Friday, June 03, 2011

STREAM : inconsistent : chapter 5 : rebellion



I know what you are thinking, and no, you did not “get it”. The purpose of this text is not to make us rebel against the real gods. Such a rebellion is essentially pointless. No. What I meant by the term “rebellion” is more straightforward than that. It simply means that knowing the "nature" of the real gods, makes us want to rebel against it. If reading this text makes you dislike the way things are, it is by no coincidence. The fact I wrote this text, even though I never wanted to think of such things, is no coincidence either. To clarify, apparently, the real gods genuinely “want” this antagonistic effect. I do not know what outcome this sense of antagonism will bring, but it is what the real gods “planned”.
So what could be the purpose of this antagonism? Well, the first most obvious purpose of which I can think, is that there is none. This entire text is simply a way the real gods show us, “We can do this”, "We can expose our true nature, show you how pointless it is, and leave you hanging”. This seems very plausible. Furthermore, I can only speculate, that in accordance with the pointlessness of this entire venture, little more than ten insignificant individuals will ever listen to this text. To clarify, it is hard to believe, the real gods would “want” this text to be popular, as implicitly, it reduces their ability to inflict inconsistent changes on our reality. They were only “trying to make a point”, showing that exposing their true nature, does not impose a limit for them. Nevertheless, naturally, they have nothing to gain from “dwelling” in this achievement, as there are many more people to fuck with, other than Ptyl.
While indeed, I have little problem accepting this option, considering the amount of work put in this text, the possible validity of this text (I repeat, possible, I am not saying it is necessarily correct), and such an insignificant outcome of pissing me off, simply do not "add up". As I said, due to events, which have transpired in my personal life, you could say, I was “dragged” into thinking the thoughts, which I expressed in this text. Still, even before writing it, I was already antagonistic, or at the very least indifferent to religions, and therefore, essentially, by inflicting these arguably demonic influences on me, the real gods achieved nothing, and actually, this in itself, undermines the limitless metaphysical potential of the real gods (at least from my perspective). Simply put, I cannot find the connection, between the undeniable persistence the real gods showed, maintaining religions for thousands of years, and the impotent face they have shown me, through the progression of my life.
Still, if indeed, this text has no purpose, while it will become an influential “best seller”, we may have reason for concern. To clarify, if the real gods “want” us to doubt their angels and demons, without "gaining" anything from it whatsoever, it suggests, they “lost interest” in the inconsistent changes they can inflict through us. If so, then we are really screwed, as implicitly, our “usefulness” to the real gods, reassures the real gods “want” us around, and hence, if they do not “need” us anymore, it could suggest, that exactly as all the 2012 apocalyptic prophecies predict, our time is almost “up”. We are going to be “wiped clean” in the near future. While I agree, this option is “farfetched and hysterical”, still, maybe it is the truth…
Nevertheless, obviously, there are other "less hysterical" explanations to the existence of this text, one of which being, that this text is a load of bullocks. Actually, this can be true in several manners. First, it is possible, that it is wrong to think the real gods are deities. Again, the real gods might be simply a “force of nature”, which does not have a semantically meaningful “purpose”. While such a claim does not validate angelic messages, as their inconsistencies with our reality, are irrelevant to the "deity status" of the real gods, still, it does suggest, there is no “purpose” to the existence of religions. To explain, metaphysical inconsistencies may simply have no “purpose”, regardless if they reflect in religious principles, or in my motivations to write this text. To clarify, it is possible, religions spawn of insignificant chains of events, and that is all there is to it. Nevertheless, just because this text, may have no global pan-historic purpose, does not automatically imply, it is irrelevant to our personal lives.
To explain, the manner we defined the "nature" of the real gods, was identical to the manner we defined inconsistent elements. Again, essentially, the term “the real gods” is but a different name, reflecting a different perspective, over inconsistent elements, without any special additional attributes. Therefore, while it is possible, inconsistent elements take no part in the inconsistencies inherent to religions, still, why should we think that? To clarify, obviously, changing the attributes of metaphysical inconsistencies, would have changed the arrangement and distribution of religious persuasions. For example, if we consider the western monotheist god, the attributes of metaphysical inconsistencies pretty much “define it". Therefore, it suggests, that if inconsistent elements were neither unpredictable nor “restricted” from actually “entering” our reality, potentially, they could have seriously challenged the “authority” of the western monotheist invisible omniscient and omnipotent god. Therefore, just as the metaphysical attributes of inconsistent elements are relevant to the manner religions define their gods, even if these elements may not necessarily possess “divine intelligence”, our inability to determine, if inconsistent elements are deities or not, does not imply, this text is a load of bullocks, at least as far as our personal lives are concerned.
The temporal context, in which I wrote this text, is a time of rising secularism, accompanied by a growing theoretical gap within empirical sciences (reminders: the inability of an algorithm to yield our self-awareness, and the inconsistency inherent to the explanations quantum physics proposes, to the existence of natural physical randomness). Therefore, even if the circumstances that “forced” me to write this text were insignificant, arguably, this text still captures a crucial moment, in the development of human thought. Therefore, while indeed, this text may be culturally insignificant, still, it is a consistent product of our contemporary reality, and hence, similarly to the manner technology helps us change the world to better fit our liking (such as to cure diseases for example), we can find contemporary applications for this text, even if it has no "divine purpose". On the contrary, if inconsistent elements are “unintelligent”, it allows us more freedom, with which we can find ways to solve our sense of antagonism toward them. To clarify, if indeed, there is something we can do to better our condition, then it is most certainly the purpose of this text, and while I do not claim we can actually better our condition, at the very least, the option is worth “considering”.
