Lucifer the Freedom Fighter

At a writers’ meeting I attended recently, the challenge was to write some familiar story from the point of view of the villain. One did Wile Coyote. One did Voldemort. Someone did Pontius Pilate. Someone tried to write about the fallen angels from the Devil’s point of view. Nothing especially shocking about that; Milton did the same. I do not recall the details.

But then someone piped up, “That’s not the way it really happened.”

“What actually happened was that Lucifer was God’s first son. Before Jesus. He was God’s favorite. But he objected to angels not having free will. So God threw him out of heaven.”

Someone else across the table raised an objection: “No, that’s not right.”

And she responded firmly. “You can’t dispute that. It’s the real history.”

The meeting just moved on.

I too was in no mood to challenge something so mad. Especially since she was so adamant. But I was left wondering where this came from, and how she could possibly feel such certainty. 

Of course Lucifer’s fall from heaven is not “history.” No historical account is beyond dispute, saying something is history does not end an argument, but even so, history is based on written records from the relevant time. No one was present at the war in heaven, taking notes. It is supposed to have happened at the beginning of creation, before the first man.

Nor does this woman’s account of Lucifer’s motive make any sense. If angels lacked free will, how could Lucifer himself rebel against God?

The Bible says Lucifer rebelled seeking to “make himself like the Most High.”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, para 392-3:

“This ‘fall’ consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign. We find a reflection of that rebellion in the tempter's words to our first parents: ‘You will be like God.’ …

It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels' sin unforgivable. ‘There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death.’”

Lucifer and the fallen angels rejected God’s authority while in his presence. Just as the damned each individually and consciously choose hell at death, in the divine presence. This makes it unambiguous and irreversible. And for the reason Milton gives: “I would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven.”

So, this strange idea does not come from history, as claimed. It is not from the Bible. It is not from Church tradition, and it is not a logical thought. Perhaps this woman was getting her “facts” from some gnostic tradition? But I can’t find anything like it in the gnostic texts. There do seem to be references to Satan as God's elder son in some Mormon scripture; but not the part about free will.

How can someone be so certain of something so strange and counter to traditional understanding, something she might have read somewhere once, that she would assert it adamantly to a room of perhaps twenty people?

Was I dealing with a madwoman? Yet some at the table knew her well, and nobody thought her insane. 

It seems to me a symptom of the present age. We have generally become untethered from any sense of truth or reality, so that anyone is free to believe anything, and impose it on those around them by strength of will. 

Thus men can decide to be women, or women men. People can continue to believe debunked claims like the mass graves hoax, or the January 6 insurrection hoax, or the Charlotte “fine people” hoax, or the Russia hoax. When you do not believe in God, you can believe in anything, and people believe what they want to believe. Or become paranoid.

This idea of Lucifer as the righteous rebel does sound like something someone might want to believe, if they wanted to deny sin, deny the authority of God, and claim the right to do what they will. 

Using Blogger's new AI tool to insert relevant links above. It appeared just today, and trying it out.

Bubble Life

 

I attended a coffee and conversation recently in which one participant bravely brought up his political doubts, in an oblique way.

“Whatever you think about Trump, didn’t the media let us down? Didn’t they tell us Trump couldn’t win? Didn’t they tell us nobody would vote for Trump? Seventy-five million people did. How is this possible? They’re not giving us the whole story.”

Cognitive dissonance. Other participants first responded by suggesting other news sources he might prefer-- all either “mainstream” or explicitly on the left. No right-wing sources like Daily Wire or Instapundit or even X. Of course they would not mention X except to condemn it; but BlueSky was recommended.

A non sequitur, of course. All were media that said Trump was evil and Harris would win. Still within the bubble.

The disconnect being too obvious, one participant at last piped up:  IQ has been dropping in the US for a couple of generations.

Mutters of agreement. This seemed to satisfy everyone, and ended the conversation. They moved on to another topic.

Of course this explanation was nonsensical. There is no reason to suppose that people with a low IQ will automatically vote en masse for an obviously bad candidate. At most, you would expect their votes to be a bit more random.

