#TL05AB: Anthropomorphism And Related Phenomena

Introduction
Last Sunday I went hiking in the desert mountains along a long-abandoned old trail. I was going downhill when suddenly I saw a frog in front of me jump about two feet forward. I asked myself, "What's a frog doing up here?" Then the frog rolled down the path for a few feet more in a manner completely uncharacteristic of a frog. I felt a little perplexed. Then it stopped... and miraculously turned into a pine cone!

By coincidence, before the hike I had just finished reading the chapter on "Animism, Perception, and the Effort After Meaning" from the book Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion by Stewart Guthrie.

Animism can be described as the "attribution of life to inanimate things or events." I engaged in animism when I saw the pine cone as a frog. I animated the cone into a frog. I attributed life to an inanimate object.

The cone's initial motion seemed exactly like that of a frog. It was probably lying on one end of a twig and I stepped on the other end of the twig, making the cone "jump."

My act of perceiving the cone as a frog can also be described as zoomorphism: "the attribution of animal traits to what is not animal."

But why did I see a frog rather than a cone? Especially after having just read all about animism? Guthrie explains it like this: Take a boulder and a bear as an example. Suppose that some distance from me there's a boulder or a bear. If I see it as a bear, I keep my distance from it. If I see it as a boulder, I might walk up to it, and if it turns out to be a bear it may very well kill me.

If I mistake a boulder for a bear (and get out of its way) and it turns out I made a mistake, I've lost little or nothing. On the other hand, if I mistake a bear for a bolder (and I walk up to it), I may lose my life. So if I animate a boulder as a bear, I make a mistake which has virtually no cost. But if I make the opposite mistake of seeing a bear as a boulder, I could suffer the ultimate cost of my life.

So it's a much better bet to animate the boulder as a bear (little or no cost), than it is to do the opposite (likely loss of life). So, to make the best bet in such situations, in general, it pays to see the boulder as a bear. It pays to engage in animism.

Getting back to my "frog." Suppose I had been a native American 200 years ago. If I mistake a pine cone for a frog, I lose nothing. But if I mistake a frog for a pine cone, I lose a meal. Again, in general, the best bet is to animate the cone as a frog rather than mistaking a frog for a cone. Animism pays.

If you're going to make perceptual mistakes -- and we can't avoid them -- then it pays to err on the side of animism.

"Now if we survey the universe... it bears a great resemblance to an animal or organized body, and seems actuated with a like principle of life and motion... The world, therefore, I infer, is an animal." -- David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

Note: There's a Glossary of terms related to anthropomorphism at the end of this report.

Anthropomorphism
According to Guthrie, anthropomorphism can be described as "attributing human characteristics to nonhuman phenomena." Thinking in terms of "mother nature." Talking to a car or computer as if it can understand you and respond to your spoken messages. Talking to animals as if they're humans. Mistaking a mailbox, small tree or upright rock for a human. Mistaking an animal for a human.

A supposed "job" has certain human characteristics. It provides sustenance that enables you to survive; it's a kind of parent. It's like a parent with rules you have to obey. It's supposed to provide security. When you have a "job" you're part of a "family" of fellow workers. For a more comprehensive analysis of the "job" concept, see 'The Economic Means to Freedom - Part IA'.

Similarly, a supposed "government" has human characteristics. It's supposed to provide protection and security. It's like a parent with rules ("laws") you're supposed to obey. If you violate the rules it punishes you. Like a parent in a household, it maintains "law and order." Being without it is like a family of children with no parents: "chaos and disorder." It supposedly nurtures the weak -- the "nanny-state" or "nanny-government." "Big-daddy government." "Uncle Sam." "Big Brother."

And, as we can see from the Prologue, a supposed "government" can be seen as a vile monster that tortures and commits other atrocities.

Stewart Guthrie devotes many pages to demonstrate how prevalent and widespread both animism and anthropomorphism are in many areas of life. I find his arguments in Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion persuasive and compelling.

Animism and anthropomorphism result from largely unconscious perceptual strategies. They are involuntary. Even though I had just read about the perceptual strategy that causes animism, I had no choice but to see the pine cone as a frog. Understanding the processes that give rise to animism and anthropomorphism doesn't necessarily enable you to escape these ubiquitous phenomena.

The Factors that Cause Anthropomorphism
1. Perceptual uncertainty. Perception is an active process of making sense of what's "out there." We are often uncertain of just what we're looking at when it's far away. We often have to go closer or take a closer look before we're satisfied with the accuracy of our perception.

All our perception is a form of interpretation and much of it is prone to error. Two people can look at the same situation and give markedly different reports of what happened.

2. Pascal's argument. Pascal argued that if you believe in "god" and you're right, you gain "eternal salvation" and other "heavenly benefits." If you don't believe in "god" and you're right, or you believe in "god" and you're wrong, you gain or lose little, if anything. However, if you don't believe in "god" and you're wrong, you go to "hell" and lose out bigtime. So from a betting perspective, you're far better off if you believe in "god."

From the cone/frog and boulder/bear examples it's clear that, given our error-prone perception, in general, it pays to err on the side of animism. The same applies to anthropomorphism. Generally, what influences us most -- both positively and negatively -- are other humans. We can benefit greatly from all kinds of relationships with them -- more so than with any other kinds of living entities. They can also harm or kill us. Probably for tens of thousands of years (maybe 100,000 or more) the greatest threat to human life has come from other humans.

Imagine it's a few thousand years ago. You're a primitive human. In the distance you notice an object which could either be a tree stump or another human. If it's a tree stump, it's not going to affect your well being. However, if it turns out to be a human it could have a marked (positive or negative) impact on your life.

Again, given that our perception is uncertain and error-prone, if you see a tree stump as a human you gain or lose nothing, except maybe experience a mild disappointment or relief when you discover your error.

