boundary fetish is "the first step in any serious and authentic attempt to decolonize not only the study of religion and spirituality, but religion and spirituality as well"<ref>Ibid., 58.</ref> — a decolonization that also recovers the "much more nuanced and sophisticated view of human beings and their relations to self, community, earth, and the cosmos" found in Indigenous spiritual systems.<ref>Sonia Lucana and John Elfers, "Sacred Medicine: Indigenous Healing and Mental Health," ''The Qualitative Report'' 25, no. 12 (2020): 4482, as cited in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 57–58.</ref> The fetish is the field-level expression of [[Ontological Bias]] and [[Epistemic Attachment]]: attachment to one's own knowledge system, hardened into worldview, mobilized as hierarchy.		'''LP resolution.''' The boundaries do not exist, and the definitional quest for them is itself part of the problem. "Humans are complex and creative. They do not honour the boundaries scholars attempt to impose."<ref>Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 48.</ref> Unless the goal is to demonstrate European, scientific, or patriarchal superiority, boundaries need not — and should not — be asserted. Abandoning the boundary fetish is "the first step in any serious and authentic attempt to decolonize not only the study of religion and spirituality, but religion and spirituality as well"<ref>Ibid., 58.</ref> — a decolonization that also recovers the "much more nuanced and sophisticated view of human beings and their relations to self, community, earth, and the cosmos" found in Indigenous spiritual systems.<ref>Sonia Lucana and John Elfers, "Sacred Medicine: Indigenous Healing and Mental Health," ''The Qualitative Report'' 25, no. 12 (2020): 4482, as cited in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 57–58.</ref> The fetish is the field-level expression of [[Ontological Bias]] and [[Epistemic Attachment]]: attachment to one's own knowledge system, hardened into worldview, mobilized as hierarchy.
Line 40:		Line 41:
	==Book Terms==		==Book Terms==

	[[Rocket ~~Scientist~~'s Guide to Religion]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::RSGR]]\|format=ul}}		[[Rocket Scientists' Guide to Religion]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::RSGR]]\|format=ul}}


	{{endstuff}}		{{endstuff}}

Epistemic Attachment

Michael — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 13:28:57 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:28, 11 September 2026
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 13:		Line 13:
	===Syncretic Terms===		===Syncretic Terms===

	[[Epistemic Attachment]] > {{#ask:[[Is a syncretic term::Epistemic Attachment]\|format=ul}}		[[Epistemic Attachment]] > {{#ask:[[Is a syncretic term::Epistemic Attachment]]\|format=ul}}

	===Related LP Terms===		===Related LP Terms===

	[[Epistemic Attachment]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::Epistemic Attachment]\|format=ul}}		[[Epistemic Attachment]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::Epistemic Attachment]]\|format=ul}}

	===Non-LP Related Terms===		===Non-LP Related Terms===
Line 32:		Line 32:
	Epistemic attachment cannot be eliminated, only balanced. "Balancing between attachment and detachment is one of the key challenges in any practice of knowing the social world," and the challenge grows as the objects of study (climate change, artificial intelligence, the future of humanity itself) grow in complexity and centrality. Mark Carrigan<Ref>Mark Carrigan, “Ontological Bias and Social Knowledge in a Post-Truth Era,” Mark Carrigan, December 28, 2017, https://markcarrigan.net/2017/12/28/ontological-bias-and-social-knowledge-in-a-post-truth-era/</ref> adds that avoiding the bias produced by epistemic attachment may also require distancing from comfortable philosophical constructs — e.g., treating "prediction" as a philosophical designator rather than a sociological one — since such constructs can themselves become objects of attachment.		Epistemic attachment cannot be eliminated, only balanced. "Balancing between attachment and detachment is one of the key challenges in any practice of knowing the social world," and the challenge grows as the objects of study (climate change, artificial intelligence, the future of humanity itself) grow in complexity and centrality. Mark Carrigan<Ref>Mark Carrigan, “Ontological Bias and Social Knowledge in a Post-Truth Era,” Mark Carrigan, December 28, 2017, https://markcarrigan.net/2017/12/28/ontological-bias-and-social-knowledge-in-a-post-truth-era/</ref> adds that avoiding the bias produced by epistemic attachment may also require distancing from comfortable philosophical constructs — e.g., treating "prediction" as a philosophical designator rather than a sociological one — since such constructs can themselves become objects of attachment.

			==Book Terms==

			[[Rocket Scientist's Guide to Religion]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::RSGR]]\|format=ul}}

			{{endstuff}}

	~~{{endstuff}}~~		[[category:terms]]
			[[category:lightningpath]]
			[[category:rsgr]]
			[[Is a key term::RSGR\| ]]

	[[category:terms]]		[[category:terms]]

Ontological Bias

Michael — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 13:27:48 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:27, 11 September 2026
Line 29:		Line 29:

	Ontological bias rarely travels alone. In the academic study of religion it is compounded by ethnocentrism, Eurocentrism, and flat-out racist attempts to dismiss anything that does not originate in white, European thought — producing the [[Boundary Fetish]]. Ontological bias is also the last line of defense when substantive and functional definitions of religion fail to separate science from religion: having failed to draw boundaries on content or function, scholars retreat to ontology (materialism vs. idealism) and epistemology (empirical method vs. authority) — boundaries that also collapse under sustained empirical attention, since scientists themselves report mystical and enlightenment experiences, transpersonal psychology crosses the materialist line, and scientific institutions display the same conservatism and heretic-excommunication dynamics as churches (cf. Rupert Sheldrake's excommunication by Nature editor John Maddox).		Ontological bias rarely travels alone. In the academic study of religion it is compounded by ethnocentrism, Eurocentrism, and flat-out racist attempts to dismiss anything that does not originate in white, European thought — producing the [[Boundary Fetish]]. Ontological bias is also the last line of defense when substantive and functional definitions of religion fail to separate science from religion: having failed to draw boundaries on content or function, scholars retreat to ontology (materialism vs. idealism) and epistemology (empirical method vs. authority) — boundaries that also collapse under sustained empirical attention, since scientists themselves report mystical and enlightenment experiences, transpersonal psychology crosses the materialist line, and scientific institutions display the same conservatism and heretic-excommunication dynamics as churches (cf. Rupert Sheldrake's excommunication by Nature editor John Maddox).

