STREAM : inconsistent : chapter 4 : demons

I seem to have developed a habit in this text, where at the beginning of each chapter, I apologize for the things I suggested in the previous chapters. This is no exception. To clarify, while we based our discussion on a consistent metaphysical theory, namely, "Delta Theory", the notions we suggested were of a somewhat “different” flavor. For example, in the previous chapter, even though initially, I confessed, my interpretations and analysis of religions are speculative, and not necessarily correct, as our discussion progressed, this initial commentary, became more of a lip service. While obviously, we did not prove any of the notions we suggested, there was no real sense of doubt. Moreover, even if possibly, the arguments we suggested in the previous chapter are correct, and even if I cannot think of better interpretations to the existence of common religions, toward the end of the previous chapter, an inherent argumentative flaw began to emerge.
To clarify, we were trying so hard to “access” the prolonged inconsistent tendencies of the real gods, that as soon as we found and isolated them in existing religions, we assumed, they imply "something" about our reality. However, sadly, this is not the case. To explain, indeed, it is possible, some religions are successful, because they provide a “useful framework” for the real gods, with which they can provoke us to inflict inconsistent changes on our reality. Still, as we suggested at the end of the previous chapter, the manner, by which religious followers actually practice their religions, can have very little to do with the "formal" principles of their religions.
In short, analyzing religions, according to the principles we suggested in the previous chapter, can only explain why religions exist. While such discussion can help us analyze the cultural macro levels, it is too abstract and general to analyze the micro levels, meaning, the manner, by which the real gods affect our personal lives. Moreover, while the principles religions endorse may explain why the real gods “allow” their existence, still, these principles do not impose the real gods with any “limit” or “obligation”. To clarify, at no point, did the real gods “promise”, our reality will reflect any religious principle. In other words, the arguable existence of prolonged inconsistent tendencies, applies only to the concepts we believe our reality should reflect, while in actuality, these concepts hardly describe our reality, regardless of our personal preferences.
Simply put, angels do not govern our reality. There is no providence protecting us from the inconsistent nature of the real gods. Religions attempt to “blind” us from acknowledging the numerous times their teachings have failed the test of time, while replacing our objective rational judgment, with a fragile and temporal peace of mind, which can end in a heartbeat. To clarify, the real gods can "select" any moment they choose, to disrupt the fabric of our lives, regardless of our religious persuasions. The irony is that it simply does not matter, how devoted we are to our religions, and how disillusioned we might become, once the real gods will have their way with us. While indeed, through experience, we may learn all religions ever taught us, was a load of bullocks, our personal tragedies would not even “dent” the stability of the religions we followed previously (unless we are significant angels, that is). In short, in the micro personal levels, the role angels play in the shaping of our lives is quite marginal. Therefore, if the real gods are really as potent as the attributes of metaphysical inconsistencies suggest, they must have other non-angelic means, with which they affect us. So what are they?
Well, we suggested, angels are messengers of the real gods, luring us to follow misguided concepts, which inevitably, make us behave in irrational and inconsistent manners. Still, because angels affect us by conveying us with ideas and concepts, even if angels make us act irrationally, to follow them, we must act intelligently. To clarify, even if the ideas, with which angels inspire us, are inconsistent with our reality, to understand and follow them, they still demand we use our rationality, at least to some degree. Therefore, this imposes a limit, over the effects, which the real gods can inflict on us by the use of angels. Still, again, this limitation does not apply to the real gods themselves, and if the real gods have other means, with which they can make us act in irrational inconsistent manners, we can be sure they use them. In short, if there are “other players” in this "game", we can be sure they affect us.
I am intentionally “beating around the bush”, because I want us to understand what this “other player” is, before we give it a name. Unlike angels, this “other player” affects our behavior, without persuading us consciously. Therefore, we can assume this “player” does not rely on our ability to think rationally. It can only rely on our instinctive behavioral patterns. Still, it must be able to make us act differently, from the way we would consistently. Therefore, we can exclude primal and animal-like behavioral patterns, as such behavioral patterns are both predictable and mechanical, or alternatively, consistent. For the same reason, this “other player” cannot be an inherent part of our genes or biology. To explain, according to “Delta Theory”, contingent dimensional automatons govern our animal body in a consistent fashion, and therefore, they are as predictable as any other consistent machine. Indeed, as we suggested in chapter two, it is possible, the real gods manipulate our animal body, making us ill, or curing our diseases, unleash unexplained pains, and the likes. Still, this has little to do with us. To clarify, while indeed, by manipulating and mutating our animal body, the real gods can change our behaviors, still, our behavior would remain consistent with our physical and biological conditions. Furthermore, again, because our knowledge in biology is incomplete, we cannot differentiate between consistent and inconsistent biological changes, and hence, we cannot differentiate between our "natural" biology, and the manners the real gods manipulate it. Moreover, because as we suggested, on the quantum levels, the real gods affect every particle of which we consist, discussing the "places" in which the real gods affect our biology, is pointless, as potentially, they affect our biology in its entirety.
Still, we tend to deduce meaning from our biological abnormalities, regardless if such deductions are accurate. We tend to, but not always. It all depends on what we believe is “happening” to us. It does not matter if we really experience physical or biological changes. We could be lying in our bed for several hours, without anything happening whatsoever, and without any reason, a new “perspective” we have not thought of before, will completely change the thoughts running through our minds. From being indifferent, we could shift into emotional unrest. From feeling happiness, we could shift into sadness, and vice versa. While arguably, such shifts could be the result of chemical changes in our brain, “Delta Theory” suggests another explanation. To clarify, we could be experiencing changes in the contingent dimensional composition of the concepts with which we think. In simpler terms, we could be experiencing changes in the things in which we believe.