However, if you see a human (friend) as a tree stump, and you walk away because you think it's irrelevant, you lose the benefits you could have gained through a relationship.

If you see a human (enemy) as a tree stump, and you carelessly approach because you think it's irrelevant, you could lose by getting killed.

In the other two cases -- seeing a human (friend) as a tree stump and approaching or seeing a human (enemy) as a tree stump and walking away, it doesn't matter how you see them -- you win or avoid the loss in any case. So we can exclude these two cases from our "betting calculation."

So, mistaking a human (friend or enemy) for a tree stump is a losing proposition. Therefore, given our error-prone perception, in general, we're better off erring on the side of anthropomorphism: mistaking tree stumps for humans, rather than the opposite error of mistaking humans for tree stumps.

Both animism and anthropomorphism follow the principle of "better safe than sorry." Their practice yields more in occasional big wins and avoiding big losses, than it costs in more frequent little failures.

3. Importance. For thousands of years, the most important elements in the environment of both animals and humans have been other animals and humans. Animals and humans have had a greater potential for affecting our lives (both positively and negatively) than anything else. Therefore it's imperative that we maximize our ability to recognize animals and humans. And we maximize this ability by erring on the side of animism and anthropomorphism.

So, according to Guthrie, we have a "tendency to find people in every scene, a tendency based on strategy. We see apparent people everywhere because it is vital to see actual people wherever they may be." And, "Other humans are the most important factors in our environment... our entire well-being is wrapped up in our relationships with our fellows."

4. Models, templates, and schemata. In our brains we have a range of "models" (sometimes also called "templates" or "schemata") that enable us to recognize animals and humans. To maximize the probability that we will recognize animals and humans, our templates need to be general and wide-ranging, covering all aspects of animal and human appearance and behavior. In my brain I have template for "typical frog movements," which made it inevitable that I would see the pine cone when it "jumped" as a frog. Being good at recognizing animals and humans provides survival advantages, particularly in a more primitive world we humans now live in.

The wider the range of our "recognition templates," the more prone we are to animism and anthropomorphism.

5. Deception and camouflage. Preventing yourself from being recognized, again particularly in a more primitive world, also provides survival advantages to both animals and humans. Therefore, animals and humans with the best deception and camouflage strategies tended to "out-survive" those with inferior strategies. This made it even more important to extend the range of our "recognition templates" so we could become adept at "seeing through" deception and recognizing camouflaged animals and humans.

This factor, in a powerful way, makes us even more prone to animism and anthropomorphism. We easily, even if momentarily before we recognize our mistakes, see all kinds of shadows and shapes as animals and humans.

6. Complexity and Organization. We humans have become highly complex and organized in some of our behavior and in the organizations and systems we've created. According to Guthrie, "Humans are uniquely complex, highly organized, and powerful. We have uniquely dependent and intimate relations with each other. Accordingly, our search for other humans and for transformations and analogues of other humans is highly motivated and complex... In looking for them in the world at large, we continue to confront uncertainty. The invisibility and deceit we know in other animals and in ourselves, combined with the power of action at a distance we know especially in humans, mean virtually no phenomenon can be known with confidence not to be the result of human action. The complexity, diversity, and ingenuity of the humans of our experience and the ability of humans to produce effects without immediately revealing themselves make it prudent to suppose there may be similar hidden [human] agents behind almost any effect."

In other words, the complexity of human behavior and systems tends to increase the uncertainty as to whether something is human or of human origin or not. To allow for this it's prudent to err to a greater degree on the side of anthropomorphism. So this is yet another factor that "pushes" us further in the direction of anthropomorphism.

7. Addition. One of the key perceptual strategies to recognize animals and humans is to be able, from a small part protruding from behind a tree or rock, to add the necessary "in-form-ation" to what little is actually seen, heard, or smelled, to perceive the entire animal or human. A glimpse out of the corner of your eye of a familiar shape or characteristic movement enables you to add the unseen so you can perceive the complete animal or human.

The ability to add to a small piece of "in-form-ation" actually perceived, the "missing in-for-mation" in order to perceive the entire animal or human is a powerful perceptual strategy providing enormous survival advantages. It enables you, from the slightest shadow, movement, sound, or smell, to recognize a tiger and to prepare to defend yourself or get out of the way before it kills you.

The addition perceptual strategy, also in a powerful way, makes animals and humans more prone to animism and anthropomorphism. It also makes us prone to hallucination: "seeing" what's not there.

8. Unconscious, automatic, and instantaneous. In the wild, survival often depends on the ability to instantly recognize another animal or human. To best achieve this, the perceptual recognition processes need to be unconscious, automatic, and instantaneous. For optimum survival there's no time to consciously think about what's being perceived.

In the book The User Illusion -- probably the single most important book on consciousness -- Tor Norretranders makes a compelling case, based on scientific experiments, that conscious thought lags behind perceptual awareness by at least 0.8 of a second. In fact, from the time a stimulus is physically perceived, it takes at least one second before action based on conscious thought can be initiated.

(A few month ago I had an experience along these lines. I had stopped at a traffic light. A gorgeous woman crossed the street in front of me. My eyes were riveted to her (see '#TL05AA: The Breeding Motivation') until she was about 20 yards to my right. Out of the corner of my eye I saw the light turn green. I let go the break and pressed the accelerator. Immediately I slammed on the brakes. The first conscious thought was, "Why am I doing this?" Then consciously I saw a (stupid) man running across the road right in front of my car, swerving and putting his hand on the hood to steady himself. I slammed on the brakes before I consciously perceived him. If I had taken the one second (at least) necessary to become conscious of the man, and then slammed on the brakes, it would have been too late and I would have hit him.)

Norretranders also makes a compelling case that our conscious thought (operating at a bandwith of around 16 bits per second) constitutes of the order of one millionth of the processing taking place in our brains (operating at a bandwith of about 12,000,000 bits per second. In other words, we're only consciously aware of about one millionth of the processing occurring in our brains.

