In the case of the mockery hyperstition thing, a lot of that seems like they weren't being serious in most ways, possibly any ways, but still managed to come up with some things that have precedence at least, and in other cases are "real" and useful, even as they are made up.
For example "Lurgo" is viable, Duoddod is not very useful, neither is Doogu, but Yix is (Ixix isn't). Ixigool and Ixidod aren't useful names, but "King Sid" is. Krako isn't, Sukugool almost is as Sukkal.
Skoodu isn't but is moreso as Skotha.
Skarkix isn't but is as Shax and Scox.
Tokhatto isn't but "Top Cat" is.
Tukkamu isn't but Ti Amo is.
Kuttadid (Kitty) isn't.
Tikkitix (Tickler) isn't.
Katak isn't so much as Khattak(a).
Tchu (Tchanul) isn't as much as Tkhanna and Tkhannu.
Djungo is pretty close to something and is pretty viable, that being Django and Shango:
"
The name Django, famously associated with jazz guitarist Django Reinhardt, has multiple etymological origins and meanings. It's primarily a Romani name, meaning "I awake" or "I awaken". However, it's also linked to the Slavic name Janko or Janez, meaning "God is gracious". The name gained prominence through Reinhardt, who was given it as a Romani nickname, while his official name was Jean. The "D" in Django is silent, as it's the French spelling of the Romani "J" sound.
"
Djuddha (Judd Dread) isn't, but:
https://twinpeaks.fandom.com/wiki/Judy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Udug
https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/yuddha
Mainly only Yuddha out of these has any potency. "Udug" is nigh meaningless, nothing was pronounced the way people are pronouncing it, plus it isn't anything anyway by that name.
"
This description mostly glosses over what the udug actually looks like, instead focusing more on its fearsome supernatural abilities.[1] All the characteristics ascribed to the "evil udug" here are common features that are frequently attributed to all different kinds of ancient Mesopotamian demons: a dark shadow, absence of light surrounding it, poison, and a deafening voice.[1] Other descriptions of the udug are not consistent with this one and often contradict it.[4] Konstantopoulos notes that "the udug is defined by what it is not: the demon is nameless and formless, even in its early appearances."[1] An incantation from the Old Babylonian Period (c. 1830 – c. 1531 BC) defines the udug as "the one who, from the beginning, was not called by name... the one who never appeared with a form." One of the udug could be Hanbi. In Sumerian and Akkadian mythology (and Mesopotamian mythology in general) Hanbi or Hanpa (more commonly known in western text) was the god of evil, god of all evil forces and the father of Pazuzu. Aside from his relationship with Pazuzu, very little is known of this figure.[1]
"
Hanbi is viable, it has potency, it is real, but Udug is next to nothing, pretty useless, delusional.
Djynxx (Ching, The Jinn) is not viable, but Jinx is.
Tchakki (Chuckles) isn't.
Tchattuk (One Eyed Jack, Djatka), isn't, Balor and Balgyr are, as is Jack and Chac.
Puppo (The Pup), almost actually, as "pupa (from Latin pupa 'doll'; pl. : pupae) is the life stage of some insects undergoing transformation between immature and mature stages.", Larva, and Maggot.
Bubbamu (Bubs) isn't but Bub and Bab and Babay are.
Oddubb (Odba) mainly isn't but "Odiba" is, Odaiba can be, Ogma, Ogima, Odudua/Ododuwa, Oba all can be viable, but Oddubb isn't much, Odba is closer to something that people have been saying lots at least.
Pabbakis (Pabzix) no, plus they seem to think "ix" makes for an appropriate name of these things they've made up for fun.
Ababbatok (Abracadabra) might be something, but as Abatok rather than Ababba tok.
Papatakoo (Pataku), nothing, but Pratiku is.
Bobobja (Bubbles, Beelzebub (Lord of the Flies)), Bobobja and Bubbles aren't useful but Beelzebub is viable and potent.
