The Roots of Madness

 

NB Provincial Asylum before demolition.

I have been reading a history of the New Brunswick Provincial Mental Asylum.

A mental patient committed in 1868 kept a diary. In it, he classified fellow inmates as falling into three groups:

“Those that had become crazy about religion…others that had gone crazy about loss of property…and many that had become insane through the immoderate and excessive indulgences of their sensual passions.”

I find it interesting to see a lay classification not influenced by the modern DSM. I think these classifications are much more helpful than “bipolar,” or “schizophrenic,” or “depressed,” which only describe symptoms. It is as if modern psychiatry is trying to avoid looking at causes. But without knowing causes, you are unlikely to find a cure.

I nevertheless think this classification is off the mark on one thing. I doubt anyone actually goes crazy about religion. I can’t imagine the mechanism that would involve. That is the reaction of someone who starts by assuming religion is false—so that an excessive interest in it is automatically harmful or insane. Yes, many insane people seem deeply religious; just as many sick people enter hospitals. That is not evidence that the hospital makes them sick. I’d posit that religion is something many crazy people gravitate towards as a cure. Unfortunately, mental hospitals and psychiatry, then and now, will do everything they an to steer them away from it.

Which leaves two categories: those driven mad by injustice, and those driven mad by guilt. I think that is right, from reading the accounts of various inmates. 

But this can then be reduced to one cause for all mental illness: injustice.

We all have an inner gyroscope, a conscience, which demands justice. Kant argued persuasively that justice is a self-evident truth, a “categorical imperative.” Monotheists assume justice because the universe is governed by a just God. Each of us faces judgement at death, and at the end of time all will be judged. But even non-theists believe the cosmos is necessarily just: this is the doctrine of karma. The ancient Greeks held that the gods themselves were bound by Dike, the moral law.

The matter is obscured by the current misuse of the term “social justice.” 

And the matter is obscured by modern psychiatry because it refuses to recognize morality, justice. Which makes it useless in treating “mental illness.”

For the obvious cause of mental illness is that someone’s internal gyroscope is thrown off by the prolonged experience of some injustice—either done to them, or done by them to someone else. Something within us rebels, says this cannot be, this cannot be allowed to continue. If they cannot take action to correct it, they will and do experience great emotional turmoil and disorientation.

It all seems to me to make perfect sense.

Religion is then indeed the cure, as it is the assurance of justice eventually being done.

Madness and Civilization

 

Since it came up in our reading, I posed to my students in the last few days the question, “is there a rule book of a program for life? Is there a purpose to life?”

Unfortunately, none could give a satisfactory answer.

My most thoughtful student first offered the constructivist position: the goal and the rules and the real are whatever one’s own society has decided they are.

So, okay, is it, on this basis, legitimate to criticise Nazi Germany—let alone go to war with them? Is it legitimate to go to war to end slavery in a society that accepts it as proper? What about child sacrifice? Cannibalism? Wife-beating? They can be no better or worse in principle than any other random moral standard, right?

And when the world believed the world was flat, then it was flat.

He backed away at this, and proposed instead the existentialist position. We are free to decide for ourselves on our own particular life goals.

We had been reading MacBeth. So, did MacBeth or Lady MacBeth choose properly, in making their life goal to gain power no matter who else got harmed? Don’t they themselves soon come to regret the choice? And indeed, on this basis, o we have any right to criticize John Wayne Gacy? Execute, perhaps; but arbitrarily, in the end.

These are the official, and it seems prevalent, views on ethics and ontology in our time. They are logically and indeed morally untenable. For right and wrong, justice, and reality are actually objective and immutable qualities. You cannot will a thing into being, or into being right.

This shows why mental illness is rapidly on the rise. It explains why drug use and suicide are surging. And it explains why mass shootings and such desperate escapes as transvestitism are on the rise. It explains  social breakdown generally.

The problem is quite simple, and it is drastic: to most moderns, life itself is pointless.

Some, the good among us, will sink into hopeless depression. Some will seek death, a chemical escape, or self-mutilation. Others will conclude that the only value left is self-interest, and become like MacBeth.

This is often a failure of parenting. But then, if the parent has no moral core or values, they have nothing to pass on. And our culture has suffered a collapse of values. 