I appreciated the bravery of the man who raised the question, if timidly. He was braver than I. I kept my peace. It was not worth it to speak up. I suspect there were others in the meeting who also did not believe Trump was an obviously better choice than Harris. But who wants to be first to say so? We have all learned that it does not pay to disagree with a leftist. They will become hysterical. 

This is what it looks and feels like when people are delusional. 

I think wokism and wokery will now collapse quickly. The bubble has begun to pop. It has popped, and many are wandering around, confused.

Disillusionment

 At mass a couple of Sundays ago, the sermon lamented a general sense of “disillusionment” in society. All the drug use; the rising rate of suicide; of mental illness; of cynicism; crime. He might have mentioned bad art.

But if people are generally disillusioned, the next question is: what was the illusion? And the question after that: Is it better to live in an illusion, or to be disillusioned and see things as they are? Surely disillusionment, if painful, is better than illusionment, and is a step toward the light.

It also occurs to me that “disillusionment” might be the better formulation for what we call “depression.” The depressed generally have a better grip on reality than the rest of us.

Most people most of the time live their delusions. They believe what seems most pleasing to them, and ignore the real situation.

The broad general illusion of our time, I would say, is materialism. I don’t mean the pursuit of wealth: I mean the philosophical position that only the physical is real. And with this as a cosmology and religion comes scientism, the notion that science explains the universe, and anything labelled “the science” must be true.

Eyes are opening, and further revelations may come.

Born with the Gift of Laughter, and a Conviction that the World Was Mad

 

There is a saying: “never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.” It is often useful to defuse one’s anger.

But is it true? 

It does seem to me that groups and nations pursue obviously bad policies, insist on obvious untruths, and seem impervious to explanations. One obvious example: the persistent insistence that there are mass graves of indigenous children murdered in the old residential schools. Another: that Trump claimed Nazis or white supremacists were “good people.”

Are they simply ignorant of the facts, only repeating what they have heard? No; if told the facts, they do not counter them; they just ignore or suppress them. They react in anger. Can it be that they don’t understand what is being said?

Let’s assume that people are this stupid. They just can’t make logical connections. Wouldn’t the obvious solution, then, be to select out those with the highest IQ’s, and have them run things? 

This is more or less what Plato proposed in the Republic. 

So should we turn things over to the “Experts,” presumably weeded and fostered based on their intelligence and knowledge by the universities?

No; these academics seem more prone to believe obvious nonsense than the general public. This has long been ovserved: the “ivory tower” syndrome. Academics is an echo chamber in which delusions can be mutually reinforced indefinitely without ever being tainted by reality.

How about selecting for raw IQ? 

And this is the premise on which Mensa, the high-IQ society, was founded.

And it did not work, does not work, either. On any given issue, you will never get a consensus among Mensans. They are about as likely to believe the latest obvious untruth as the general public. And hold to it with the same energy. A meeting of Mensans is like herding cats.

(Of course, I face my own logical problem here. How can I be sure it is the other guy who is clinging to an untruth despite evidence? Am I smarter than the Mensans? 

I recall this little poem by Albert Einstein: "A thought that often makes me hazy:/Is it them, or am I crazy?"

But all I can do is look at the evidence and arguments, and use my own judgement. I think it is conclusive if the other side does not counter. Although it might also be that they find the matter so obvious that arguing it is tiresome.)

It seems to me it cannot be incompetence, in most cases. It is deliberate self-delusion. Most people simply believe or try to believe what they want to believe. They believe whatever they find most comfortable or most in their interests to believe, and ignore both the truth and the general good.

I daresay women are more prone to do this than men… They will cover an ugly situation with a pretty word, and it will all be okay.

A case in point I noticed recently: a YouTube psychiatrist advising that you should cut all contact with any relative or spouse who voted for Trump, telling them “How could you vote against my livelihood?” (Sic: surely she meant interests). 