Minommo is alright, it connects to some real things closely enough to seem of use.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Min_(god)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mnemosyne
Mur Mur (Murrumur, Mu(mu)) isn't that much of use, but this is:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momus
Nammamad. Mirroracle. would seem better to me as Nanad and Miracle and Mirror Oracle.
Mummumix (Mix-Up), the word Mummy is more useful than this.
Numko (Old Nuk), Numko isn't anything, Numiko is better (Numi is Japanese for Wave and Ko is Child according to what is written online), Nuk is viable.
Muntuk (Manta, Manitou), Muntuk is like Nuktuk from the cartoon Avatar, but Manta and Manitou are both viable.
Mommoljo (Mama Jo), Mommo and Olja may be viable, but Mommoljo leads nowhere.
Mombbo like Mambo is real and viable:
"
The word "mambo" has roots in Kikongo, a Bantu language spoken in Central Africa, where "mambo" (or "mambu") means "conversation with the gods". It also has connections to Haitian Creole, where "manbo" refers to a voodoo priestess. In Cuba, the word became associated with a popular dance and music style, likely influenced by the African diaspora and the cultural exchange in the Caribbean.
"
Uttunul as Unutul is viable, as is Uttu and Nul as Nool and Null, but Uttunul isn't as potent as any of those, though still has something a little bit.
Tutagool (Yettuk), Yettuk is real, Tut and Tot and even Tuta are something, but Tutagool isn't, and their use of "gool" is irritating.
"
The word "ghoul" originates from the Arabic word "ghūl" (غُول), which means "to seize" or "to grab". This term was later adopted into English, appearing in literature around the late 18th century. The Arabic "ghūl" described a demonic creature from folklore that was believed to rob graves and feast on corpses.
"
Ghul is viable by itself.
Unnunddo (The False Nun), nothing, except bringing to mind the new evil nun movies who use the name Valak for the demon with the appearance of a nun, and that name is viable.
Ununuttix (Tick-Tock), there is the ix again, as if this was all generated by a name generator, and only "Tick-Tock" has any potency.
Ununak (Nuke), both of these are viable, as is:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inshushinak
Tukutu (Killer-Kate)
Unnutchi (Outch, T'ai Chi), nothing:
"
There's also the Japanese word "un-chi" (うんち), which means "poop" or "feces".
"
Orochi is viable.
Tai Ji is God.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quechua_people
Nuttubab (Nut-Cracker), nothing, but the Nut-Cracker and Nut-Cracker Soldier do have some potency as a symbols.
Ummnu (Om, Omni, Amen, Omen), not Ummnu as much as Ummu, and then Om, Omni, Amen, and Omen are all very potent.
So what makes something potent or not?
It seems that there are people, maybe like "Chaos Magicians", who really think "Man Made Up God(s), so we can too!" and that they have the power to make these things and give them power, as if they have power to give to things. It is a modern way of thinking probably, and not something that I actually believe in, nor is it what I mean when I may talk about investing meaning into certain things or giving things a better meaning. I don't think man invented anything that is "real", but that they were referring to things they were experiencing in their lives and reality, which were not literally anthropomorphic bodied individuals but aspects of reality, manifesting and indicating an intelligence behind what exists and occurs. Even if that is not what anyone thought, that is how I take it and use it and test it.
Coming up with silly names that also connect to pretty useless ideas and themes does nothing for communication or communicating to that intelligence, it is counter-intelligent, nonsense, "barbaric speech", babble.