Going to Catholic schools growing up, the answer to the question was obvious. The purpose of life was to know and love God, and to serve him in this world and the next. There was a rule book: the Ten Commandments. One might reject it, but at least the answer was held out to you. 

Public schools, of course, no longer teach any such thing. They teach constructivism, or existentialism.

There I no excuse for this; for even across all religious beliefs, the purpose of life is clear, and always has been, even to the ancient pagans. The purpose of life is—in fact, self-evidently—to seek and promote truth, justice, and beauty. This corresponds to the Catholic teaching, because that is what God is: the perfect ultimate source and essence of truth, justice, and beauty. But it is equally true ithout that insight. There is, leaving aside the Ten Commandments, necessarily, a necessary rule: the rule of universal love, expressed in all cultures as “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Kant demonstrated that, apart from any specific religious belief, this was a categorical imperative: treat others as an end, never a means. Act as you would wish all others to act. Stray from these essential truths, and you are insane.

Most of us are, in the true sense, insane.

It makes me fear to even walk among other men.

Bad News, Adam

 

Orestes pursued by the Furies.

In his latest column, friend Xerxes writes that it is important to challenge our fixed notions. This is to introduce the concept of “eternal life.”

As my own body moves inexorably towards its expiry date, I become increasingly convinced that we are bodied people. Not disembodied souls.

            We cannot think, act, or even remember, without our bodies. Our thought processes depend on inputs from every organ. Eyes and ears, of course. Also heart, lungs, guts, skin…

            Without a body, there can be no ‘me’.

            If that conclusion offends you, sorry. You don’t have to believe it. Stick with your own beliefs. But I need to be honest – that’s where I am, at this stage in my life.

            The circle of life shrinks as we grow older. Ultimately, it contains just one person. Me.

            Then one day I’ll be gone, too.

            And life will go on without me.

Notice that he gives no argument or evidence for this belief. He does not, in other words, challenge it. Just as he is saying we must do.

Notice also the phrase “I need to be honest.” We are obliged to be honest at all times. Therefore, if anyone ever uses the phrase “to be honest,” he is actually admitting he is generally not honest. He is reserving the right to lie.

These are examples of how our conscience works. It will not really allow us to get away with anything. It obliges us to condemn ourselves. Xerxes actually does not believe that consciousness ends at death, and he inadvertently tells us so, if we are paying attention. 

He is whistling past the graveyard, to use an old expression. He is like the child playing peek-a-boo, who thinks that, if he covers his eyes, he cannot be seen. If there is no afterlife, he need not fear punishment after death. A consoling thought to many.

Irrational as this is, it is the common human reaction. Denial is the common human reaction. It is in the Book of Genesis, after the original sin:

Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden.

Yeah; hide from God. That ought to work.

This is actually the ultimate evidence that there is an afterlife. We know there is an afterlife, because we know there is a Hell. We can see that we are programmed, the universe is programmed, by some cosmic programmer, for justice. Anyone who studies history comes to realize, as Martin Luther King says, that “the arc of history bends towards justice.” We see in the lives of those around us, as we see here, that the unjust either soon or eventually turn to self-sabotage.

And yet, we also see that it commonly takes longer than a human life to actually see justice served. Van Gogh was unrecognized in his lifetime. Mao and Stalin died in their beds.

Accordingly, when we do not see individual justice fully served in this world, we must assume the existence of an afterlife, which compensates those here wronged, or who suffered for justice, and punishes those who here do wrong, or profit from injustice. That same cosmic program would have it so.

All the world believes this, as if it is indeed part of our operating system: pagans as much as monotheists. 

For monotheists, it is the divine judgment: 

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

Then the King will say to those on his right, "Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.”…

Then he will say to those on his left, "Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” …

Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.

For Buddhists and Hindus, it is karma.

“As a man himself sows, so he himself reaps; no man inherits the good or evil act of another man. The fruit is of the same quality as the action.” – Mahabharata.

Whatever is not achieved in this lifetime, determines one’s rebirth into a life of comfort or of suffering; or into hell itself. You can’t escape karma.

The ancient Greeks called it Dike, an iron law which even the gods were subject to. Evil deeds evoked Erinyes, Furies, which would pursue you in life to the ends of the Earth. After death, one faced an eternal punishment to suit one’s crimes. Greedy Tantalus, thirsty, could not bend down to drink the water that rose to his chest. Hungry, above him he saw a fruit tree forever just out of reach. 

