The Devil and The Matrix Conspiracy
Please allow me to introduce myself
I´m a man of wealth and taste I´ve been around for many a long, long year I´ve stolen many a man´s soul and faith I was around when Jesus Christ had his moments of doubt and pain I made damn sure that Pilate washed his hands and Sealed his fate. I stuck around St. Petersburg When I saw it was time for a change I killed the Tzar and his ministers Anastasia screamed in vain I rode a tank, held a gen´ral´s rank When the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank I watched with glee while your kings and queens Fought for ten decades for the Gods they made I shouted out, “Who killed the Kennedy´s?” When after all it was you and me. Pleased to meet you Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah But what's puzzling you Is just the nature of my game (Woo woo, who who) Just as every cop is criminal And all the sinners, Saints As heads is tails, just call me Lucifer “Cause I´m in need of some restraint.” So if you meet me, have some courtesy Have some sympathy and some taste Use all your well-learned politesse Or I´ll lay your soul to waste. Sympathy for the Devil, by The Rolling Stones
Yes, when you are going to deal with the Devil, it is, to say it mildly, a good idea to know who it is you are dealing with. It might seem hopeless to give a single consistent portrait of His Satanic Majesty. One might expect something more like a pandemonium (“all the demons”) of discordant and contradictory voices (and that´s certainly a part of the game) – though, if you pay careful attention, you´ll find that a strange and chilling consensus somehow emerges from the apparent disorder.
I take no responsibility for any possible misuse of this article, and I recommend strongly against reading passages backwards, or translating any passage into Latin and chanting it aloud. Read, ponder, pray, and choose! The memory of my philosophical journey goes back to when I was 5 years old. Here I started to reflect over, whether life is a dream. This philosophical question has always followed me: whether we sleep, whether we dream this long dream, which is life? Therefore my adolescence has always been accented by a strong wonder over life, and a strong longing after something inexpressible, after something that can´t be satisfied by explanations and interpretations - perhaps a longing after awakening. However, I was never lead to connect this with philosophy, and therefore I first started an actual education in philosophy quite late. Maybe because of another philosophical question that began to haunt me around the age of 7, where I began in school. The question circled around the concept of Hell. The question that puzzled me was: we are told that evil people are being punished in Hell. Is Hell therefore an evil place? Is the devil evil because he punishes evil? Well, he can´t be, right? He might be using some pretty nasty torture methods (or at least, his evil helpers do), but he is only punishing evil people, not good people. If Hell is evil shouldn´t it be a place where evil people are being rewarded, and good people are being punished? But that´s not so. Can you see the paradox here? It led me further into the question: Who is the Devil? What is the nature of his game? Rolling Stones´ masterpiece Sympathy for the Devil is presenting this paradox in the Devil´s game. You could also say that the nature of the game is the concept of the paradoxical itself. As a main name of the paradoxical I have therefore decided to call the Devil Lucifer Morningstar (I will return to this). As a main symbol of the game you could use The Cross of Saint Peter or Petrine Cross. It is an inverted Latin cross traditionally used as a Christian symbol, but in recent times also used as an anti-Christian symbol (that´s the paradox). The Crucifixion of Saint Peter by Caravaggio
The origin of the symbol comes from the Catholic tradition that Simon Peter was crucified upside down, as told by Origen of Alexandria. The tradition first appears in the "Martyrdom of Peter", a fragmented text found in, but possibly predating, the apocryphal Acts of Peter, which was written no later than 200 A.D. It is believed that Peter requested this form of crucifixion as he felt he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner that Jesus died. As such, some Catholics use this cross as a symbol of humility and unworthiness in comparison to Jesus.
