The primitive man (similar to those of the present time) had guessable yet hidden drives to know himself, in an approach as such he finds it necessary to define himself by knowing what is but him. This is the realm of language; by naming and recalling, the nominal criteria of language tend to own, homogenize and essentially internalize the object. In other words, the primitive man extends himself in the world outside, in the same way that he expands himself within the language. In understanding the innermost corners of our inside, the primitive man is confronted with an unsurpassably vast paradox; In one side the will to take control of the entire aspects of the universe, and in the other he sees his inability to fulfill such desire; Here he gives birth to the primitive totem. The primitive man reroutes all of his inabilities and voids through those objective phenomena (totems) that he believes them to be capable in taking control over the external world. From the earliest totems that of the homomorphic magic that ornamented the walls of Lascaux, to the figures and figurines of Aztec deities, there are different appearances of one united desire: The desire for man to adore himself using the sanctification of his totems. These paradoxes may be the most prominent reroutes throughout our entire subjective history. It seems by entering the historical religions (as opposed to natural religions) to totemize undergoes evolution and further more complex developments and finally at the birth of modernity, gets evacuated from the man of the age of reason suffering a sudden death; but it is only the appearance. The modern man, standing at the furthest bounds of language, still expands himself in the external world that only makes sense within t he inside. Here evidently mans modernist rationalism is replaced with his pejorative totemization. But in a broader understanding of this equation, what sit at the mighty throne of totem (objectivity) is not reason (subjectivity) but an altered form of the totem; modern man of industrial revolution through his technological background replaces totemize with fetishism. T he consumer structure supersedes earlier totems by our daily consumed product and objects using the perpetuation of our objective stance; thus taking it as a median to control those aspects that seems unreachable solely by human intention. But till the very last breath of modernity, this replacement con will not be divulged to the man of new era, and for the first time by the birth of postmodern subject this entity is taken into the abyss of doubt; the man rebels his totems again, but he no longer revolts a certain set of totems but the totem itself.
How such revolt will alter the conceptual equation of the foundations of totem from within? The answer is simple yet surprising: contemporary human returns to the birthday of totem in the chronology of its subjective history in order to construct the determination that he is about to alter. Contemporary human unlike its premier relatives accepts his lingual and objective voids without the use of reroutes and instead of this reroute of the subjective void to an objective entity he internalize the void by the virtue of reflexivity. At this point, as it is opposed to totemize is the birthplace of autototemize. Through this process the contemporary man himself, freed from the embarrassment of the obsolete, stands for the totem and along with his acceptance of his intolerable voids in his conscious, he dedicates his consecration and blessings to himself; just as the homomorphic magic reflects his face instead of the totems. Perhaps a similar desire for self-admiration encouraged primitive man to create, nurture and perpetuate totemize; with this very difference that the primitive man (probably caused by a fear of unconscious and an immature self-conscious) tended not to accept himself as the totem. On the ground of a subjective self in a contemporaneous reference, shaman’s dread converts to the artist’s dare, and as the ancient shaman hides behind the objective mask of a totem, artist reveals himself from beneath the subjective curtain of self. Even though this reverse approach may seem a new form of narcissism at first, but practically develops an analytic/therapeutic system in the new art; the artist so revealed in the void of his reflexivity that represents himself despite of its connection to the void, released from the bondage of the narcissistic mask and boldly he stands with his bare face amidst the cultural context. In this dialectic, a type of PsychoArt2 is produced that carries our understanding of self to new borders; it is beyond those borders where regardless of historical shame narcissism converts to self-exhibitionism.