			==Book Terms==

			[[Rocket Scientist's Guide to Religion]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::RSGR]]\|format=ul}}

	{{endstuff}}		{{endstuff}}

	[[category:terms]]		[[category:terms]]
			[[category:rsgr]]
			[[Is a key term::RSGR\| ]]
	[[Is a keyword::Spiritual Theory\| ]]		[[Is a keyword::Spiritual Theory\| ]]
	[[Is a related term::Religions\| ]]		[[Is a related term::Religions\| ]]
	[[Is a related term::Spirituality\| ]]		[[Is a related term::Spirituality\| ]]
	[[Is a keyword::Spiritual Theory\| ]]		[[Is a keyword::Spiritual Theory\| ]]

Boundary Problem

Michael — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 13:27:30 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:27, 11 September 2026
Line 40:		Line 40:
	'''LP resolution.''' The Boundary Problem cannot be solved because there is no boundary there. "Humans are complex and creative. They do not honour the boundaries scholars attempt to impose. They can make their institutions serve whatever needs they want."<ref>Ibid., 48.</ref> The continuing attempt to solve it is not scholarship but the [[Boundary Fetish]] — "not an accident or a relic of a less enlightened age.... It is structural. It is what the academic study of religion has repeatedly been mobilized to produce."<ref>Ibid., 14.</ref> The productive move is not a better boundary but no boundary: religion as "a complicated and flexible human institution set up to meet essential and non-essential human needs," organized around answers to big questions with a core emphasis on alignment and connection,<ref>Ibid., 56.</ref> embraces the overlap of human institutions, breaks the study of religion open, and exposes centuries of elite interference in spiritual systems. Abandoning the boundary quest is "the first step in any serious and authentic attempt to decolonize not only the study of religion and spirituality, but religion and spirituality as well."<ref>Ibid., 58.</ref>		'''LP resolution.''' The Boundary Problem cannot be solved because there is no boundary there. "Humans are complex and creative. They do not honour the boundaries scholars attempt to impose. They can make their institutions serve whatever needs they want."<ref>Ibid., 48.</ref> The continuing attempt to solve it is not scholarship but the [[Boundary Fetish]] — "not an accident or a relic of a less enlightened age.... It is structural. It is what the academic study of religion has repeatedly been mobilized to produce."<ref>Ibid., 14.</ref> The productive move is not a better boundary but no boundary: religion as "a complicated and flexible human institution set up to meet essential and non-essential human needs," organized around answers to big questions with a core emphasis on alignment and connection,<ref>Ibid., 56.</ref> embraces the overlap of human institutions, breaks the study of religion open, and exposes centuries of elite interference in spiritual systems. Abandoning the boundary quest is "the first step in any serious and authentic attempt to decolonize not only the study of religion and spirituality, but religion and spirituality as well."<ref>Ibid., 58.</ref>

			==Book Terms==

			[[Rocket Scientist's Guide to Religion]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::RSGR]]\|format=ul}}

	{{endstuff}}		{{endstuff}}
Line 45:		Line 48:
	[[category:terms]]		[[category:terms]]
	[[category:lightningpath]]		[[category:lightningpath]]
			[[category:rsgr]]
			[[Is a key term::RSGR\| ]]
	[[Is a keyword::Spiritual Theory\| ]]		[[Is a keyword::Spiritual Theory\| ]]
	[[Is a term in::RSGR\| ]]		[[Is a term in::RSGR\| ]]
	[[Is a related term::Religions\| ]]		[[Is a related term::Religions\| ]]
	[[Is a related term::Spirituality\| ]]		[[Is a related term::Spirituality\| ]]

Rocket Scientists' Guide to Religion

Michael — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 13:26:25 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:26, 11 September 2026
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 9:		Line 9:
	[[Rocket Guides]] > {{#ask:[[Is a::Rocket Guide]]\|format=ul}}		[[Rocket Guides]] > {{#ask:[[Is a::Rocket Guide]]\|format=ul}}

	[[Rocket Scientist's Guide to Religion]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::RSGR]]\|format=ul}}		Terms in the book [[Rocket Scientist's Guide to Religion]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::RSGR]]\|format=ul}}

	==Notes==		==Notes==

Boundary Fetish

Michael — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 13:25:52 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:25, 11 September 2026
Line 11:		Line 11:

	[[Spiritual Theory]] > {{#ask:[[Is a keyword::Spiritual Theory]]\|format=ul}}		[[Spiritual Theory]] > {{#ask:[[Is a keyword::Spiritual Theory]]\|format=ul}}

	===Syncretic Terms===		===Syncretic Terms===

Line 36:		Line 37:

	'''LP resolution.''' The boundaries do not exist, and the definitional quest for them is itself part of the problem. "Humans are complex and creative. They do not honour the boundaries scholars attempt to impose."<ref>Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 48.</ref> Unless the goal is to demonstrate European, scientific, or patriarchal superiority, boundaries need not — and should not — be asserted. Abandoning the boundary fetish is "the first step in any serious and authentic attempt to decolonize not only the study of religion and spirituality, but religion and spirituality as well"<ref>Ibid., 58.</ref> — a decolonization that also recovers the "much more nuanced and sophisticated view of human beings and their relations to self, community, earth, and the cosmos" found in Indigenous spiritual systems.<ref>Sonia Lucana and John Elfers, "Sacred Medicine: Indigenous Healing and Mental Health," ''The Qualitative Report'' 25, no. 12 (2020): 4482, as cited in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 57–58.</ref> The fetish is the field-level expression of [[Ontological Bias]] and [[Epistemic Attachment]]: attachment to one's own knowledge system, hardened into worldview, mobilized as hierarchy.		'''LP resolution.''' The boundaries do not exist, and the definitional quest for them is itself part of the problem. "Humans are complex and creative. They do not honour the boundaries scholars attempt to impose."<ref>Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 48.</ref> Unless the goal is to demonstrate European, scientific, or patriarchal superiority, boundaries need not — and should not — be asserted. Abandoning the boundary fetish is "the first step in any serious and authentic attempt to decolonize not only the study of religion and spirituality, but religion and spirituality as well"<ref>Ibid., 58.</ref> — a decolonization that also recovers the "much more nuanced and sophisticated view of human beings and their relations to self, community, earth, and the cosmos" found in Indigenous spiritual systems.<ref>Sonia Lucana and John Elfers, "Sacred Medicine: Indigenous Healing and Mental Health," ''The Qualitative Report'' 25, no. 12 (2020): 4482, as cited in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 57–58.</ref> The fetish is the field-level expression of [[Ontological Bias]] and [[Epistemic Attachment]]: attachment to one's own knowledge system, hardened into worldview, mobilized as hierarchy.