Hear me, illustrious Furies, mighty named, terrible powers, for prudent counsel famed; Holy and pure, from Hades born and Proserpine, whom lovely locks adorn: Whose piercing sight, with vision unconfined, surveys the deeds of all the impious kind: On Fate attendant, punishing the race with wrath severe of deeds unjust and base. Dark-coloured queens, whose glittering eyes are bright with dreadful, radiant, life-destroying, light: Eternal rulers, terrible and strong, to whom revenge, and tortures dire belong; Fatal and horrid to the human sight, with snaky tresses wandering the night; Either approach, and in these rites rejoice, for you I call with holy, suppliant voice. -- Orphic Hymn 69

So we know the afterlife is real. We know because of many who have risen from the dead, and told us what they saw. We know from saints who have had visions. We know from those who have heard in dreams from deceased relatives. Christians have the warrant of the Bible. But we know primarily because we know from our programming and our conscience, and from our own close observation of the actions of conscience in history and in others, that Hell is real. 

The Way of the Pilgrim

 

Why are we here?

Many people plainly suppose we are here to seek pleasure. A high school friend used to say “we’re just two ends of a gastrointestinal tract.” A hotel co-worker said sex was what made life worthwhile. 

This is the perspective of an animal or a robot. It is also a will-o-the-wisp. Without hunger, food does not satisfy. Without abstinence, sex is just work. It all becomes addiction, and pleasure is gone.

Some people think life is about achieving “success.” Success here means power and social authority over other people. This is actively active evil. And it certainly does not lead to contentment. “Uneasy is the head that wears the crown.” 

Some people say that life is about having children, and giving them a start in life. This is the Darwinian perspective; the Bible too does say “go forth and multiply.” Kids are part of our job, at least. But it does not entirely satisfy. If your life is meaningless, so are your children’s lives. 

Some people say life is about sacrifice of self to the collective: one owes ultimate allegiance to one’s parents, one’s community, and one’s homeland. “Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.” But this is idolatry: one’s nation, one’s government, or one’s parents can be either good or bad. This leads to “good Germans,” Fascism, racism, and nepotism.

Some say that life is about going about doing good to others. And it is, in detail: we are to clothe the naked and feed the hungry, when we encounter them. But this can easily become a form of ego-worship. The Bible warns that if we do good and are seen to do good, we already have our reward; we are acting in self-interest. God does not need you to save the world; realistically, things are already going as he intends. I suspect figures like Mother Teresa. 

The meaning of life is to seek the true, the good, and the beautiful. 

This is necessarily so, because truth, beauty, and good are the only things of value in themselves. They do not derive their value from anything else, and everything else is valuable only to the extent that it is true, good, or beautiful.

These values can be falsified and misunderstood. People often confuse beauty with sexual allure, for example. People misconstrue fact as truth, truth as fact. Facts are only one form of truth, and a trivial form. And people misrepresent goodness in many ways.

It is not public charity. It is also not being “nice,” and getting along with everyone. That requires having no principles, and giving everyone what they want. This is, at best, moral cowardice, at worst devious self-interest. It requires aiding and abetting evil whenever it appears.

True good is justice. Not to be confused with the current leftist concept of “social justice,” a euphemism for injustice. Justice means giving everyone what they deserve on their merits.

How does one, in practical terms, do this?

First, in art. Good art manifests beauty. Art is adding beauty to the world. This is an intrinsic good, even if no other mortal sees this beauty. God does, and with him you are building the New Jerusalem, which the Bible describes to us as a vast work of art. But if possible, the Bible also tells us to “let your light shine,” and be a leaven to those around you.

Good art must also be true. As Keats said, “truth is beauty, beauty truth; that is all ye know, and all ye need to know.” One may speak truth outside of art, but inside of art, you must. And speaking truth outside of art can be dangerous. Jesus warned: “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.” So he spoke in parables. Art is intended, as Emily Dickenson said, to “tell all the truth, but tell it slant. Success in circuit lies.” Those who have eyes to see, will see.

Good art must also serve justice. We are aware of this when, for example, we read or watch a play. We will rebel, intellectually and emotionally, whether watching tragedy or comedy, if the resolution does not serve justice. Karma must come around. No cheap happy endings, and no gratuitous deaths.

Beyond art is something more: the practice of a religion. To bind yourself to a religion is, in effect, to make your life a work of art. Art shows the way; religion IS the way.