For these reasons, our perceptual strategies for maximizing the probability of recognizing animals and humans -- strategies which also make us extremely prone to animism and anthropomorphism -- must be unconscious, automatic, and as instantaneous as possible.

9. Evolution. Particularly in a more primitive world than we now live in, humans with the greatest predilection or predisposition for animalism and anthropomorphism have enjoyed survival advantages over those with lesser predilection or predisposition for animalism and anthropomorphism. Thus the most animalistic and anthropomorphic have "out-survived" the rest. Thus, over thousands of years, the natural selection process of evolution has strengthened the traits of animalism and anthropomorphism.

Thus the perceptual strategies of "betting" on the side of animism and anthropomorphism have been genetically and biologically built into our perceptual systems.

The Ontogeny of Childhood Anthropomorphism
("Ontogeny" refers to the development or the course of development of an individual organism.) The following table is based on the development of animism and "artificialism" (the belief that natural objects and events are produced by humans) as described by child psychologist Jean Piaget, based on his extensive research. Piaget identified four stages of development in children. According to Guthrie, "Piaget found that the youngest children see virtually all phenomena simultaneously as alive, conscious, and made by humans for human purposes... Animism and artificialism, which in Piaget's usage together amount to anthropomorphism, thus are both spontaneous and pervasive in early childhood. They slowly diminish through childhood and, by early adolescence, children's views approximate those of adults."

Stage	Animism (Ideas about consciousness)	Presence of life (What is Alive?)	Artificialism (What is human-made?)
1 - up to 6/7 years Diffuse artificialism.	Anything that is active is conscious -- clouds and wind conscious because they move; sun and moon because they give light; firewood feels being burned.	Anything with a use, function, or activity is alive. A stone rolling down a bank is "afraid of the grass and trying to get away."	Things are "coming from" somewhere. The world is magical. Humans can control the world and at a distance. The world is purposeful, consisting of living beings.
2 - 6/7 to 8/9 years Mythological artificialism.	Consciousness limited to that which moves: sun, moon, wind, fire, clocks, bicycles; but not stones or chairs.	Life primarily identified with movement -- anything that moves is alive.	Imagining of origins, e.g., humans made the sun by tossing a ball into the sky.
3 - 8/9 to 11/12 years Technical artificialism.	Consciousness limited to things that move of their own accord, including most moving natural phenomena, but not things such as bicycles and boats.	Distinction between spontaneous movement and movement imposed from outside. Recognition of agent causing motion, e.g., wind pushes clouds.	Recognition of human techniques and production. Distinction between human production and natural phenomena. However, order still attributed to humans. Living things are no longer manufactured -- a table cannot feel it has been made.
4 - after 11/12 years Immanent artificialism.	Consciousness usually only attributed to animals and humans, but sometimes also to plants.	Life restricted to plants, animals, and humans. May attribute will to objects they see as neither alive nor conscious -- the tight lid on the jar "doesn't want to come off."	Cease seeing nature as human-made. Artificialism relocated in nature itself, e.g., stars are born from the sun and moon.

This table demonstrates that, despite anthropomorphism being genetically and biologically programmed into our perceptual systems and brains, our conception of how the world works and how we think about things can develop and improve.

A distinction can be made between biological and semantic animism and anthropomorphism. My experience with seeing a pine cone as a frog is biological animism. It's not under my control. It's unlikely that I can (or would want to) change it. The same applies to biological anthropomorphism -- unconscious and involuntary.

Earlier I mentioned "job" and "government" as forms of anthropomorphism. This is semantic anthropomorphism. I suspect that for most people, unless the mechanisms of anthropomorphism are brought to their attention with a report such as this, semantic anthropomorphism is effectively unconscious and involuntary. However, my experience indicates that some people can become conscious of semantic anthropomorphism, and with effort can rise above it. We can become more mature in how we think about "anthropomorphic semantic constructs" such as "job" and "government."

Guthrie distinguishes between three levels of anthropomorphism. At the first level, we mistake a tree stump for a human. Guthrie calls this literal anthropomorphism. This is biological anthropomorphism and I don't think we would want to "improve" our perception and thinking at this level even if we could. Literal anthropomorphism is unconscious and involuntary.

According to Guthrie, "At a second level of anthropomorphism, people see things and events as having important human attributes such as symbolism without mistaking them for humans." Partial anthropomorphism. Examples here would be "job" and "government." This is semantic anthropomorphism. Even though many people seem to think and talk of "government" as if it is an acting person -- and even call it "Uncle Sam" -- I doubt that anyone sees "government" as an actual human being! I believe that partial anthropomorphism is effectively unconscious and involuntary for most people. However, particularly as it pertains to religion, many people have transcended it.

Guthrie also writes. "At a third level of anthropomorphism, we see or hear human form or action in things and events -- faces in the moon and armies in the clouds -- as mere chance." Accidental anthropomorphism. On the cover of Guthrie's Faces in the Clouds is a picture of the "face on Mars." Accidental anthropomorphism is usually neither unconscious nor involuntary and most people easily transcend it.

#1: "Do you believe in god?"
#2: "I'm sorry, I sincerely don't know what you're talking about when you use the word "god." Please explain."

#1: "God, the creator of the universe."
#2: (Thinking: He's attributing the human characteristic of creating things to some presumed entity he thinks created the universe.) "I don't know that the universe was created."

#1: "If it wasn't created, where did it come from?"
#2: (Thinking: He's attributing the human characteristic of "coming from somewhere" to the universe.) "I don't know that it came from anywhere. As far as I can see, all places we know of are part of the universe."

#1: "OK. Then what brought it about; how did it begin?"
#2: (Thinking: He's attributing the human quality of having a beginning (birth) to the universe.) I don't know that it has a beginning or was brought about. Maybe time is a function of the universe rather than the other way around. In other words all time is within the universe and it doesn't make sense to think of the universe as having a beginning."

