In case you're thinking this is all sort of flaky, I should mention that he also devotes considerable attention to psychology and psychiatry, as well. Original Sin he defines in terms of the human capacity for evil, Original Virtue, our capacity for good. In case you're thinking this is all sort of dark, I should mention that he spends a lot of time emphasizing the positive (what he calls Original Virtue, rather than Original Sin). Whether or not they're "demons" proper is sort of beside the point. There is no reason to believe that all such wills (that all "entities" existing outside the physical world as we know it) are well meaning and nice. One can not, therefore, rule out the possibility that a will (or an intellect) can exist on a non-physical level. If it's possible that the human mind can tap into another mind, then those minds must share something on some non-physical level. He cites well documented psychic phenomena (ESP, for example) as evidence of a world beyond the strictly physical world as we understand it. It's interesting, because at times he makes ironic or even sarcastic comments, and that's normally the refuge of a weaker writer, a writer who sneers at the world, dismisses the very idea of demon possession (or even plain old spirituality) as quaint fantasy. Not the simple stuff: I mean, it's not like he's just saying "most religions say that murder is wrong." He's talking about the need for an awareness of God, for the "Divine Ground" that unites everything, and the way that faith and works play into our attempts to connect to that awareness. What is spirituality? What motivates it? He calls it self-transendence, and offers an in-depth discussion of some of the principles that are common to most religions. Huxley uses this particular episode from history as an entry into a larger discussion about spiritual life. I mean, to bill it as a history book or a book about politics would be equally misguided. But that's not really what it's about, either. So, on the face of it, the book is about the disastrous mix of Church and State in early 17th Century France. The sorcery charge was bunk, and most of the people involved understood this to be the case. A certain corrupt priest (Urbain Grandier) offended some people in high places, and ultimately he was accused of witchcraft and blamed for the "possession" of a convent full of Ursuline nuns. It also deals with an alleged case of demon possession: that is also true. It deals with actual events, that's true. I mean, it's too bad more people haven't read or even heard of it. But I think the worst thing about it is that sales need to be boosted to begin with. And, if you're NOT interested in demon possession, the tag-line will keep you from reading the book. I mean, if you're looking for something that deals with actual demon possession, or a piece of lurid fiction dealing with similar subject matter, this book probably isn't what you're looking for. One is simply that it misrepresents the book. I suspect it was billed as "A True Story of Demon Possession" in order to boost sales. Let me say first that (in spite of the tag-line) it actually has almost nothing to do with devils, or "demon possession" as such. I mean, if you're looking for something that deals with actual demon possession, or a piece of lurid fiction dealing wi This is probably one of the most interesting and important books I've ever read. This is probably one of the most interesting and important books I've ever read.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |