|
A Word or Two on Mental Fitness
January 2018
Recently, and entirely predictably given certain developments, there has been much discussion in the US mainstream media about mental fitness. Yet for all the effusion of words there does not appear to be anyone willing or able to get to the heart of the matter.
The problem with this notion, apart from the glaring and often amusing inadequacy of the accusers, is that in the absence of a neurological handicap the judgment is necessarily a subjective one even if the one making the judgment is a doctor, a psychiatrist or a psychologist. In other words it is objectively groundless. Despite that, one is inclined to wonder if the inherent arbitrariness of such pronouncements is entirely clear to those listening in? I rather doubt it in many cases. And no doubt that is what those who make them are counting on. Otherwise the most appropriate response is not conformity to the accuser's mindset or wishes (which is precisely what he is hoping for truth be told), but laughter. Followed perhaps by scorn if the outrage persists.
 |
One is inclined to wonder if the inherent arbitrariness of such pronouncements is entirely clear to those listening in? I rather doubt it in many cases. And no doubt that is what those who make them are counting on. Otherwise the most appropriate response is not conformity to the accuser's mindset or wishes (which is precisely what he is hoping for truth be told), but laughter. Followed perhaps by scorn if the outrage persists.
Please just try to understand this. It matters not what your opinion is of any particular politician or public figure, be he truly a capable man or a fool, an honest man or a deceiver, a brave man or a coward; make no mistake: the qualities of real leadership - talent, integrity and courage to name a few - are always exceptional, not common, all the more so when multiple virtues are combined in the one man. All such men, historically, have been exceptional men. As such moreover, they are often subject in this world to extreme conditions and pressures that the ordinary person has no idea about and can only guess at. Therefore if we permit ourselves to be made subject, be it even only psychologically, to the subjective judgments, standards and, God help us, recommendations, of the mediocre, the dull, the dim-witted, the lukewarm, the corrupt, the cowardly and the effeminate, no matter how apparently "educated", erudite or eminent these latter may be, from whence then will come our true teachers and guides? And what faith will we have in them when they do?
What dastardly arrogance and hubris is this! To set ourselves up subjectively as the judge of another man's mental fitness, even, as is the case with psychiatry, unto summarily locking him up against his will and seeking to destroy his brain with the neuro-toxins he is forced to ingest as "medicine". And this even when no crime has been committed. I assure you that many of God's people have been persecuted in this way, especially when they are first emerging from ignorance (spiritual birth). The Beast hopes to devour (assimilate) them as they surface, before they have availed themselves of the full armour of God (spiritual maturity). But can we not see the dire implications of this for all? Can we not see the implications for our freedoms and civil liberties, for the quality, richness, integrity and value of our culture beyond lowest-common-denominator pandering and degeneracy? In fact there can be no real liberty for anyone while this state of affairs is allowed to persist. It takes intelligence to perceive this.
 |
| Above: Massacre of the Innocents (II) by Poussin. Soon after Jesus was born King Herod ordered every male child under two in the vicinity of Bethlehem to be put to the sword, so threatened was he by the coming of the true King. Today's despots are of much the same spiritual stock as Herod, though they are compelled to be more sneaky and cunning (and sophisticated) about their atrocities. |
Surely we understand that if we permit even one man among us to be judged falsely, be it "professionally" or otherwise, we permit it for all, at least in principle. The same false measuring stick can then be applied to anyone, arbitrarily, at least to some extent, including to those capable and willing to provide the real leadership we so desperately need and who therefore pose the greatest threat to the false arbiter. And rest assured, such an arbiter makes it his business to be aware of such threats, sometimes even long before those who pose them are aware of themselves as such ....
But come now gentlemen, really! What business is it of ours another man's "mental fitness"? Has he accomplished the task he has been entrusted with? Has he done so without imposing illegitimately on others? Is he making sense? These are our legitimate concerns, not his so-called "mental fitness", appraised subjectively. Let us not presume knowledge we do not and cannot possess, simply because we find it convenient to do so. And if you think we ought to make an exception for those calling themselves doctors or psychiatrists I suggest you read the article here. Now.
Do you judge a tree by a neighbour's arbitrary opinion of it or by the fruit it bears? Similarly, let a man be judged objectively, simply and honestly, by his deeds or his misdeeds, by his capacity for reason, by his actual ability and the results of his work, and even then only in so far as it is really another man's business to do so; not by the entirely subjective opinion and consensus (feigned or otherwise) of self important asses posing as learned or scientific, or more to the point, the tyrants who hold their bridles. (You know who you are!)
Such is our current disorder that we permit this, our shallowness and effeminacy, fostered and exacerbated in large part by our addiction in recent times to TV and cinema and other forms of superficial media, that is, media ultra-constrained by time and space, and motivated and shaped in large part by the desire for audience capture, retention and manipulation. We put far too much store by mere words and impressions, by shallow emotions and passing fancies; by the sensational. Yet what significance have these without deeds to underpin them and life to give them context?
|
Understanding is deeper than words. It can exist deeply in a man though he be completely unable or unequipped to articulate it. It matters not. The articulation of wisdom is not necessary to the possession of it. Therefore let us not be overly impressed by mere eloquence or the lack of it. After all, to seek to impress others with the appearance of learning has long been the refuge of scoundrels.