#1: "For anything to exist, it must have been created."
#2: (Thinking: He's still anthropomorphizing.) "Just because that's how you experience the world, doesn't mean that you've expressed a universal principle. And besides, If your principle is correct, then whatever someone or something that created the universe must have been created by someone or something else, which in turn must have been created by... leading to an infinite regress and no answer to nor explanation of anything!"

#1: "Be that as it may, with all the complexity and organization in the universe, it must have been designed; surely you don't think it all came about by accident?"
#2: (Thinking: He's attributing the human characteristic of designing things to some supposed "universal designer.") "Your design theory fails on three counts: (a) If you posit some kind of "universal designer," then who designed your designer, and who designed it... infinite regress, again; (b) You can't produce any hard evidence for the existence of your supposed "designer" -- it's a figment of your imagination; (c) Certain things in the universe naturally become more complex and organized, not by chance but through natural selection of the fittest -- certain phenomena like consciousness that develop as epiphenomena..."

#1: "You're a hopeless case. I hope you don't go to hell!"
#2: "I sincerely don't know what you're talking about when you use words like "god" and "hell." (Thinking: I don't think he knows what he's talking about either. And he doesn't know that he doesn't know! The same applies to all the others I've heard talking about "god" and "hell." But I'll be tactful and not tell him this!) "We'll just have to leave it at that."

#1: "We can agree to disagree."
#2: "I guess so. Though I still don't understand what you're talking about when you use the word "god"."

Guthrie provides a comprehensive argument for his theory that religion is anthropomorphism. As I see it, the word "god" is an anthropomorphic semantic construct -- a word with no referent(s) that anyone can point out or reasonably explain. For a comprehensive examination of religion, see 'The Other Side of Religion'.

Common to most religion is the attribution of certain idealized or exaggerated human characteristics to supposedly non-human "special beings" usually called "gods." This is a form of second-level or partial anthropomorphism. It's also semantic anthropomorphism, rather than biological. However, it could at least partially have a biological basis -- see 'The Other Side of Religion' with particular emphasis on "the bicameral mind" and the "god module." Although religious anthropomorphism seems to be unconscious and involuntary for many people, I believe that most people can become aware of its mechanisms.

A significant portion of people succeed in "casting off" and transcending religious anthropomorphism. With politics it seems more difficult.

Anthropomorphism and Politics
In 'The Economic Means to Freedom - Part IA', the nature and consequences of the "job" concept are examined, using "Martian analysis." The exercise of examining and analyzing the "job" word/concept may serve as a "model" to make it easier to tackle more difficult "critters."

By "model" I refer to the ability to learn something in one area and to then apply it in another. So I suggest at this point, that if you haven't already done so, you carefully study 'The Economic Means to Freedom - Part IA'. It will make it easier to grasp what follows.

Before October 7, 1998, I saw the root cause of "statism" as the blind acceptance and use of certain words/concepts by tyrants, their beneficiaries, and their victims.

By "statism" I mean the thinking and behavior that results in coercive political systems coming about and persisting. Here's a brief and admittedly oversimplified summary of my understanding of coercive political systems:

1. A number of people get together and call themselves "government" or "state." In all the cases I've examined, they've done so fraudulently -- they've perpetrated a hoax. They drew up a kind of pretended "contract" which they called a "constitution" which was supposed to bind them and to which everyone in a supposed "country" or "nation" was supposed to be "subject" to. Some have pretended that their so-called "constitution" is a "social contract." See '#TL07: The Constitution of No Authority' and '#TL070: The "Constitutional" Delusion'.

2. To persuade their victims to buy into this grand political hoax, children are forced into concentration campuses for compulsory brainwashing, euphemistically called "schools." Children are taught the "pledge of allegiance" and are otherwise brainwashed to believe in "country," "nation," "government," "law," etc.

3. Generally, the tyrants who sit on top of coercive political systems operate on the basis that only they or someone authorized by them has the power to decide what shall be used as money. Thus they created money/currency/banking monopolies.

4. Another major mechanism for making the political system "stick" consists of the media: newspapers, radio, TV, movies, etc. Whether reporters and those they interview or feature "support the government" or "attack the government," they do so in a manner such that they reinforce the basic word/concepts which form the bedrock of statism.

5. Because of the extensive brainwashing done in "schools" and media, it's very difficult for any individual to see that the entire political system is a fraud and a hoax, and has been such since day one. It's very difficult to see that all the "presidents," "prime ministers," "governors," "senators," "representatives," "members of parliament," "cabinet secretaries," etc., etc., are all imposters and liars. Because of all the brainwashing, it's very difficult to see that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and all the others were imposters and liars perpetrating a grand fraud and hoax.

The "Royalty" Illusion
The "Royalty" Illusion refers to the illusion that certain people (sometimes said to have "blue blood") belong to a "special" class variously called "royalty," "aristocracy," or "nobility." This attribution of "specialness" to certain people follows the general pattern of anthropomorphism and should be regarded as such.

"My name is Alice, so please your Majesty," said Alice very politely; but she added to herself, "Why, they're only a pack of cards, after all. I needn't be afraid of them!" [emphasis added]

...The Queen turned crimson with fury, and, after glaring at her for a moment like a wild beast, began screaming, "Off with her head! Off with--"

These people are supposed by some to be "royal," "noble," or "aristocratic" because they're the offspring of a supposed "royal" or because they received a "royalty title" from a supposed "royal." The attribution of "specialness" is a form of anthropomorphism.

In "England" (so-called) they have a "Royal Parasite List" they call the "Civil List," which is a list of the "royal" parasites and how much each gets from the "public treasury" every year.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all." [emphasis added]

The following story may assist you to transcend this "royalty" illusion. If you find this difficult, it may have something to do with the extent to which some forms of anthropomorphic thinking have become habitual to you -- not to speak of unconscious and involuntary. We sure are suckers for anthropomorphism!