If the person made up a designation, like Ixgool and used that to refer to something that really happens or can be experienced and is something people know about and relate to, maybe it would be more useful, although the name may be irritating by including these ultimately defamatory J*d*o-Christian slanderous ideas and their sick complexes into the mix by their attempts to demonize life itself in their jealousy and in favor of their own totally fabricated deity, possibly one of the most famous made up things ever, YHWH, a total Non-God that has no existence or reality whatsoever, the name supposedly even indicating such "I Will Become What I Will Become"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_that_I_Am
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton
"
The name may be derived from a verb that means 'to be', 'to exist', 'to cause to become', or 'to come to pass'.[2]
"
"
Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions based on what one hopes to be true, rather than on evidence or reality. It involves imagining a desired outcome as if it were already a reality, even when there's little or no reason to believe it will happen. Essentially, it's substituting what one wants to be true for what is actually true.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Desire over evidence:
Wishful thinking prioritizes desires and hopes over factual evidence, reason, or logic.
Unrealistic expectations:
It leads to forming beliefs about unlikely or impossible situations as if they were attainable.
Examples:
A person might believe they'll win the lottery after buying tickets for years, despite the low odds. Or, someone might think a relationship is going well based on their feelings, even if their partner is showing signs of disinterest.
Consequences:
Wishful thinking can lead to poor decision-making, missed opportunities, and a disconnect from reality.
"
They believed that they could make a God out of their desires, which were covetous and g*n*c*d*l from the get go according to their book.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1035512 ... 408670455/
https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/25/43/#gsc.tab=0
"
Have you seen (one) who takes (as) his god his own desire? Then would you be over him a guardian?
"
https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/25/ ... #gsc.tab=0
"
his own desire
hawāhu
هَوَاهُ
ه و ى
"
https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/Qur ... a-539.html
https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/25/ ... #gsc.tab=0
https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/53/23/#gsc.tab=0
https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/53/ ... #gsc.tab=0
"
Not they (are) except names you have named them, you and your forefathers, not has sent down Allah for it any authority. Not they follow except assumption and what desire the(ir) souls. And certainly has come to them from their Lord the guidance.
"
https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/Qur ... -1489.html
https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/Qur ... -1481.html
https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/Qur ... -1753.html
https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/Qur ... -1044.html
https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/Qur ... a-508.html
https://www.reddit.com/r/occult/comment ... heal_from/
"
I wanted to make a talisman that would assist in avoiding and healing from the absolute onslaught we deal with daily from politics, the news, and social media.
The raw silver Ingot was burnt with a paper petition for resolve and resilience. Quenched red hot in a solution of calming herbs, Murray and Lanman Florida Water, hematite, and clear quartz. Forged to shape and engraved with it's seal. Manually patinaed
"
This is a new religion, the approach I think is coming from a totally different place than the prior cultural religions and arts.
"
bumbarlunchi6
•
5d ago
What sigil is it? I am still learning, sorry if this is a stupid question
Upvote
6
Downvote
Reply
reply
u/with-hidden-noise avatar
with-hidden-noise
OP
•
5d ago
Not a stupid question at all!
I made all the sigils. The gist is the center one represents clarity and calmness and the outer ones represent the things to be protected from.
Upvote
14
Downvote
Reply
reply
bumbarlunchi6
•
5d ago
Oh nice! Did you use any particular system for inspiration and such? Thanks for such a kind answer
Upvote
2
Downvote
Reply
reply
u/with-hidden-noise avatar
with-hidden-noise
OP
•
5d ago
I tend to run pretty eclectic with my inspiration. The petition work is pretty Greek, the quenching is alchemical, the suffumigation is Egyptian inspired etc
The sigil/seal work is chaos magick based for the most part, but inspired by classic grimoires.
"
cwamoon
•
4d ago
W.o.w.
The calmness that radiated through my screen just now...
Do you do commissioned works, or per chance would you be willing to sell a talisman like this to me? Pretty pleaseee
Upvote
2
Downvote
Reply
reply
u/with-hidden-noise avatar
with-hidden-noise
OP
•
4d ago
Thank you! I saw your chat request and will give you details there
"
"
Daleth434
•
5d ago
Then the problem is not media, it’s stress. My bugbear is poor grammar; half the time, I really don’t know what people are talking about, because they don’t know how to construct a sentence. Why we find things stressful is more important than what it is.