			==Book Terms==

			[[Rocket Scientist's Guide to Religion]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::RSGR]]\|format=ul}}


	{{endstuff}}		{{endstuff}}
Line 41:		Line 47:
	[[category:terms]]		[[category:terms]]
	[[category:lightningpath]]		[[category:lightningpath]]
			[[category:rsgr]]
			[[Is a key term::RSGR\| ]]
	[[Is a keyword::Spiritual Theory\| ]]		[[Is a keyword::Spiritual Theory\| ]]
	[[Is a related term::Religions\| ]]		[[Is a related term::Religions\| ]]
	[[Is a related term::Spirituality\| ]]		[[Is a related term::Spirituality\| ]]

RSGR

Michael — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 13:21:43 GMT

Redirected page to Rocket Scientists' Guide to Religion

New page

#REDIRECT [[Rocket Scientists' Guide to Religion]]

Boundary Fetish

Michael — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 13:21:25 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:21, 11 September 2026
Line 25:		Line 25:
	== Notes ==		== Notes ==

	The term ~~appears~~ in the [[Rocket Scientists' Guide to Religion]]: scholars "have been trying to distinguish and elevate their own 'adult, civilized white man' European institutions (e.g., monotheistic religion and science) as superior against the 'savage,' primitive, pre-logical, narcissistic, and infantile character of the knowledge systems of the so-called 'inferior races.'... ~~They have had, in other words,~~ a boundary fetish."		The term is coined in the [[Rocket Scientists' Guide to Religion]]: scholars "have been trying to distinguish and elevate their own 'adult, civilized white man' European institutions (e.g., monotheistic religion and science) as superior against the 'savage,' primitive, pre-logical, narcissistic, and infantile character of the knowledge systems of the so-called 'inferior races.'"<ref>Sosteric, ''[[RSGR]] draft'', 6.</ref> The struggle to define religion is thus "the sometimes overt, sometimes covert, but always racist desire to establish boundaries between Indigenous systems of belief and Western systems of belief.... a boundary fetish."<ref>Ibid., 6.</ref>

	Classic inscriptions: ~~Malinowski (~~science is ~~logical~~, open, ~~objective~~, ~~and empirical;~~ magic is occult, ~~mystical, subjective,~~ and ~~driven by~~ an ~~irrational "play~~ of ~~emotions upon the human organism~~"); Frazer (magic's "fatal flaw" is a ~~mistaken ontology~~, while monotheism's "more perfect submission to the divine will... affects only those higher intelligences"); Comte (the "law of three stages," ~~with fetishistic~~ Indigenous ~~beliefs~~ as the puerile ~~products~~ of an "infant species"); Freud (animism = narcissism, religion ~~= childish~~ attachment to parents, science = maturity); Tylor.		'''Classic inscriptions.''' Malinowski: science "is guided by reason and corrected by observation," open to all, "a common good of the whole community," while magic "is occult, taught through mysterious initiations" and "lives in an atmosphere of mysticism."<ref>Bronislaw Malinowski, ''Magic, Science, and Religion and Other Essays'' (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1948), 3, as quoted in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 6–7.</ref> Frazer: magic's "fatal flaw" is "not in its general assumption of a sequence of events determined by law, but in presumed misconception of the nature of the particular laws which govern that sequence,"<ref>Sir James George Frazer, ''The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion'' (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1990), 49, as quoted in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 7.</ref> while monotheism's "more perfect submission to the divine will... affects only those higher intelligences who have breadth of view enough to comprehend the vastness of the universe and the littleness of man."<ref>Frazer, ''The Golden Bough'', 59, as quoted in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 8.</ref> Comte: the "law of three stages" casts Indigenous fetishism as the puerile belief of an "infant species."<ref>August Comte, ''A General View of Positivism'' (1856; repr., Marxist Internet Archive, 2005), 35, 185, as discussed in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 8–9.</ref> Freud: animism corresponds to narcissism, religion to a child's attachment to his parents, science to maturity.<ref>Sigmund Freud, ''Totem and Taboo'' (New York: Routledge, 1913), 104, as discussed in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 28.</ref> Tylor: religion as "belief in spiritual beings."<ref>Edward Tylor, ''Primitive Culture'' (London: John Murray, 1903), as cited in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 15.</ref>

	~~The fetish persists in modern dress~~. The secularization thesis (Berger, Wilson) is Comte's law of three stages ~~repackaged — religious societies coded as cognitively immature~~, secular Western modernity as the telos of human advancement — and ~~it functioned ideologically even after~~ its empirical failure (explosive religious growth worldwide; Berger himself ~~recanted, conceding~~ "desecularization"). After World War I made overt triumphalism embarrassing, the "world religions" framework ~~(Masuzawa, The Invention of World Religions) repackaged~~ the hierarchy as pluralism: the scripture criterion ~~conveniently~~ demotes Indigenous systems to a residual "primal" category, Christianity becomes "first among unequals," and the Western scholar is ~~positioned~~ as ~~the~~ neutral arbiter of ~~what counts~~ as ~~religion~~. "The hierarchy was no longer written on the surface; it was woven into the very structure of the classification itself."		'''Modern repackagings.''' The secularization thesis — articulated most forcefully by Peter Berger and Bryan Wilson — is Comte's law of three stages in postwar dress, positioning secular Western modernity as "the telos of human advancement" and non-secular societies as "backward holdovers."<ref>Peter Berger, ''The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion'' (New York: Anchor Books, 1969); as discussed in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 10–11.</ref> It persisted despite its empirical failure — explosive religious growth worldwide, which drove Berger himself to recant in favor of "desecularization."<ref>Peter Berger, ed., ''The Desecularization of the World: Resurgent Religion and World Politics'' (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), as cited in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 10.</ref> After World War I made overt triumphalism embarrassing, the "world religions" framework preserved the hierarchy as pluralism: the scripture criterion demotes Indigenous systems to a residual "primal" category, Christianity becomes "first among unequals," and the Western scholar is installed as neutral arbiter.<ref>Tomoko Masuzawa, ''The Invention of World Religions: Or, How European Universalism Was Preserved in the Language of Pluralism'' (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), 43–44, as discussed in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 11–12.</ref> "The hierarchy was no longer written on the surface; it was woven into the very structure of the classification itself."<ref>Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 12.</ref>

	The boundary fetish "is not an accident or a relic of a less enlightened age. It is structural. It is what the academic study of religion has repeatedly been mobilized to produce." Every world religions syllabus ~~that lists~~ a dozen "major" traditions and ~~relegates everything else~~ to "primal religions" draws a boundary and performs an identity ritual: "this is what we are, and this is what they are." ~~Every repetition of the failed secularization prediction does the same~~.		'''The fetish is structural, not incidental.''' "The boundary fetish... is not an accident or a relic of a less enlightened age. It is structural. It is what the academic study of religion has repeatedly been mobilized to produce."<ref>Ibid., 14.</ref> Every world religions syllabus listing a dozen "major" traditions and relegating the rest to "primal religions" draws a boundary and performs an identity ritual: "this is what we are, and this is what they are, and never the twain shall meet."<ref>Ibid., 14.</ref>