This presupposes that everyone should vote only for their own self-interest. (Given that it is also in one’s self-interest not to alienate one’s relative or spouse.)

And so, I arrive at an important truth about the world: most people are delusional, and people are morally responsible for their delusions.

Which explains why we do instinctively think insanity is not a disease, but a moral failing.

The Bible knows this. This is why, for example, it makes acceptance of the dominion of God the first commandment. Not to see this, to be atheist or agnostic or polytheist, is a deliberate delusion. 

And this, according to the Bible, is the litmus test for heaven: are you seeking truth, or not?

The Only Sane People in the World

 

I have lived in a number of countries around the world. One thing I have learned from that—the main thing—is that everyone is insane.

This should not be surprising. Every religion tells us so. Truth, enlightenment, is revealed only to a few. It might come as a surprise only if you buy into modern “scientific” psychology. Lacking any standard for truth or reality, it merely defines “sane” as “having the majority opinion.” That obviously does not work. It is a recognized logical fallacy: ad populum.

We all live on delusions. Francis Bacon classified the common sources centuries ago, and founded empirical science as a way to break through. It has not worked. Churchill once said something like, “Most people, if they stumble upon the truth, will just pick themselves up and dust themselves off.” Bertrand Russel once said, “Most of us would sooner die than know the truth. And most of us do.”

One of the standard sources of delusion, as Bacon shrewdly classifies them, is “idols of the tribe.” These are delusions shared by a social group, the members of which can easily mutually reinforce each other in the delusion. It is hard in isolation to persist in a delusion.  When everyone around you is agreeing with you, it is far easier. These delusions of the tribe are actually encouraged by psychology. Shared delusions tend to define a nation.

Living in another country, especially one with a significantly different culture, reveals these delusions. If unreflective, an expat will after a few months come to the conclusion that they are all mad here. If he is more thoughtful, and more self-reflective, he may conclude instead that he is mad. If more reflective still, he will realize that both are—or at least, he too had been, on this or that matter, before now. 

All that is a lead-in to this: not all nationalities are equally mad. In my still limited experience, North Americans, at least in these times, are profoundly mad. Madder than hatters. Thank me for sharing. The Chinese can always be counted on to be mad. The French are certainly mad. We all know about the Germans and their fits of madness. The Japanese are mad, Koreans are mad. These are beautiful cultures, perhaps the most impressive cultures, cultures in which education is highly valued. And one would expect education to be a cure for madness. Yet it can as easily be the reverse: it can be an education into the shared delusions. And great art can be the individual’s desperate attempt to break through the matrix of thyeir culture. Like the sand in the oyster’s shell that forms the pearl of great price.

 Italians are far less prone to be mad. Greeks are less prone to group madness. This despite their impressive cultures. But perhaps too, it explains why they are not as creative as they once were.

I probably can’t be objective about the Irish, but I think they are uncommonly sane.

But the sanest group of people I have ever had to deal with—and I have dealt with them quite a bit, largely for this reason—are the Filipinos. They are on the whole profoundly sensible, always with their two flat feet on the ground. Among other things, this makes them, contrary to what seems the stereotype, quite unromantic. They are, on the other hand, religious, and take seriously the other world. Being practical and non-delusional means you do take account of the spiritual world. 

Materialism is the greatest of our North American delusions.

Madness and Civilization

 

Why do we fear and shun the “mentally ill”?

Michel Foucault suggests mental illness is historically a replacement for leprosy as a social scapegoat. We need someone to despise, some untouchable caste. 

But still, why the mentally ill? Why not the bicycle riders?

The question came up in relation to a book I am reading with my students, A Separate Peace. A friend of the narrator becomes psychotic in the army, and deserts. He tries to confide in the narrator. The narrator tells him to shut up about his experiences and literally flees. 

This feels typical.

My students initially suggested it was because we fear violence from the “mentally ill.” This is of course a common idea; it is in all the papers. Whenever a violent crime is committed, the perpetrator is said to be mentally ill.