According to Roman Catholicism, the pope is Peter's successor as Bishop of Rome. Therefore, the Papacy is often represented by symbols that are also used to represent Peter, one example being the Keys of Heaven and another the Petrine Cross. By inverting the primary symbol of Christianity, the upside-down cross has become popular within anti-religion groups and has appeared in films such as The Masque of the Red Death, Rosemary's Baby, Exorcist: The Beginning, The Exorcism of Emily Rose, Ghost, The Devil Inside, Paranormal Activity, Constantine, Devil, Phoonk, The Omen, The Conjuring, The Conjuring 2, Omen, Annabelle, V/H/S: Viral and Gummo. The inverted cross is also a recurring motif in punk rock, black metal, and heavy metal, where it is embraced as symbol of anti-authoritarianism and defiance (but not necessarily Anti-Christian), and is featured in the iconography of punk-themed fashion label Cheap Monday, hip-hop collective Odd Future, worn by fictional bassist Murdoc Niccals of Gorillaz, one of the symbols associated with synthwave artist Carpenter Brut and throughout the rock opera American Idiot based on the music of Green Day. With the Cross of Saint Peter another (anti-Christian?) rock song is coming to mind. Viva la Vida" ( Spanish: [ˈbiβa la ˈβiða]) is a song by the British rock band Coldplay. It was written by all members of the band for their fourth album, Viva la Vida or Death and All His Friends (2008), and was released as the second single from the album. On the album, this song segues directly into the next track, "Violet Hill". Viva la Vida is Spanish for "Long Live Life" or "May Life Live". It can also mean "Live (the) Life". The song's Spanish title, "Viva la Vida", is taken from a painting by 20th-century Mexican artist Frida Kahlo. In Spanish "viva" is an expression used to acclaim someone or something, so "Long Live Life" is an accurate translation and the painting reflects the artistic irony of acclaiming life while suffering physically. When asked about the album's title, referring to Frida Kahlo's strength, enduring polio, a broken spine, and a decade of chronic pain, lead singer Chris Martin said: "She went through a lot of pain, of course, and then she started a big painting in her house that said 'Viva la Vida', I just loved the boldness of it." During the album's production, "Viva la Vida" was one of the songs that had polarized each member's opinion over which version they should choose. In an interview, Martin recalled: "We did quite a few different versions and went round the houses a bit and eventually settled on those treatments for it." There has been much speculation recently on the “hidden” meaning in the lyrics of Viva La Vida. Penned by Chris Martin, the song has become Coldplay’s biggest hit: "Viva La Vida": I used to rule the world Seas would rise when I gave the word Now in the morning I sleep alone Sweep the streets I used to own I used to roll the dice Feel the fear in my enemy's eyes Listened as the crowd would sing, "Now the old king is dead! Long live the king!" One minute I held the key Next the walls were closed on me And I discovered that my castles stand Upon pillars of salt and pillars of sand I hear Jerusalem bells a-ringing Roman cavalry choirs are singing Be my mirror, my sword and shield My missionaries in a foreign field For some reason I can't explain Once you'd gone there was never Never an honest word And that was when I ruled the world It was a wicked and wild wind Blew down the doors to let me in Shattered windows and the sound of drums People couldn't believe what I'd become Revolutionaries wait For my head on a silver plate Just a puppet on a lonely string Oh who would ever want to be king? I hear Jerusalem bells a-ringing Roman cavalry choirs are singing Be my mirror, my sword and shield My missionaries in a foreign field For some reason I can't explain I know St. Peter won't call my name Never an honest word But that was when I ruled the world Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh [5x] Hear Jerusalem bells a-ringing Roman cavalry choirs are singing Be my mirror, my sword and shield My missionaries in a foreign field For some reason I can't explain I know St. Peter won't call my name Never an honest word But that was when I ruled the world When asked by Q magazine about what he meant by the line “I know Saint Peter won’t call my name” Chris Martin replied: “It’s about… You’re not on the list. I was a naughty boy. It’s always fascinated me that idea of finishing your life and then being analyzed on it. And this idea runs throughout most religions. That’s why people blow up buildings. Because they think they’re going to get lots of virgins. I always feel like saying, just join a band. That is the most frightening thing you could possibly say to somebody. Eternal damnation. I know about this stuff because I studied it. I was into it all. I know it. It’s still mildly terrifying to me. And this is serious.”