Usually, we change our beliefs in a consistent fashion, meaning, by thinking about our experiences. Still, we do not change our beliefs every day, and hence, relatively, our beliefs are static. For example, we hardly ever change our beliefs, with respect to the meanings of the terms of our language, as if we would change them too often, inevitably, our language would become meaningless, as all sentences would become invalid. To clarify, let us consider the sentence, “Apples are red”. Unless we are referring to green or yellow apples, usually, this sentence is valid. However, if we replaced the meaning of the word “apple” with the meaning of the word “cucumber”, while retaining the meaning of the word "red", then obviously, this sentence would be incorrect, as generally, cucumbers are not red. Similarly, we hardly ever change our beliefs, with respect to the essence of our lives, as if we did, inevitably, we would constantly change our plans for the future, achieving nothing in our lives, and hence, remove the need to think about our future at all. In short, again, for the most part, our beliefs remain static.
Furthermore, usually, we do not meditate, reflect, or are even aware of our beliefs. Our beliefs are spontaneous and transparent. To explain, as we suggested in “Delta Theory”, our beliefs reflect the neural and contingent dimensional composition of the "filter" of our consciousness, consisting of the collection of our born and learned instincts, as well as the sensations, which our brain utilizes to route incoming stimulations, through its neural pathways. Therefore, while our beliefs reflect the physical biological infrastructure of our brain, because our consciousness is not a physical element, in many ways, metaphysically, its existence is irrelevant to our beliefs. In other words, our beliefs are not ideas in our minds, but rather ideas we can deduce through contemplation.
The same applies to religious beliefs. To clarify, while arguably, we might be able to find arguments supporting our religious persuasions, essentially, such argumentation is more of an excuse, justifying why we are as we are. Moreover, even if there were valid rational arguments, which could irrefutably “prove” the rational validity of a specific religious persuasion, we would not convert to it, as quite simply, this is not how religious faith "works".
To summarize, belief in a religion is simply not knowledge. It is instinctive. It is not “composed of” rational understanding. Considering angels, faith is simply not a “message”. Nothing obliges us to believe in the angelic messages we receive. From the perspective of the real gods, we merely need to comprehend angelic messages, or at the very least, understand these messages exist, while nothing demands we must understand their implications, as essentially, their implications are relevant only from the timeless perspective of the real gods. In fact, arguably, the real gods may "prefer it", if we do not comprehend the implications of angelic messages, because as we suggested in the previous chapters, inevitably, all angelic messages are misleading, and hence, potentially, comprehending their implications may interfere with the “purpose” for which the real gods “issue” their angels in the first place.
Still, regardless, changing our beliefs changes our behaviors, and therefore, if the real gods can invoke such changes, it opens a door to a new type of inconsistent effects, which the real gods can inflict on our reality. Moreover, because as we just mentioned, the real gods can achieve such changes, by changing the contingent dimensional composition of the sensations in our minds, this "new" type of changes, does not impose any significant metaphysical “challenge” for the real gods, as essentially, manipulating contingent dimensions is the real gods’ “specialty”. In fact, arguably, this "new" type of effects is more "natural" to the real gods, as essentially, it does not require the tedious process, of constructing scenarios, in which they deliver us their angelic messages. Moreover, considering our previous hypothesis, that our sensations of pain occur due to the insertion of inconsistent elements into our psyche, it is possible, this "new" type of effects, occurs by default, through the work of our neurological mechanisms, governing our deltas, or alternatively, our wills and desires. Still, such effects share a similarity with angelic influences, as they too require our cognitive generalization capabilities, meaning, our ability to “believe in” something, and to the best of my knowledge, only humans facilitate this basic requirement.
This is the “other player” to which I was referring, which I will now call "demons". I choose this name, because of the resemblance, between inconsistent changes in our beliefs, and the western common folklore concept of demonic possession. Still, we should stress, the "demons" to which we refer, are definitely not the demons of which western monotheism speaks, and neither do they resemble the demons appearing in any other religious teaching. To clarify, the "demons" to which we refer, are neither minions of Satan or Lucifer, and nor do they come "from hell". Moreover, they are not necessarily harmful. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the demons to which we refer, are deities or not, as in many ways, the manner, by which we may view them, is subjective. To clarify, similarly to the "deity status" of the real gods, we can choose to view the demons to which we refer, as mere forces of nature.
I feel the need to mention this now, because I fear individuals, whose religious persuasions are somewhat antagonistic toward western monotheism, might attempt to abuse this text. To clarify, while the notions we suggested, definitely do not support western monotheism, neither do they support their conceptual religious adversaries, namely, Satanism, and paganism. Therefore, we should emphasize, the demons to which we refer, are not spirits from the underworld, a “dark side”, "monsters", or any other silly concept, which we would otherwise encounter in horror films.
No. Simply put, demons govern our “faith”. They determine our religious choices. Moreover, demons determine which angelic messages we will follow, suggesting an inherent link between demonic and angelic effects. Furthermore, because both angels and demons provoke us to inflict inconsistent changes on our reality, essentially, from the perspective of the real gods, their differences merely reflect different "tactical invariants".