Yet, statistically, this is not true. Statistically, those classed as mentally ill are slightly less likely to be violent than the general population. Far less likely, if you exclude the narcissists and psychopaths. They are, on the other hand, far more likely to be the victims of violence. 

Someone who is genuinely depressed, after all, would not have the strength of purpose to do anyone harm. Someone who is truly psychotic would probably not be able to coordinate his actions well enough to be dangerous. Not sure what is real, he could not coordinate acquiring a lethal weapon, or formulating or executing an effective attack. The most he might do is swing wildly. If you count narcissism and psychopathy as mental illnesses, yes, they are violent, skewing the statistics—but these are the very people who will not appear to any casual observer to be mentally ill. 

Moreover, in the novel we were reading, there was no question of the friend suddenly becoming violent; rather, our narrator assaults him.

So the idea that the “mentally ill” are violent looks like an alibi, not an explanation.

When this explanation seemed not to make sense, and informed by the circumstances in the book, I think my students hit upon the real reason. It is because we fear that a crazy person might tell the truth. Not in full command of themselves, they have slipped the social constraints that generally prevent the rest of us from so doing. Being anywhere around them is therefore frightening to anyone invested in lies.

This works two ways. Anyone honest enough to always tell the truth will be soon declared mentally ill, as an excuse, if a delusional excuse, for refusing to listen to them or accept their claims. And anyone driven by conscience to tell the truth may accept the label, even believe it, as a survival strategy. It is easier to accept that they are insane and just imagining things than that everyone around them are, or that they are all lying.

A thought that often makes me hazy:

Is it them, or am I crazy? 

    -- Albert Einstein 

This seems a sufficient explanation for all mental illness, as much as for the general fear of it. It is the same reason that they crucified Christ. Those who dwell in darkness fear the light.

Solzhenitsyn maintained that, if at any moment one person had determined one morning to speak only the truth, the old Soviet Union would have collapsed in a day. He was unreasonably optimistic. Some of course tried.  They simply were declared insane.

This is the case in any community, from the global culture down to the level of the family or couple; to the extent that they are based on lies, anyone who speaks truth is declared mentally ill. True mental illness is never an individual phenomenon.

And this explains the growth in the incidence of mental illness in recent years. The madder the culture, the more must be martyred to the psychiatric prisons.

Waiting for Godot

We imagine ourselves as Vladimir or Estragon, wandering aimlessly through our modern-postmodern wasteland wondering why Godot has not yet come.

It is a damnable lie.

Godot—God—has no reason to hide from us. Remember the story of the Garden of Eden. It was Adam and Eve who hid from him.

We are only conning ourselves that we are looking for him. If he were to appear, we would crucify Him.

The wasteland is our protective shell of lies, that keeps us from having to think. Then we can go about our daily lives untroubled, worrying only about in which ditch to sleep. It is the matrix; it is the idolatry we have inherited from our parents.

We find any sincere quest for truth profoundly threatening. Leave aside Jesus; Socrates was executed for asking too many questions.

We would rather believe the obvious nonsense of Marxism, long ago disproven; or of Freudianism, long ago disproven; of postmodernism, or existentialism, or for that matter of “Hallelujah Chorus” Christianity, which obviously contradicts the gospel, but looks easier. There are many such idols of the tribe. The one thing they have in common is a denial of moral concerns.

Here’s the plain truth. God is both omnipotent and benevolent. He will hide nothing. All it takes is a sincere quest for the truth, and truth begins to be apparent. “Seek and ye shall find.”

This is why Descartes was able to conclude that anything we perceive with clarity and distinctness must be true.

Of course God would not have abandoned us in some wasteland without direction.

Here’s how simple it is: the point of life is to seek truth, and the good, and beauty. As soon as you seek truth, you have found it, because the sincere effort to find truth is the essential truth of life. As soon as you seek good, you have found it, for the sincere effort to be good is the essential good. As soon as you seek beauty, you have found it, for the quest for beauty is the most beautiful of stories.

As Vladimir might well have mumbled to Estragon, “Now where did I put my nose? I’m sure I left it around here someplace…”