So, you could say that this song is perhaps the most brilliant piece of anti-religion, without actually explicitly saying so. But then again: there´s the puzzle about the St. Peter´s cross. In short: here we again have the paradoxical. At some point Chris has stated that he is not sure about the existence of God and has also been quoted as saying “I’m always trying to work out what ‘He’ or ‘She’ is,” also saying “I don’t know if it’s Allah or Jesus or Mohammed or Zeus. But I’d go for Zeus.” In effect Chris has been cagey about his religious affiliation, or lack thereof. You could say the song is about Chris Martin’s view of Hell. He says he does not believe in it but for some reason he writes a song that teaches that it exists. He grew up in a Christian home that believed in Heaven and Hell, but made it clear several years ago that he actually resents those who hold to those same religious dogmatic views he did as a youth. Yet it seems his view on the possibility of an afterlife has changed again. So, just like Mick Jagger, Chris Martin has a sense (at least intuitively) of the paradoxical in the Devil´s game, and are therefore not completely identified with it. But people who have been caught up by the Devil´s game (or are identified with the game) could be called paradoxers. You could also call them Matrix Sophists, because they use thought distortions as a way of getting on in the world (see my article The Matrix Conspiracy, my Pop Culture file The Matrix, and my book A Dictionary of Thought Distortions). In ancient Greek philosophy the Sophists were teachers of rhetoric, who taught their pupils how to win arguments by any means available; they were supposedly more interested in teaching ways of getting on in the world than ways of finding the truth, as Socrates did (Socrates is the archetypal philosopher). In this they used thought distortions. Thought distortions are rooted in the paradoxical. The Matrix Conspiracy is my main term for the strange beliefs, amusing deceptions, and dangerous delusions, which today are manifesting in the outbreak of a culture of self-assertion, where the classical deadly sins have been turned into virtues. Self-assertion is the main tool used in order to keep us in the illusion. The Matrix Sophists are the teachers of self-assertion. The Matrix Sophists play what I will call The Right Hand of Darkness. They play the position of the Ego, or the Sophist´s hand. The task for you, my dear reader, is to try the opposite: To play The Left Hand of Darkness, the negation of the ego, or the philosopher´s hand. The main mover of the Matrix Conspiracy is subjectivism and relativism. You could call subjectivism and relativism for the main Matrix philosophy. I have connected the Matrix Conspiracy with three other known conspiracies. Note that though there might exist groups/societies with these names then I don´t concretely refer to these (The Bilderberg Group does exist). I use the names as metaphors for tendencies in the postmodern Zeitgeist, which otherwise would be very difficult to explain. Also, I don´t think there exists any organized control coming from without; that is; secret societies, or groups of people who are speculating in what I here present. The control is coming from within; it is coming from individuals who share the same ideas, namely that they are free and authentic humans, who help other people to become free and authentic humans (this contain a paradox I will return to). Here is a short introduction, where I only will focus on The 666 Conspiracy: 1. The Bilderberg Group 2. Illuminati 3. The 666 Conspiracy The 666 conspiracy is about Evil´s plot against mankind. Is the third Antichrist among us, and will our worship of him be a sign of Judgment Day? (In my article The four philosophical hindrances and Openings I have investigated the 666 turn in depth). The relevance of this conspiracy has five aspects: A) That some of the subjectivistic and relativistic theories on the universities, which seek to undermine truth (and for instance philosophy and science) are so absurd, that there is nothing behind them than chaos (see my articles Constructivism: The Postmodern Intellectualism Behind New Age and The Self-help Industry, and The Sokal Hoax). B) That ideology is a malfunction in the human mind (see my article The Difference between Philosophical Education and Ideological Education). C) That there is introduced a false spirituality where the main worship is the Ego, contrary to the traditional spiritual directions, where the main goal is the elimination of the Ego (Remember playing The Right Hand of Darkness is equivalent with a position of the ego, playing The Left Hand of Darkness is equivalent with a negation of the ego - see my article The ego-inflation in the New Age and self-help environment). D) That occultism within New Age creates spiritual misguiding, often with deep spiritual crises as a result (see my article Spiritual crises as the cause of paranormal phenomena). E) That the Ego-extreme according to the true spiritual traditions will be contrabalanced by the laws of energy (hybris-nemesis, karma, the will of God, etc., or the Devil as a punisher) This will happen through crises, illness, natural disasters, etc. – see for example my articles What is karma? and Humanistic psychology, self-help, and the danger of reducing religion to psychology. In the following I will present four central paradoxes in the 666 Conspiracy: 1) The Seven deadly sins 2) Politicians