	Every ~~attempted~~ boundary collapses under ~~sustained~~ empirical attention~~: hunter~~-gatherers are not especially animistic; magic is reserved for special circumstances or adjunct to ordinary ~~empirical technique~~, not mistaken for everyday causation; the sacred/profane distinction is meaningless among the Azande (Evans-Pritchard), the Huichol (~~Myerhoff~~), and ~~West African peoples~~ (~~Goody~~); ~~ancient magic was rational~~, ~~empirical~~, and ~~socially practiced~~ (~~Frazer~~'s ~~own evidence); and~~ substantive~~/functional definitions fail to separate religion from~~ Hollywood, sports, the New Age movement, the ~~Boy Scouts~~, or ~~science itself~~.		'''Every boundary collapses under empirical attention.''' Hunter-gatherers are not especially animistic, and magic "is either reserved for special circumstances or is an adjunct to ordinary techniques," not mistaken for everyday causation;<ref>Malcolm Hamilton, ''The Sociology of Religion: Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives'' (London: Routledge, 2001), as quoted in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 9.</ref> Frazer's own evidence casts magicians as the "direct predecessors of our physicians, surgeons, and scientists";<ref>Frazer, ''The Golden Bough'', 62, as discussed in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 7.</ref> the sacred/profane distinction is meaningless among the Azande, the Huichol, and West African peoples;<ref>E. E. Evans-Pritchard, ''Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande'' (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1937); Barbara G. Myerhoff, ''Peyote Hunt: The Sacred Journey of the Huichol Indians'' (London: Cornell University Press, 1974); Jack Goody, "Religion and Ritual: The Definitional Problem," ''The British Journal of Sociology'' 12, no. 2 (1961): 142–64; as discussed in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 17.</ref> Wicca and Thelema are deeply social;<ref>Starhawk, ''The Spiral Dance: A Rebirth of the Ancient Religion of the Goddess'', 20th anniversary ed. (New York: HarperOne, 2011), as cited in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 17.</ref> and Smart's substantive elements are found throughout Hollywood, sports, the Boy Scouts, the New Age movement, and science itself (see [[Boundary Problem]]).<ref>Ninian Smart, ''The World's Religions'' (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); as synthesized in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 18–25, 41–44.</ref>

			'''LP resolution.''' The boundaries do not exist, and the definitional quest for them is itself part of the problem. "Humans are complex and creative. They do not honour the boundaries scholars attempt to impose."<ref>Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 48.</ref> Unless the goal is to demonstrate European, scientific, or patriarchal superiority, boundaries need not — and should not — be asserted. Abandoning the boundary fetish is "the first step in any serious and authentic attempt to decolonize not only the study of religion and spirituality, but religion and spirituality as well"<ref>Ibid., 58.</ref> — a decolonization that also recovers the "much more nuanced and sophisticated view of human beings and their relations to self, community, earth, and the cosmos" found in Indigenous spiritual systems.<ref>Sonia Lucana and John Elfers, "Sacred Medicine: Indigenous Healing and Mental Health," ''The Qualitative Report'' 25, no. 12 (2020): 4482, as cited in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 57–58.</ref> The fetish is the field-level expression of [[Ontological Bias]] and [[Epistemic Attachment]]: attachment to one's own knowledge system, hardened into worldview, mobilized as hierarchy.

	The LP conclusion: the boundaries do not exist. Unless the goal is to demonstrate European/scientific/patriarchal superiority, they need not, and should not, be asserted. Abandoning the boundary fetish is "the first step in any serious and authentic attempt to decolonize not only the study of religion and spirituality, but religion and spirituality as well."
	{{endstuff}}		{{endstuff}}

Boundary Problem

Michael — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 13:15:47 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:15, 11 September 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{navmenu}}		{{navmenu}}
	<h1 class="customtitle">{{FULLPAGENAME}}</h1>		<h1 class="customtitle">{{FULLPAGENAME}}</h1>
	<blockquote class="definition">{{~~TODO~~}}		<blockquote class="definition">The '''Boundary Problem''' is the persistent scholarly problem of how to draw a defensible line, substantively, functionally, ontologically, or epistemologically, between religion and other human institutions and knowledge systems, such as magic, science, Hollywood, sports, or the New Age movement. The problem is insoluble, because the boundaries it seeks do not exist.
			</blockquote>

			==Concept Map==

			===Key Concepts===

			[[Avatar.GLOBAL Knowledge System]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::Avatar.GLOBAL Knowledge System]]\|format=ul\|sort=Has sort AG}}

			[[Spiritual Theory]] > {{#ask:[[Is a keyword::Spiritual Theory]]\|format=ul}}

			===Syncretic Terms===

			[[Boundary Problem]] > {{#ask:[[Is a syncretic term::Boundary Problem]]\|format=ul}}

			===Related LP Terms===

			[[Boundary Problem]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::Boundary Problem]]\|format=ul}}

			===Non-LP Related Terms===

			[[Boundary Problem]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::Boundary Problem]]\|format=ul}}

	</~~blockquote~~>		== Notes ==

			The Boundary Problem arises the moment scholars attempt to define religion by what distinguishes it from everything else. Every attempted boundary fails under empirical attention, at four successive lines of defense.<ref>Mike Sosteric, ''Rocket Scientists' Guide to Religion'', draft v.095, introductory unit for Athabasca University Sociology 231: ''The Sociology of Religion'' (manuscript in preparation; E.T.A. 2027). Page references herein are to the draft PDF. Hereafter cited as Sosteric, ''RSGR draft''.</ref>

	~~==Syncretic Terms==~~		'''1. Substantive boundaries fail.''' Defining religion by belief in supernatural beings runs into Buddha, who rejected gods and supernatural forces outright, yet Buddhism is clearly a religion.<ref>Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 16.</ref> Defining it by a sacred/profane distinction is a Western category imposition: the distinction is not made by the LoDagaa and other West African peoples studied by Goody,<ref>Jack Goody, "Religion and Ritual: The Definitional Problem," ''The British Journal of Sociology'' 12, no. 2 (1961): 142–64, as discussed in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 16–17.</ref> is not meaningful among the Azande,<ref>E. E. Evans-Pritchard, ''Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande'' (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1937), as discussed in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 17.</ref> and is meaningless for the Huichol of Mexico.<ref>Barbara G. Myerhoff, ''Peyote Hunt: The Sacred Journey of the Huichol Indians'' (London: Cornell University Press, 1974), as discussed in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 17.</ref>

