Wednesday, October 14, 2020

Putting the Dem in Demon

I made the mistake of watching the Supreme Court confirmation hearing yesterday, which left me feeling a little... oppressed. What kind of oppression?  The demonic kind, of course. I think I may have gotten a little infected, but my immune system is fighting it -- them -- off.

You will have noticed that no one has yet asked the nominee if she believes in demons.  First of all, she's Catholic, so we know the answer.  More to the point, she staring them in the face, batting away their stupid, loaded, hypocritical, duplicitous, and vicious pseudo-questions, e.g., "have you sexually assaulted anyone lately?," or "do you condemn white supremacy?"  

No one has ever accused me of having "judicial temperament."  Admittedly, I struggle with patience toward imbeciles and psychopaths.  If Hirono had asked me if I'd ever sexually assaulted anyone, I would have said, "sure," just to see the expression on her face.

If Booker had asked me if I condemn White Supremacism, I would have responded, "of course not.  Have you ever seen how fast a Haitian can pick cotton?"

A few weeks ago I read an 800 page monster of a book called Introduction to the Science of Mental Health, which has a whole section devoted to Demonic Influences.   

Wait -- science?  Sure, why not, for what is a science?  It is "an organized body of knowledge of things through their causes."  Therefore, "if a person engages in the practice of a science refusing to consider possible causes, he is by that very fact unscientific."  

What causes leftists to be the way they are?  For me it is self-evident that there are supernatural causes -- just as it is impossible to explain the sanctified brilliance of, say, Thomas Aquinas, without recourse to supernatural graces. 

By the way, when I say "self-evident," I mean something analogous to seeing as opposed to discursive reasoning;  however, this seeing is in no way contrary to reason (more on this later).

The demon -- speaking through the oracle of scientism -- will respond that bOb is the unscientific one, since science by definition denies the existence of demonic influences.    But this makes no more sense than claiming that beauty, justice, and morality don't exist just because science can't measure them.  

So, put away your slide rule, brainiac.  It can't help you here.  Keep an open mind.  At the very least, you should acknowledge the phenomena even if you reject our hexplanation.  Just don't pretend your explanation is adequate.   If you think psychology provides an adequate explanation of Hitler, you understand neither Hitler nor psychology.  

And if you think Trump is Hitler, you might want to check under your hoodie for demonic influences.  That's beyond crazy, but not in a way the psychologist in me can rationally explain. 

Modern psychology asserts conclusions about demonic influences which are not supported by the evidence. In this sense, the "belief" about the lack of demonic influence as well as many other aspects of their various psychological systems is nothing short of superstition, insofar as it is a form of irrational (contrary to first principles) belief based on ignorance (Ripperger). 

What?  You're a skeptic?  Good. You're just not skeptical enough.  Nor ironical enough.  You need to take your naturalism with a grain of salt.   

By the way, I'm not claiming any special expertise here.  I'm not a demonologist, let alone an exorcist, although I did get Cousin Dupree to stop using so many durn cuss words.  I just have an open mind and some common sense, that's all. 

Moreover, I suppose I have a bit of first hand experience, being that I was once open to the demonic, or at least had no principled opposition to it.  My entire generation -- the boomers -- rejected the cultural immune system that had been bequeathed to us by prior generations that had engaged in warfare with the Invisible Enemy.

First, some metaphysical housekeeping: if demonic influences exist, by virtue of what principle are they possible?  What is their sufficient reason?  Well, first of all they are immaterial.  If you acknowledge the existence of "good" immaterial forms, energies,  influences, and vibes, then you should have no principled reason to deny the existence of bad and uncool vibes.  Vibes are vibes.  No one says they must all be pleasant. 

How do we discern these vibes?  Ripperger says they act directly upon the body and bodily organs, whereas they cannot touch the intellect except indirectly.  Our head is indeed a safe space, unless we choose otherwise.  Other times we don't so much choose to let them in as choose not to acknowledge their existence or influence, as in the example given above about clueless boomers.  

