Proof Katrina Act of God
Proving that Katrina is an Act of God is a psychological truth:
Metaphysical Checkmate
I once heard a colleague, Martin C. Dillon, expound a notion of “psychological truth” somewhat as follows (as I remember it): A proposition (thought, idea) is psychologically true for a person if they are driven to compulsively deny it. (“Methinks thou doth protest too much.”). Perhaps they bring it up, themselves, or get prompted to do so by a look or an allusion, but out it pops. This shows the thought is present as a mental content which prompts the person to defend -- as if others might accuse them of it. Thus, what others would, indeed, be justified in accusing them of is proved by their denying it. It is psychologically true of them that they ‘have’ this idea, though it is automatically disowned if consciously brought up; BUT/and, in fact, IS brought up IN ORDER TO DO SO ! (act out the denial)
This is similar to the psychodynamic pattern in sign-use analyzed by Freud called “reaction formation”, invoked in standard cases in defense against blows rained on naughty children’s heads by abusive adults, especially (some) Fathers of old. As in “Don’t hit, me, God!” – and bringing up how good little boys and girls we be if only…the punishment for our rebellious, sinful way of being don’t fall. This makes psychological truths those which persons deny because their conscious acceptance as true would lead to punishment, in fact or fantasy, by “God” (the ‘ego-ideal’ or ‘super-ego’ content). The all-pervasiveness of this tendency in human affairs of nations a groups marks it as a pre-Oedipal ego-defense mechanism, but overlaid by and cathected through the later terror-anxiety of anal rape picked up, retrogressively applied in male Father-love perversion, real or fantasized, at the unconscious level. Cf. the psychopathology of the Daniel Schreber case analyzed by Freud.
Let the accusation be: Katrina is an act of God punishing America: for its destruction of Iraq. For the mentality of those responsible, that enabled and drove the process. To wit: neocon (Zionista; some say Zionazi) Republicans.
Let the argument be: From the use of signs (words and pictures) in communication. What hurricane Katrina was, and did, qualifies as an act of God, if anything does or ever did. If “God” stands for an arbiter of justice, tilting a balance-scale scale against those who build their pleasure palaces on sand and coastline mud in subsidence, the destructive effect of decimating U.S. Gulf oil supply matches, as payback, the rapacious, sinful lying subterfuge of taking Iraq’s.
For those who take eclipses as signs, the October 3 interposition of the Moon between Earth and Sun makes these events perceptible also in cosmic zodiacal terms. If Katrina is an act of God, it becomes a historical event etched in horoscope charts connecting Monday’s eclipse, in Libra, with the beginning of a rare, symbolically powerful retrograde movement of Mars in Taurus. These signs mark “The Times Th(at)ey Are a-Changin..” Let us remember them. Other connected dates through this chart: 1311, l973,1986, l990/1, 2000, 2005.
If I am not mistaken, this meshing of Dillon’s notion of “psychological truth” -- if it is his -- and the case for predicating “act of God” of the terrible devastation of America’s Gulf coast, creates a formal, necessary proposition – proven to be so by the urge (compulsion) to deny it. It is an inescapable and implacable indictment of what they are in/by/for history. To say “Katrina is not an act of God” is to either deny it’s qualifications, as unfitting (as if other events were better cases); or deny that such an act would not be justified on the scales of cosmic justice, given what the US has done to Iraq.
What gives this notion of ‘psychological truth’ logical importance is its connection with the definition of formal truth (tautologies and mathematical statements) as that which the denial is self-contradictory. This criterion (“P is necessarily true iff –P iff (P & -P)”). When “self-contradiction” is given through the token, not the text, it becomes the existential position of self-hatred. Those who use “we”, with “God”, “Iraq”, “America”, are those who have split-off, externalized, now confronting them as enemies everywhere, because it is the other side of their psychotic personality which they cannot deny without admitting. An “enemy” that is fed by fighting it. When fighting it is all there is left to do.