I hope that you are more successful than I in transcending such barriers. One day I shall be standing at the Pearly Gates and St Peter will push them ajar for me, and I will say, “Nope, I’m not going in until everyone there can tell me the difference between the Subjunctive Mood and the Passive Future Continuous Tense”.
The solution, I fear, is not to be remain stressed and miserable until every English speaker can speak English. Oh well, I wish myself luck with that, and hope you have better.
Upvote
-7
Downvote
Reply
reply
u/Saintly-Mendicant-69 avatar
Saintly-Mendicant-69
•
5d ago
Yikes
"
https://www.reddit.com/r/witchcraft/com ... _you_want/
"
Chaos magic lacks any certificates of participation. You achieve what you set out to do or you have failed. Success could be lasting apotheosis or it could be bedding your secretary. This only looks like elitism to failures. To scientists, it looks like science.
"
"
kalizoid313
•
2y ago
For me, the attraction of Chaos magic is its recognition of investigation, innovation, and experimentation in domains often excluded by generally accepted dominant religions, spiritualities, and occulture. The notion that new ways might turn out to be just as--or even more--fruitful than old ways. (
I am not the only one who has wondered why a ritual of my design and performance and figures could not be just as good as a ritual from somebody else's old black book.)
Craft and Magic including Modern Mythologies and understandings.
I don't know if following that sort of path is "doing what you want." A scribble is not always a sigil. But, sometimes, for some practitioners, a scribble might be. I guess that I won't close the gate on that kind of possibility. Because...Chaos...
"
"
SpiderCricket13
•
2y ago
I have been practicing for 30 odd years, and still don’t understand the difference between eclectic and chaos witch, and witchcraft generally. I rather think that unless you pick an exclusive path, it’s all do what you want, if it works, keep it in your practice, if it doesn’t, it’s not on your path. I may be wrong?
Upvote
16
Downvote
NotApplicableMC
•
2y ago
•
Edited 2y ago
Eclectic is more like “borrowing” already established traditions & practices, combing and mixing how you want to make something new. Usually based in already established norms.
Chaos is just doing literally anything that springs to mind and seeing if it sticks. Like shouting “GO GO power rangers!” at your plants every morning to make them grow.
Obviously the two ideas have a lot of overlap and you can be both.
Edit: to clarify, as a chaos witch you can practise traditions (like ceremonial magick), but as the post is trying to say, chaos magick is results-driven magick first & foremost. So you can do anything you want, but you stick with what works and drop whatever doesn’t.
"
These people "magically" get on my nerves, just seeing their writing is so annoying to me, I can't relate at all.
They are totally different, because they don't seem to care about religion really, they are into something else ultimately, they approach from "aesthetics" and "cosplaying" first, and a desire for power instead of awe, they are not worshippers or worshipful, they are pretentious, sacreligious, and basically evil filth as far as I can tell, unclean, impious, not true devotees of anything but their hallucinations and infatuation with the idea of themselves being powerful and prestigious by deluding themselves, and rarely are they ever even clean or attractive, they are often mentally ill and grimey and have terrible taste.
"
greeneyedwench
•
2y ago
I'm not sure what book this is, but the author sounds like a piece of work. Fat shaming while encouraging workplace affairs, hooray?
It's my understanding that it doesn't mean "doing whatever you want," it's more like doing whatever makes sense in your world even if it's not a traditionally religious or magical thing. Like if Captain America is the kind of figure you always wanted to worship as a god, why not do it? (I didn't name Loki or Thor because they really are gods, but if you're worshipping something closer to the Marvel versions, I'd call that chaos magick too.)