But there is no just going through the motions here, no “church on Sunday,” no hypocrisy. We are talking of full commitment, of “prayer without ceasing.” That is the ultimate. That is sainthood.

Paxil In Terra

 

Jesus said to his disciples:

 “I have come to set the earth on fire, and how I wish it were already blazing!

There is a baptism with which I must be baptized, and how great is my anguish until it is accomplished!

 Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.

From now on a household of five will be divided, three against two and two against three; a father will be divided against his son and a son against his father, a mother against her daughter and a daughter against her mother, a mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.”

This, last Sunday’s gospel reading, is an essential corrective to the “gentle Jesus” lie.

My local priest insisted in his sermon that of course this did not mean that Jesus or God wanted division. Jesus indeed came to bring peace. The division was that some would not listen to his call for peace.

Too clever by half. Besides, it contradicts Jesus’s actual words: “I have come to set the earth on fire, and how I wish it were already blazing.”

Had Jesus really called for peace, he would not have been crucified. The established powers would be delighted, as they embrace that message today.

If all you want is peace, Buddhism is the religion for you. Hakuna Matata. For Christianity, that is cowardice and acedia. Christian existence is an eternal war of good against evil. The Christian is, in St. Paul’s words, to “work out his salvation in fear and trembling.” The goal is not peace and acceptance of what is, but justice and the heavenly Jerusalem.

The Atheism Delusion

All my life, people have asked “Do you believe in God?” as though it were a meaningful question. I have never felt it was. It seems to me like a dodge to avoid the real question. It seems to me that, to any sincere and thoughtful person, the existence of God is self-evident.

My friends Xerxes or Xanthippe say they do not believe in God. But then they scoff at Him as “an old man with a long white beard living in the clouds.” Obviously, this is not God. Theirs is a perfect straw man argument.

Richard Dawkins argues that everyone is an atheist about all gods but one: Christians do not believe in Zeus or Baal. But by definition, there can be only one God, and it cannot matter what name you give Him, either Zeus or Jesus or Allah. So by Dawkins’ logic, to be a theist one must be an atheist; Aristotle would choke on his retsina. Nor do Christians deny the existence of Zeus or Baal, or any particular pagan god. They only deny that they are God; and the pagans who worshipped Zeus or Baal would agree. They are not God, by definition, because there are many pagan gods. None are claimed to be omnipotent, or omniscient, or all-good. They are simply supernatural beings. Dawkins is intentionally or unintentionally confusing apples and rutabagas.

Aha, you may object; but the pagans did not believe in God, did they? They believed only in gods; they were atheists in the proper sense.

I think they were atheists only in the modern sense: that they were trying to avoid the issue. We do not have sufficient evidence to say much about the original beliefs of hunter-gatherer societies, but when we look at ancient Rome, Greece, China, or India, we see that they did believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, all-good power. The Greeks called it Dike, “Justice.” Even the Gods could not avoid it. Plato and Aristotle were philosophical monotheists. In India, they called it karma, even apart from Brahman, possibly a later concept. In China, “tian,” “heaven.” They simply did not personify it and make it the sole focus of legitimate worship.

Another “atheist” argument is that there is no physical evidence of God. This seems perfectly disingenuous, since God is spirit and prior to matter, which He created; He is not physical by definition. You could just as plausibly argue that there is no physical evidence of consciousness. But just try running the statement “I am not conscious” by Descartes. Conversely, instead of arguing that there is no physical evidence of God, you could argue that everything physical is proof of God, in the same sense that hearing a nightingale’s song and seeing a nightingale’s plumage is evidence there is a nightingale in the woods.

It seems to me people are not arguing here in good faith. It is not that anyone really does not believe in the existence of God. It is more a case of whistling past the graveyard; we all want plausible deniability.

The real question is “Do you believe in evil?” Or you could phrase it as “do you believe in karma?” Or, “do you believe in justice?”

This is what everyone is really trying to avoid; avoid by not even asking the question. We do not want to believe in justice, in right and wrong, because and to the extent that we are aware ourselves of having done evil. We want to avoid admitting it.

We are in the position of Adam and Eve, who, hearing Yahweh approach, absurdly tried to hide in the bushes. Yeah, that ought to work, with an omniscient being.