Secondly, you could argue, this text is a load of bullocks on an even more fundamental level, meaning, that the metaphysical foundation, on which it relies (namely, “Delta Theory”), might be invalid. Well, if this is how you feel, then I really have to ask. Do you not think it is a bit “late” for that now? To clarify, in the introduction chapter, I explicitly said, within the context of this text, we would assume “Delta Theory” is either correct, or at least, mostly correct. In addition, if you remember, in chapter one, we concluded that the statement “inconsistency must exist” must be correct to all metaphysical theories. Moreover, again, as I suggested in the introduction chapter, arguably, the axioms, on which “Delta Theory” bases its arguments, are so minimal, it is very hard to refute. To clarify, because it asks for so little, it can coexist alongside other metaphysical theories and persuasions, as most of them, do not, or cannot, negate it effectively. Therefore, because we deduced the attributes of metaphysical inconsistencies from this minimal metaphysical foundation, arguably, the conclusions we suggested in this text, carry a similar robustness. Indeed, had we found an alternate complete consistent metaphysical theory, which would have either refuted the metaphysical existence of inconsistent elements, or shown that the attributes of metaphysical inconsistencies are fundamentally different from those we suggested, potentially, it could have refuted our previous conclusions, including the sense of resentment with which they induce us. Still, to the best of my knowledge, no such theory exists as of yet. You are more than welcomed to conceptualize such a theory, but until then, the validity and sense of antagonism this text provokes, still hold.
To conclude, it is possible, this text has a purpose. Still, what could it be? To clarify, while this sense of resentment, may provoke us to rebel against something, obviously, it cannot be the real gods, as the real gods "determine" all of our actions, including the emergence of our sensations of resentment and antagonism, and hence, essentially, there is no difference between rebelling against the real gods, and adhering to their demands. Nevertheless, arguably, we can rebel against their angels, just as we can rebel against religions, and their fixating demonic influences. Still, our "rebellion", must be "responsible". To explain, with respect to our conclusions from chapter three, regardless if according to both the biblical text, and our contemporary reality, the real gods did not, and do not, adhere to the angelic messages of western monotheism, its long-lasting successfulness suggests, the real gods are “happy” with the “framework”, with which western monotheist religions provide them, and therefore, we should expect, that even if the real gods "want" us to feel antagonism and resentment toward their angels and demons, still, we must be vigilant to their tendencies, understanding that unless the real gods “want” our “rebellion” to succeed, inevitably, it will fail, similarly to the manner, rationality failed to overcome our somewhat "spiritual" tendencies, throughout human history.
To clarify, as we mentioned in the previous chapter, historically, scientific progress repeatedly bounced up and down on the technological ladder. From the times of the great pyramids, both in Egypt and in South America, we shifted to times of nomadic technological backwardness and stagnation. From a striving Hellenistic rationalistic civilization, we shifted to the dark ages. In fact, we can even argue, these erratic cultural shifts, affect us to this very day. To explain, even though as we advance technologically, we marginalize the significance of religions and angels, somehow, technology and science were never a match for demonic and angelic influences. This is a repeated tendency of the real gods, and therefore, we must not repeat the mistakes of our ancestors. We must take it into consideration.
And we do. While indeed, we base our conclusions, including the sense of resentment they induce, on both a consistent metaphysical theory (namely, "Delta Theory"), and our existing empirical scientific knowledge, in no way do we attempt to refute the imminent existence of the real gods (or inconsistent elements, whatever name you prefer). On the contrary, their imminent existence is our prime motivation. Furthermore, our “rebellion” is not against religious establishments, regardless of any flaws or corruption they may harbor, but rather against the concepts religions endorse.
We must not attempt to eradicate the existence of a “framework”, with which the real gods could invoke inconsistent changes on our reality. No. We should propose a different “framework”, one that would better fit our interests. To clarify, as long as we provide a suitable replacement for the “framework” religions provide for the real gods, the real gods would not “mind”, as our personal discomfort never played a factor for the real gods, and the real gods sure “like” variety. To summarize, we rebel against the currently known tendencies of the real gods. Indeed, the success of our "rebellion" demands these tendencies will change. Nevertheless, considering the omnipotence of the real gods, our demands are humble. Moreover, because apparently, the real gods “embrace” any change that allows them to realize their limitless metaphysical potential further, the existence of this text, does not necessarily negate their “interests”. On the contrary, it is possible, this is exactly what the real gods “want”. In fact, arguably, the lack of such change should have made us raise an eyebrow, as such stagnation would have hinted, the real gods are losing their inconsistent “edge”.