Upvote
10
Downvote
gabkins
•
2y ago
I like your take on it! And I was equally puzzled/annoyed by what you've artfully referred to as "Fat shaming while encouraging workplace affairs, hooray?." lol. oof.
great work author on using magick to have a workplace affair, what a SUCCESSFUL chaos magician you are. *amused chuckle*
"
Captain America can be broken down into different symbols that can be made to refer to things in reality, but Captain America as he appears in stories is not anything like "a God" of any value, and worshipping Captain America "as is" would amount to nothing. Red Skull, again, is more potent symbolically and as broken down symbols rather than the character.
This is subjectivism, and it has ruined society, culture, and spirituality for a few generations now.
https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/subjectivism.html
Lets see what the pure evil Ayn Rand Lexicon says:
"
Subjectivism is the belief that reality is not a firm absolute, but a fluid, plastic, indeterminate realm which can be altered, in whole or in part, by the consciousness of the perceiver—i.e., by his feelings, wishes or whims. It is the doctrine which holds that man—an entity of a specific nature, dealing with a universe of a specific nature—can, somehow, live, act and achieve his goals apart from and/or in contradiction to the facts of reality, i.e., apart from and/or in contradiction to his own nature and the nature of the universe. (This is the "mixed," moderate or middle-of-the-road version of subjectivism. Pure or "extreme" subjectivism does not recognize the concept of identity, i.e., the fact that man or the universe or anything possesses a specific nature.)
In metaphysics, "subjectivism" is the view that reality (the "object") is dependent on human consciousness (the "subject"). In epistemology, as a result, subjectivists hold that a man need not concern himself with the facts of reality; instead, to arrive at knowledge or truth, he need merely turn his attention inward, consulting the appropriate contents of consciousness, the ones with the power to make reality conform to their dictates. According to the most widespread form of subjectivism, the elements which possess this power are feelings.
In essence, subjectivism is the doctrine that feelings are the creator of facts, and therefore men's primary tool of cognition. If men feel it, declares the subjectivist, that makes it so.
The alternative to subjectivism is the advocacy of
objectivity—an attitude which rests on the view that reality exists independent of human consciousness; that the role of the subject is not to create the object, but to perceive it; and that knowledge of reality can be acquired only by directing one's attention outward to the facts.
The subjectivist denies that there is any such thing as "the truth" on a given question, the truth which corresponds to the facts. On his view, truth varies from consciousness to consciousness as the processes or contents of consciousness vary; the same statement may be true for one consciousness (or one type of consciousness) and false for another. The virtually infallible sign of the subjectivist is his refusal to say, of a statement he accepts: "It is true"; instead, he says: "It is true—for me (or for us)." There is no truth, only truth relative to an individual or a group—truth for me, for you, for him, for her, for us, for them.
Your teachers, the mystics of both schools, have reversed causality in their consciousness, then strive to reverse it in existence. They take their emotions as a cause, and their mind as a passive effect. They make their emotions their tool for perceiving reality. They hold their desires as an irreducible primary, as a fact superseding all facts. An honest man does not desire until he has identified the object of his desire. He says: "It is, therefore I want it." They say: "I want it, therefore it is."
They want to cheat the axiom of existence and consciousness, they want their consciousness to be an instrument not of perceiving but of creating existence, and existence to be not the object but the subject of their consciousness—they want to be that God they created in their image and likeness, who creates a universe out of a void by means of an arbitrary whim. But reality is not to be cheated. What they achieve is the opposite of their desire.
They want an omnipotent power over existence; instead, they lose the power of their consciousness. By refusing to know, they condemn themselves to the horror of a perpetual unknown.
There are two different kinds of subjectivism, distinguished by their answers to the question:
whose consciousness creates reality? Kant rejected the older of these two, which was the view that each man's feelings create a private universe for him. Instead, Kant ushered in the era of social subjectivism—the view that it is not the consciousness of individuals, but of groups, that creates reality. In Kant's system, mankind as a whole is the decisive group; what creates the phenomenal world is not the idiosyncrasies of particular individuals, but the mental structure common to all men.