	[[Boundary Problem]] > ~~{{#ask~~:~~[[Is a syncretic term~~::~~Boundary Problem]]}}~~		'''2. Durkheim's "solution" fails.''' Having failed to separate magic and religion from science by supernatural content — and unable to elevate Western religion above Indigenous magic on that basis either — Durkheim "solved" the Boundary Problem by suggesting religion was more social, while magic was more individualistic.<ref>Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 17.</ref> "Unfortunately, like other ethnocentric boundaries, Durkheim's assertions are more wishful thinking than empirical fact."<ref>Ibid., 17.</ref> Ancient magical and ritual practices had social aspects and social intent — "fisherman who used magic to help with their catch were doing so with their families and communities in mind"<ref>Ibid., 17, citing Sir James George Frazer, ''The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion'' (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1990).</ref> — and modern magical systems like Wicca and Thelema are deeply embedded in the social fabric: witches have covens and cast spells "for the good of themselves and their community";<ref>Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 17, citing Starhawk, ''The Spiral Dance: A Rebirth of the Ancient Religion of the Goddess'', 20th anniversary ed. (New York: HarperOne, 2011).</ref> Aleister Crowley, patriarch of Thelema, "was embedded in exoteric and elitist social networks."<ref>Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 17.</ref>

	~~==Related LP Terms==~~		'''3. Functional boundaries fail.''' Functional definitions (religion as what provides cohesion, meaning, or answers to ultimate questions) are even worse at boundary work: as Scharf notes, "they are simply too broad and inclusive. If religion is defined as that which promotes unity or social cohesion, then anything which does this is religion."<ref>B. Scharf, ''The Sociological Study of Religion'' (London: Hutchinson, 1970), as quoted in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 29.</ref> Communism, fascism, nationalism, capitalism, sports, and rock concerts all become religious events. Hamilton therefore advises abandoning functional definitions altogether<ref>Malcolm Hamilton, ''The Sociology of Religion: Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives'' (London: Routledge, 2001), as discussed in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 29–30.</ref> — but this is rejected in the [[Rocket Scientists' Guide to Religion]]: institutions are always functional, since "all institutions ... are instrumental means for the satisfaction of needs";<ref>Melford E. Spiro, "Religion: Problems of Definition and Explanation," in ''Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion'', ed. Michael Banton (London: Routledge, 2004), 96, as quoted in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 30.</ref> "if we ignore the functions of religion, we might as well not bother studying it."<ref>Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 30.</ref>

	~~[[Boundary Problem]]~~ > ~~{{#ask~~:[[Is a ~~related LP term~~:~~:Boundary Problem]]}}~~		'''4. Ontological/epistemic boundaries fail.''' With content and function unable to separate religion from science, the last line of defense is ontology (materialism vs. idealism) and epistemology (empirical method vs. authority and tradition).<ref>Ibid., 44–45.</ref> These too collapse: transpersonal and humanistic psychology cross the materialist line and even provide techniques for spiritual connection;<ref>Ibid., 44.</ref> scientists report mystical and "enlightenment" experiences — Kekulé's dream of the benzene ring, Darwin's "innumerable little illuminations,"<ref>Peter Caws, "The Structure of Discovery," ''Science'' 166, no. 3911 (1969): 1375–80; Howard E. Gruber, "On the Relation between 'AHA Experiences' and the Construction of Ideas," ''History of Science'' 19, no. 1 (1981): 41–59; both as cited in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 25.</ref> Einstein's awe before "the old one"<ref>Albert Einstein, ''Out of My Later Years'' (New York: Citadel Press, 2000), as discussed in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 25, 45–46.</ref> — and science itself behaves like a church when challenged: Kuhn showed it to be one of the most conservative institutions going,<ref>Thomas S. Kuhn, ''The Structure of Scientific Revolutions'' (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962), as discussed in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 47.</ref> and Yinger notes that many scientists "sanctify science just like priests sanctify religion, by presenting it as a superior path towards truth."<ref>Roy Rappaport, as quoted in J. Milton Yinger, ''The Scientific Study of Religion'' (London: Macmillan, 1970), in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 47.</ref> Rupert Sheldrake was publicly shamed and excommunicated by ''Nature''<nowiki>'</nowiki>s senior editor, who called his book "the best candidate for burning there has been for many years."<ref>Anthony Freeman, "The Sense of Being Glared At: What Is It Like to Be a Heretic?," ''Journal of Consciousness Studies'' 12, no. 6 (2005): 4–9, as discussed in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 48.</ref>

	~~==Non~~-~~LP Related Terms==~~		'''The problem metastasizes.''' Smart's substantive elements — social, ritual/practical, experiential, narrative/mythic, doctrinal, ethical/legal, material, plus healing — are found everywhere.<ref>Ninian Smart, ''The World's Religions'' (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); Ninian Smart, ''The Phenomenon of Religion'' (New York: Macmillan, 1973); as synthesized in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 18–23.</ref> Hollywood has its master narratives: Lucas "intentionally set out to awaken (some might say indoctrinate) children" with a monomyth that "echoes in nearly every belief system," admitting "I put the Force into the movie in order to try to awaken a certain kind of spirituality in young people."<ref>Bill Moyers, "Of Myth and Men," ''Time'', April 18, 1999, as quoted in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 24.</ref> Sports has its sacred figures and superstitions; the Boy Scouts' oath requires affirmation of "belief and submission to God";<ref>Bryan Wendell, "About the 'Belief in God' Requirement in Scouting," ''Bryan on Scouting'', October 3, 2014, as cited in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 42.</ref> science has its rituals, myths, martyrs, and mystical musings. "So what makes the institution of science different than religion? Where is the all-important boundary?"<ref>Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 25.</ref>

	[[Boundary ~~Problem~~]] > ~~{{#ask~~:~~[[Is~~ a ~~related term::Boundary Problem]]}}~~		'''LP resolution.''' The Boundary Problem cannot be solved because there is no boundary there. "Humans are complex and creative. They do not honour the boundaries scholars attempt to impose. They can make their institutions serve whatever needs they want."<ref>Ibid., 48.</ref> The continuing attempt to solve it is not scholarship but the [[Boundary Fetish]] — "not an accident or a relic of a less enlightened age.... It is structural. It is what the academic study of religion has repeatedly been mobilized to produce."<ref>Ibid., 14.</ref> The productive move is not a better boundary but no boundary: religion as "a complicated and flexible human institution set up to meet essential and non-essential human needs," organized around answers to big questions with a core emphasis on alignment and connection,<ref>Ibid., 56.</ref> embraces the overlap of human institutions, breaks the study of religion open, and exposes centuries of elite interference in spiritual systems. Abandoning the boundary quest is "the first step in any serious and authentic attempt to decolonize not only the study of religion and spirituality, but religion and spirituality as well."<ref>Ibid., 58.</ref>

	~~==Notes==~~

	{{endstuff}}		{{endstuff}}
Line 23:		Line 45:
	[[category:terms]]		[[category:terms]]
	[[category:lightningpath]]		[[category:lightningpath]]
	[[Is a related term::~~Religion~~\| ]]		[[Is a keyword::Spiritual Theory\| ]]
			[[Is a term in::RSGR\| ]]
			[[Is a related term::Religions\| ]]
			[[Is a related term::Spirituality\| ]]