Two Tribes
Consider two different isolated tribes somewhere in the jungles of South America. Call them Tribe 1 and Tribe 2. Each has its unique language with its own structure. The language of Tribe 1 (Language 1) tends to be very literal. A man who fishes, for example, is called "man-who-fishes." The same man, while sleeping, is called "man-who-sleeps"; while talking, "man-who-talks"; while running, "man-who-runs"; while eating, man-who-eats"; while writing, "man-who-writes"; while making a chair, "man-who-makes-chair"; while giving orders, "man-who-gives-orders"; etc. In Language 1, distinctions are made between different kinds of words: "Thing-words," "Do-words," "How-words," "Story-words," "Funny-words," "Order-words," "Panic-words," "What-words," "Who-words," "Why-words," "When-words," "Where-words," etc. High-level abstractions are rare in language 1. To the people of Tribe 1, any word that doesn't refer to something physically perceivable, is highly suspect. Their test for reality is physical.

The language of Tribe 2 (Language 2) is very different. A man who obtains his wherewithal mostly by fishing, is called "fisherman." (This system of nomenclature would seem absurd to the people of Tribe 1 -- how can you call someone a "fisherman" when he is not fishing, but sleeping?) Language 2 contains many high-level abstractions -- like "happiness." People from Tribe 2 can talk for hours about "happiness." (To someone from Tribe 1, this would be incomprehensible -- they only talk about "woman-who-is-happy" while she is happy, and "woman-who-is-sad" while she is sad. The notion that you could separate "happiness" from a real person being happy, and talk about "happiness" as if it existed by itself, would be completely unthinkable to someone from Tribe 1.)

To the people from Tribe 2, any word being used is automatically assumed to be part of existence, otherwise people wouldn't use it. (To someone from Tribe 1, the word "existence" would be a meaningless absurdity, because in their mentality only particular objects exist.) In Tribe 2, the test for reality is agreement. If other people agree with a word and the way it seems to be used, then that word is automatically accepted as valid and useful.

One day a strange man arrives at the place where the people of Tribe 1 live. They ask him: "Who you?" He: "I King." They: "Your name King?" He: "No; my name John." They: "Why call self King if name John?" He: "I special person, agent of God." (Anthropomorphism) They: "You look different but not special; who God?" He: "God creator of world." (Anthropomorphism) They: "Where God?; How create world?" He: "God everywhere; God all-powerful." (Anthropomorphism) They: "How we see God?" He: "Can't see God." They: "You speak crazy." He: "No; I special; I show you." (Anthropomorphism) Whereupon the stranger performs various tricks like apparently making objects appear and disappear. They: "You clever man-who-tricks." He: "I special; I King." (Anthropomorphism) They: "You speak funny; you clever John-who-tricks." He: "I King; my word law." (Anthropomorphism -- the attribution of "specialness" to certain words, calling them "law") They: "What law? -- special word?" He: "Yes; my word law -- you must obey." (Anthropomorphism) They: "Ah! You mean order-word!" He: "Yes; I King; I make law." (Anthropomorphism) They: "No; you speak order-word?" He: "Yes; I special." (Anthropomorphism) They: "What special? -- Anybody speak order-word?" He: "You not understand." They: "No." The savvy people from Tribe 1 cannot be tricked with anthropomorphic semantic constructs.

Eventually John-the-stranger gives up trying to convince the people of Tribe 1 that he has a "special status" and that his words are different from the words of anyone else -- so he leaves, to search for more gullible and impressionable victims elsewhere...

For many days and nights he trudges through the jungle before discovering the people of Tribe 2. They: "Who you?" He: "I King." They: "Your name King?" He: "No, my name John." They: "Why call self King if name John?" He: "I special person, agent of God." (Anthropomorphism) They: "You look different; what God?" He: "God creator of world." (Anthropomorphism) They: Where God?; How create world?" He "God everywhere; God all-powerful." (Anthropomorphism) They: "Show special?" Whereupon the stranger performs various tricks like apparently making objects appear and disappear. They: "You King, agent of God." He: "Yes, my word law." (Anthropomorphism -- the attribution of "specialness" to certain words, calling them "law") They: "What law?" He: "Law special word of God through me; you must obey." (Anthropomorphism) Whereupon the people of Tribe 2 bow down and kiss the feet of John -- they do not habitually test abstractions against reality -- and they don't know about anthropomorphism -- so they readily accept John-the-stranger as their "King" and his word as "law." Thereafter all he has to do to subjugate, control, and dominate them, is open his mouth...

The people from Tribe 1 reject the anthropomorphic semantic constructs of John the wannabe-tyrant -- making them impossible to subjugate, control, and dominate. To them the wannabe-tyrant is merely a clever liar and trickster.

The Tribe 2 people accept John's word "King" to describe himself. They believe that "King" John has special powers because of the tricks he performs and because of his connection to "God." By accepting John's anthropomorphic semantic constructs, they automatically place him in a superior position and themselves in inferior positions. Just by accepting, believing, and using the anthropomorphic semantic construct "King," they yield their power to the tyrant -- they effectively subjugate themselves. Above everything else, it's their predilection for anthropomorphism that makes them sitting ducks.

It's worth emphasizing that just by accepting the concepts/words of the wannabe tyrant, you place yourself at a huge disadvantage. By doing so, you relinquish your power, enabling the wannabe tyrant to become an actual tyrant. Instead of laughing at his silly notions, you'll probably end up begging him to "change the law" so you can be free. And guess who has the last laugh!

""What's the use of their having names," the Gnat said, "if they won't answer to them?"

"No use to them," said Alice; "but it's useful to the people that name them, I suppose. If not, why do things have names at all?""

Branding
"Branding" is a marketing term for creating and spreading an image of a person or product. Branding is a synonym for "positioning" yourself or your product in the prospect's mind. (See anything related to anthropomorphism here?)

