Solo

Thanks, BA.

Solo

The crack about God and the dice was specifically arguing against Heisenberg, who said God did play. There is an interesting summary here of the clash between Einstein's relativity and Heisenberg's uncertainty. Heisenberg points out to Einstein that the idea that only observable quantities can be measured was directly informing his own General Theory of Relativity. Einstein cooly shoots back that while it is true he taught it, it is nonsense nonetheless.

It is interesting to note that only a year or two before Heisenberg published his theory, extending the logic of Einstein, the neo-Kantian philosopher Ernst Cassirer (Einstein's Theory of Relativity, 1923) warned that the "relativity" paradigm naturally invites blurring of the standards of objectivity and intruduction of subjective categories that replace natural, unchanging relationships between empirical sensory processing and cognition, with complex abstract schemes based on 'pure mathematics'. The relativity model invites physicists to live inside their heads, so to speak.

Back Again

If I'm not mistaken, Heisenberg's experimental uncertainty merely foreshadowed "quantum weirdness". Heisenberg's problem was that when one shortened the wavelength of a "probe" to more accurately measure the position of something, they simultaneously were increasing the "probe's" energy which disrupted the system more and made velocity calculations less accurate.

He presented this as an experimental dilemma. The implications that an infinite number of superimposed realities were collapsed by the act of measurment weren't fully realized until a little later.

I'm not sure Einstein's problem was with observer dependent realities. I really think he had a bigger problem with information moving faster than the speed of light when there is quantum entanglement.

DCHindley

Solo,

Wow ...

IMHO, your post suggested to me that you are reading modern psychoanalysis (meant generically) into the minds of the authors of ancient texts, and you are generalizing what those ancient texts "say" to a greater extent than is safe for a question as serious as yours.

I have underlined the overgeneralizations and bolded the anachronisms. However, it does illustrate my oft' made point that if one insists on reading the Pauline letters (however one defines them as authentic vs inauthentic) as reflecting more or less accurately the thought of one author, Paul would have to be "mad as a hatter."

DCH

Solo

Hi DCH,
actually, I have a distinct preference for another interpretive school of psychology, that of Aaron T.Beck. His Cognitive Therapy lets the subject find his/her own unique patterns in personal and family history and interpersonal relationships and thus provide insight which is authentic and meaningful to the subject. Basically saying : you are responsible for your own well-being. Another proponent of that approach was the brilliant Victor E. Frankl (Man's Search for Meaning) a proponent of psychological existentialism which I have embraced as a sort of personal credo.

While I am greatly thrilled that I inspire that sort of diligence in you, I am convinced that you are missing an important point. You are my contemporary, not Paul's. Therefore, whether you are aware of it or not you are projecting your understanding of the world into Paul's (as much as I do) and interpreting Paul from that vantage point (too). There are of course some divines among us who are so well versed in everything of Paul's time they practically live there and believe that they can on that score offer you better ideas of what was going on in Paul's head when he proclaimed : The spiritual man judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. "For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

I'll tell you how I psychoanalyze that: Paul is saying, I know what's good for you and you don't and God himself sent me to tell you that. You are trying to do me as Paul did the Corinthians. That simple, DCH.


Well, yes, that's what I am saying, and more incredibly, I am offering my own bout with insanity as collateral. I only (think I) know what was going on in Paul's head because I was once insane (and I mean acutely so) that way myself.
And it's all very different from what people think: it is mostly hell (and I mean it gets 'hot' when you have manic fever) but when Geez gets you high, it's higher high than anything else. You are the king shit of the universe, my friend, but you better believe it's Geez and not you, otherwise you go completely berserk !

Jiri

DCHindley

Jiri,

I have not had any psychotic episodes myself (but undiagnosed neurosis ... well that's quite another matter), but have met folks who have (an associate in college and a couple in-laws). Mainly what I have had contact with are folks with schizophrenia and possibly bi-polar disorder.

The man in college was a discharged veteran (schizophrenia) who used to bring these wild multi-colored pictures (think Picasso at his wildest, and this guy was almost as creative) with auras around folks' heads, wild looking eyes and expressions, etc. He was heavily medicated, but from what I could coax out of him (that made sense, anyhow) these pictures were drawn during his bouts with psychosis. One of the relatives moves in and out of bouts of schizophrenic mania, but he would basically get paranoid and lash out at people. Another one had an episode that lasted 4 months, filled mainly with compulsive ideas that were kind of far out but made absolutely perfect sense to her. After she recovered, she has been fine and without any need for medication.

So, yes I do know that psychosis can take on many forms. What I was objecting to was putting too much interpretive emphasis on modern psychoanalytical interpretation to explain the motives behind ancient authors. While, yes, all we moderns do interpret the past from the perspective of the present, we also have to acknowledge the limitations that will carry over to our interpretations.