Rocket Scientists' Guide to Religion

Michael — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 13:03:45 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:03, 11 September 2026
Line 9:		Line 9:
	[[Rocket Guides]] > {{#ask:[[Is a::Rocket Guide]]\|format=ul}}		[[Rocket Guides]] > {{#ask:[[Is a::Rocket Guide]]\|format=ul}}

	[[Rocket Scientist's Guide to Religion]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::~~Rocket Guide~~]]\|format=ul}}		[[Rocket Scientist's Guide to Religion]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::RSGR]]\|format=ul}}

	==Notes==		==Notes==

Spiritual Theory

Michael — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 13:01:18 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:01, 11 September 2026
Line 9:		Line 9:
	[[Avatar.GLOBAL Knowledge System]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::Avatar.GLOBAL Knowledge System]]\|format=ul\|sort=Has sort AG}}		[[Avatar.GLOBAL Knowledge System]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::Avatar.GLOBAL Knowledge System]]\|format=ul\|sort=Has sort AG}}

	[[Spiritual Theory]] > {{#ask:[[Is a keyword::Spiritual Theory]]}}		[[Spiritual Theory]] > {{#ask:[[Is a keyword::Spiritual Theory]]\|format=ul}}

	=== Syncretic Terms ===		=== Syncretic Terms ===
	[[Spiritual Theory]] > {{#ask:[[Is a syncretic term::Spiritual Theory]]}}		[[Spiritual Theory]] > {{#ask:[[Is a syncretic term::Spiritual Theory]]\|format=ul}}

	=== Related LP Terms ===		=== Related LP Terms ===
	[[Spiritual Theory]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related LP term::Spiritual Theory]]}}		[[Spiritual Theory]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related LP term::Spiritual Theory]]\|format=ul}}

	=== Non-LP Related Terms ===		=== Non-LP Related Terms ===
	[[Spiritual Theory]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::Spiritual Theory]]}}		[[Spiritual Theory]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::Spiritual Theory]]\|format=ul}}

	==Notes==		==Notes==

	Spiritual Theory starts from the observable fact that consciousness appears to be non-local and non-temporal,<ref>Sosteric, Mike. “The Shifting Paradigm in the Science of Consciousness.” ''The Peace Table'', 2025. <nowiki>https://medium.com/the-peace-table/25c8511a3641</nowiki></ref> and builds out from there.

	~~=== LP Theory ===~~
	~~''Propositions coming soon...''<blockquote class="definition">~~

	{{endstuff}}		{{endstuff}}

Rocket Scientists' Guide to Religion

Michael — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 12:59:38 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:59, 11 September 2026
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{navmenu}}		{{navmenu}}
	<h1 class="customtitle">{{FULLPAGENAME}}</h1>		<h1 class="customtitle">{{FULLPAGENAME}}</h1>
	<blockquote class="definition">		<blockquote class="definition">The '''Rocket Scientists' Guide to Religion''' is an upcoming Lightning Path monograph by Mike Sosteric that provides a definition of religion which captures the phenomenon's complexity, stimulates thought and research, and sensitizes readers to the profound manipulation, colonization, and destruction of human spirituality by elites — and to how we have all participated in that colonization. <span style="color:#cc0000;">'''E.T.A. 2027.'''</span> For notifications of this and other LP materials, register at https://www.lightningpath.org/register..</blockquote>
	The '''Rocket Scientists' Guide to Religion''' ~~(RSGME)~~ is ~~comning soon~~...

	==Concept Map==		==Concept Map==

	[[~~Regime of Accumulation~~]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::~~Regime of Accumulation~~]]\|format=ul}}		[[Avatar.GLOBAL Knowledge System]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::Avatar.GLOBAL Knowledge System]]\|format=ul\|sort=Has sort AG}}

	~~==LP~~ Rocket Guides==		[[Rocket Guides]] > {{#ask:[[Is a::Rocket Guide]]\|format=ul}}

	[[Rocket ~~Guides~~]] > {{#ask:[[Is a::Rocket Guide]]\|format=ul}}		[[Rocket Scientist's Guide to Religion]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::Rocket Guide]]\|format=ul}}

	==Notes==		==Notes==

	~~{{courses}}~~		''TLDR:''' Religion is an institution set up to meet various and specific needs. What needs a particular religious institution meets depends on the intent of the people who set it up. If the founders are members of the [[Accumulating Class]], the religion will typically prioritize elite needs — an [[Elite Religion]]. If a religion is built up from the grassroots teachings of a charismatic avatar, it will typically prioritize the needs of the masses — an [[Authentic Religion]].

			'''Argument of the book:''' Our collective understanding of religion and human spirituality is inadequate, caricatured, and colonial. Scholarly attempts to define religion have been hamstrung by (1) religion's genuine complexity and an Occam-driven desire to reduce it to a sound byte (Marx's "opiate," Freud's "infantile delusion," Durkheim's "projection of society"); (2) [[Ontological Bias]] — rigid adherence to theological and philosophical worldviews that closes minds to alternative explanations and evidence; and (3) a [[Boundary Fetish]] — the structural, often racist Eurocentric drive to hierarchically bound Western science above Western monotheism above Indigenous spirituality, repackaged in the secularization thesis and the "world religions" framework (Masuzawa).

			'''The definition developed in the book:''' Religion is a complicated and flexible human institution set up to meet essential and non-essential human needs. Religions are organized around a core emphasis on providing answers to our big questions, with a usual emphasis on the satisfaction of alignment and connection needs as the institutional core. A religious institution itself consists of social, ritual/practical, experiential, narrative/mythic, doctrinal, ethical/legal, material, and healing dimensions all geared towards the satisfaction of various human needs. Essential needs are those of the [[Circle of Seven Essential Needs]] (physiological, emotional, cognitive, psychological, environmental, alignment, connection); non-essential needs — an emperor's need for power, a patriarch's need for control of women, capital's need for a compliant workforce — are the hooks by which elites hijack authentic spiritual systems, as with Ardashir's seizure of Zoroastrianism and Constantine's co-optation and patriarchal editing of Christianity (Ehrman).

			The book's deliberately boundary-free definition does not solve the boundary problem; it dissolves it. Substantively and functionally, science, Hollywood, sports, the New Age movement, and the Boy Scouts all bleed into religion — the boundaries simply do not exist. Putting aside the superiority project and embracing the complexity is "the first step in any serious and authentic attempt to decolonize not only the study of religion and spirituality, but religion and spirituality as well."