When "royal" or "aristocratic" cheaters call themselves "king," "queen," "prince," "princess," "His/Her Royal Highness," "duke," "duchess," "lord," "earl," "lady," etc., they're engaging in a form of "branding." Part of the brand ploy is to brand those not "royal" or "aristocratic" or "noble" (those with red blood as opposed to blue blood!) as "commoners." So this branding ploy makes an unwarranted distinction between "aristocrats" (the supposed "nobility") and "commoners" (supposedly "common" people) and elevates "aristocrats" above "commoners" in the minds of those who "buy the brand."

This branding ploy succeeds because of the gullibility of the naive who allow themselves to be branded as "commoners." Another factor in maintaining the ploy is that most people, feeling that they lack personal excellence (maybe including the inability to question the nature of words/concepts and to analyze the implications and consequences of using them), have to create the illusion of "special" people ("superior beings") to put on pedestals, through which they can vicariously enjoy something "special" or "superior." This is pure anthropomorphism!

"She looked at the Queen, who seemed to have suddenly wrapped herself up in wool. Alice rubbed her eyes, and looked again. She couldn't make out what had happened at all. Was she in a shop? And was that really -- was it really a sheep that was sitting on the other side of the counter?" [Animism!]

(In other words, the person you've been "illusioning" as a "Queen" is really a sheep! -- a major theme of the Alice Books.)

A most important factor in maintaining the "nobility" branding ploy is the "quest for external authority." See the articles related to The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes in 'The Other Side of Religion'. People who've not yet become the authorities of their own lives "need" the illusion of "external authorities." They "need" to brand themselves as "lowly commoners" who look up to and bow down to "elevated royals" or "superior beings" -- anthropomorphism.

The main reason for the "royal" and "aristocratic" and "noble" cheaters to practice this brand ploy is that it enables them to live like parasites off the production of others; they live in great splendor and wealth, enjoying fame and fortune, without having to work and produce for a living. What makes this possible is the extent to which their victims are suckers for anthropomorphism.

I have long recognized the "royal"/"aristocratic"/ "noble" illusion, though I've never cut a supposed "noble" to see whether his or her blood is blue or red. My common sense tells me that it's extremely unlikely that these pretended "nobles" have blue blood or that they're particularly "special," "elevated," or "superior" beings.

How difficult is it for individuals who unwittingly brand themselves as "commoners" to "unbrand" themselves and cure themselves from the need to vicariously experience "excellence" by branding rather common imposters, pretenders, parasites, and adulterers (even though some do perform actions of excellence from time to time) as "kings," "queens," "princes," "princesses," etc? Maybe it depends, among other factors, on how aware of and familiar with the mechanisms of anthropomorphism they can become.

The Diana phenomenon bears witness to the power of combining the anthropomorphic "nobility" illusion with branding. Diana's brand owes its power to three further important factors: beauty, empathy, and martyrdom. During her life she openly shared her trials and tribulations, causing people to feel empathy for her. She also demonstrated genuine empathy for the poor, sick, and disabled. She "touched" many people deeply.

Mother Teresa also had a strong empathy brand, but she had neither the anthropomorphic "nobility" illusion associated with her nor the beauty of Diana. She's also not considered a martyr.

In terms of attention, Diana is 100 to 1,000 times as powerful as Mother Teresa. Diana's combination of the anthropomorphic "nobility" illusion, beauty, and empathy made her the most photographed person in life. In death, martyrdom has added further to the attention lavished on her image (brand).

Of course, the reality is that Diana had no "specialness" that made her different from the rest of us. But because most of us are suckers for anthropomorphism we attributed to her all kinds of "specialness."

In Faces in the Clouds, Stewart Guthrie provides a great deal of evidence on how the fact that people are suckers for anthropomorphism is exploited in advertising and marketing. Starting in 1988, "Joe Camel" has been part of one of the most successful marketing campaigns in history.

The Words/Concepts of Coercive Politics
Most of these words -- "state," "country," "nation," "government," "law," "king," "queen," "president," etc. -- have been examined in the following reports:

Until October 7, 1998, I had assumed that these words basically came into general use as a result of trial and error. Those in power found them to work and enforced them -- "Kneel down, kiss my feet, and call me King, or I'll have your head chopped off!" On the upper (one) hand, the tyrants increased their power by using these words. On the lower (other) hand, victims who rejected the words tended to be executed. The survivors were those who used the words.

So I considered these words/concepts as the bedrock of statism -- the most fundamental factor on which the power of tyrants depends -- the most basic factor that keep coercive political systems in place. I never asked, "Is there something more fundamental?"

If you examine these words, you'll find they all have elements of anthropomorphism -- they involve the attribution of human characteristics to non-human "entities" (usually imaginary or fictional), or the attribution of idealized or exaggerated human characteristics ("specialness") to ordinary things and humans.

"The Fascist State has a consciousness of its own, and a will of its own, [and] on this account is an "ethical" state"." -- Mussolini on the Doctrine of Fascism

A "country" or "state" is powerful and can make war against another "country" or "state." A "king" has blue blood and is "noble." Some of his words are "special" and constitute "the law." A "constitution" isn't just an ordinary piece of paper with ordinary words on it, it's "special" and is "the law of the land." If you examine all these words tyrants use to control, dominate, subjugate, and exploit their victim "subjects," you'll find every one is commonly used in a way that incorporates anthropomorphism.

Except for the "subject" words, such as "subject," "commoner," "citizen," "slave, "etc." These words involve "negative anthropomorphism" -- the attribution of negative or demeaning qualities or status to a human. Most people buy into this reduction, diminution, or negation of self.

People unconsciously and unwittingly accept and use these words because they're suckers for anthropomorphism.

