Crowley's describing something I refer to in my head as 'catastrophic partial illumination', which I've seen more than once in the New Age/occultist/kook community. Someone has a mystical experience or intuitive breakthrough, and they return to consensus reality, and it just curdles as they try to hold on to it and glue it back into their reality. I think it may be a sort of secondary failure of error-checking or cognitive robustness.
Somewhat the inverse would be certain people who seem to show many of the signs of schizophrenia, but don't seem to be exactly impaired by it. The artist Jim Woodring is the best example I can think of.
I'd also add 'Lee' to 'Liar, Lunatic, Lord, Legend', as in Marvel Comics' Stan Lee, who created the working method of sketching a plot, handing it off to the artist, and inserting dialogue on the finished pages. In other words, some later jackass came along and put words in Jesus's mouth.
I'll leave out the 'why are you wasting your valuable insight on a tool like CS Lewis', since I always ask that.
Also, Dave Sim, Robert Anton Wilson and Philip K Dick, who all underwent similar experiences, and (in two cases) struggled greatly to make sense of them.
Kary Mullis has gone public about his LSD usage. It might have something to do with the raccoon.
He's used more than LSD. He writes about inventing and testing his own drugs a-la Shulgan.
The Liar leg of the trilemma also falls over very easily , I think. It's entirely possible to be extremely morally upstanding in all but a very few areas of one's activities. Endless scandals are testament to this. People are good at compartmentalising.
(If you're interested in reading thoughtful theists on such matters, Andrew Rilstone
has written on Lewis's Trilemma
. I don't always agree with him - not only is he a Christian, but he also has an inordinate and wholly unjustifiable fondness for folk music and opera - but it's a far better class of argument than one often finds in apologetics.)
Oh, and I forgot the other obvious issue with the trilemma: even if you grant that someone made the claims and teachings of Jesus as presented in the Gospels, and that it is very unlikely that such a person would be delusional or fibbing, you still have to weigh those option up against the probability that they were in fact God, which absent other evidence seems really pretty remote.
2012-12-01 11:16 pm (UTC)
I don't think Jesus fits your definition of a high functioning lunatic. He quits his job as a carpenter and wonders around gathering followers and is so fixated on who he is and his mission that it gets himself killed. I think it is his humility and sober message that proves His sanity. And I don't think He can seriously be considered a liar. He presents no motivation for doing so, not asking for money or power.
First: Nothing "proves your sanity." Weren't you paying attention?
Second: Given that you could, why would humility of all things? "I am nothing before the great Xenu who I receive messages from on my teeth!"
Third: How is Jesus remotely humble? "There's no way to the father but through me," that's about as arrogant as you can get.
"so this natural high from meditation and self-cultivation might have some of the same effects"
Speaking from experience: Yes, very definitively yes. The "induced" episodes are generally more clearly supernatural (God talking to me vs Girlfriend plotting against me), which for *me* makes it much easier to go "Okay, my prior on schizophrenia is pretty high, so this is a delusion".
I once defeated the trilemma by insisting I didn't know whether Jesus was divine and so couldn't choose a leg. The evangelist got frustrated and demanded, "Doesn't it matter to you if he was the Son of God?"
"No. I judge men by what they do, not who their fathers were." Much to the amusement of the entire department.
Did I mention this was my supervisor in the military I was outlogicing? Yeah, he took revenge. But I had my moment.
The biggest problem with quadrilemma is it's way too simplistic. We get stories about Jesus decades or centuries after they "happened" through who knows how many intermediaries, not to mention we have documented cases of editing, eg the apocrypha. Before we can even start to decide whether Jesus was any of the 4, we have to figure out how trustworthy each of those sources are, and to what extent they influence each other. We can't even tell the difference between "legend" and "not" with certainty, so how could we be able to figure out the truth within the "not" spectrum?
"Avoid alliteration, always." It makes you look like a lunatic. Eleventy-one!
Somewhere 'out there' a dissertation on the ways in which Lewis might have defined and contextualised "lunacy" waits. It is possible that his actual understanding was more nuanced and intelligent than apparent in a bit of intentionally populist literature. However one might disagree with him it seems he wasn't a fool.