Nevertheless, demonic and angelic effects are fundamentally different. For example, while angelic interventions require our awareness of them, demons do not require our knowledge of their "presence", as potentially, being aware of their "presence" may cause us to doubt the beliefs, with which they attempt to inflict us. Furthermore, again, often, angelic effects require our understanding of angelic messages, while belief and faith are spontaneous and instinctive, and hence, demons cannot actually “explain” to us what we should do. Instead, demons "shift" the focus of our attention, in a manner inconsistent with the flow of causality in our reality, overriding the “natural” consistent manner, by which the focus of our attention, should "shift" otherwise. Moreover, because demons mutate the "filter" of our consciousness, essentially, they are an inherent part of our internal mental world, and hence, we are much more "intimate" with our demons, than we are with angels, as angelic messages are merely ideas, of which we may become aware through various different "channels", some of which may be quite impersonal or passive. In addition, we should emphasize, the concepts, in which demons can make us believe, are not limited to existing religions. Demonic effects are far more versatile, and hence, they are much more common than angelic effects. Still, because demonic effects are subconscious, usually, we do not acknowledge them, while the angelic semantics of our beliefs, are always outspoken. Metaphorically, angels are similar to divine-larger-than-life celebrities, which inevitably, are irrelevant to our personal lives, while demons are similar to close acquaintances, following our every move, while directing our lives, according to the inconsistent “plans” of the real gods. Actually, in some ways, demons resemble our common notions, with respect to guardian angels (with the small difference, that in no way do demons promise, they “wish to protect” us from anything).
We can divide demonic effects into two types. The first type is what I call "proactive demonic effects". Proactive demonic effects occur whenever our faith, beliefs, and instinctive preconceptions, change without any apparent reason. In such cases, we undergo sudden unexplained psychological shifts, which result in us exhibiting untypical behavioral patterns. While in some cases, these behavioral patterns could be self-abusive, this is definitely not the only possibility. Proactive demons can just as well provide us with inexplicable inspiration, invoking “eureka moments”, insights, and revelations in our psyche. In fact, it is possible, proactive demons are responsible for the transformation of a person into a concrete angel. To clarify, regardless of the semantics of angelic messages, a "future angel" may require “divine help” just to pay attention to a "divine message", rather than dismiss it as nonsense. Nevertheless, we should remember that as we suggested in the previous chapter, the real gods do not "issue" their angels to help us, but rather to serve their "selfish" metaphysical “interests”, this hypothesis does not suggest, proactive demons are in any way “good”. Still, undoubtedly, they are inspiring.
The second type of demonic effects, are what I call "fixating demonic effects". Unlike proactive demonic effects, these effects are not characterized by inexplicable changes in our beliefs, but rather by an inexplicable “blindness” to facts and rational logical thinking. Fixating demonic effects are a fundamental ingredient of our faith, as they keep us true to our faith regardless of circumstances. The same is also true to another cherished concept: love. Actually, for most intended purposes, faith and love are practically identical.
Nevertheless, fixating demonic effects are not always pleasant. Just as when taken to the extreme, love can transform into an annoying, and possibly dangerous obsession, the same applies to faith in general. In the name of our faith, fixating demonic effects can cause us to do harm to ourselves and to others, without any rational justification why, and arguably, religious fanatics are a fine example of this.
Because essentially, all angels must obvert the manner, our reality should persist consistently, mostly, their messages do not reflect existing idioms, and hence, we should not expect, individuals would "transform" into concrete angels, due to fixating demonic effects. Nevertheless, a concrete angel may require the "help" of fixating demonic effects, to sustain its dedication to its "angelic calling". To clarify, from the perspective of the real gods, if proactive demons are to bear an "angelic fruit", their somewhat "erratic" nature might require the conceptual stability, which fixating demons provide. Therefore, even from a religious or moral perspective, we cannot categorize either types of demonic effects as “good” or “evil”. Furthermore, because as we suggested, the formation of concrete angels may require both types of demonic effects, it is impossible to link demons with any specific religion, as most probably, demons took part in the formation of all angels, all religions, and all concepts of god, which ever affected human history.
Still, demons are anything but “trustworthy”. While indeed, the real gods “issue” demonic effects for a reason, still, as we already concluded, there is nothing essentially “good” about this fact, as essentially, again, the real gods are untrustworthy tyrants. Moreover, because as we explained in chapter two, we may never know the real "plans" of the real gods, knowing the real gods "issue" our demons, does not teach us anything. Nevertheless, arguably, proactive and fixating demons can make our lives interesting, as living a life in a completely logical and rational manner, is not exactly “inspiring”. Still, because we are consistent beings, there is a limit to the demonic effects we can endure, without transforming our lives into complete chaos. This limit reflects in two uncorrelated axes: measure, and possession.
With high demonic measure, proactive demons, fixating demons, or both, incapacitate us from effectively reacting to objectively “real” events occurring in our lives. While proactive demons may shift our attention between too many uncorrelated thoughts, deeming it impossible for us to focus our attention, and “exploit” the ideas, with which these demons may inspire us, fixating demons may undermine the rationality we require to “achieve” anything “real” in our lives. Both effects endanger the potential to successfully exploit our demonic influences, while at the same time, damage us socially, as our behaviors become too unpredictable and autistic to our social environment. Nevertheless, arguably, with enough talent and dexterity, or if it is simply "the right time at the right place", we can still exploit this demonic abundance. In fact, arguably, there may be times, when a high demonic measure is “exactly what we need” to achieve goals, we would consider impossible otherwise.
In contrast, arguably, high demonic possession, is far less desirable. To clarify, with high demonic possession, a single demon dominates us. Either we fail to stabilize our minds on a single thought, destroying everything we accomplish before it can bear fruit, or we fail to internalize the reality in which we live, deeming all our actions pointless. High demonic possession enslaves us to demonic effects, while we gain nothing in return. Unaware, we become slaves of the real gods. We can find these “slaves” in mental institutions, or relentlessly praying to god, to save them from their misery, or both. Even if there are times when possessive demonic effects are exactly what we need, again, we all have a "breaking point", beyond which demonic effects yield nothing but a downward spiral of self-destruction.