The deeper issue here is that we have lost sight of the difference between value and the mere appearance of it. Most fundamentally we have lost sight of the difference between wisdom and literacy (specialisation), so impressed are we by the latter while lacking almost entirely in the former. Yet literacy without real wisdom is just an empty shell, as nutritionally useless to the soul as an egg shell is to the body.
Consider. If a man were to try to impart wisdom to us by couching it in terms of psychology or philosophy or science or some other form of mode-du-jour rhetoric would it have any more value than if he were to attempt the same by telling a story about the birds of the air, the fish in the sea, the oil in our lamps or the wine in our wineskins? Actually it is not the form of the message that ultimately matters, or the designated titles or self importance of the listeners, or even the relative simplicity of their circumstances as the case may be, but the actual ability to understand and partake of the principle; the principle that comes wrapped up in the word exactly like a spirit comes wrapped up in a body. It is the spirit that ultimately counts, not the body.
Therefore let us pay attention not so much to the messenger, but to the message; not so much to the doer but to the deed; and not so much to the method of delivery but to the gift that is delivered. For the Gift of God is always the same though the mode of delivery may change.
Again consider. What value has it if I have diligently learned the currently fashionable jargon (or demeanour) required for me to be taken seriously in superficially learned circles, if in truth I understand nothing it has to convey with any real depth of insight? (Presuming it has anything of real value to convey in the first place.) In fact the man with little or no literacy or specialised knowledge who has nonetheless understood the principle of an evocative yet simple story, or an old proverb or turn of phrase, has in that regard greater learning in truth than he who has understood nothing of the principle of a message though he be a master of the rhetoric in which it is couched. It is only a fool that is impressed by the latter. For the core principle is ultimately wordless, formless. What use then the dry musings of learned ignorance, or even the elevated abstractions of learned wisdom, if we remain lacking in the insight that is ultimately independent and transcendent to it?
Please just try to understand, this is so important. The mark of quality of the understanding of the listener to wisdom is that the principle becomes thenceforth deeply a part of his life, not merely another appendage to his verbal bag of tricks and associated delusions (for sale to the highest bidder, of course). He has heard and he has understood. He sees the advantage or the disadvantage of certain courses of action to his life. It is not a question of blind faith or belief or mere abstraction. (What use are these after all, except perhaps to begin with?) He sees the objective fact, and is transformed by it. Not as part of an artificial value system that teaches him to adopt modes of behaviour so that he might be rewarded shallowly and temporarily, or so that he might avoid a similar quality of punishment or deprivation. He sees the deeper value system that is inherent both to himself and to all and which is the very heart of wisdom; wisdom that sets him free and affords him advantages that last forever, for they are now an inalienable part of him.
It matters not if his understanding has any words to it. Understanding is deeper than words. Please do see this! It can exist deeply in a man though he be completely unable or unequipped to articulate it. It matters not. The articulation of wisdom is not necessary to the possession of it. (Not all are called to articulate.) Therefore let us not be overly impressed by mere eloquence or the lack of it. After all, to seek to impress others with the appearance of learning has long been the refuge of scoundrels.
For ultimately you know, we do not teach what we say, or even necessarily what we do. We teach what we are, sometimes with the help of word and deed, but often too in spite of them.
But not on a full stomach .... See also (via the same link) "The Bottom Line": a 3 minute crash course in psychiatry statistics to make your skin crawl.
"Psychiatry: Science or Fraud?"
It's 1972. Four mental health professionals, a psychology graduate, a pediatrician, a painter, a housewife and a psychology professor walk off the street into various psychiatric hospitals in the US pretending to be hearing voices. Immediately institutionalized by all the hospitals bar none they then return to their normal behaviour. Will any of the psychiatrists on the hospital staff spot the deception? What happens next will shatter any illusions you may have about psychiatry forever ....
Meanwhile, more psychological sleight of hand from the usual sources ....
While it has long been a strategy of charlatans and tyrants to bamboozle the simple-minded into submission with specious displays of learning, in our current era of false flag deception and psychological sleight-of-hand the converse is also true.
There are many who provide commentary to articles and clips on the internet for instance who deliberately express themselves with conspicuously over-the-top bad grammar, vulgarity, crass language (suggestive of hatefulness) and profanity, in apparent support of a message that they actually wish to undermine or discredit.
The desired effect is to mix up the repulsion that readers may feel about the way the apparent endorsement is expressed, with their feelings about the message itself. In fact the effect can be achieved in a number of ways, but the principle in all cases is to make the "commentator" appear to belong to a group or type which natural supporters of a viewpoint or argument might find, for one reason or another, repugnant. (The effect is similar psychologically to that achieved by phony or spurious polling results.)
I have seen key content on the internet where the comment sections are all but dominated by such phony commentary while even a cursory glance at some of the authentic contributions reveals that, in fact, much of the real public input has been ommitted.