	{{endstuff}}		{{endstuff}}
Line 21:		Line 26:
	[[category:lightningpath]]		[[category:lightningpath]]
	[[Is a::Rocket Guide\| ]]		[[Is a::Rocket Guide\| ]]
			[[Is a key term::Avatar.GLOBAL Knowledge System\| ]]

Boundary Fetish

Michael — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 12:54:04 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:54, 11 September 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{navmenu}}		{{navmenu}}
	<h1 class="customtitle">{{FULLPAGENAME}}</h1>		<h1 class="customtitle">{{FULLPAGENAME}}</h1>
	<blockquote class="definition">A '''Boundary Fetish''' is		<blockquote class="definition">A '''Boundary Fetish''' is the persistent, often compulsive scholarly drive to establish sharp, hierarchical boundaries between systems of knowledge and life, typically positioning Western science at the top, Western monotheism in the middle, and Indigenous spirituality and magic at the bottom. This drive is motivated not by empirical evidence but by a conscious or unconscious desire to assert the superiority of one's own European, patriarchal, and materialist identity.
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

	==Concept Map==		==Concept Map==
Line 13:		Line 13:
	===Syncretic Terms===		===Syncretic Terms===

	[[~~Ontological Bias~~]] > {{#ask:[[Is a syncretic term::~~Ontological Bias~~]]\|format=ul}}		[[Boundary Fetish]] > {{#ask:[[Is a syncretic term::Boundary Fetish]]\|format=ul}}

	===Related LP Terms===		===Related LP Terms===

	[[~~Ontological Bias~~]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::~~Ontological Bias~~]]\|format=ul}}		[[Boundary Fetish]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::Boundary Fetish]]\|format=ul}}

	===Non-LP Related Terms===		===Non-LP Related Terms===

	[[~~Ontological Bias~~]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::~~Ontological Bias~~]]\|format=ul}}		[[Boundary Fetish]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::Boundary Fetish]]\|format=ul}}

	== Notes ==		== Notes ==

			The term appears in the [[Rocket Scientists' Guide to Religion]]: scholars "have been trying to distinguish and elevate their own 'adult, civilized white man' European institutions (e.g., monotheistic religion and science) as superior against the 'savage,' primitive, pre-logical, narcissistic, and infantile character of the knowledge systems of the so-called 'inferior races.'... They have had, in other words, a boundary fetish."

			Classic inscriptions: Malinowski (science is logical, open, objective, and empirical; magic is occult, mystical, subjective, and driven by an irrational "play of emotions upon the human organism"); Frazer (magic's "fatal flaw" is a mistaken ontology, while monotheism's "more perfect submission to the divine will... affects only those higher intelligences"); Comte (the "law of three stages," with fetishistic Indigenous beliefs as the puerile products of an "infant species"); Freud (animism = narcissism, religion = childish attachment to parents, science = maturity); Tylor.

			The fetish persists in modern dress. The secularization thesis (Berger, Wilson) is Comte's law of three stages repackaged — religious societies coded as cognitively immature, secular Western modernity as the telos of human advancement — and it functioned ideologically even after its empirical failure (explosive religious growth worldwide; Berger himself recanted, conceding "desecularization"). After World War I made overt triumphalism embarrassing, the "world religions" framework (Masuzawa, The Invention of World Religions) repackaged the hierarchy as pluralism: the scripture criterion conveniently demotes Indigenous systems to a residual "primal" category, Christianity becomes "first among unequals," and the Western scholar is positioned as the neutral arbiter of what counts as religion. "The hierarchy was no longer written on the surface; it was woven into the very structure of the classification itself."

			The boundary fetish "is not an accident or a relic of a less enlightened age. It is structural. It is what the academic study of religion has repeatedly been mobilized to produce." Every world religions syllabus that lists a dozen "major" traditions and relegates everything else to "primal religions" draws a boundary and performs an identity ritual: "this is what we are, and this is what they are." Every repetition of the failed secularization prediction does the same.

			Every attempted boundary collapses under sustained empirical attention: hunter-gatherers are not especially animistic; magic is reserved for special circumstances or adjunct to ordinary empirical technique, not mistaken for everyday causation; the sacred/profane distinction is meaningless among the Azande (Evans-Pritchard), the Huichol (Myerhoff), and West African peoples (Goody); ancient magic was rational, empirical, and socially practiced (Frazer's own evidence); and substantive/functional definitions fail to separate religion from Hollywood, sports, the New Age movement, the Boy Scouts, or science itself.

			The LP conclusion: the boundaries do not exist. Unless the goal is to demonstrate European/scientific/patriarchal superiority, they need not, and should not, be asserted. Abandoning the boundary fetish is "the first step in any serious and authentic attempt to decolonize not only the study of religion and spirituality, but religion and spirituality as well."
	{{endstuff}}		{{endstuff}}

	[[category:terms]]		[[category:terms]]
			[[category:lightningpath]]
	[[Is a keyword::Spiritual Theory\| ]]		[[Is a keyword::Spiritual Theory\| ]]
	[[Is a related term::Religions\| ]]		[[Is a related term::Religions\| ]]
	[[Is a related term::Spirituality\| ]]		[[Is a related term::Spirituality\| ]]

Ontological Bias

Michael — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 12:44:40 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:44, 11 September 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{navmenu}}		{{navmenu}}
	<h1 class="customtitle">{{FULLPAGENAME}}</h1>		<h1 class="customtitle">{{FULLPAGENAME}}</h1>
	<blockquote class="definition">'''Ontological Bias''' is		<blockquote class="definition">An '''Ontological Bias''' is a bias that emerges from rigid adherence to a particular view of the fundamental nature of reality — a theological or philosophical worldview — such that the adherent's mind is closed to alternative explanations, and to the logic and evidence that might support alternative views. </blockquote>
	</blockquote>

	==Concept Map==		==Concept Map==
Line 24:		Line 23:

	== Notes ==		== Notes ==

			In the [[Rocket Scientists' Guide to Religion]], ontological bias is defined as "bias that emerges from rigid adherence to certain theological and philosophical worldviews. Ontological bias closes our mind to alternative explanations and the logic and evidence that might support alternative views." Examples: a person who sees God as a white male patriarch will have a hard time listening to a Hindu who brings forward a more pantheistic vision of Consciousness; an atheist will dismiss out of hand evidence for spiritual realities and accounts of spiritual experience; a Catholic will see only the positive aspects of their religion and justify uncomfortable aspects (pervasive paedophilia in the church, for example); a Marxist will see only an opiate; a sociologist will see only the ecclesiastical component of religion and ignore religious experience. Because of these blinders, "neither group is capable of grasping the big picture."

			The term is used in a closely related sense by Jana Bacevic (2017) and Mark Carrigan (2017), for whom ontological bias is essentially "epistemic attachment to the object of research" — the way a scholar's investment in a particular object of knowledge (see [[Epistemic Attachment]]) constrains what can be thought, predicted, or imagined about that object. In the LP framework, the two senses converge: ontological bias is what happens when attachment hardens into worldview, and worldview then filters evidence, experience, and imagination alike.