Actually, in "Delta Theory", we suggested a similar behavioral pattern, namely, delta bestiality. While practicing delta bestiality, we devote our entire lives to one type of deltas, be it bodily pleasures (meaning, bodily bestiality), mechanizing our lives into a consistent "algorithm" we follow (meaning, logical bestiality), or perceiving our entire existence as "spiritually significant" (meaning, completeness bestiality). Indeed, externally, delta bestiality may appear very similar to high demonic possession, as essentially, our perspective, while practicing either logical or completeness bestiality, is similar to our perspective, while under the influence of high demonic possession. To clarify, if we are "possessed" by a proactive demon, we may shift our beliefs sporadically, similarly to the manner, which individuals, who practice completeness bestiality, change their beliefs to accustom them to their current desires. Alternatively, if we are "possessed" by a fixating demon, we may recline from changing our habits, similarly to the manner, which individuals, who practice logical bestiality, refrain from changing their life style.
Still, high demonic possession is different from delta bestiality, as arguably, we choose to practice delta bestiality consciously, while essentially, demonic possession revokes our ability to choose. Nevertheless, arguably, this does not reflect a real difference, as we could claim, that because the real gods determine each action we perform, they determine the choices we finally make, and hence, arguably, our "choice" to practice delta bestiality, may itself reflect a demonic effect. Still, arguably, there is an even greater difference, as demonic possession does not imply any specific semantic implication. To clarify, if we are "possessed" by a proactive demon, it does not imply, the shifts in beliefs we will exhibit, will be of a "spiritual" nature, as we could just as well shift our beliefs, with respect to politics, our esthetic taste, and the likes. Alternatively, if we are "possessed" by a fixating demon, it does not imply, we would transform our lives into an "algorithm", as demonic possession can just as well be abstract and conceptual, causing us to refrain from deducing conclusions, which others would consider obvious. Moreover, generally, we do not have to adhere to our demons, regardless if we suffer from demonic possession or not. While indeed, demons inflict us with some of our motivations, other beliefs may still motivate us, helping us obvert our delta bestializing tendencies. In short, while delta bestiality and demonic possession are similar, essentially, they reflect two different aspects of our existence as consciousnesses.
Still, similarly to the sense of distress, with which delta bestiality results, experiencing demonic effects is hardly pleasant, regardless of the benefits they offer. Either the conceptual and practical foundation, on which we build our life breaks apart (due to the work of a proactive demon), or we feel tremendous hate to our reality, as it does not conform to the inconsistent concepts, to which our demon fixated our beliefs. It is a game of pro and cons, in which we have no say.
Only the real gods can determine how much we will gain or suffer from demonic effects. To clarify, while mistakenly, we may think, we can actively reduce or enhance the effects demons have over our lives, the truth is, we cannot. Even if we “chain” our lives to reason and rationality, if the real gods “wish it”, demons may still affect us. On the contrary, the real gods may find our inhibitions and aspirations to achieve dominance over our consciousness, even more “fun” to disrupt. Alternatively, as we suggested in the previous chapters, if we wish to be "possessed" by demons, and so, harness the inspiration they might bring us, with either prayer, narcotics, or whatever other means, the real gods may find it more “fun” to put us in our place, refraining from showing us even a "shred" of their inconsistent metaphysical capabilities. In short, again, the more the real gods are “happy”, the more we suffer. This applies to everyone, including you.
Another similarity, between demonic effects, and delta bestiality (or more specifically, completeness bestiality), is their seamless resemblance to mental disorders. To clarify, a person suffering from demonic effects, will exhibit behavioral symptoms, which usually, we would associate with mental illness. While proactive demons may result with erratic and inexplicable behaviors, and hence, we can easily confuse these behavioral patterns with symptoms of schizophrenia, we can easily confuse the effects of fixating demons with obsessive-compulsive behavioral disorders. Still, again, while demons may yield our motivations to behave in psychotic manners, in no way do they demand, we must fail to preserve our sanity, and hence, essentially, demonic effects are not equivalent to insanity. Moreover, while indeed, if we follow all our demonic beliefs, we may “lose touch” with reality, again, essentially, nothing demands demonic effects must be "harmful". Furthermore, theoretically, demons may affect us temporally, and then leave us to our own devices, allowing us to regain control over our lives. While indeed, the inconsistent untrustworthy "nature" of the real gods (which to remind you, are the metaphysical elements, which “issue” our demons), does not show such “philanthropic” tendencies, still, it is possible. Nevertheless, even if so, once we become accustomed to following our demons blindly, as soon as our demons are “gone”, we would feel lost without guidance. To clarify, by following our demons, we undermine our cognitive capabilities to navigate our lives, and hence, once our demons no longer direct us, inevitably, we will have no way to navigate our lives, other than repeating the demonically induced behavioral patterns, which we attained previously. Therefore, while from afar, our behaviors may still appear “insane”, in actuality, there will be nothing truly inconsistent or “crazy” motivating us. If we used to exploit our proactive demons for inspiration, the inspiration will simply be “gone”. If we used to follow our fixating demons, suddenly, the beliefs we once found so compelling, will lose their appeal. Nevertheless, again, others will still interpret our behaviors as insane, and hence, we will suffer from this classification. To conclude, arguably, whenever we suffer from high demonic measure or possession, waiting for our demons to “leave us", may not be our best option.
Still, arguably, if we think we can “overcome” our demonic influences, it merely shows, we did not yet understand the essence of demons. To clarify, demons are not here to “test us". The effects demons have on us, are exactly the effects the real gods “planned” when they “issued” our demons. If we think we can overcome our demons, it can only be because the real gods “want” us to feel this sensation of self-control, as if they do not, they could easily overcome our resistance to their demonic influences. In fact, arguably, this sense of self-confidence is “instrumental” for the real gods, as the differences between the demons, which we successfully overcame, and those we failed to overcome, can strengthen the meaningfulness we will find in the demons we have not yet "conquered". Moreover, at any point, the real gods may "decide" to strengthen the demonic effects, which we thought we overcame already, transforming our lives into a living nightmare, until they achieve their inconsistent goals. Still, we should note, that usually, the actual purpose of demonic effects is not to force us to do what our demons “suggest”, but rather to put us in a state of mental distress, and hence, force us to resort to faith. Actually, this is one of the “meanest tricks" the real gods “pull” on us, as by resorting to faith, at times of demonically induced distress, we fall into the hands of other demons, meaning, the demons this new faith reflects.