Answer 3) The Paradox of the Self-help Industry 4) Good Intensions Bias 1) The Seven Deadly Sins In his book The Good Life the Danish philosopher Mogens Pahuus writes, that if you ask about, what the old Scandinavians saw as the highest and the greatest in life, the ecstasy of life, then the answer would be, that it is self-assertion – the assertion of oneself and the family. He also writes, that you in Christianity find a diametrically opposite view of self-assertion, – both in its Catholic form as in Protestantism. In Saint Gregory and Thomas of Aquinas haughtiness/pride/self-assertion was the first and greatest of the seven so-called deadly sins. And in Luther self-assertion nor was a goodness, but the vice over all vices. It is the seven deadly sins Dante in The Devine Comedy must look in the eyes one after one, in order to be able to progress. He must use the discrimination, which is the purification process, where you look your destiny in the eyes and do penance after having realized how your perspective distorts reality (I will return to Dante). So, self-assertion is a vice. Self-assertion is a kind of self-interest, where everything turns around the Ego, and therefore makes the mind mediocre. To live in a world, which is controlled by self-assertion, without being self-assertive, means, truly, to love something for its own sake, without seeking a reward, a result; but this is very difficult, because the whole world, all your friends, your relatives, struggle to achieve something, to accomplish something, to become something. Today self-assertion once again is considered as a virtue. The gurus are the many advocates for the market and the economical competition, as for instance several management theorists. And the education-instrument is the personal development movement. The disciples are the consumers; that will say, that this outlook of life obviously is shared by most people in our society: that it is about becoming something, to get success, to conquer a place on the top of the mountain, to become a winner. Mogens Pahuus believes that the modern ideal about becoming a success, a winner, is a perverted ideal. The society praises a self-assertion, which has gone over the top, and there dominates a self-assertion, which is a vice, because it both spoils the life of the self-assertive, and the lives of those, whom the self-assertive measures himself in relation to, and whom he wants to overpass. Pahuus mentions some of the forms of self-assertion: 1) Vanity, which is a vice, because the vain-full always is bearing in mind, how he or she looks like, or is considered like, in the eyes of others. 2) Ambition, which is a vice, because you here constantly are on the way forward, or upwards. 3) Haughtiness, which is a vice, because you here, in your feeling of own superior value, look down at others, are letting others feel their inferiority; that is: because haughtiness is unethical. But also in the arrogant himself, haughtiness is destructive: it isolates. 4) Joy of power. The ethical seen most violating form of self-assertion is the joy of having power over others, of controlling others, or oppressing them. Pahuus quotes Alfred Adler and says that the above-mentioned forms of self-assertion are attack-characterized. But there also exists a non-attack characterized form, as for instance the hostile isolation, anxiety and bashfulness, which you see in the Underground Man in Dostojevskij´s small novel Notes from an Underground. The vice (the paradox) in the different forms of self-assertion is that it leads to an unreal life. 2) Politicians answer A kind of irrelevance which is often encountered when politicians are interviewed on radio or television. It is a rhetorical technique by which they avoid giving direct answers to questions which they don´t really want to answer in public. Instead of giving a direct answer to a direct question, the politician delivers a short (or sometimes quite long) speech on a related topic. The trick is to make the speech internally coherent; thus the politician seems to give a confident and plausible performance in response to what should be probing questions. This diversionary tactic allows him or her to avoid giving an honest response to a potentially damaging question and also provides air time for a short party political broadcast. It is a kind of economy with the truth. Unfortunately, this technique is not confined to politicians (from whom we have come to expect devious face-saving rhetorical techniques) but is used by many other people in responsible positions who want to avoid facing up to their responsibilities. The paradox of hypocrisy. Avoiding taking responsibility is as old as mankind. The Western civilization has from Christianity inherited and taken over a very characteristic religious world-image. Sex is sin. Sex is in the highest a necessary evil you in the safe, god-guaranteed and eternal-made institution of marriage have to give way to. And God is good. God is creative. Unfortunately we have in this religious world-image got the Devil, the evil, the destructive, and the sexual weaved together. Therefore the destructive, the subversive, has become overlooked. It doesn´t belong to the productive nature of God. But because it is such evident a fact, you have to do something about it. We have then suitable handed the destructive over to the Devil, who is a fallen angel, an outcast and unhappy, without possibility for salvation and redemption. The