Metaphysical checkmate.
Metaphysical Checkmate
I once heard a colleague, Martin C. Dillon, expound a notion of “psychological truth” somewhat as follows (as I remember it): A proposition (thought, idea) is psychologically true for a person if they are driven to compulsively deny it. (“Methinks thou doth protest too much.”). Perhaps they bring it up, themselves, or get prompted to do so by a look or an allusion, but out it pops. This shows the thought is present as a mental content which prompts the person to defend -- as if others might accuse them of it. Thus, what others would, indeed, be justified in accusing them of is proved by their denying it. It is psychologically true of them that they ‘have’ this idea, though it is automatically disowned if consciously brought up; BUT/and, in fact, IS brought up IN ORDER TO DO SO ! (act out the denial)
This is similar to the psychodynamic pattern in sign-use analyzed by Freud called “reaction formation”, invoked in standard cases in defense against blows rained on naughty children’s heads by abusive adults, especially (some) Fathers of old. As in “Don’t hit, me, God!” – and bringing up how good little boys and girls we be if only…the punishment for our rebellious, sinful way of being don’t fall. This makes psychological truths those which persons deny because their conscious acceptance as true would lead to punishment, in fact or fantasy, by “God” (the ‘ego-ideal’ or ‘super-ego’ content). The all-pervasiveness of this tendency in human affairs of nations a groups marks it as a pre-Oedipal ego-defense mechanism, but overlaid by and cathected through the later terror-anxiety of anal rape picked up, retrogressively applied in male Father-love perversion, real or fantasized, at the unconscious level. Cf. the psychopathology of the Daniel Schreber case analyzed by Freud.
Let the accusation be: Katrina is an act of God punishing America: for its destruction of Iraq. For the mentality of those responsible, that enabled and drove the process. To wit: neocon (Zionista; some say Zionazi) Republicans.
Let the argument be: From the use of signs (words and pictures) in communication. What hurricane Katrina was, and did, qualifies as an act of God, if anything does or ever did. If “God” stands for an arbiter of justice, tilting a balance-scale scale against those who build their pleasure palaces on sand and coastline mud in subsidence, the destructive effect of decimating U.S. Gulf oil supply matches, as payback, the rapacious, sinful lying subterfuge of taking Iraq’s.
For those who take eclipses as signs, the October 3 interposition of the Moon between Earth and Sun makes these events perceptible also in cosmic zodiacal terms. If Katrina is an act of God, it becomes a historical event etched in horoscope charts connecting Monday’s eclipse, in Libra, with the beginning of a rare, symbolically powerful retrograde movement of Mars in Taurus. These signs mark “The Times Th(at)ey Are a-Changin..” Let us remember them. Other connected dates through this chart: 1311, l973,1986, l990/1, 2000, 2005.
If I am not mistaken, this meshing of Dillon’s notion of “psychological truth” -- if it is his -- and the case for predicating “act of God” of the terrible devastation of America’s Gulf coast, creates a formal, necessary proposition – proven to be so by the urge (compulsion) to deny it. It is an inescapable and implacable indictment of what they are in/by/for history. To say “Katrina is not an act of God” is to either deny it’s qualifications, as unfitting (as if other events were better cases); or deny that such an act would not be justified on the scales of cosmic justice, given what the US has done to Iraq.
What gives this notion of ‘psychological truth’ logical importance is its connection with the definition of formal truth (tautologies and mathematical statements) as that which the denial is self-contradictory. This criterion (“P is necessarily true iff –P iff (P & -P)”). When “self-contradiction” is given through the token, not the text, it becomes the existential position of self-hatred. Those who use “we”, with “God”, “Iraq”, “America”, are those who have split-off, externalized, now confronting them as enemies everywhere, because it is the other side of their psychotic personality which they cannot deny without admitting. An “enemy” that is fed by fighting it. When fighting it is all there is left to do.
Metaphysical checkmate.
posted by Sid Thomas | 3:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home