# questioning hagioptasia aka 'to what extent is hoping to find neural equivalents of / explanations for cultural phenomena often a fruitless / reductionist scientific endeavor (or is that scientific-cultural') net term: "deepity." noun. (plural deepities.) a superficial equivocation which only seems to be profound; seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true and meaningful but are actually vacuous; note that "deepity" itself is often a shallow "autonym" (a word that describes itself) today had a chat with a blogger called hagioptasia about the term 'hagioptasia' a "psychological theory originally articulated by 'independent researcher' daniel laidler examining how humans experience perceived specialness sacredness glamour nostalgia and uncanny presence" i forget what i was previously searching for that led me to ir site - anyhow here's my reply > philosophically i can't help but smell harry g. frankfurt's bullshit *still* wafting faintly (and ironically) around "hagioptasia." or is this just a misunderstanding of its (_hagioptasia's - ed._) (/alleged) special psychological significance > i'm not sure 'hagioptasia' is saying anything new at all; isn't a "recently identified psychological phenomenon" just another way of saying one simply pulled a new term out of one's arts? not that this is something inherently bad or dishonest – but it might just still be more bullshit (as harry defines it) > what if one applies hagioptasia to itself; how exactly can something be simultaneously something universal and intrinsic among humans **and** just another product of cultural conditioning or critical discourse > an interesting concept nonetheless. thank you for sharing **hagioptasia's reply and my comments:** > frankfurt's notion of bullshit isn't "new words" but indifference to whether one is describing something real. that's precisely what hagioptasia is not. **+** it's difficult to be 100% sure one *still* isn't fooling oneself and is (in fact) merely spouting deep-sounding frankfurter bs > the phenomenon is named because it's phenomenologically stable cross-domain and independently recognisable; **+** naming some (inherently vague) cultural phenomenon (no matter how seemingly common) doesn't make it scientifically measurable > the felt perception of inherent specialness or significance that seems to reside in the object itself rather than in one's interpretation of it. **+** terms like 'hagioptasia' may _itself_ still be part of some 'fundamental' human perceptual tendency to experience an illusory sense of extraordinary specialness in various aspects of pseudo-scientific bunk (often called 'psychology' ;-) **+** and as for the notion of something being 'in the object itself' - isn't that a whole related-yet-separate can of (centuries long argued) philosophical worms > art religion nostalgia glamour sacred places - the same experiential signature appears under different surface narratives. that isn't rhetorical inflation it's pattern recognition **+** see this is precisely the danger - not that something vaguely like eg 'the hagioptasiac' _isn't_ taking place in culture - but that the _psychology_ term 'hagioptasia' itself may also be operating on little but (pseudo-scientific / scientific) "mystique" and ambiguity - the need to create a sense of 'noetic authenticity' in which the feeling of the apparent 'specialness' of **psychology** persists - even when it may be little more than an widespread illusion or grift > as for "pulling a new term out of one's arts" new terms arise exactly when existing vocabularies fail to isolate what they continually gesture toward **+** the term is of course plays on the word "arse"; _all_ existing vocabularies fail to isolate much of anything precisely because they can do little else _but_ continually gesture toward something; and 'hagioptasia' doesn't sound different _enough_ from this process > "aura" "presence" "magic" "atmosphere" "ineffable meaning" - these are not explanations but placeholders **+** 'hagioptasia' could still simply be another cultural placeholder for the search for more actual (ie. scientific) cause and meaning > hagioptasia names the perceptual mechanism those placeholders point to **+** my non-scientific (/vibey) guess: there is no bizarrely specific perceptual mechanism behind 'the cultural tendency to give objects people or places some special aura or magic' - and 'hagioptasia' itself may just be another inherently vague (/cultural) placeholder with some alleged 'special (psychology) vibe' > your final question actually reinforces the point. a capacity can be universal while its expression is culturally conditioned - just as language jealousy or status anxiety are. the mechanism is evolved but the triggers are often learned. **+** let's see i said: "*how exactly can something be simultaneously something universal and intrinsic among humans **and** just another product of cultural conditioning or critical discourse?*" ok this reply to this _seems_ clear enough 'both and' - but again how exactly is the 'hagioptasia' _itself_ any different or separate from that process? ('hagiopdasia' seems an **autonym**) > once that distinction is made the apparent contradiction dissolves **+** one may well make a distinction as clear as possible yet any apparent contradictions may only _appear_ to dissolve > if there is any bullshit here it isn't in naming the phenomenon. it lies in endlessly describing its effects while treating the mechanism itself as unspeakable. hagioptasia exists precisely to end that evasion. **+** a lot to unpack here. ok if some universal human tendency to say things have a certain 'vibe' or 'aura' actually exists - which (on the surface at least) seems a very reasonable low hanging fruity hypothesis - then surely it must also involve cognitive processes at *some* point - even if collectively cognitive. right? yet ''endlessly describing its effects while treating the mechanism itself as unspeakable" may still apply to 'hagioptasia' which - while allegedly ending such an 'evasion' may still be subtly evading (scientifically measurable) evidence of it's own frankfurter-based bullshit (bad first assumptions etc) tldr: if 'hagioptasia' is truly a scientifically measurable perceptual mechanism in the brain - part of a set of internal cognitive processes for transforming raw sensory data into meaningful information - then i'm a stoic easter island moai (and psychometrics don't count; it's unfalsifiable pseudoscience) as for 'people reliably reporting similar sensations' regarding 'specialness' that may just be (/inherently) _dubious_ ethnography masquerading as something measurable and accurate; yet such terms _still_ sound too much like they belong in 'the dictionary of obscure sorrows' funny thing though: while many things in psychology can appear interesting _philosophical_ exercises psychology is too often utter hokey snakeoil bunkum; psychological accounts of _anything_ often appear constructed out of effervescent patiently unserious psycho-babble they must be ruthlessly guarded against using timeless deadly internal kung-fu fists of 'intellectual self-protection' ie. a good working bullshit detector ie. "philosophy" -andor is robert only _appearing_ to do good philosophy here - while (/also) being foolishly unscientific **example associated links:** **+** a definition: [hagioptasia.com](https://hagioptasia.com) **+** blog in question: https://hagioptasia.wordpress.com/2024/08/11/hagioptasia-the-unrecognised-lifeblood-of-contemporary-art/ **+** hagioptasia mentioned: https://www.reddit.com/r/debateanatheist/comments/1kxfb5s/our_sense_of_sacredness_is_just_an_evolved/ **+** psych-bs: https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/opinion-buried-bullshit **+** philosophy of science: https://egtheory.wordpress.com/2014/04/01/falsifiability/ **+** later on: a bit late but it again occurs to me that i don't know what the heck i'm talking about ("how can it not know what it is?" - deckard the idiot) > your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe your methods are sloppy and your conclusions are highly questionable. you are a _poor scientist_, dr. venkman! > ~ dean yeager ghostbusters (1984 dir. ivan reitman) // republic of bob