danger is, that when sexuality and destruction are excluded from the divine – and herewith from the spiritual dimension – then people are tempted, in powerlessness, to run away from their responsibility. And that is precisely what mankind do. Wars, torture, anger, atomic bombs, chemical war, plague-weapons. No one have the responsibility. All of it makes it difficult to assign responsibility. And the result is, that no responsible is taking care of destructivity. It rambles wrestless around, un-released, demonized. Everybody is afraid of this destructive evil, but no one takes the responsibility for his own anger. The feminist scholar and author Daphne Patai is the inspiration to my thesis about the development of a new Puritanism within radical feminism, where traditional religious confession-techniques have been transformed into psychotherapy (see my article The new feminism and the philosophy of women´s magazines). This new Puritanism has also from Christianity inherited and taken over the above-mentioned characteristic religious world-image, that sex is sin. Sex is in the highest a necessary evil. Therefore the destructive, the subversive, again is becoming overlooked. Because, since it is such evident a fact, the radical feminists have to do something about it. Like in Christianity they have therefore suitable handed the destructive over to the Devil. And in this world-image they have got the Devil, the evil, the destructive, and the sexual weaved together. There are namely a painful irony (paradox) in the fact, that our days feminists so uncritical have affiliated the methods, which psychotherapists and hypnotherapists pretend can uncover repressed memories from childhood about sexual abuse and more bizarre things such as satanic rituals, cannibalistic orgies, alien abduction, past lives etc. In this way they paradoxically come to remind about earlier times´ Christian inquisitions, a kind of psycho-religious inquisitions (see my articles The devastating New Age turn within psychotherapy, and Hypnosis, hypnotherapy and the art of self-deception). Another way of running away from responsibility is in the positive psychology of the New Thought movement, and therefore in the whole of the self-help industry, where they train people in ignoring and avoiding negativity; for example in the typical advices about removing “negative” words such as guilt, shame, etc., from your vocabulary. The paradox arises when you ask what the positive then is: Money, fame, success, sex, power. It´s ending in an ego-worship of a monstrosity seldom seen, and in claims that not only are unethical, but directly evil. You can of course have this as a philosophy, but the abnormity arises because they claim they have found the true secret what spirituality is about, namely love; that is: self-love. A word they directly use. Can you see what they not can see? It´s the direct opposite of what spirituality is about (read my article The New Thought Movement and the Law of Attraction). A third way is in the heredity and environment ideology. If Man only is a product of heredity and environment, then he has no longer any responsibility for his actions. Even the murderer, who is standing accused in court, is able to defend himself with that he basically can´t help that he has committed a murder. Firstly he was born with some unfortunate genes which did that he wasn’t all too clever. Therefore he was bullied in the school, and thereby he was developed to become aggressive and hot tempered. All this caused that he in a certain situation committed a murder, but this he could not help. Heredity and environment led him precisely to this situation. Guilty? No, many people would say today, he is no more guilty than a person is to blame, that he came to cough in a place filled with smoke. No, on the whole it is society and environment, which are to blame for the murder. When you are advocating a reductionism and are claiming, that Man is nothing else than for example a product of heredity and environment, then concepts such as responsibility, guilt and duty lose all meaning. And it becomes meaningless to talk about human ideals. Why admire people, who have achieved something great? They have only good genes and a beneficially environment. Why condemn people, who spoil and break down society? They can´t help it (read more about this in my article The Pseudoscience of Reductionism and the Problem of Mind). 3) The Paradox of the Self-help Industry In my first book Meditation as an art of life – a basic reader I presented what I call the four philosophical hindrances and openings in towards the Source (again: see my article The Four Philosophical Hindrances and Openings). I presented them in order to show what I think characterizes the spiritual practice, as it exists in all the traditional wisdom traditions. Ever since I have become increasingly puzzled over, how the self-help industry - which claims to work in accordance with spirituality - is turning this upside down. The paradox is that while the self-help industry is claiming to create the authentic, autonomous, resource-filled and competent human being, at the same time is doing the exact opposite: it is making people dependent of therapists, coaches, others´ ideas and ideals; making them modeling and imitating so-called successful people, etc., etc. 4) Good intentions Bias Good intentions bias is a variation of the thought distortion Ad hominem move. It has to do with the paradoxical in when