Later philosophers accepted Kant's fundamental approach, but carried it a step further. If, many claimed, the mind's structure is a brute given, which cannot be explained—as Kant had said—then there is no reason why all men should have the same mental structure. There is no reason why mankind should not be splintered into competing groups, each defined by its own distinctive type of consciousness, each vying with the others to capture and control reality.
The first world movement thus to pluralize the Kantian position was Marxism, which propounded a social subjectivism in terms of competing economic classes. On this issue, as on many others, the Nazis follow the Marxists, but substitute race for class.
Today, as in the past, most philosophers agree that the ultimate standard of ethics is whim (they call it "arbitrary postulate" or "subjective choice" or "emotional commitment")—and the battle is only over the question of
whose whim: one's own or society's or the dictator's or God's. Whatever else they may disagree about, today's moralists agree that ethics is a subjective issue and that the three things barred from its field are: reason—mind—reality.
If you wonder why the world is now collapsing to a lower and ever lower rung of hell, this is the reason.
If you want to save civilization, it is this premise of modern ethics—and of all ethical history—that you must challenge.
There are, in essence, three schools of thought on the nature of the good: the intrinsic, the subjective, and the objective.
The subjectivist theory holds that the good bears no relation to the facts of reality, that it is the product of a man's consciousness, created by his feelings, desires, "intuitions," or whims, and that it is merely an "arbitrary postulate" or an "emotional commitment."
The intrinsic theory holds that the good resides in some sort of reality, independent of man's consciousness; the subjectivist theory holds that the good resides in man's consciousness, independent of reality.
Ethical subjectivism, which holds that a desire or a whim is an irreducible moral primary, that every man is entitled to any desire he might feel like asserting, that all desires have equal moral validity, and that the only way men can get along together is by giving in to anything and "compromising" with anyone. It is not hard to see who would profit and who would lose by such a doctrine.
The subjectivist theory of ethics is, strictly speaking, not a theory, but a negation of ethics. And more: it is a negation of reality, a negation not merely of man's existence, but of all existence. Only the concept of a fluid, plastic, indeterminate, Heraclitean universe could permit anyone to think or to preach that man needs no objective principles of action—that reality gives him a blank check on values—that anything he cares to pick as the good or the evil, will do—that a man's whim is a valid moral standard, and that the only question is how to get away with it. The existential monument to this theory is the present state of our culture.
A work of art is a specific entity which possesses a specific nature. If it does not, it is not a work of art. If it is merely a material object, it belongs to some category of material objects—and if it does not belong to any particular category, it belongs to the one reserved for such phenomena: junk.
"Something made by an artist" is not a definition of art. A beard and a vacant stare are not the defining characteristics of an artist.
"Something in a frame hung on a wall" is not a definition of painting.
"Something with a number of pages in a binding" is not a definition of literature.
"Something piled together" is not a definition of sculpture. "Something made of sounds produced by anything" is not a definition of music.
"Something glued on a flat surface" is not a definition of any art. There is no art that uses glue as a medium. Blades of grass glued on a sheet of paper to represent grass might be good occupational therapy for retarded children—though I doubt it—but it is not art.
"Because I felt like it" is not a definition or validation of anything.
There is no place for whim in any human activity—if it is to be regarded as human. There is no place for the unknowable, the unintelligible, the undefinable, the non-objective in any human product.
The clearest symptom by which one can recognize [the amoralist] is his total inability to judge himself, his actions, or his work by any sort of standard. The normal pattern of self-appraisal requires a reference to some abstract value or virtue—e.g., "I am good because I am rational," "I am good because I am honest," even the second-hander's notion of "I am good because people like me." Regardless of whether the value-standards involved are true or false, these examples imply the recognition of an essential moral principle: that one's own value has to be earned.
The amoralist's implicit pattern of self-appraisal (which he seldom identifies or admits) is: "I am good because it's me."