Still, because we cannot really decide, whether inconsistent elements are deities, or simply “forces of nature”, the idea of expecting them to change their “tendencies” is somewhat "out of context". To clarify, if inconsistent elements are merely “forces of nature”, you could argue, it is merely yours truly, who is changing his perspective over his reality, while metaphysical inconsistencies do not change their “tendencies”, or anything of the sort. While considering my personal experiences, I am unsure if this is the case, surely, I do not wish to delude myself, that my experiences must signal such a universal metaphysical shift.
Still, my experiences are not the only record of such changes in the “tendencies” of metaphysical inconsistencies, as arguably, we can find objective evidence of this change as well, such as in the scientific discovery of physical randomness in nature. While arguably, we tend to marginalize this discovery, irrefutably, for the first time in recorded history, we have found proof, showing the metaphysical paradigm of empirical sciences is fundamentally lacking. Metaphysically, this discovery is paradigmatically different from other past discoveries in physics. To clarify, indeed, discovering atomic and sub-atomic particles, or the connection between matter and energy (as Einstein’s relativity theories suggest), were groundbreaking scientific achievements. Still, physical randomness is more than merely “one more thing, we did not know before”. We can explain the existence of true physical randomness consistently, only with some sort of infinite “conditional complexity” (meaning conditions, which are infinitely complex, and hence, are impossible to trace or predict), as quite simply, there is no other method to solve this “random puzzle” consistently. To explain, as we already suggested in chapter two, rejecting this option, implies metaphysical inconsistencies must physically exist in the external world, and as we mentioned so many times before, this is impossible, regardless if metaphysical inconsistencies exist within the world-in-itself. Indeed, it is possible, science has misinterpreted empirical data as random, while in fact, it follows a finite set of tangible preconditions, consistently. Nevertheless, currently, this is only a speculation.
Again, the meaningfulness of this empirical finding goes beyond physics. To clarify, for the first time in recorded history, we have found empirical proof for the existence of physical elements, whose behaviors we cannot predict, by definition, and apparently, these physical elements compose all the matter, existing in our universe. Moreover, we should stress, our inability to predict physical randomness does not reflect a limit of our current knowledge, as the existence of physical randomness implies, we will never be able to predict it. Indeed, in the time of ancient Greece, Aristotle has shown already, predictions of the future have no truth-value, in his famous "Sea Battle" argument. Still, such unpredictability is limited to statements about the future, while physical randomness is unpredictable in the present. To clarify, statements about the future are logically invalid, because there may always be preconditions, of which we do not know yet, while physical randomness implies, it is impossible for us to know the preconditions determining it, even after it transpired.
Physical randomness is a mystery that troubles the scientific community quite a lot. Still, no one asks one question: why now? Why did we not discover it during the time of ancient Greece? Why did we not discover it during the time of ancient Egypt? Why did we not discover it during the time of the bible? No one thinks of asking such questions, as no one thinks there is much to learn from answering them. The discovery of physical randomness transpired in the context of other scientific breakthroughs in physics, and therefore, apparently, there is nothing special about this “timing”.
Still, what else transpired, a few years before, and ever since its discovery? Well, first, humanity endured the two world wars. Indeed, today, we think these wars were senseless. Still, were they really senseless, or were they stages of a greater process, which we do not comprehend yet, as we have not yet seen its outcome?
Consider the Holocaust. While western monotheism remained the most dominant religious group on earth, somehow, the western monotheist god found it “fitting” to bring such an event on its earliest religion.
At first glance, the two world wars, and the atrocities they unleashed, may leave us with the impression, that the western monotheist god simply does not exist. Still, as we previously suggested, elements, which metaphysically, are equivalent in potential to the western monotheist god, must exist (meaning, inconsistent elements). While arguably, the transpiring of the two world wars may suggest, inconsistent elements are too unpredictable to provide us with “providence”, why did an event of such magnitude never transpire before? Moreover, why did the formation of the state of Israel occur so soon after the Holocaust? If this is some kind of divine “justice”, why is Israel still fighting endless wars to this very day? Are these merely more affirmations that the real gods are unpredictable, or are we missing something?
Let us forget my own limited perspective, as probably, had I not been born in Israel, I would never put an emphasis on either Israel or Judaism in general. Consider the bigger picture. The two world wars have changed the political fabric of the most dominant nations on earth. The western world became much more democratic, while other nations have either turned soviet or into other totalitarian regimes. As time progressed, many of these dictatorships have converted to democracy, but the change did not end there. As we shift into the present, the political systems that govern countries are no longer relevant. While in the shadows, private corporations become more dominant than governments, on the micro levels, something else transpires.
Before the two world wars, we thought of governing parties, as more important than ourselves. We were satisfied being “working bees” for the greater good, which we entrusted with the governing parties. However, after the two world wars, things have been continuously changing. We put higher importance in ourselves, while consistently reducing the importance of governing parties.
There is a reason why it is so. As dominance shifts from governments to financial establishments, being what they are, financial establishment strive to increase consumption, to secure their financial stability. In simpler terms, financial establishments want us to “buy” more. To achieve this, the media relentlessly bombards us with messages, persuading us, we can, and should, consume more to better our lives. While it is questionable whether consumption actually betters our lives, still, by focusing on consumption, we divert our center of interest, into our own personal lives. To clarify, as we are bombarded with messages, telling us, how much we need to “get” the things we do not yet own, in our minds, we become more significant than society.