I sincerely doubt Paul would have thought of Jesus as deluded. I do not believe that ancients thought that way. Inspired by daimones, gods or muses, maybe. He may have seen him as prodded on by fate or a desire to fulfill God's will for him even if he did not want to do it for purely human reasons.

As for Paul himself, one thing that 19th century commentators concluded about Paul was that he seemed completely unaware of his own antithetical statements, and by extension I would think that meant he was unaware of any delusions or psychological problems he himself had.

Well, my daughter (who, along with my wife and other child, sometimes drive me stark raving mad) needs a ride, so I must depart ...

DCH

Solo

Some basics: (1) schizophrenia is primarily a cognitive (thought) disorder which, we know today, has more or less known neurophysiological basis, and is therefore in most cases chemically treatable. Because cognition and reality testing is impaired more or less permanently in an untreated subject, the socialization patterns of people afflicted by the disease are severely limited and they cannot function socially if unmedicated.

(2) There is no known diagnostic description of schizophrenic mania . Since the pioneering diagnostic work of Kraepelin in the beginning of the 20th century, there are two major classes of severe mental illness, one he called dementia praecox which is now known as schizophrenia and manic-depression now euphemized as bipolar disorder. Kraepelin applied several diagnostic differentiators to determine which of the two should be applied: 1) the onset of observable symptoms (schizophrenia starts earlier, usually in one's teens, while the mean for the first major manic episode is past thirty ! ), 2) persistence of symptoms (s. is a permanent deal, and is degenerative, m-d is cyclical with full recovery of cognitive capacities between psychotic episodes), and 3) the correlation of psychoses with mood swings: if delusions, hallucinations and general mental dysregulation are emotionally colored or have immediately followed a euphoric peak or pronounced dysthymia, M-D is much more likely to be diagnosed than schizophrenia, which in its mature forms is chataracterized by flatness of emotions). The third point has been apprehended much differently in the U.S. than in Europe or Britain, with the former much more readily to class psychoses as one of the schizophrenias with emphasis on current symptoms at the expense of etiology. Since paranoia is regularly present in the latter stages of manic episodes which are often self-interpreted in delusional metaphysical schemes, many patients who in Britain or Germany would be seen as bipolars, in the US are classed as schizo.

Similar to my own case: I was acute for two months but my full recovery timeline (i.e. disassembling the metaphysical effects of the experience) stretched to three years. I refused to be medicated also.

But you see these motives are constant in history and across cultures. Mohammed just had to tell Khadija what the archangel made him recite, and once she told him she believed Gabriel came from God, he would get the rest of her (!) clan up to speed. He did not go and shout suras of his Koran in a public square, as first thing. Similarly Paul: his letters are not to some undifferentiated mass that hungers for a saviour, but to a very special group of "saints" and to those who are "mature in their thinking". He selects a safe audience, one that will be responsive to him (and one I believe suffering the same debilitating effects of the disorder as Paul, based on 2 Cr 1:6). So, when Jesus cautions not to throw one's pearls before swine you know where he is coming from.
That would be a simple example. The psychological touchpoints of Paul's conversion are a much more complex and delicate matter. Naturally, I don't want make Paul sound like Schopenhauer or Sartre, but their struggle with nothingness directly informs Weltschmerz in the ancient complaint of Paul to the Corinthians :

Then as now, you believe something or you believe nothing (or, worse, anything, as Chesterton says).

So, let's day FSOA that 2 Cor 12 does describe Paul's inaugural manic episode and which convinced him that 1) it came from God, 2) that it related to Jesus of the Nazarenes, who was in heaven with God, 3) and contrary to Paul's previous beliefs, the world was on the verge of collapse during which Jesus would come back as a Rescue Hero for those who accept Paul as apostle.

That some people despised Paul in his florid states is evident (Gal 4:14) as is that they related to his gospel (4:13). He also first arrived at Corinth in a similar pitiful condition (1 Cr 2:4). He freely admits that he is sometimes out of his mind (2 Cr 5:13). He tells us he had a major bout with depression in Asia (2 Cr 1:8-9). And that Paul has not just good news of fantastic future life in heaven is evident from Rom 9:1-2 : I am speaking the truth in Christ, I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart . Why would that be in a guy who is certain that God revealed his son in him, and that through him he has gained life ever-lasting ? What's there to be forever anguished about for Paul ?

Well, I don't want to search God's mind for an answer, I simply observe that Paul lived with extremes of moods, and he did not have a handle on them - even with Jesus Christ. It was the same for many people then as it is now.

You don't get it. Look at the OP title: Paul did not believe that Jesus was deluded; Paul believed God made him deluded:

And BTW, where do you think this comes from ? Sigmund Freud ?

When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”


Best,
Jiri