Beyond the age of about three to five (i.e., beyond the perceptual level of mental development), this is not an expression of pride or self-esteem, but of the opposite: of a vacuum—of a stagnant, arrested mentality confessing its impotence to achieve any personal value or virtue.
Do not confuse this pattern with psychological subjectivism. A psychological subjectivist is unable fully to identify his values or to prove their objective validity, but he may be profoundly consistent and loyal to them in practice (though with terrible psycho-epistemological difficulty). The amoralist does not hold subjective values; he does not hold any values. The implicit pattern of all his estimates is: "It's good because I like it"—"It's right because I did it"—"It's true because I want it to be true." What is the "I" in these statements? A physical hulk driven by chronic anxiety.
[The amoralist] will walk over piles of corpses—in order to assert himself? no—in order to hide (or fill) the nagging inner vacuum left by his aborted self.
The grim joke on mankind is the fact that he is held up as a symbol of selfishness.
The main characteristic of this mentality is a special kind of passivity: not passivity as such and not across-the-board, but passivity beyond a certain limit—i.e., passivity in regard to the process of conceptualization and, therefore, in regard to fundamental principles. It is a mentality which decided, at a certain point of development, that it knows enough and does not care to look further. What does it accept as "enough"? The immediately given, directly perceivable concretes of its background. . . .
To grasp and deal with such concretes, a human being needs a certain degree of conceptual development, a process which the brain of an animal cannot perform. But after the initial feat of learning to speak, a child can counterfeit this process, by memorization and imitation. The anti-conceptual mentality stops on this level of development—on the first levels of abstractions, which identify perceptual material consisting predominantly of physical objects—and does not choose to take the next, crucial, fully volitional step: the higher levels of abstraction from abstractions, which cannot be learned by imitation. (See my book Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology) . . .
The anti-conceptual mentality takes most things as irreducible primaries and regards them as "self-evident." It treats concepts as if they were (memorized) percepts; it treats abstractions as if they were perceptual concretes. To such a mentality, everything is the given: the passage of time, the four seasons, the institution of marriage, the weather, the breeding of children, a flood, a fire, an earthquake, a revolution, a book are phenomena of the same order. The distinction between the metaphysical and the man-made is not merely unknown to this mentality, it is incommunicable.
[This type of mentality] has learned to speak, but has never grasped the process of conceptualization. Concepts, to him, are merely some sort of code signals employed by other people for some inexplicable reason, signals that have no relation to reality or to himself. He treats concepts as if they were percepts, and their meaning changes with any change of circumstances. Whatever he learns or happens to retain is treated, in his mind, as if it had always been there, as if it were an item of direct awareness, with no memory of how he acquired it—as a random store of unprocessed material that comes and goes at the mercy of chance . . . He does not seek knowledge—he "exposes himself" to "experience," hoping, in effect, that it will push something into his mind; if nothing happens, he feels with self-righteous rancor that there is nothing he can do about it. Mental action, i.e., mental effort—any sort of processing, identifying, organizing, integrating, critical evaluation or control of his mental content—is an alien realm.
This mentality is not the product of ignorance (nor is it caused by lack of intelligence): it is self-made, i.e., self-arrested.
In the brain of an anti-conceptual person, the process of integration is largely replaced by a process of association. What his subconscious stores and automatizes is not ideas, but an indiscriminate accumulation of sundry concretes, random facts, and unidentified feelings, piled into unlabeled mental file folders. This works, up to a certain point—i.e., so long as such a person deals with other persons whose folders are stuffed similarly, and thus no search through the entire filing system is ever required. Within such limits, the person can be active and willing to work hard. . . .
A person of this mentality may uphold some abstract principles or profess some intellectual convictions (without remembering where or how he picked them up). But if one asks him what he means by a given idea, he will not be able to answer. If one asks him the reasons of his convictions, one will discover that his convictions are a thin, fragile film floating over a vacuum, like an oil slick in empty space—and one will be shocked by the number of questions it had never occurred to him to ask.