So far, in my experience, it's been difficult for most people to grasp the implications and consequences of using these words. Collectively I call them "Slavespeak" -- see '#TL07A: The Anatomy of Slavespeak'.

Slavespeak words are invalid in that they misrepresent reality by false attribution of human qualities (sometimes idealized or exaggerated, sometimes reduced or demeaned) -- anthropomorphism or negative anthropomorphism.

Now that the mechanisms of anthropomorphism have been explained, it will hopefully become easier for people to grasp and cure themselves from Slavespeak.

From '#TL07A: The Anatomy of Slavespeak': "According to Robert Pirsig in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: "But to tear down a factory or to revolt against a government or to avoid repairs of a motorcycle because it is a system is to attack effects rather than causes; and as long as the attack is upon effects only, no change is possible. The true system, the real system, is our present construction of systematic thought itself, rationality itself. And if a factory is torn down but the rationality which produced it is left standing, then that rationality will simply produce another factory. If a revolution destroys a systematic government, but the systematic patterns of thought that produced that government are left intact, then those patterns will repeat themselves in the succeeding government..." [emphasis added]

What if the basic "construction of systematic thought," the basic "rationality," consists of concepts/words? If so, then in order to induce people to change the most fundamental beliefs that really count, might it not be necessary that we persuade them to change some of their concepts/words?"

I now think that the basic "construction of systematic thought," the basic "rationality," consists of concepts/words rooted in anthropomorphism, particularly factors 1-9 above that cause anthropomorphism.

The Ontogeny of Adult Anthropomorphism
I distinguish four stages in the development in an individual of anthropomorphism, to reflect how the ontogeny of anthropomorphism continues among humans who set out to deliberately improve the quality of their thinking and communication.

It's important to realize that whereas the ontogeny of childhood anthropomorphism tends to occur spontaneously, the ontogeny of adult anthropomorphism requires deliberate effort. It may also be an arduous task.

Stage 1 - Adult, Accepting. During this stage, people basically accept the religion and politics of their parents -- they believe in "god and country." They completely buy into these systems. They tend to be blissfully unaware. They generally believe their teachers, preachers, and politicians. The vast majority of humans are stuck at this stage of their stopped development. Their religious and political anthropomorphism are for all practical purposes unconscious and involuntary. They think and communicate in Slavespeak.

Stage 2 - Adult, Questioning. The phrase "question authority" is typical of this stage. People may question the religion of their parents. They may reject religion altogether and become atheists or secular humanists. If you point out to them that anthropomorphism is involved in religion, they're likely to recognize this. Politically, they may become patriots, libertarians, anarchists, or some other kind of "deviant," "rebel," or "kook" as seen by the brainwashed denizens of stage 1. People at stage 2 are unable to recognize political anthropomorphism, which is for all practical purposes unconscious and involuntary. They think and communicate in Slavespeak.

Stage 3 - Adult, "Material Rejection." At this stage, people become aware of political anthropomorphism. If they didn't reject religion during stage 2, they do so during stage 3. People develop the ability to examine words/concepts for the implications and consequences of their use. They typically make statements like, "Government is a social fiction"; "Countries," "nations," "borders," etc. don't really exist"; etc. I call it "material rejection" because their statements are in the form you use to talk about material reality. (This area is covered in detail in '#TL07G: NSPIC Debate #3'.)

Stage 4 - Adult, "Semantic Rejection." At this stage, people typically say, "The notion that any so-called "government" exists is silly"; or, "You're hallucinating if you think any "government" (so-called) exists." The typical stage-3 statement is in the form of how you talk about the outer world. The typical stage-4 statement is about the inner world -- what's going on in someone's brain.

When the person in stage 3 says, ""Government" doesn't exist," he's still performing a form of anthropomorphism. The person in stage 4 realizes that something is going on in someone's brain (an anthropomorphic semantic process) that makes him think, "government exists."

That's why the stage-4 person says, "Your notion that "government" (so-called) exists is absurd." The stage-4 person is talking about what's going on in someone's brain, whereas the stage-3 person is talking about the outer world. In a sense, the stage-3 person is mistakenly attributing something about the inner world (brain) to the outer world. This is a form of anthropomorphism.

Let me illustrate this more definitively with the "e-mail signature" of my friend:

"Donald D. Henson, Managing Director, WEPIN Store: Government is an illusion created and manipulated by politicians to make it easier to steal wealth from productive individuals. Visit WEPIN Store at http://www.wepin.com/"

This is a typical stage-3 statement. But saying "Government is an illusion" is misleading, because the illusion isn't "government" out there, but a process that occurs in the brains of those who think "government" is real. So Don's statement is anthropomorphic in that the illusion which occurs in someone's brain (human characteristic) is attributed to (a non-human) "government" (out there).

So should Don change his statement? Probably not. It's in a form that can be understood by stage-2 people. If he were to rewrite it in stage-4 language, chances are that very few would understand it. Which illustrates an important principle:

Warning: In general, when you're talking to level-1 or level-2 people, you should talk their language, using Slavespeak words as if valid. Otherwise they will think you're crazy or insane!

The stage-3 person may not be able to comfortably handle the convoluted self-referencing stage-4 statements. When you say, "Your notion that "government" (so-called) exists is absurd," among other things, your statement talks about itself in pointing out that the word "government" within the statement is an invalid word. Some people can't comfortably handle this self-referencing syntax.

One of my favorite statements: The notion of "law" (so-called) is an hallawcination/hallawcinotion.

I like it even better in French: La notion de la "loi" (soi-disant) est une halloicination/halloicinotion.

Stage 1: The glorious Emperor wears a wonderful uniform.
Stage 2: The Emperor is naked.
Stage 3: The "emperor" doesn't exist.
Stage 4: The notion that this ordinary naked man is a so-called "emperor" is absurd.

Glossary of Phenomena Related to Anthropomorphism
In Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion, Stewart Guthrie provides voluminous examples of just how widespread anthropomorphism is in advertising, architecture, art, literature, perception, philosophy, religion, and science.