Nevertheless, again, arguably, demons are essential for the transformation of one into a concrete angel, and therefore, innocently, we would expect, that regardless of the potential damages demons may inflict on our lives, religions would cherish them, as arguably, without demonic effects, our religions could never have "spawned". However, surprisingly, all religions are antagonistic to demonic interventions. Why is that? To clarify, I am saying “all”, and I mean all, as essentially, all religions both exist in our reality, as well as endorse angelic messages, and hence, their existence depends on their founding concrete angels, which as we explained previously, required some sort of demonic intervention to "spawn", either to receive their "angelic inspiration", or to sustain the dedication to their "angelic callings", while refraining from questioning the inconsistencies, inherent to all angelic messages.
Well, while indeed, angels and religions depend on demonic influences to "spawn", the inconsistencies inherent to their teachings, suggest the existence of perspectives, from which their teachings would become invalid. Therefore, naturally, religions "fear" these perspectives would become visible and widespread, and the more a religion is inconsistent, the more perspectives it must wish to hide. However, because essentially, demons adhere only to the inconsistent "inclinations" of the real gods, nothing can restrict them from exposing us to these perspectives. Furthermore, demons need not even “prove” religions are invalid. To clarify, as we already suggested, demons can force us to change our beliefs, without rational justifications, while religions can merely suggest their persuasions, with angelic argumentations. Moreover, because as we suggested, demons are the metaphysical entities governing our faith, ironically, when religions ask us to resort to faith in order to “fight our demons”, in actuality, they ask us to follow other demons, meaning, the fixating demons, which will redirect us back into their embrace. In short, ironically, while religions may wage wars against demons, in actuality, their persistent existence depends on specific fixating demons, and in many ways, their existence reflects the demonic influences of their angelic founders.
This applies to all religions. Indeed, in some religions (such as polytheism, paganism, and of course, Satanism), demons are praised, cherished, and worshipped. Still, usually, such religions embrace “hedonistic” demons, while they tend to ridicule our more "prudent" demons. Furthermore, contrary to such arguably primitive religious persuasions, as we previously suggested, demons are not necessarily deities, and hence, arguably, suggesting they have a “personality” we could "appease", is nonsensical. To clarify, again, mostly, demons affect us subconsciously. Indeed, if the real gods find it necessary, demons can make us believe they are deities. Still, arguably, such association may reduce their effectiveness, as whenever we suspect our urges originate from deities different from us, we may develop a sense of alienation and antagonism toward our demonic influences. Therefore, again, we should expect, that usually, the real gods will not “want” us to think their demons are deities, but rather an inherent part of who we are. Furthermore, again, because metaphysically, demonic effects are equivalent to contingent dimensional manipulations over the particles existing in our brain, arguably, there is no reason to associate them with deities, as their "deity status" is even more questionable, than that of the real gods.
Still, religions explicitly associate demons with deities. Why? Is it because demonic interventions led to the formation of the deity gods religions follow? Is it because the demons of which religions speak, are in fact, angels? Is it because religions cannot confront what demons really are? Is it because religions have conditioned their followers to think only deities can have godlike capabilities? Is it because religions want us to feel alienation and antagonism to our demons, as our epistemological link with our demons is much deeper than our link with our religions? Honestly, it is hard to tell.
Still, as we suggested previously, the worst misconceptions regarding demons, come from religions, which celebrate them the most (namely, polytheism, paganism, and Satanism). We can only guess, the reason for this, is the negative “image” demons have in rivaling religions. Possibly, such religions view demons as a “force” coming to their "aid" against their conceptual religious archenemies, and wish to give thanks to their invisible demonic “friends”. However, somehow, such religions overlook the fact, the real gods “issued” these “friends”, the same real gods responsible for the marginality of their following.
Still, even if religions misrepresent demons, honestly, our new definitions are somewhat lacking. To clarify, as we suggested in "Delta Theory", our beliefs consist of both the contingent dimensional composition of the sensations in our brain, as well as the collection of all our cognitive born and learned instincts. Therefore, it suggests, demonic effects may occur due to several reasons, of which only some depend on contingent dimensional manipulations, while others may occur due to rewiring and reshaping of the neural pathways in our brain.
These effects range between two polarities, with the first being "inhibited demonic effects". Inhibited demonic effects occur whenever we undergo experiences, so incompatible with our previous beliefs, that inevitably, they leave us in a state of conceptual distress. The relentlessness of these experiences forces us to reject our previous beliefs, and embrace a different persuasion, one which is more compatible with our experiences. Still, because usually, such experiences are radically abnormal, such new persuasions tend to be somewhat incompatible with our personality.
The second polarity is "spontaneous demonic effects". Spontaneous demonic effects occur due to physical neural alterations in our brain, transpiring on the quantum levels, as the contingent dimensional composition of the “grey matter” particles in our brain, changes without any conscious or causative justification. To clarify, such changes are purely "physical", meaning, we cannot explain them psychologically.
We can map all demonic effects, somewhere between these two polarities. For example, it is possible, we were already in a state of mental distress, yet somehow, could still "hold things together", until finally, spontaneous demons got the upper hand on us. Alternatively, we could suffer from brain damage, due to trauma, disease, or inconsistent physical changes in our neural architecture, which inevitably, would leave us in a demonic mind state.