In addition, the media delivers us "proactive social oriented” messages, which attempt to persuade us, we can, and should, “save our world”, while generally, nothing has changed. To clarify, our reality was, and still is, governed by a collection of few, possibly by even less individuals than in the past. Still, we are “taken” by these messages. We fail to see the repeated pattern these “proactive social efforts” exhibit. To clarify, no one tells us to support real sources of power. Actually, most “proactive social efforts” involve resisting real sources of power, meaning, joining forces with essentially "lost causes". Rarely do such “proactive social efforts” result with actual change, as arguably, real social change is possible, only if a real source of power supports it. Still, even if such efforts do little to “save our world”, they amplify our self-centeredness. We think we are important, so important we can "save our world"…
Finally yet importantly, the internet enhanced our self-centeredness as well. For example, with social networks, we are both exhibitionists and voyeurs. We both "advertise" ourselves, and remain anonymous, meaning, we both focus on our own importance, and refrain from being active participants in any social group. Even if we are governed by a collection of individuals, fewer than in any other time in human history, and even if we are still quite powerless to control our immediate environment, we never thought we are as significant, as we do today. Moreover, because the internet is international, we think the entire world is watching us (a notion that the “big brother” hysteria subliminally inflicts, as if "the world" really gives a damn about us).
Actually, lately, the two last social tendencies we discussed, began to merge, with the emergence of "proactive social efforts" in internet social networks, such as Facebook, for example. We amplified our self-centeredness, to the level we think we can change world orders by clicking "like" on an internet browser, of a "revolutionary" web page, while neglecting the global power and monopoly, we give to these internet platforms. We fail to comprehend the only reason these "revolutions" succeed, or are even noticeable, is because other, much stronger establishments, enforce our "revolutions", in an attempt to become stronger than any government, while celebrating our deluded sense of self-centeredness, to the level of absurdity.
As we suggested in chapter three, this self-centeredness intensified our auto-angelic tendencies. Still, arguably, in the background, something else transpires, which links our growing self-centeredness, the intensification of auto-angelic tendencies, the discovery of physical randomness, the historical events that have transpired in the background, and a possible change in the tendencies of the real gods. Each of the issues we just mentioned is merely a “piece of the puzzle”, which on its own, does not seem to relate to the other “pieces”. Still, all these issues have a united "azimuth" to which they direct. The discovery of true physical randomness shows, the empirical basis, on which we relied as our assurance for conceptual stability, was at the very least misleading. The truth is, science does not endorse a consistent metaphysical foundation. Moreover, lately, empirical discoveries have disrupted the existing paradigm of empirical sciences even further, suggesting there are particles, or more specifically, neutrinos, which can travel at a velocity faster than the speed of light, as well as many other discoveries, with respect to the behavior of matter in empty space, and in distant galaxies. In short, it appears as if "something" is attempting to tell us, a scientific paradigm shift, is imminent.
Because the metaphysical foundation of empirical sciences proves to be partial in the physical sense, inevitably, empirical sciences can only provide us with estimated knowledge. This knowledge is subject to change, as soon as a "better" metaphysical foundation will be available. Considering religions, a similar process transformed objective religious “knowledge”, into subjective personal preference. Considering society, the role of the self, changed from being perhaps not at the top of the social hierarchy, but still in it, to becoming “kings and queens” of the subjective realm, while objectively, the "self" lost the ability to change who governs its reality. Similarly, while this text provides perhaps irrefutable objective proof a “greater power” both exists and affects us, it fails to satisfy our personal subjective needs.
The "azimuth", to which all these issues direct, is indeed for change, but not for just any change. Our previous assurances, with respect to the nature of our reality are refuted, while our subjective perspectives become both subjectively dominant, and objectively marginal. We are “sent” into our own personal internal mental world, while the external world, which once subjectively dominated us, appears more and more flawed and impotent. Nothing appears to be worth hanging onto other than the “self”, not even the real gods. Even though through the internet, we broadcast our opinions world widely, little by little, we are left to our own devices.
This is the “azimuth”, to which I was referring. To clarify, the truth is, we are not that powerless to control our lives. To clarify, within our neural biology, we have evolved to possess the cognitive capabilities to “handle” most of our demons. As we suggested in the previous chapters, just as our immune system has evolved over time to fight off disease, so did our psyche. To explain, as we suggested in "Delta Theory", with respect to the self-organization of life forms, which bettered their self-sustainability, by distributing different roles to different life forms, our neural biology underwent a similar process. In fact, not only can our brain "endure" demonic effects, it can harness them to our interests as well. Actually, humanity had these cognitive capabilities for quite a long time, but it never fully exploited it. We “chained” ourselves mentally, because of older times, times when our biology could not yet handle demonic effects, without angelic "assistance", and apparently, this new “azimuth” of change, redirects us to free ourselves from our evolutionary “chains of infancy”.
This is the core of our rebellion. We rebel against our angelic protection from our demons, the cognitive heritage of our ancestors. No longer are demons something to fear, and nor are they something to follow. Demons are something to exploit. Once we remove our preconceptions regarding demonic influences, demons merely represent the insertion of randomness into the concepts that govern our psyche, meaning, the cognitive capability to extend beyond that of which we know.