Another reason why “do you believe in God” is the wrong question, is that it is perfectly common for people to profess to believe in God, yet deny the existence of evil or justice. They will readily say they believe in God; but will they speak of the Devil? This really means they do not accept God at all; they are just mouthing the word in hopes this will serve as cover. Like Adam and Eve with their fig leaves.

They will profess, for example, that the only thing that matters is to accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior. They will say salvation is by faith alone. If you simply say you believe in God, you need not worry about your actions. They will say God loves us all, there is no Hell, or nobody in Hell, and we will all get into Heaven. We are all saints. They will say the only sin is in pointing out a sin.

How common an attitude is that in the Christian world?

Almost the dominant attitude, surely.

As it is in the Muslim world, for that matter.

It seems from this that Hell indeed will not lack occupants. To sin is human; to deny God, to deny the possibility of sin, is diabolical.

Righteousness

Fighting for truth, justice, and the American way...

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness; for they shall be satisfied.

This beatitude implies that those who seek righteousness, who most eagerly strive for the moral good, are those who have themselves been treated unjustly.

One does not hunger and thirst surrounded by food and wine.

So this beatitude describes someone whose overall experience of the world is one of injustice.
This again puts the lie to the “Hallelujah” chorus of some contemporary Christian thought.

It also puts the lie to the common modern psychological claim that being abused causes one to abuse, and being favoured causes one to treat others better. This idea, now so widespread, is social and spiritual poison.

This is also an argument for Purgatory.

A bad person fears punishment.

A good person, one who hungers for righteousness, does not fear punishment as much as injustice.

Such a person could not accept entering Heaven and the divine presence without atoning for any wrong they had done.

Infinite Mercy and Infinite Justice Walked into a Bar ...

Happy Easter.

Many will object to my last post here, on the reality of Hell, on the grounds that it does not account for Divine Mercy. How can a merciful God allow anyone to go to Hell?

Good question; but there is a necessary corollary. For God is also perfect in justice. If there is no Hell, isn’t he deficient, instead, in justice?

How then can both be served? How can we have both perfect justice, and perfect mercy?

This is actually not a hard question. It is more that people want to make it hard, because they want to avoid responsibility for bad deeds.

Mercy requires repentance. No repentance means no forgiveness. If you repent, sincerely, at any time, you can expect God’s mercy. If you do not repent, mercy is not possible. There is no contradiction here. It is not merciful to encourage you in sin. That is exactly what you are doing if you forgive without repentance. It is not merciful to you, and, not incidentally, it is not merciful to any future victims of your possible further evil acts.

This, I submit, is why Jesus identifies the one unforgivable sin as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. In context, the Pharisees had just said that healings he performed in the name of God were done by the Devil. To invert the place of God and the Devil means to invert the valences of right and wrong. This implies shutting the door on repentance, and so on Divine Mercy. You are insisting that there is nothing to repent.

People, usually not themselves Christians, will confront a Christian who has been wronged with a demand to forgive instead of sympathy. “After all, you are supposed to turn the other cheek.” This is a cruel, malicious perversion of the Gospel. Jesus makes it plain: if your brother comes to you and asks for forgiveness, you must forgive him, even seventy times seven. But if your brother does you wrong, and refuses to repent, you are to shun him as an unbeliever. This is not ambiguous. Only evildoers want to make it seem ambiguous.

Turning the other cheek is not forgiveness, but an appeal to the other’s conscience. You are shaming them, “heaping burning coals on their head,” by your example. It can work; it is a good strategy.

Anyone who actually reads the Bible must realize that none of the Patriarchs were paragons of virtue. They all did wicked things, up to and including David’s adultery with Bathsheba and murder of her husband Uriah. This is an important point the Bible is making. Everyone sins; that is not what distinguishes a sheep from a goat. What distinguishes the good from the bad man is the ability and the readiness to admit fault and to repent.

At the very summit of perversity, bad people will point at the fact that a Christian has sinned, and say, “Look, he is a hypocrite! He’s a sinner too, just like me.” And then they will claim to be morally superior because they make no claim to believe in right and wrong.

This is exactly backwards; this is exactly the sin against the Holy Spirit. The essential thing is not to avoid all sin; that is impossible. The essential thing is to recognize sin when you commit it, and feel remorse.

Much of human history, and much of human thought, seems expended on the effort to avoid accepting responsibility for individual sin.