When we say that demons can only act directly on the body, this covers a broader range than you might believe, since there are aspects of our minds that are material, others that are partly or completely immaterial. The soul, for example, is immaterial, as is the light of reason.  

Conversely, imagination, memory, senses, and appetites are all more or less material.  But you can imagine how, for example, the appetite might come under demonic influence, which then might lead to rationalization of the impulse, compulsion, or addiction. In this way the intellect is indirectly highjacked.

Which actually goes to the confirmation hearing.  For example, let's say the demon likes nothing more than killing babies.  Or, he believes the black man has no rights the white man is bound to respect.  Therefore, it is permissible to kill babies or enslave blacks.  Now, the intellect knows, and cannot not know, that these are wrong.   But where there's demonic willfulness there's a rationalized way, as exemplified by the Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade decisions.  

We're out of time.  To be continued.


julie said...

Our head is indeed a safe space, unless we choose otherwise. Other times we don't so much choose to let them in as choose not to acknowledge their existence or influence, as in the example given above about clueless boomers.

I'm reminded of the version of satanists who claim that they're really just rational atheists who are being provocative while advocating virtues that they claim Christians either lack or oppose outright. For instance, the sort of kindness that dictates that the worst thing that can happen to a young woman is to be punished with a baby, therefore, the kindest thing to do is abort the little parasites.

ted said...

I saw the demons during the hearing too. But they were cast out by my infatuation for ACB. The contrast of her to these dim-witted Democrats is so palpable. They don't seem to have depth, and even know what depth is. But who cares, ACB is my new crush!

Anonymous said...

Democrats cannot by nature, see demons. Once one embraces Marxism, demons become as oblivious as the roadway yield sign. But should they have Christian service dogs?

Nicolás said...

Evil, like the eyes, does not see itself. May he who sees himself as innocent tremble.

Rockman said...

“Our name is Congress, for we are many.”

Nicolás said...

The modern State is the transformation of the apparatus that society developed for its defense into an autonomous organism that exploits it.

Anonymous said...

Indeed Nicolás. One clue that you're doing evil, is if the other says "OW!" and it only makes you more intrigued. I suspect that evil does not hear itself either.

Nicolás said...

Between animal and man there is no other barrier than a palisade of taboos.

Anonymous said...

Hans Jonas once stated: “Our duties and responsibilities as human beings must be shown to be so incontrovertible that even atheists must recognize them. There are ultimate taboos.”

Tom Robbins replied: “The trickster's function is to break taboos, create mischief, stir things up. In the end, the trickster gives people what they really want, some sort of freedom.”

Nicolás said...

He who jumps, growls, and barks has an invisible collar and an invisible chain.

Anonymous said...

Unless they're wolves. I've sometimes wondered if an invisible fence product would work on them.

Cousin Dupree said...

Yes. And make them bay for it.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if a wolf would prefer to live starving but free in the desert, or comfortably fenced inside a loving rescue facility.

Cousin Dupree said...

What a terrible waste of wonderment.

Anonymous said...

For some yes. For others, not so much. I guess it depends on the quality of ones master.

And then there's Bob who obsesses with things which cannot be proven or disproven, which fall outside of the realm of the 5 proven senses. If bet if he had a bad master he'd be obsessed with running away, instead.

Most people are like dogs who prefer living comfortably fenced, but a few are more like wolves who prefer freedom. The quality of their master is less relevant for them.

It sounds like you're living comfortably fenced, Dupree.

Cousin Dupree said...

"Outside the realm of five proven senses?" Metaphysics 101: there is no knowledge at the level of senses.

Or maybe you can tell us how your opinion on sensory knowledge is a sensation and not a thought.

Cousin Dupree said...

And to suggest that animals know freedom in the human sense is to not know what freedom is.

Cousin Dupree said...

Let alone what it is for.

Nicolás said...

Whoever is liberated from everything that oppresses him soon discovers that he is also liberated from what protects him.