Nevertheless, demons manifest cognitive perspectives, which are not the product of rational thought or generalization capabilities, and therefore, they may still invoke contradictions and dilemmas within our consciousness, and hence, experiencing them is hardly “serene”. Moreover, as we suggested in the previous chapter, it is possible that metaphysically, demonic effects may be yet another manifestation of our sensations of pain, and if so, then obviously, experiencing them may not be pleasant. However, because arguably, our sensations of pain determine what we find meaningful, demons ensure we find our reality meaningful, and therefore, their effects on our consciousness are not necessarily undesired. To explain, while obviously, there is little to gain from experiencing physical pain, the truth is, most demonic effects affect the "filter" of our consciousness, and hence, they manifest through abstract disturbing notions, rather than through physical pain. Therefore, it suggests, we can effectively evict these sensations from our psyche, using abstract conceptual means.
Still, to achieve this, first, we should better understand the conceptual attributes of demonic influences. As we suggested in the previous chapter, demonic influences affect the "filter" of our consciousness, which in itself, consists of the collection of neural pathways in our brain, or alternatively, our born and learned instincts, and the sensations embedded in these pathways, controlling the manner these pathways route inbound stimulations, according to their contingent dimensional composition. Usually, our consciousness helps to create the instincts compiling this "filter", by adhering to our logical deltas, meaning, by repeatedly performing the actions, which later, our brain learns to perform automatically. Moreover, in most cases, the actions we repeat, and which eventually, our brain converts into cognitive instincts, reflect the consistency of our world, causing us to take the consistent attributes of our reality "for granted", such as gravity and spatiality, or alternatively, the relatively consistent meaning of terms and concepts, allowing us to learn new languages, practical abilities, and the likes.
Demonic influences override this cognitive process. Inhibitive demons cause us to learn new instincts, resulting with us exhibiting automatic behaviors, which do not serve any consistent purpose, such as saying a prayer before each meal, or feeling a sense of shame and fear, whenever we "disobey the word of god". In contrast, spontaneous demons cause ideas to enter our minds, even though we did not learn them through experience or contemplation, creating a dichotomy between the sources of the sensations our consciousness evaluates, and which eventually, it “flattens” into learned instincts. The first source is deterministic, meaning, the sensations our brain learned not to evict, so we would rethink them, and re-optimize the routing capabilities of our brain, while preserving our self-sustainability. For example, while learning to speak a language, our brain ensures, we remain vigilant to audial properties, with respect to the pronunciation of words, and hence, be able to recognize and avoid our mistakes, until finally, we become somewhat "deaf" to these details, allowing us to hear only the concepts the language describes, rather than evaluate it as merely "sounds". The second source is demonic. We cannot retrace the origin of demonic sensations, as their emergence in our consciousness occurs due to inconsistent changes in our neural architecture. These changes occur both materialistically, meaning, through mutations of the neural pathways in our brain, as well as contingent-dimensionally, meaning, through changes in the semantics of the generalizations with which we think.
Potentially, spontaneous demonic effects can result with the emergence of practically any sensation in our consciousness. To clarify, essentially, any semantic meaning, which may ever bother our consciousness, consists of contingent dimensions, and hence, theoretically, spontaneous demons can yield them all. Nevertheless, because as we suggested in "Delta Theory", the amount of contingent dimensions compiling a sensation is potentially infinite, the conceptual variety with which spontaneous demons can result, is infinite as well, while only a handful of these contingent dimensional possibilities, are consistent with our reality. Therefore, while it is not mandatory, the two different sources, from which sensations emerge in our consciousness, become a source of inconsistency within our psyche. To clarify, while through our senses, the external world persistently streams consistent patterns into our consciousness, at the same time, inconsistent elements repeatedly inflict demonic sensations in our brain, regardless if they yield conceptual inconsistencies in our psyche. Therefore, potentially, our consciousness constantly sustains a state of cognitive paradox, deeming any fixed instinctive thought pattern, by which we would wish to evict these paradoxical cognitive dispositions useless, and our sense of serenity fickle.
While arguably, we might wish to simply “kick out” all our demonic induced sensations, so to remain both serene and consistent with the external world, and our "natural" neurological architecture, it is simply impossible. To clarify, the existence of our reality, as well as the existence of the effects of inconsistent elements on it, are imminent. Moreover, without demonic effects, we would never have developed our cognitive capabilities.