people in the name of the good, actually are doing the exact opposite: namely evil. Today we all can recognize this in connection with terror organizations such as Islamic State. We have probably all been puzzled over this paradox. Good Intensions Bias for example occurs when people confuse a critic´ s attack on a person´s opinions with an attack on this person´s good intentions (or other nice personality traits), which lead them to blaiming the critic for falsely assigning bad motives to the person´s good intentions. This blaim can then continue into moralizing, even defaming, Ad hominem moves towards the critic´s person. It is also a construction of a Strawman, because the critic would very likely just answer that he is agreeing that the person has good intentions, but that this is irrelevant for the problems he has discovered in the person´s opinions. So, people´s good intentions are irrelevant to whether a critique of the people´s opinions is valid or not. The Good Intentions Bias is a way of shifting attention from person´s opinions to some irrelevant postulates about the person´s good intentions. In other words: a person´s good intentions are not the factor, that makes this person´s opinions valid. It is the person´s argumentation for his opinions that makes them valid or invalid. The bias is easily seen by looking at the big scoundrels of history, for exampel Stalin, Hitler or Mussolini. These persons had very likely good intentions, and were probably even looked at as nice persons by their family or friends. As a proverb says: The road to hell is paved with good intentions. You might say that any reasonable person would agree that these persons´ good intentions don´t make their opinions valid. But there are subjectivistic and relativistic opinions where good intentions are the basic of their ethics, for example in the movement of positive psychology, which claim that it is the good intentions that make opinions true. The advocates are in this way demonstrating a lack of ability to discriminate between critique of opinions and the persons who put forward these opinions. And here they show a real problem with ethics. Anyway, if you are a reasonable person then remember: Whether you are going to criticize someone, or you yourself are being criticized, or another person, whom you like - or just opinions, which you are in favour for - are being criticized, always remember to discriminate between the critique of opinions, and the persons who put forward these opinions. Like the Ad hominem move Good intentions bias is a very widespread bias among psychologists, psychotherapists and subjectivists, when they are participating in public discussions. But, but! Sympathy for the Devil is the hell preacher´s hint of the only way out. The Ego has to descend down into the deep of evil, has to take it seriously, see it in the eyes, realize and feel, that evil is in there. The Ego has to learn to get on with its complex, instead of avoiding/ignoring it as the New Thought movement is advising people to do. In short: you need to understand the nature of the game. So, there are a whole host of philosophical issues surrounding the Devil. There are metaphysical issues regarding the existence and nature of the Devil, Hell, and evil; epistemological issues concerning knowledge and belief in the Devil and other immaterial beings, logical issues pertaining to the Father of All Lies who tricks and deceives people into believing false claimsf and fallacious, irrational reasoning; ethical issues about devilish behaviour, resisting the Devil, and even the possibility of a demon remaining a demon while abiding by moral principles; issues on political philosophy having to do with devilish democracies and the wickedness of injustice. There are straightforward as well as subtle distinctions that can be made between the Judeo-Islamic-Christian conception of the Devil and Satan – and other demonic, evil figures – as many have done throughout history. For example, the German bishop and theologian, Peter Binsfeld (around 1540-1603), divvied up demons according to the seven deadly sins: Lucifer as the demon associated with pride; Satan with anger; Beelzebub with gluttony; Asmodeus with lust; Leviathan with envy; mammon with greed; and Belphegor with sloth. And most of us have heard of, and read, John Milton´s (1608-1674) Paradise Lost (1667) where he equates Satan with Lucifer, who´s aided by other demons such as Beelzebub, Belial, Mammon and Moloch. In most cases, throughout this book the Devil, Satan, and Lucifer refer to the same being. Yes, when dealing with the Devil, it´s a good idea to know who you´re dealing with. When you start thinking about all the names we use to identify his Royal Evilness – Satan, Beelzebub, the Lord of the Flies, Lucifer, just to name a few – it´s easy to confuse them. In fact, you might even get them wrong! After all, if you simply must sell your soul for talent, fame, sex, or some other fun (though fleeting) amusement, you wouldn´t want to make the mistake of selling it to one of his low-level minions (which actually are the ones we have equipped with the most scary features). So pick up your fiddle, put on your fire-resistant undies, and let´s figure out who exactly is who downstairs. Because in naming them, we might come to know their nature – for better or worse! Keep in mind that we´re dealing with a pretty powerful idea. Sometimes we forget what power names have. We´re told that summoning a demon