			Ontological bias rarely travels alone. In the academic study of religion it is compounded by ethnocentrism, Eurocentrism, and flat-out racist attempts to dismiss anything that does not originate in white, European thought — producing the [[Boundary Fetish]]. Ontological bias is also the last line of defense when substantive and functional definitions of religion fail to separate science from religion: having failed to draw boundaries on content or function, scholars retreat to ontology (materialism vs. idealism) and epistemology (empirical method vs. authority) — boundaries that also collapse under sustained empirical attention, since scientists themselves report mystical and enlightenment experiences, transpersonal psychology crosses the materialist line, and scientific institutions display the same conservatism and heretic-excommunication dynamics as churches (cf. Rupert Sheldrake's excommunication by Nature editor John Maddox).

	{{endstuff}}		{{endstuff}}

Epistemic Attachment

Michael — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 12:42:43 GMT

Created page with "{{navmenu}} <h1 class="customtitle">{{FULLPAGENAME}}</h1> <blockquote class="definition">An '''Epistemic Attachment''' is an emotional, professional, and identity-level investment in a particular object of knowledge — a theory, institution, discipline, or worldview — such that the object's continued existence and stability functions as a source of personal and professional legitimation, thereby limiting the knower's capacity to imagine alternatives, up to and includi..."

New page

{{navmenu}}
<h1 class="customtitle">{{FULLPAGENAME}}</h1>
<blockquote class="definition">An '''Epistemic Attachment''' is an emotional, professional, and identity-level investment in a particular object of knowledge — a theory, institution, discipline, or worldview — such that the object's continued existence and stability functions as a source of personal and professional legitimation, thereby limiting the knower's capacity to imagine alternatives, up to and including the object's transformation or disappearance.
</blockquote>

==Concept Map==
===Key Concepts===

[[Avatar.GLOBAL Knowledge System]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::Avatar.GLOBAL Knowledge System]]|format=ul|sort=Has sort AG}}

[[Spiritual Theory]] > {{#ask:[[Is a keyword::Spiritual Theory]]|format=ul}}

===Syncretic Terms===

[[Epistemic Attachment]] > {{#ask:[[Is a syncretic term::Epistemic Attachment]|format=ul}}

===Related LP Terms===

[[Epistemic Attachment]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::Epistemic Attachment]|format=ul}}

===Non-LP Related Terms===

[[Epistemic Attachment]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::Epistemic Attachment]]|format=ul}}

== Notes ==

The concept of epistemic attachment was articulated by anthropologist Jana Bacevic,<ref>Jana Bacevic, “Between Legitimation and Imagination: Epistemic Attachment, Ontological Bias, and Thinking about the Future,” Jana Bacevic, December 18, 2017, https://janabacevic.net/2017/12/18/between-legitimation-and-imagination-epistemic-attachment-ontological-bias-and-thinking-about-the-future/.</ref> who illustrates it with the failure of social scientists to predict the collapse of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Both Yugoslav and Western scholars "depended on Yugoslavia as a source of legitimation of their work, though for different reasons." For Yugoslav scholars, the exceptionality of the Yugoslav model grounded their authority as possessors of "local knowledge" in international scientific collaboration, and their personal and professional identities "depended on the continued existence of Yugoslavia as an object; they could imagine different ways in which it could be transformed, but not really that it could be obliterated." For Western scholars, Yugoslavia served as the perfect experiment proving either that market socialism could work (the left) or that market exchange could soften command economies (the right). "If no one foresaw the war, it was because it played no role in either of these epistemic constructs."

The counter-example is Bogdan Denitch, the one scholar who predicted the collapse in detail. His position provided "a sufficient degree of attachment to be able to look deeply into a problem and understand its possible transformations; and a sufficient degree of detachment to be able to see that the object of knowledge may not be there forever."

Epistemic attachment cannot be eliminated, only balanced. "Balancing between attachment and detachment is one of the key challenges in any practice of knowing the social world," and the challenge grows as the objects of study (climate change, artificial intelligence, the future of humanity itself) grow in complexity and centrality. Mark Carrigan<Ref>Mark Carrigan, “Ontological Bias and Social Knowledge in a Post-Truth Era,” Mark Carrigan, December 28, 2017, https://markcarrigan.net/2017/12/28/ontological-bias-and-social-knowledge-in-a-post-truth-era/</ref> adds that avoiding the bias produced by epistemic attachment may also require distancing from comfortable philosophical constructs — e.g., treating "prediction" as a philosophical designator rather than a sociological one — since such constructs can themselves become objects of attachment.

{{endstuff}}

[[category:terms]]
[[Is a keyword::Spiritual Theory| ]]
[[Is a related term::Religions| ]]
[[Is a related term::Spirituality| ]]
[[Is a keyword::Spiritual Theory| ]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:09, 19 September 2026
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 7:		Line 7:
	===Key Terms===		===Key Terms===

	[[~~Lightning Path~~]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::~~Lightning Path~~]]\|format=ul}}		[[World System]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::World System]]\|format=ul}}

			[[Human Development Framework]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::Human Development Framework]]\|format=ul}}

			[[Full Actuation]] > {{#ask:[[Is a term::Full Actuation]]\|format=ul\|sort=Has sort order}}
	===Related LP Terms===		===Related LP Terms===

Line 35:		Line 38:
	[[category:terms]]		[[category:terms]]
	[[category:lightningpath]]		[[category:lightningpath]]
	[[Is a key term::~~Lightning Path~~\| ]]		[[Is a key term::Human Development Framework\| ]]
	[[Is a related LP term::Toxic Socialization\| ]]		[[Is a related LP term::Toxic Socialization\| ]]
	~~[[Is a related LP term::Healthy Socialization\| ]]~~
	~~[[Is a related LP term::Human Development\| ]]~~
	[[Is a related LP term::Seven Essential Needs\| ]]		[[Is a related LP term::Seven Essential Needs\| ]]
	[[Is a related LP term::Eupsychia\| ]]		[[Is a related LP term::Eupsychia\| ]]
	~~[[Is a related LP term::Regime of Accumulation\| ]]~~
	~~[[Is a related LP term::Human Potential\| ]]~~
	~~[[Is a related term::Self-Actualization\| ]]~~
	[[Is a related term::Humanistic Psychology\| ]]		[[Is a related term::Humanistic Psychology\| ]]
	[[Is a related term::Transpersonal Psychology\| ]]		[[Is a related term::Transpersonal Psychology\| ]]
	[[Is a related term::Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs\| ]]		[[Is a related term::Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs\| ]]