Boundary Fetish - Revision history

Michael at 13:29, 11 September 2026

2026-09-11T13:29:56Z

← 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}}

Michael at 13:25, 11 September 2026

2026-09-11T13:25:52Z

← 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\| ]]

Michael at 13:21, 11 September 2026

2026-09-11T13:21:25Z

← 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}}

Michael at 12:54, 11 September 2026

2026-09-11T12:54:04Z

← 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\| ]]

Michael at 12:24, 11 September 2026

2026-09-11T12:24:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:24, 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">A '''Boundary Fetish''' is
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

Michael at 12:11, 11 September 2026

2026-09-11T12:11:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:11, 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">'''Ontological Bias''' is
			</blockquote>

	~~</blockquote>~~		==Concept Map==

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

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

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

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

	~~[[Boundary Fetish]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related~~ LP ~~term::Boundary Fetish]]}}~~		===Related LP 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]]}}~~		===Non-LP Related Terms===

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

			== Notes ==

	{{endstuff}}		{{endstuff}}

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

Michael at 22:49, 13 July 2024

2024-07-13T22:49:11Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:49, 13 July 2024
Line 7:		Line 7:
	==Syncretic Terms==		==Syncretic Terms==

	[[Boundary Fetish]] > {{#ask:[[Is a syncretic term::Boundary ~~Problem~~]]}}		[[Boundary Fetish]] > {{#ask:[[Is a syncretic term::Boundary Fetish]]}}

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

	[[Boundary Fetish]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related LP term::Boundary ~~Problem~~]]}}		[[Boundary Fetish]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related LP term::Boundary Fetish]]}}

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

	[[Boundary ~~Problem~~]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::Boundary ~~Problem~~]]}}		[[Boundary Fetish]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::Boundary Fetish]]}}

	==Notes==		==Notes==
Line 25:		Line 25:
	[[Is a related term::Religion\| ]]		[[Is a related term::Religion\| ]]
	[[Is a related term::Boundary Problem\| ]]		[[Is a related term::Boundary Problem\| ]]


	~~[[category:terms]]~~
	~~[[category:lightningpath]]~~
	~~[[Is a related term::Religion\| ]]~~

Michael: Created page with "{{navmenu}}

{{TODO}}

==Syncretic Terms== Boundary Fetish > {{#ask:Is a syncretic term::Boundary Problem}} ==Related LP Terms== ..."

2024-07-13T22:48:51Z

Created page with "{{navmenu}} <h1 class="customtitle">{{FULLPAGENAME}}</h1> <blockquote class="definition">{{TODO}} </blockquote> ==Syncretic Terms== Boundary Fetish > {{#ask:Is a syncretic term::Boundary Problem}} ==Related LP Terms== ..."

New page

{{navmenu}}
<h1 class="customtitle">{{FULLPAGENAME}}</h1>
<blockquote class="definition">{{TODO}}

</blockquote>

==Syncretic Terms==

[[Boundary Fetish]] > {{#ask:[[Is a syncretic term::Boundary Problem]]}}

==Related LP Terms==

[[Boundary Fetish]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related LP term::Boundary Problem]]}}

==Non-LP Related Terms==

[[Boundary Problem]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::Boundary Problem]]}}

==Notes==

{{endstuff}}

[[category:terms]]
[[category:lightningpath]]
[[Is a related term::Religion| ]]
[[Is a related term::Boundary Problem| ]]

[[category:terms]]
[[category:lightningpath]]
[[Is a related term::Religion| ]]