Considering the versatility, by which demons can affect us, innocently, we could argue, insanity is a "synonym" to demonic effects, supporting the arguments lunatics have claimed in their defense, throughout human history, and actually, considering the real gods are "responsible" for all the events transpiring in our reality, including demonic effects, essentially, there is some truth to such claims. Nevertheless, this does not imply, exhibiting psychotic behavioral patterns is a "good thing", as again, the real gods care only for the inconsistent changes they make us inflict on our reality, while the "quality" of our lives, they find insignificant. Moreover, arguably, without first having a clear definition of “insanity”, we cannot differentiate it from demonic influences. To clarify, we think insanity is an objective term. We take it for granted that if we think individuals are insane, it automatically deems them mentally incapacitated. Still, what exactly are insane individuals incapacitated from? Is it that they do not think like us? Is it that they do not grasp the things we understand? Is it that they do not automatically accept the things we take for granted? Or is it simply that they do not believe in the things in which we believe?
Before the introduction of the sciences of psychology and psychiatry, naturally, we did not diagnose "insane" behavioral patterns, with scientific terminologies. During these “dark times”, if such behaviors did not impose a real risk to those exhibiting them, or to the people around them, or alternatively, if the authority of those exhibiting these behaviors could not be challenged (such as kings, nobles etc.), they were simply ignored, while labeling such individuals as stupid, strange, or ignorant. However, if such individuals were causing harm to themselves, or to the people around them, and there was sufficient authority to impose sanctions on them, usually, society would label them as “taken by the devil”, or “taken by an evil spirit”, or alternatively, “taken by a demon”, and soon after, a series of actions would take place, such as exorcisms, witch burning, and the likes.
However, things changed with the introduction of the sciences of psychology and psychiatry, as without empirical proof or basis, science rejected the notion of demonic influences. Instead, the sciences of psychology and psychiatry offer a wide variety of evaluations, classifications, and treatment techniques, with which we attempt to "heal" individuals exhibiting such behavioral abnormalities. While indeed, the treatment techniques, which the sciences of psychology and psychiatry offer, may vary, the purpose of such treatments is uniform:

1. Eradicate the behavioral abnormality.

2. If possible, emancipate the individual back to “normal” society.

3. If emancipation fails, to ensure social stability, separate the disturbed individual from “normal” society.

The methods for achieving items one, and two, range from psychoanalysis based treatment, psyche-affecting drugs, meditation techniques, electrical shock therapy, lobotomy, and in some cases, science may even suggest, we resort to alternative medicine. Still, again, as we mentioned in item three, all treatment approaches agree, such behavioral abnormalities must not become norm. To clarify, even if democratic countries respect conceptual pluralism, the ideas they accept, must not explicitly undermine, that which we accept as an absolute “truth”. To clarify, while formally, contemporary democracy is tolerant to all opinions, some "opinions" it will simply not accept. For example, democracy does not accept ideas, which would effectively lead to the eradication of the democratic system. While arguably, such restriction is acceptable, as without it, we could have no system, in which to express our opinions, contemporary democracy rejects other notions as well. To be more specific, because democracy inherently adheres to the rationality typical to empirical sciences, it rejects any notion suggesting to undermine it. Actually, we can even claim, empirical sciences and rationality govern democracy, as essentially, allowing the majority to reign, while refraining from "judging" the semantics by which it governs us, reflects a "cold" rational and mathematical perspective, so typical to empirical sciences.
This is the root of the problem, which makes it so hard for us, to differentiate demonic effects from insanity. To clarify, without empirical findings, to validate the existence of the demons we described in this text, from an empirical scientific perspective, they are no different from the figurative-fantastic-deity-pseudo-demons, which we know from religions. To suggest the existence of the demons we described in this text, first, we need to embrace the metaphysical foundation, from which we deduced their properties. However, empirical sciences reject any metaphysical discussion. Actually, empirical sciences reject even the possibility, we can find empirical proof to the existence of such demons, as implicitly, the perspective of empirical sciences suggests, metaphysical discussions cannot yield understandings, which we can verify empirically. While indeed, in itself, this is a good idiom, as it helps empirical sciences focus on technological applications, still, as we suggested in chapter two, with the non-algorithmic nature of our consciousness, the current metaphysical paradigm of empirical sciences is simply inconsistent, which in turn, deems all existing scientific diagnosis and treatment methods for demonic effects, at the very least “misguided”, if not completely irrelevant.
The truth is, the terms “insanity”, “mental disorder”, or whatever names psychology and psychiatry give to abnormal behavioral patterns, are simply invalid, because they rely on both rational logical thinking, and an inconsistent metaphysical foundation. While indeed, these scientific disciplines may yield effective treatment methods, which may help many disturbed individuals, still, the knowledge and conclusions these disciplines attained, is far from "perfect". Therefore, essentially, differentiating insanity from demonic effects is pointless, as the term “insanity” is simply so subjectively defined, we cannot discuss it in a consistent fashion. To clarify, essentially, “insanity” means little more, than exhibiting behavioral patterns, abnormal to a specific social circle, while other circles may accept such behaviors, or even cherish them. While indeed, “insanity” may suggest a collection of alarming behavioral patterns, still, we cannot use it as reference, when labeling specific behavioral patterns as “flaws”, even if many times, such “flaws” are more than evident.
