There are definitely some interesting things worth naming here, but I'm not convinced they're all the same thing. In particular, the "idolization of institutions" and "idolizing idealized/illegible personal life" or whatever seem distinct, if related.
I agree. It's kind of crazy how many things he pulls into the orbit of Ra. At the same time, it's helpful to have a name for a cluster of related things, too.
> Vagueness, mental fog, “underconfidence”, avoidance, evasion, blanking out, etc. are hallmarks of Ra. If cornered, a person embodying Ra will abruptly switch from blurry vagueness to anger and nihilism.
> Ra involves seeing abstract, impersonal institutions as more legitimate than individuals. For instance, I have the intuition that it is gross and degrading to pay an individual person to clean your house, but less so to hire a maid service, and still less so if a building that belongs to an institution hires a janitor. Institutions can have authority and legitimacy in a way that humans cannot; humans who serve institutions serve Ra.
> I remember being angry at a coworker, once, for attempting to sell a product to big pharma companies, because he was thinking of them too lightly, not appreciating the awesome majesty of the pharma companies that we were barely worthy to submit our ideas to. He seemed not to understand the unspoken “way of the world”, and that made me angry. That was classic Ra thinking on my part.
> Ra is involved in the sense of “everyone but me is in on the joke, there is a Thing that I don’t understand myself but is the most important Thing, and I must approximate or imitate or cargo-cult the Thing, and anybody who doesn’t is bad.” E.g. having the intuition that the power to make successful companies lies in things like “complex sales”, without understanding how complex sales works on a nuts-and-bolts level. If you just associate complex sales guys with power and success, if you have the feeling that they probably know how to become an insider even if you don’t, then you’re engaging in Ra thinking.
> There’s a disinclination to get specific about numbers or negotiations or goals or arguments. And then an angry sense that people who do get specific are “doing it wrong” or “bad people” and deserve harshness. An intuition that the really important things in life, the true “ways of the world”, are hidden or mysterious, always unspoken, and must be respected.
However, putting a very negative spin on another culture’s god to make a point about the incipient banality of authority – that’s unnecessary, and outrageously insulting to the culture they’re appropriating from.
The author should have made up their own god and left the Egyptians out of this little crusade.
I don't know you or whether this applies to you -- but in general, I'm not a big fan of getting offended on behalf of people one doesn't know, on the basis of moral sensibilities those people probably don't even share.
And I question the premise that people are so mentally immature that they can't distinguish between using Ra as an evocative label for a cluster of tendencies, and claiming that the actual Ra is bad and exhibits those tendencies.
I think this sort of crude, unearned offense-taking-by-proxy is bad for artistic expression and culture.
And if you're an actual Egyptian Ra-worshipper, I regret that you were offended, but I would say the same to you. Your god is not sacred to everyone else in the world and is not above artistic use, even in a negative way. And it's not like religious people are always respectful of worldviews other than their own -- in fact, the exact opposite is much more often the case -- so check yourself before criticizing others.
If I understand your critique, it's this: "How dare you critique their use of Ra? You have no standing! You have no right!" Which is basically an ad hominem attack that doesn't address any of the substance of my complaint.
As it turns out, I generally agree with you that creators should be given the space and grace needed to create. I rarely if ever call creators out like this, as you will see from my history. But in this case, the misappropriation is so obvious and sour, and there are people I know who would be negatively impacted if this slant on Ra ever became more mainstream in Western culture, that I could not remain silent.
Hopefully, this discourse on Ra remains an isolated bonkers interpretation that HN can chuckle over every few years when it gets posted, and you're right that we'll never reach a situation where it ever gets confused with an authentic and respectful interpretation of Ra as attested through Egyptian religion, architecture, writing, and history. Still, it would have been better if the author had given their fanciful flight a more appropriate name.
> If I understand your critique, it's this: "How dare you critique their use of Ra? You have no standing! You have no right!" Which is basically an ad hominem attack that doesn't address any of the substance of my complaint.
Sorry, no, making up your own caricature of what I said isn't an effective way of responding to it. And it doesn't speak well of your cultural sensitivity if you can't treat the thoughts of someone different than you fairly. Try quoting the actual text I wrote and responding to that text.
As it happens, I quite obviously did address the substance of your complaint, if you read the entirety of my post. Taking offense on behalf of others can be valid if backed up with real evidence or personal experience, but there's a big risk you don't know what you're talking about. And as I said, I'm not necessarily that bothered even if a literal Ra-worshipper doesn't like this blog. People are allowed to say negative things about gods. It doesn't matter if their feelings are hurt. Feelings are not always and everywhere legitimate. The ability to be irreverent about gods is a wonderful quality of the modern developed world. It won't be taken from us.
> there are people I know who would be negatively impacted if this slant on Ra ever became more mainstream in Western culture, that I could not remain silent.
Please provide a meaningful, legitimate way in which anyone would be negatively impacted by someone associating an ancient Egyptian deity with bad things for artistic purposes. And no, carrying a chip on your shoulder about how no one can say anything negative about your culture's god doesn't count. It'd be one thing (not decisive by any means, but something) if people still worshipped Ra, but it's unclear that even that is true, and what evidence I've found with Google so far suggests not.
In the year 1166 B.C., a malcontented hunchbrain by the name of Greyface, got it into his head that the universe was as humorless as he, and he began to teach that play was sinful because it contradicted the ways of Serious Order. "Look at all the order around you," he said. And from that, he deluded honest men to believe that reality was a straightjacket affair and not the happy romance as men had known it.
It is not presently understood why men were so gullible at that particular time, for absolutely no one thought to observe all the disorder around them and conclude just the opposite. But anyway, Greyface and his followers took the game of playing at life more seriously than they took life itself and were known even to destroy other living beings whose ways of life differed from their own.
The unfortunate result of this is that mankind has since been suffering from a psychological and spiritual imbalance. Imbalance causes frustration, and frustration causes fear. And fear makes for a bad trip. Man has been on a bad trip for a long time now.
It is called THE CURSE OF GREYFACE.
Bullshit makes the flowers
grow & that's beautiful.
***
THE FIVE ORDERS OF DISCORDIA ("THEM")
Gen. Pandaemonium, Commanding
The seeds of the ORDERS OF DISCORDIA were planted by Greyface into his early disciples. They form the skeleton of the Aneristic Movement, which over emphasizes the Principle of Order and is antagonistic to the necessary compliment, the Principle of Disorder. The Orders are composed of persons all hung up on authority, security and control; i.e., they are blinded by the Aneristic Illusion. They do not know that they belong to Orders of Discordia. But we know.
The Military Order of THE KNIGHTS OF THE FIVE SIDED TEMPLE. This is for all the soldiers and bureaucrats of the world.
The Political Order of THE PARTY FOR WAR ON EVIL. This is reserved for lawmakers, censors, and like ilk.
The Academic Order of THE HEMLOCK FELLOWSHIP. They commonly inhabit schools and universities, and dominate many of them.
The Social Order of THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR CONCERNED CITIZENS. This is mostly a grass-roots version of the more professional military, political, academic and sacred Orders.
The Sacred Order of THE DEFAMATION LEAGUE. Not much is known about the D.L., but they are very ancient and quite possibly were founded by Greyface himself. It is known that they now have absolute domination over all organized churches in the world. It is also believed that they have been costuming cabbages and passing them off as human beings.
A person belonging to one or more Order is just as likely to carry a flag of the counter-establishment as the flag of the establishment-- just as long as it is a flag.