The purpose of this Glossary is to illustrate a range of perceptual and mental processes and human behaviors, and show how they are aspects of anthropomorphism or closely related to it. Hopefully this will widen your understanding of anthropomorphism.

Addition. The process whereby our perceptual systems add information to what is actually perceived. Covered in more detail in '#TL07A: The Anatomy of Slavespeak'. "Seeing" what's "missing" to complete a perception of what's assumed to be wholly or partially hidden. Related to hallucination.

Anthropocentrism. Considering humans as the most important entities in the universe; interpreting or thinking of the world in terms of human values and experiences.

Anthropomorphism. Basically, the attribution of human characteristics to non-humans. There are a number of important variations on the theme, covered in this report.

Artificialism. The childhood belief that everything in the world is created, manufactured, or produced by humans (or by a "god" who is not distinct from humans).

Deification. To regard someone or something as a "god." To mistakenly attribute "specialness" to someone or something.

Fetishism. The displacement of erotic interest and satisfaction to a non-human object (the "breeding motivation" gone haywire!). Irrational devotion. Belief in magical objects. Similar to participation mystique and totemism.

Hallucination. Perception of "objects" with no reality. "Seeing," "hearing," "feeling," etc. imaginary "things" with no reality. Related to addition. Delusion. Covered in more detail in '#TL07A: The Anatomy of Slavespeak'.

Historicism. In the section "Causality and Historicism in Modern Psychiatry" in The Myth of Mental Illness, Thomas Szasz (see '#TL05T: Thomas Szasz and Slavespeak') writes:

The connection with anthropomorphism is that historicism involves human volition or causative power being attributed to past events.

Humanization. To represent or regard something non-human as human. To endow something non-human with a human character. E.g., "mother nature" and "father time."

Hypostatization. The notion that just because we use a certain word, therefore there must be something in reality that the word stands for (referent). Example: "god." Covered in more detail in '#TL07A: The Anatomy of Slavespeak'. Hypostatization is the attempt to attribute the characteristics reflected by a word to a "non-existent reality," e.g., "god."

Hysteria. From WordNet (r) 1.6:
n 1: state of violent mental agitation [syn: craze, delirium, frenzy, fury];
2: excessive or uncontrollable fear;
3: characterized by violent emotional outbreaks and disturbances of sensory and motor functions [syn: hysterical neurosis].

In "everyday language" we often use "hysteria" in the sense of "being carried away." When multitudes of people jump into the stock market with wild enthusiasm (sometimes near the top) it's called a "buying climax." Similarly, when hordes of people in abject dispair dump their shares (sometimes near the bottom) it's called a "selling climax." These episodes could be regarded as examples of hysteria. They tend to involve a misperception of reality. Maybe at some level the stock market is alternatively perceived as a "powerful provider" (the animistic "bull") and as a "punishing monster" (the animistic "bear").

From a Y2K message: "The interdependencies of the various sectors of modern civilization have been largely ignored. Y2K, because it strikes all sectors simultaneously, presents a unique, unprecedented threat to our civilization... Our numbers predict an 87% chance of a collapse of modern civilization."

The "Y2K bug" is described or thought of as some kind of "bug" (animism) that "strikes all sectors simultaneously." This is of course nonsense, because many computer programs "look ahead," so if they're not Y2K compliant, problems tend to occur well before Jan 1, 2000.

Illusion. The state or process of being perceptually or intellectually deceived.

Naturalism. The doctrine that scientific laws are sufficient to account for all phenomena in the universe. Some scientists say, "The universe is governed by laws." If we ask, "What kind of creatures are these supposed "laws" and how do they go about their business of "governing" (so-called)?" then we can see the anthropomorphism: attributing "special powers" to non-human "laws" that enable them to "govern." (A more sophisticated scientist might say, "So-called "laws" are really the descriptions of our best interpretations of certain perceived "regularities" in the universe.")

Participation mystique. The belief that objects or animals have magical powers. The belief that an object (sometimes considered sacred) contains part of oneself, and has magical powers. Covered in more detail in '#TL07A: The Anatomy of Slavespeak'. Similar to fetishism and totemism.

Pathetic fallacy. The ascription of human traits or feelings to inanimate nature, e.g., the "cruel sea," the "friendly skies," the "threatening clouds." An aspect of anthropomorphism. More broadly: The mistake of attributing human powers, aspirations, emotions, feelings, thoughts, or traits to events, inanimate objects, or human symbols, which do not even possess the capacity for such qualities.

Personalism. Using as a criterion for validity not what was said, but who said it. I once told a scientologist friend of a major realization I'd had. He asked, "Did Ron Hubbard (late founder of Scientology) write that?" I replied, "Not as far as I know." He replied, "If Ron didn't write it, it can't be true."

Personification. Attribution of personal qualities to a non-person. An aspect of anthropomorphism.

Reification. Regarding something abstract as a real or material thing. Closely related to hypostatization. E.g., regarding "happiness" as something that exists by itself, independently of the person who is happy. An aspect of anthropomorphism in that a human condition is projected as a "thing" which is mistakenly assumed to exist by itself.

Superstition. An irrational abject attitude toward the supposedly "supernatural." Maintaining a notion despite having no supporting evidence or the available evidence being to the contrary. A belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic, or a false conception of causation. Superstition is related to anthropomorphism in that, instead of rationally evaluating something yourself, you misplace your trust in some supposed "authority" outside yourself -- the attribution of trust to something or somebody else.

Totemism. A totem is an object, plant, or animal that serves as an emblem for a family or clan. An aspect of anthropomorphism in that the family or clan kinship is attributed to a non-human object, e.g., "The flag keeps us together." Similar to fetishism and participation mystique.

#TL05AB: ANTHROPOMORPHISM AND RELATED PHENOMENA