But why? Well, first, if indeed, our sensations of pain occur due to the insertion of inconsistent elements into our consciousness, or alternatively, demons, it suggests, demons invoke our various deltas, including our logical and completeness deltas. Therefore, with respect to our conclusions from "Delta Theory", it suggests, that without demonic effects, we would lack the motivation to progress cognitively, leaving us as intelligent as any other earthly animal species. Secondly, we should understand, that while indeed, demonically induced sensations are inconsistent with the sensations we sense from the external world, still, they are consistent with themselves. To clarify, demonically induced sensations exist in our consistent reality, and hence, must be consistent elements. Still, as our brain attempts to evict demonically induced sensations, neurologically, it shifts from being consistent merely with the external world, to being consistent with both the external world, and our demonically induced sensations. While arguably, this merger may interfere with our ability to evict sensations, which we sense from the external world, it provides us with new different perspectives as well. We gain a different hierarchy of meaning, one which reduces the significance of concepts, consistent with the external world, while increasing the significance of demonically induced concepts. Nevertheless, this does not imply, we "deceive" ourselves from cognitively addressing the sensations, which actually bother our consciousness, as again, from the perspective of our consciousness, demonically induced sensations are as real as any other sensation. Still, this mixture of demonic and non-demonic sensations, within our hierarchy of meaning, yields new “problems”, which our brain attempts to solve. While arguably, the “solutions” we find to these demonically induced "problems", may not solve “problems”, existing in the external world, they may still provide us with practical knowledge, which we could never learn, without “solving” such inexistent demonically induced “problems”.
In short, demonic effects are essential for the development of human culture. But again, why? Well, if we take birds as an example, a bird does not wonder, why apples drop from trees, as it will never think it is its "problem", and hence, it will never develop theories in physics. Moreover, if we consider the underlining concept physics represent, namely "causality", as we suggested in “Delta Theory”, it is but a generalization, and as such, it cannot exist in the external world. Actually, the same applies to the term “physics”, as well as many other fields of conceptual human achievement. While indeed, we may question the worth of human culture, and actually, in "Delta Theory", we already suggested, cognitive superiority does not benefit our sense of happiness directly, still, our culture and cognitive superiority over other earthly animal species has placed us at the top of the earthly food chain, and surely, a careless ,perhaps serene bird, would have loved to take our place, if it could. To summarize, evolutionarily, demonic effects are surely beneficial.
The process, by which we gain new knowledge, through “solving” demonically induced “problems”, is what I call "demon casting". While demon casting, we "cast" seemingly inexistent demonically induced “problems” into elements, which both exist in the external world, and possibly, may be beneficial in the future. To clarify, while it is possible, that when coming to our attention, these “problems” may have been irrelevant to our existence in the external world, still, possibly, their “solutions” may become relevant later. For example, with respect to Issac Newton’s discoveries in physics, understanding the basic laws of gravitation, resulted with knowledge, applicable not only to falling objects, but to objects moving in all directions (even if Einstein’s relativity theories later corrected them). Furthermore, by showing that the physical world obeys mathematical equations, Newton’s discoveries inspired an entire ensemble of human cultural and technological growth.
Actually, this is not surprising. To clarify, computer sciences have shown that with truly unbiased randomness at our disposal, probabilistic algorithms can solve problems, using far less calculations, than deterministic algorithms require. While indeed, such probabilistic algorithms cannot yield foolproof results, while their deterministic counterparts can, for most intended purposes, these probabilistic algorithms are “good enough”. The same applies to demon casting. While indeed, it is unclear, if a demon cast will be beneficial in future non-demonic situations, still, there is a high probability, it will.
Still, regardless, demon casting is always beneficial, for the individual, who manages to perform it successfully. To explain, first, demon casting is “fun”. It is like a game you beat. Just as games impose us with challenges, which essentially, are irrelevant to our real lives, demons provide us with “problems”, which are irrelevant to the external world. Secondly, we should understand, demonically induced “problems” actually bother our consciousness, and hence, “solving” such “puzzles” both helps our existential condition, as well as asserts our “cognitive skills”, rewarding us with a sense of pride, which unquestionably, feels good. Furthermore, with respect to Issac Newton for example, it is possible, our demon cast embodies a new significant, or even ground breaking discovery. Who knows?
But this is exactly the problem. When our perspective is demonic, inevitably, we believe our demon cast simply “must” be “important” for others, and we expect our society to “recognize” this, strengthening our auto-angelic tendencies. To clarify, indeed, it is possible, our demon casts will be valuable for others in the future. Still, at the time of its inception, we simply cannot know, as the dimensional infinity, of which demonically induced sensations consist, makes it impossible for us to predict the practical value of our demon casts, which may range from groundbreaking achievements, to exhibitions of complete stupidity. Moreover, when we compare the amount of individuals, who actually manage to become groundbreaking and influential, with the amount of charlatans and idiots, claiming to be groundbreaking pioneers, arguably, the chances are that culturally, our demon casts will be insignificant. In short, while it is possible, we are significant angels, still, most likely, we are demonically disturbed individuals, whom merely found temporal serene relief.
Therefore, for the most of us, adopting an auto-angelic perspective, will result, with society ridiculing our demon casts, transforming our lives into a practical joke, which we pulled on ourselves. Moreover, we should remember, the real gods “issue” our demons, for their own "selfish" reasons, which rarely show any "respect" to the quality of the lives of the individuals who suffer them. More importantly, as we previously mentioned, the real gods affect us, so we would behave in irrational manners, and hence, their "center of interest" is not enhancing our rational knowledge, suggesting that in most cases, demon casts will reflect our irrationality, rather than groundbreaking technological progress. In fact, with respect to our previous historical review, it appears, the real gods do not "like" our technological progress, a tendency, which reflects in the erratic azimuth of human technological progress, from being technologically advanced, to technological backwardness, and vice versa. Furthermore, even if our demon casts will make us significant angels, and even if we manage to persuade many followers, we should always remember, that exactly as the biblical text consistently suggests, the lives of angels are miserable. In short, arguably, this aspect of demon casting, is problematic, and actually, understanding this, with respect to this text, I would like to stress, I do not suggest this text should be culturally significant, and I would not consider it a "failure", if it will simply be overlooked. My reasons for writing it, are personal.