To conclude, within the context of this text, we cannot refer to insanity “as is”. We must use our own terminology. Moreover, the negative or positive connotations we may associate with demons, are subjective, and dependent on the context, according to which we judge them. For example, if initially, we were strict Christians, while later, demonic influences caused us to "stray" into secularism, the Christian community to which we once belonged, will label us “evil” or “decadent”, while in contrast, individuals, whom are somewhat antagonistic toward the Christian church (and there are many of these) will think we “finally opened our eyes to the truth”. Still, as we already understood, essentially, both perspectives are equally “off the mark”, as we simply cannot determine objectively, if our demonic influences are beneficial or harmful. Moreover, such subjective and context dependent interpretations to our demonic influences, are not limited to religions. To clarify, even when we act “crazy”, society evaluates our behaviors, according to context. For example, while usually, "normative” adult communities do not appreciate it when we act “crazy”, the teenagers of the same exact communities will most probably think otherwise. While indeed, we may claim, it is just a “phase” of adolescence, still, it is certainly not a “phase” for people working in the entertainment industry.
The essence of our confusion, with respect to the differences between demonic effects and insanity, lies in our common preconceptions regarding demons. To clarify, because intuitively, we think of demons as deities, we fail to recognize the existence of inhibitive demons, as such demons are too “circumstantial” for us to associate them with deities, and essentially, there is nothing “weird” or “supernatural” about them. In many ways, we can perceive "inhibitive demons" as but another name, for the social fabric of our reality, and because we are so familiar with it, we take it for granted, it is “normal”. Nevertheless, inhibitive demons can cause us to inflict as much inconsistent changes on our reality, as their spontaneous counterparts. In fact, arguably, we can claim, the act of receiving and accepting angelic messages, is but a specific case of inhibitive demonic effects. To clarify, usually, angelic messages do not enter our minds, without us experiencing the circumstances by which we receive them, and hence, we can suggest, these circumstances are but another manifestation of inhibitive demons. Therefore, we can argue, demonic effects are the "meta-group" of all the manners, by which the real gods can affect our psyche.
From the perspective of an individual a demon affects, the main difference between inhibitive and spontaneous demons, lies in accountability. To clarify, when spontaneous demons affect us, arguably, we have no one to blame other than ourselves, while when inhibitive demons affect us, we tend to blame society for our demonically influenced behaviors. For example, the fact we even consider the religion into which we are born, as a candidate for our religious persuasion, is a classic case of an inhibitive fixating demon at work. Furthermore, if we follow this religion dedicatedly, we can even claim, we suffer from possession of an inhibitive fixating demon, and if we become religious fanatics, we may enhance our "demonic status" to the level of high measure inhibitive fixating demonic possession. Still, somehow, as if by magic, no one will demand we undergo psychological or psychiatric treatment. Why is that?
Well, it is obvious. The religions our society endorse, are nothing less than a red flag saying, “We want to inhibit you to our possessive fixating demons”. Still, religions are not the only source for inhibitive fixating demons. For example, atheist Hinduism also embodies an inhibitive fixating demon. To clarify, we cannot “invent” atheist Hinduism. We learn it, and learn to believe in it. The same applies to academic scientific perspectives as well, and for similar reasons. Furthermore, arguably, the pluralist secular messages the media endorses, combined with the psychological effects, with which social networks inflict us, making us think we are all “celebrities”, link today’s rising popularity of auto-angelic tendencies, with the work of inhibitive fixating demons. To clarify, society forcefully attempts to convince us, we all have a purpose, meaning, and a message, even if we have none, as the rising popularity of reality television programs clearly reflects.
Still, arguably, inhibitive demons may not be the only cause for auto-angelic tendencies. To clarify, surely, there may be cases, where auto-angelic tendencies seem to spore out of "thin air". Nevertheless, such occurrences are still demonic, or more specifically, they reflect the work of a spontaneous demon. To explain, as we just suggested, unlike inhibitive demons, when spontaneous demons influence us, we are not aware of any element affecting us, and hence, arguably, we can blame only ourselves for our actions.
Nevertheless, we can try. To clarify, we can claim, a demon made us “do it”. Still, no one will take us seriously, and for good reasons. First, “A demon made me do it” sounds too similar to “The devil made me do it”, and because the “devil” (meaning, Lucifer, or Satan) is but an angel, such a claim is simply incorrect. Again, angels can either be consistent deities, and hence, equivalent to us in their metaphysical capabilities, meaning, they cannot mutate our thoughts in any supernatural fashion, or abstract concepts in our minds, meaning, they do not exist as deities at all, and hence, they cannot actively affect us. Secondly, associating demonic influences with a specific concept, merely reflects our failure to comprehend the essence of demons. To clarify, because as we previously suggested, demons are but another name, to the effects the real gods have over our psyche, claiming they affect us is pointless, as in many ways, the real gods are "responsible" for all our actions (including that thing of which no one knows, and you know exactly what I mean). Therefore, essentially, if demons were to be accountable for our actions, rather than ourselves, it would deem any form of justice invalid. To clarify, if the real gods are to be accountable for everything we do, it would imply, we cannot be responsible for any of our actions, and hence, no one may judge us, as essentially, judging us would be as pointless as judging the real gods. While arguably, this conclusion may cause us to think, accountability and justice are indeed unnecessary, the truth is, they are mandatory. To clarify, without a system of justice, there can be only anarchy, and with the rule of anarchy, nothing can restrict individuals from imposing their own systems of justice, in which claiming the real gods "made us do it” will do nothing to reduce the harshness by which such "new justice” will be administered.
In short, the link between our behaviors, our demonic influences, and the real gods, is irrelevant to accountability. While indeed, the real gods are both responsible for our creation, and for the emergence of demons in our psyche, still, we are to assume accountability for all our actions. As unfair as it may sound, this is the hand we are given. Nevertheless, again, our demonic influences can be beneficial. It is a package deal. To clarify, just as we love claiming accountability for our demonically induced "successes", we must take the blame for our demonically induced "failures".