He seems able to understand a discussion or a rational argument, sometimes even on an abstract, theoretical level. He is able to participate, to agree or disagree after what appears to be a critical examination of the issue.
But the next time one meets him, the conclusions he reached are gone from his mind, as if the discussion had never occurred even though he remembers it: he remembers the event, i.e., a discussion, not its intellectual content.
It is beside the point to accuse him of hypocrisy or lying (though some part of both is necessarily involved). His problem is much worse than that: he was sincere, he meant what he said in and for that moment. But it ended with that moment.
Nothing happens in his mind to an idea he accepts or rejects; there is no processing, no integration, no application to himself, his actions or his concerns; he is unable to use it or even to retain it. Ideas, i.e., abstractions, have no reality to him; abstractions involve the past and the future, as well as the present; nothing is fully real to him except the present. Concepts, in his mind, become percepts—percepts of people uttering sounds; and percepts end when the stimuli vanish.
When he uses words, his mental operations are closer to those of a parrot than of a human being. In the strict sense of the word, he has not learned to speak.
But there is one constant in his mental flux. The subconscious is an integrating mechanism; when left without conscious control, it goes on integrating on its own—and, like an automatic blender, his subconscious squeezes its clutter of trash to produce a single basic emotion: fear.
It is the fundamentals of philosophy (particularly, of ethics) that an anti-conceptual person dreads above all else. To understand and to apply them requires a long conceptual chain, which he has made his mind incapable of holding beyond the first, rudimentary links. If his professed beliefs—i.e., the rules and slogans of his group—are challenged, he feels his consciousness dissolving in fog. Hence, his fear of outsiders. The word "outsiders," to him, means the whole wide world beyond the confines of his village or town or gang—the world of all those people who do not live by his "rules." He does not know why he feels that outsiders are a deadly threat to him and why they fill him with helpless terror. The threat is not existential, but psycho-epistemological: to deal with them requires that he rise above his "rules" to the level of abstract principles. He would die rather than attempt it.
"Protection from outsiders" is the benefit he seeks in clinging to his group. What the group demands in return is obedience to its rules, which he is eager to obey: those rules are his protection—from the dreaded realm of abstract thought.
Racism is an obvious manifestation of the anti-conceptual mentality. So is xenophobia—the fear or hatred of foreigners ("outsiders"). So is any caste system, which prescribes a man's status (i.e., assigns him to a tribe) according to his birth;
a caste system is perpetuated by a special kind of snobbishness (i.e., group loyalty) not merely among the aristocrats, but, perhaps more fiercely, among the commoners or even the serfs, who like to "know their place" and to guard it jealously against the outsiders from above or from below. So is guild socialism. So is any kind of ancestor worship or of family "solidarity" (the family including uncles, aunts and third cousins). So is any criminal gang.
Tribalism . . . is the best name to give to all the group manifestations of the anti-conceptual mentality.
Observe that today's resurgence of tribalism is not a product of the lower classes—of the poor, the helpless, the ignorant—but of the intellectuals, the college-educated "elitists" (which is a purely tribalistic term). Observe the proliferation of grotesque herds or gangs—hippies, yippies, beatniks, peaceniks, Women's Libs, Gay Libs, Jesus Freaks, Earth Children—which are not tribes, but shifting aggregates of people desperately seeking tribal "protection."
The common denominator of all such gangs is the belief in motion (mass demonstrations), not action—in chanting, not arguing—in demanding, not achieving—in feeling, not thinking—in denouncing "outsiders," not in pursuing values—in focusing only on the "now," the "today" without a "tomorrow"—in seeking to return to "nature," to "the earth," to the mud, to physical labor, i.e., to all the things which a perceptual mentality is able to handle. You don't see advocates of reason and science clogging a street in the belief that using their bodies to stop traffic, will solve any problem.
"
https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/tribalism.html
hurting religious sentiments