Still, the auto-angelic route is not the only possible outcome of demon casting. We must understand, that while it is formidable to “beat” the game, there are plenty of other demons out there to cast and “beat”, and actually, once we demon cast successfully, the insignificance, of the demons we casted, becomes apparent. To clarify, it is not the demon cast, which is formidable, but rather our ability to demon cast successfully. This understanding reduces the meaningfulness we find in our demon casts, and hence, it leaves us both demon-resistant (in the sense, that our demons do not govern our lives anymore), and protected from following a path, which most probably, will lead us to ridicule, sorrow, or both.
The ability to repeatedly demon cast successfully, is what I call the "dragon instinct". Probably, you are wondering, why I chose this name. I mean, “Dragon”. As if we did not overload enough bombastic terms of the English language. What did we have already? “Gods”, “angels”, “demons”, and now “dragons”. Well, admittingly, I have somewhat of a "history" with this term, and if you are acquainted with my musical works, you might have noticed it. Still, for my defense, I can honestly claim, that by choosing this term, I am applying the same principles, which I applied while introducing our previous terminology. I am redefining the term, so it would refer to new concepts, while still relating to some of its original connotations. Nevertheless, honestly, had I wished it, I could have chosen any other term. So yeah, I choose the term “dragon instinct”, because it refers to concepts, similar to the ideas, to which I was referring in my musical works.
Still, there are additional anthropological etymological reasons, why I chose this term. To clarify, we can find references to "dragons", in both far-eastern and western mythologies, both of which suggesting that generally, humans possess the cognitive capabilities we described previously. For example, in far-eastern mythologies, dragons represent wisdom, and are said to have taught humans to speak, and therefore, considering demon casting enhances our knowledge, this is an interesting analogy. Still, somewhat surprisingly, the analogy I find most inspiring, comes from the bible, and I quote, "the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience" (the Book of Ephesians 2:2). Admittingly, originally, this quote was associated with Satan, which sometimes appears in the bible under the name “the dragon”. Still, because as we suggested in chapter three, Satan is merely an angel, I feel little problem “borrowing” this quote. Moreover, because the gods we know from our heritage, along with their angelic messages, embody inhibitive fixating demons (inhibitive, as we receive them from external social sources, and fixating, because usually, angelic messages are "fixated" in ancient texts, and hence, obviously, they cannot "change"), I find this analogy fitting. To clarify, because by repeatedly demon casting, we will find no comfort accepting angelic messages, there is an inevitable antagonism, between religions and “serial demon casters”. Moreover, we should note that again, because Satan is a proclaimed protagonist of “demons”, the dragon instinct is antagonistic to it as well. In short, regardless of the demon or angelic message at hand, if it demands we behave in an inconsistent or irrational manner, the dragon instinct will be to “disobey it". Moreover, because this “spirit of rebellion” is embodied in a creature (meaning, a dragon), it suggests, this behavioral pattern is not the result of our knowledge or rationality, but rather of a biological instinct. Still, this beast-like dragon metaphor does not suggest, the dragon instinct is animal-like, as it relies on our "higher" cognitive capabilities, meaning, our ability to think conceptually.
It is hard to tell, when the dragon instinct first emerged in human evolution, and actually, it is possible, it is the missing evolutionary link (or better said, “fracture”), separating the Homo-Neanderthals race, from the Homo-sapiens race. To explain, possibly, this racial separation occurred due to such neurological evolution, as demon casting allows culture to evolve inconsistently, “leaping forward” in the technological sense. To clarify, as we previously suggested, the introduction of randomness into the composition of the concepts with which we think, makes us “solve problems”, which should not have troubled us yet, and hence, demon casts can introduce technological and cultural achievements, which are “ahead of their time”, and actually, our ability to demon cast, makes it hard to track the course of our cultural evolution, through rational analysis.
Unlike our other cognitive born instincts, our ability to demon cast is dependent on the external world. To clarify, while indeed, as we suggested in "Delta Theory", sensations of pain, which are somewhat "external" to our consciousness, "trigger" all our cognitive born instincts, or alternatively, our various deltas, still, these instincts inflict us with well-defined wills, such as wanting to eat, wanting to better our cognitive capabilities, and the likes. However, demonically induced pains are different. Essentially, demonically induced pain sensations are somewhat "alien" to our neural biology, meaning, they represent neither the needs of our body, nor an evolutionarily superior behavioral pattern. Neurologically, they have no purpose, and hence, differently from other pain sensations we feel, when we attempt to appease them, our brain does not "reward us" with a temporal sense of relief. Still, because as we suggested previously, demonically induced sensations may be radically inconsistent with the sensations we sense from the external world, repressing our demons, meaning, merging our demons with the "filter" of our consciousness, will not alleviate our sense of distress, but rather deem the sensations we sense from the external world, inconsistent with our beliefs, causing us great anger and discontent in the process. For example, if we embrace a demonic notion, suggesting we could fly like birds, we could quite easily find ourselves in a hospital, after a misfortunate "lift off attempt". In addition, because our demonically induced pain sensations emerge due to metaphysical inconsistencies, they do not adhere to any type of causality, and hence, our rationality is powerless to appease them. Arguably, if our demonic influences are moderate, our brain may be able to overcome them, by utilizing its natural neurological-biological mechanisms (such as sleep, for example). However, when our demonic influences are severe, this might be impossible, forcing us to seek "external solutions" for our demonically induced sufferings.