What is very certain is that the ultra-fundamentalist Christians who try to enact legislation or control society based on their interpretations of belief in Jesus need to consider your arguments very seriously indeed; but the whole situation is neatly ambiguous and our information is incomplete. We will never know if Jesus was a delusional personality, and, if he was, that such claims he is reputed to have made were also false.
Are there other groups of controlling character for whom a similar application of probability testing of initial premises could be applied?
Lewis said something along the lines "it is clear to me Jesus was not a lunatic". I don't think he was being very nuanced there.
Honestly, I can't speak to the other parts of this tetralemma, but the 'Jesus never existed' part always annoys me. My training was as a historian, and to my mind, there are just way too many primary sources from not all that long after the period of his life for Jesus to be straight myth. Especially as not all those sources are biblical or even apocrypha.
Now, this is not to say that Jesus did and said everything the gospels claim he did. As a historian, I would say it was unlikely that the various letter and gospel writers got everything right (even in a culture of oral tradition and memorisation and even setting aside the supernatural elements). In fact, if I'm speaking strictly as a historian, I'd note that it's just plain unlikely that a bunch of people founding a religion would just invent an allegedly real person to put at the center in it. Even if they were being totally cynical (and I'd say the evidence is against that), there were so many would-be Messiahs and prophets lurking around Palestine at that point in time it would make more sense and be easier to create myth around an actual person than invent the person too.
(Of course, as a Christian, I would say that I do believe that Jesus was both a real human and the son of God and that he did say and do approximately the things the New Testament claims, but this is because having been brought up as an Anglican, I can compartmentalise nicely between what I believe as a matter of personal faith and what I feel there is good historical evidence for. And let's not get those two mixed up, especially in our schools, thank you very much.)
I also feel that DSM-IV is being a bit quick to dismiss mystics. I've had one or two brief mystical experiences in my life that I'm pretty certain weren't generated by imagination or biochemistry (I do not, for example, count the rather spectacular auditory hallucination of angelic choirs at midnight mass one Christmas - I was so sleep-deprived on that occasion that I would certainly have hallucinated something appropriate to whatever situation I was in.). They felt more like moments of insight and connection than anything else, and while the specifics did slip away fast, the overall meaning of them stayed with me and actually still worked as insight when analysed in the harsh lights of reality and theology. I still don't quite know what to make of them. But I don't think these moments - which have enriched my inner life but not caused catastrophic change in the rest of my life - ought to be putting me on someone's diagnostic radar.
Which is not to say that I am 100% sane and logical - far from it - but I do think that an overly strict adherence to some of these criteria can risk pathologising things that are not innately unhealthy and may actually have a mild positive effect on people.
Sorry, that got long. The 'no evidence that Jesus existed' thing sets me off every time...
I don't know of any primary sources by someone claiming to have known Jesus. It's all secondhand at best.
One theory I've seen isn't that he was invented as a deliberate lie, but that he started out as a spiritual concept, and later people took the stories as literal stories about a real person rather than a bunch of parables about a spiritual kingdom.
I think examining the details of the delusions Jesus may have had is really interesting.
In fact, I've sometimes gone further, and said that great moral teachers typically have some really weird ideas (probably because everyone does, but people are much more likely to become great moral leaders if they stick to their convictions in the face of people telling them not to).
Never existed would be closer to "myth" (Hercules) rather than "legend" (King Arthur).
Of course, the theory where Jesus never existed but is based on someone real like, say, a historical Mithras would technically count as "legend".
Seems like half the comments here are arguing whether 'legend' means 'pure fiction' or includes 'real person with fictionalized accretions'. Round and bloody round. Well, I tried.
'Lee' isn't that useful a coinage. Most people haven't heard of him, and even for those who have, you're using him unintuitively. A more natural association with him for me would be purely fictional characters, since that's what he wrote. And we already have that sense of 'legend'.
I had a client at the psych hospital with an amazing variety of delusions, one of which centered on being married to Aleister Crowley.