requires knowing its name (not that that ever goes well!). But even just in our day-to-day lives think about how powerful a name can be. If you have access someone´s name, you have access to them. So, as we consider these names, we have to realize that names are somewhat fundamental – they determine what something is. In fact, I´d be willing to argue that what name we use for the devil determines whether or not he´s a good guy, or a bad guy. There´s also the question of where the different categories of demons lives. Dante Aligheri (1265-1321) wrote The Divine Comedy. The only part of the book that anyone seems to care to remember is the “Inferno.” In the Inferno, Dante writes that he is given a tour of Hell, which has nine levels. Each level corresponds to worse and worse sins starting with Limbo (which isn´t as fun as it sounds) and ending with Treachery, the worst of sins. Between the two you find Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Anger, Heresy, Violence, and Fraud. And in each level of Hell, sinners are found being tormented in the way most appropriate. Those who indulge in lust, for example, are eternally buffeted by a horrible storm representing their inability to control their naughty urges. Today, Dante´s Inferno most often brings to our mind a pretty awesome video game where Dante has to battle the demons of Hell to save his lost love. The original Dante´s Inferno gives some interesting information about its demonic inhabitants. In the Eighth Level the Malebranche (Evil Claws) can be found – you´ll love this – keeping the politicians boiling in a lake of super-heated tar. The leader of these demons is named Malacoda (meaning “Evil-Tail,” which is a good deal less intimidating a name that one would hope for an archdemon). Malacoda and his evil troop are pretty darned evil and they do their damnedest to trick Dante and his guide Virgil, hoping to capture them in Hell for eternity. Thankfully, our heroes manage to escape. As mentioned, Peter Binsfeld, the German bishop, put together his classification of the big bad guys according to the seven deadly sins. These seven princes of Hell, answering to the Devil himself, tempt humans with the sins. Notice that many of the names Binsfeld uses are names that we generally treat as interchangeable with “The Devil.” But back in the day different names were often used to identify different entities. For example, the Hebrews did not identify the serpent of the Garden of Eden with the Devil, and they did not believe in Hell in the same way many Christians do today. Satan was, to the Hebrews, often described as “the adversary.” We assume that means God´s adversary. But many Hebrews believed it was the role the angel was given, to be our adversary. Basically, you could think of Satan as the prosecutor in God´s trial of your life. That actually explains my own puzzle over the nature of Hell, as a seven year old boy, starting in school for the first time. I will therefore advice you, my reader, to follow this thread. Surely naming can´t have an impact on our view of incarnate evil. Well, I beg to differ! If we can find a way to make a mass-murdering, genocidal, slave-trading maniac (Christopher Columbus) a national hero, we can find a way to make our red-bottomed foe not such a bad guy. We´ve already hinted at one way doing this. The Devil, to the Hebrews, was known as “the adversary.” He didn´t choose to take up the mantle of prosecutor (or persecutor); he was appointed that task as an angel. The Hebrew translation of Satan´s name makes him sound far more like our opponent than the incarnate evil opponent of God. In fact, it makes him sound like the guy who´s doing God´s bidding by prosecuting those who deserve it. But the naming problem gets even worse. “Lucifer,” today, is synonymous with the Devil, though it has not always been. The translation of Lucifer means “bringer of light.” It was a reference to the morning star that comes right before the dawn. The “Lu” in “Lucifer” shares with it words like luminous, luminescent, and lumens, all words meaning “light.” If we look at the book of Genesis, the fall of Lucifer is the verbal equivalent of “light-bringing.” And what happens as a result of Lucifer´s fall? Well, we´re all damned, but also, we´re granted knowledge: tremendous knowledge of Good and Evil. In other words, the darkness of our minds is illuminated! I would guess, seen in that light, that the truest name of the Devil is: Lucifer Morningstar. So, the ego´s complex is there, it requires a name, it wants voice, time, awareness. If not, it destroys the consciousness and drowns the world in pollution and violence. Remember: Who killed the Kennedys? When after all it was you and me. The Devil is never doing the evil, he tempts us, etc., but it is us who do the evil (in the same way as his discarnate low-level minions, which just are some lowly imps compared to the arch demon himself). And in every case where Lucifer is accused of temptation, he´s really just imploring humans to act freely rather than submitting always to the will of some kind of authority. So. maybe it´s yourself you need to look into, when seeking the name of the Devil. All for now. Well played, my dear reader! Pleased to meet you. Thank you for your sympathy, taste, and well-learned politesse. You are free to go! But you are also free to stay. Make your choice! - “LCF”
I will continue the discussion about the Devil in my Pop Culture File on Dracula:
The Pop Culture Files |
|