The cult of Chemical Possession

In the good old days you could exorcise someone from evil spirit possession. Sometimes, if the exorciser was a nasty person the possession could be invoked instead.

In these modern days you can exorcise someone from chemical possession. Sometimes, however, if the psychiatrist or doctor is a nasty person then chemical possession can be invoked instead.

Not much difference between the two? These are the philosophical insights of the cult of chemical possession:

By “chemical possession” I mean the belief that certain chemical states in the brain control us against our will. These states are called mental illnesses and are special physical states that, unlike our natural physical states, have powers to suppress natural autonomy. Yes, it is a strange idea, stranger than spirit possession. A psychiatrist can also invoke a chemical possession by giving drugs or applying psychological tricks.

Psychiatry is the cult of chemical possession - the modern, lame version of spirit possession - and the followers of psychiatry, who are many, believe that certain, chemically privileged, states have powers that can influence our autonomy.

Do you think that chemicals can’t affect our consciousness, or that spirits are on the same footing as chemicals?

Psychiatry thinks that bad chemicals affect our consciousness (chemical possession) and good chemicals leave it as it ought to be. Crazy ideas.

I think both chemical and spiritual exorcisms work wonderfully, you could even perform scientific research to prove that both the use of pharmacology and spiritual suggestion work in the same way on the human brain. Its called the Placebo effect.

Only when the the actual pharmaceutical doesn’t alter brain chemistry in some way that is not a direct result of subjective preconceptions. Pharmaceuticals have predictable, verifiable effects on the brain, which follows to the person. Spiritual suggestion has some effect on the person that follows to the brain. For the former, we are convinced of effectiveness by predicted alterations in behavior. For the latter, we convince ourselves of effectiveness by predicting those alterations ourselves.

[Note: By “person” I’m referring to ‘self’, or a person’s ‘character’.]

GREAT post. Demonic possession is vastly underrated. It can be seen as the Force pillar to the Form pillar of psychological pathology-theory. If a man is not sane, we can flatten his life, make it less dangerous for him and his peers, or - make it for an instant more dangerous than his individual madness even - make him stand face to face with priomordial chaos! which is always accessible to the mind, but is almost always repressed, and needs to be drawn out (rather than invoked) by the medicin man.

But this would mean a nasty blow to Doktor Pill, and not just to him. To order in general, to society as a ground for justification.

We always need a dependency of sort -
(need a dependency)
or we would be free to face our oblivion.

Either we are dependent on a process that is willfully, even if perhaps subconsciously stimulated, or we are only dependent on the ultimate reality of our life, which unimaginable, and only enactable in the most terrible ways.

The Shaman came in many forms, incarnation - they were always self-proclaimed messiahs. By the utter unacceptability of such a claim itself is the threshold set - by the acceptance by the people, it is crossed. The Shaman replaces for an intensely challenging moment the Superego, and then destroys himself (the image he had evoked of himself by his mesmerizing activity) and every bit of soul that attached to him, that wanted to be cleansed, that felt shame or guilt.

define ‘ought to be’. like a ‘normal’ person? average? medoicre?
i think we should be looking into ‘chemicals’/combinations of ‘chemicals’/certain ratios of 'chemicals that trancend

more importantly, since it is obvious that these states are unconsciously done through certain tactics, i think we should look into the process of doing it consciously
if not by the person himself (through weakness) then, at least, by someone else ‘invoking’ it

as a tangable example: an inferiority complex with a heavy dose of narcissism can take a person a long way when trying to become a leader

Precisely! - but you didn’t believe the answer! Look.
There are no ought’s to chemical states. But psychiatry imposes a chemical ought to justify a social ought.

Dunno. There’s no point asking me.

politically correct idealism…eh

Alchemy to Chemistry is as Psychiatry to Neuroscience. The cult of psychiatry (APA - a very real cult in every sense) is soon to be replaced by the military controlled field of neuroscience. If we can control their brain’s neurons, we can control what they want and what they believe. Neuroscience is providing many means to remotely control mapped areas of the brain so as to provide unseen influence (the “invisible God”). Neurochemistry is merely one means. There is also Neurophysiology electrophysiology and Behavioral Neuroscience (IBNS). Radio telemetry has more recently become very effective for military use. Every second of media air time is designed to provide influence over the masses.

The word “demon” refers to anything that de-unifies (“mon” means “one”; de-“mon” = de-“monilith” = de-one = divide = split = deunify). The concept is merely that of “united they stand, divided they fall [size=85]under control[/size]”. Military battles depend on dividing the enemy to make them weak. Socialism requires that the lording governors ensure that the masses remain divided and thus controllable. Thus tools must be developed to ensure their ability to do so. It is required to be able to “cast a demon” into others, else one cannot be respected as being the “top dog”. If one person or group cannot do such, another will and thus become the leader.

All social schemes involving an “Us and Them” (class distinction, race distinction, terrorist war, religious war, educated over ignorant) mindset require, in the long run, that one or the other be the controller of the demons and the tools required to cast them into the other group (“The Time Machine” scenario). To be “possessed by a demon spirit” merely means that the brain and/or mind has been infected by something (chemical, radio interference, or misunderstanding) that keeps them from being whole (holy) and united. A group or a single person can be possessed by that which keeps them divided - by that which divides their waters and their seas.

Today, virtually every death is a murder. Every malady, every perversion, and every passion is designed, cast into the population, and controlled remotely by means that were set forth in concept 6000 years ago and have more recently embraced science. The only thing new is the technology more greatly affirming the insanity.

The long confirmed insanity of the conqueror is “keep them weaker than yourself because if you don’t conquer them, they will conquer you”; in body, in spirit, and in knowledge. Such insanity ensures the insanity of all others through the use of those very tools that create division and weakness in others, “divisiveness”.

Yes, “cult” is quite the right word.

Alchemy is an occult science, Chemistry is a physical science, Psychiatry and Neuroscience are social stances.
Demons are non-physical agents, autonomous, that work against life. I don’t see what the point is in stretching the definition to include most about anything that takes our fancy. I’m not much enamoured with the application of psychiatrric terms, like insanity, to human affairs either. it’s just plain wrong.

I don’t see any mileage in the idea that some brain states control us and that other, preferred brain states, don’t. That’s just plain halloween science and not at all an "explanation " for demons.

though i don’t use them like most people, i’m okay with terms like insanity (out of touch with reality…to varying degrees. one can be more insane than another) but i’m not okay with the one-size-fits-all term of ‘sanity’. defining sanity as being in touch with reality, an intelligent person is usally more sane than another. but ,when it comes down to it, it’s irrelivant. more important is (personal) productivity…which has absolutely nothing to do with sanity. though being conscious of what you are doing usually yeilds better results

a person’s (whom i don’t know) happiness (or sadness)doesn’t really have any effect on me and mine. in the case of the 1st percintile rich, it’s actually at my expense.
when it comes to people, it is definitely ‘me and them’. seperate. but united in the fact that, since i am a part of a soceity, it is give and take. push and pull. someone pushing and another pulling with any given circumstance. and if two happen to be pulling from a push, well…it’s always better for the other when one is illiminated

this is common sense. logic isn’t politcally correct

i don’t really like this way of saying it, but we’re controlled by brain states regardless of their groundedness to reality. regardless of their productivity.
just because this way happens to work, doesn’t mean it’s the best way.
just because i’m conscious, doesn’t mean i’m as conscious as i could be.