In short, the reason our reality does not reflect any "divine justice" is simply because the real gods do not “respect” justice. Nevertheless, arguably, the real gods “want” us to assume accountability over our demonically induced actions, as our accountability enhances the inconsistent effects, which the real gods can inflict on our reality. To explain, had we not been accountable for our demonically induced actions, essentially, our actions would be meaningless, and hence, the real gods could not utilize our consciousnesses to realize their metaphysical potential, as essentially, our consciousnesses would be no different from unintelligible matter.
The real gods expect us to assume accountability over our demonically induced actions, and we will assume accountability over our demonically induced actions, end of story. Indeed, we can “bend the law” so it would better serve our interests. Nevertheless, accountability does not “end” with judicial punishments, and neither does it demand others must know our actions. To clarify, indeed, crossing a red light, without receiving a fine, will not bother our conscience, as essentially, in such a case, we hurt no one. Nevertheless, once we lose our general respect for the law, there may be times, when we will refrain from utilizing the assistance of judicial systems, regardless if potentially, they could serve our interests. Furthermore, when we do not “respect the law” we tend to commit more felonies, and hence, we may recline from any interaction with judicial systems, in fear they might prosecute us for other felonies we committed, and actually, such unfortunate occurrences are quite common.
Still, again, accountability goes beyond our judicial systems. To clarify, unless we suffer from amnesia, whenever we hurt others, we remember it. It does not matter if others accuse us of our actions or not, as most probably, such memories will haunt us with a sense of guilt, which potentially, could evolve into self-loathing and self-hate, making us think low of ourselves, and allow others to treat us in manners, to which we would never agree otherwise. Alternatively, we might pointlessly hurt or endanger ourselves.
Still, even if we manage to “dodge” this sense of guilt, we will still “pay” for our actions. To clarify, once we agree we should not be accountable for our somewhat “distasteful” actions, this idiom will affect us in many ways. We are social creatures, and unless our social circle is inherently abusive, it will not accept our distasteful actions will go “unpunished”. Therefore, while theoretically, we can "dodge" our sense of guilt, as a result, inevitably, either we will suffer from social alienation and isolation, or we will have to accept being unjustifiably hurt, emotionally, physically, financially, or in whatever other form. Obviously, both options are undesirable, and may result with alienation toward society, and extreme loneliness, and if we like ourselves, probably, we would never wish us such an existence. In short, we simply cannot "dodge" our accountability over our demonically induced actions, at least as far as punishment is concerned.
To summarize, no one gets a "free ride". We all must “pay” for our actions, regardless if spontaneous or inhibited demons induced them. While indeed, the real gods “know” exactly what we are going to do, and “know” the price we will inevitably “pay” for our actions, still, we do not. We could receive “visions” of the future, but we can never tell if these are real prophecies, or merely lies. Moreover, because as we just mentioned, the real gods “want” us to assume responsibility over the action they provoked us to perform, there is no reason to think, they will come to our aid. Again, the real gods are the ultimate tyrants, and if we care for the quality of our lives, we should never trust them. While angels may tempt us to believe we can rely on our gods, arguably, knowing all angelic messages are inherently partial and invalid, trusting these "angelic gods" is pointless.
No. We should rely only on ourselves. While indeed, we can claim, we should rely on our families and friends, in actuality, we will still be relying on ourselves, as to maintain their friendship and care, inevitably, we must “give back” that which we wish to “take”. We must be there for others in their time of need, even if there may be times, we would prefer not to, as failure to do so, may damage the affection and care, on which we wish to rely. The same applies to all other forms of “aid”, be it psychological or psychiatric therapy, narcotics, meditation, self-expression through art, you name it, all of these demand our dedication, as well as our agreement and ability to pay for whatever costs or side effects they may include, and yes, this is what the real gods “want” us to do, as they would not “allow” it otherwise.
Still, again, as we suggested in the previous chapter, just as evolution made us resistant to some diseases, with which the real gods attempt to infect us, so did our psyche. To clarify, generation by generation, our consciousness evolved to withstand more and more malicious “demonic attacks”, which the real gods invoke on us. Our culture, science, and philosophy, embody one such defense, as by rationally analyzing our demons, some demons fail to affect us. For example, throughout history, science has successfully refuted many past religious claims, such as was the case with Galileo Galilei, among others. Still, as we suggested in the previous chapters, recorded history shows that arguably, the real gods may not “like it” when we utilize this method, as essentially, such tactics “incapacitate” them from realizing their metaphysical potential. In fact, arguably, this may explain the inexplicable manner, by which the dark ages replaced the Hellenistic civilization, the burning of the famous ancient library of Alexandria, or the contrast between contemporary technological progress, and the rising popularity of Islam. In short, even if potentially, culture and rationality can help us resist our demonic influences, repeatedly, the real gods have shown, they will not let such tactics prosper.

Still, what about this text? Supposing the notions this text suggests, are either true, or mostly true, what is its purpose? To clarify, while indeed, this text explains in detail, the nature of the real gods, and the manners by which they affect us, still, this "knowledge" merely yields antagonism toward their tyrant untrustworthy "nature". Nevertheless, because as we repeatedly suggested throughout this text, being consistent elements, metaphysically, we cannot resist them. Therefore, arguably, the "knowledge", with which this text provided us, is pointless, as it merely shows us how misfortunate is our condition.
So why did the real gods “allow” me to write this text, if all they “want” is our blind following to their angels and demons? I mean, without going into details, I can assure you, when I understood the notions I suggested in this text, I was anything but enthusiastic. The circumstances practically “forced” me to write it, against my wishes. Using the terminology we introduced in this chapter, you could claim, I wrote this text due to a high measure of spontaneous and inhibitive proactive and fixating demonic possession.
So again, why? Why would the real gods “want” to show their true "nature", if inevitably, the antagonism such "knowledge" yields, diminishes the effects they may have on us?

Well, I can only think of one reason.