Arguably, religions are the most common type of such "external solutions" for our demonically induced sufferings. To clarify, while indeed, as we suggested in the previous chapter, inevitably, all religions endorse inhibitive fixating demons, still, obviously, religions benefit their followers as well, helping them overcome some of their irrational demonically induced tendencies, granting them more control over their lives. In many ways, it is as if religions demon casted for us, with the product of their demon casts being the teachings, to which they attempt to persuade us. For example, by inheriting us with a morality, religions make us resist many of our irrational, arguably demonic desires, such as committing regretful felonies against others. In this respect, psychology is quite similar to religion, because as we suggested in the previous chapter, the metaphysical basis of all contemporary empirical sciences, including that of psychology, is inconsistent, quite similarly to that of a religion.
Nevertheless, usually, religious “solutions” for our demonically induced sufferings, are far from ideal. To explain, first, again, as we suggested in the previous chapters, usually, religious teachings are irrational, or alternatively, demonic, and hence, potentially, they may increase our demonically induced sufferings, such as for example, when calling their followers to wage religious wars. Secondly, usually, religious "solutions" are too general to help us in some demonic situations, such as for example, when we discover, our religious leaders are corrupt, leaving us defenseless at the "mercy" of our demons. Thirdly, similarly to psychology, usually, religions do not "grasp" the "nature" of the demons we discussed in this text, and therefore, their methods for demonic alleviation, cannot "pinpoint" our demons, but rather associate them with other, somewhat irrelevant concepts, which may confuse our reflections. For example, while religions may correctly associate our demonically induced desires with demons, still, usually, they will attempt to persuade us these demons are deity minions of the devil, while in actuality, none of these associations are either relevant, or beneficial for our "recovery". In contrast, the science of psychology may attempt to persuade us, there is a causative justification for the emergence of our demons, making us assume irrelevant conclusions with respect to our psyche, and hence, unintentionally, may interfere with our psychological "recovery". Last, religions undermine our personal freedom. To clarify, by following a religious teaching, and embracing its morality, implicitly, we limit our experiences, to those our religious persuasion allows, such as for example, determining the food we eat, the days we spend off work, and the likes. Still, religions undermine our personal freedom in an even more fundamental manner, as they make us depend on them, so to be able to endure our demons.
While in many ways, the same applies to psychology as well, which in some cases, may undermine our ability to handle our lives, without the aid of psychological treatment, it is even more true to narcotics. To clarify, potentially, narcotics can alter our neural biology, so to undermine our demonic influences, without resorting to conceptual methods such as demon casting. Nevertheless, still, narcotics are external to our biology, and hence, by using them as means for demonic alleviation, we both become dependent on them, and suffer their side effects, undermining our personal freedom in the process. Moreover, differently from religious "solutions", usually, narcotics are costly, meaning, they impose a financial burden on our lives, which may translate to many activities, which we would find a nuisance or distasteful otherwise (and I will spare us the specifics). Still, even more to the point, because neurologically, narcotics are a crude instrument, affecting our neural biology in its entirety, similarly to religions and psychology, they cannot "pinpoint" specific demonic influences. To clarify, as we suggested throughout this text, it is possible, demonic effects yield all our deltas, meaning, all our wills and desires, and hence, if narcotics are to help us undermine our demonically induced sufferings, they must dull all our desires, reducing our general responsiveness to any stimulation, and irreparably damaging our potential in the process. The same applies to more aggressive psychiatric "treatment techniques", such as lobotomy, or electric shock "therapy", but again, with your forgiveness, we will not discuss these. I mean, nuff said.
To summarize, while indeed, there may be times, when we would find the external "solutions" we discussed beneficial, still, if our demonic influences are too specific, meaning, if demons "target" only a specific aspect of our lives, these "solutions" may be inefficient, and potentially harmful. In such cases, we could either choose a passive course of action, meaning, dive into depression, possibly resulting with suicidal tendencies, or attempt a more active course of action, meaning, we can attempt to demon cast. Still, as my use of the term "attempt" suggests, nothing guarantees our success, (and perhaps, this is why this “solution” is not that common).
Still, what exactly is a demon cast? Well, the truth is, the properties of a demon cast, depends on the specific "nature" of the demon we cast, and hence, demon casting cannot be a "well-defined" practice. Nevertheless, all demon casts share a few similarities, which differentiate them from our other endeavors.
The main difference, between demon casting, and the external "solutions” we discussed previously, is that through demon casting, we objectively "better" our immediate external reality, by creating physical object exhibiting impressive properties, enhancing our practical capabilities, altering the way others know us, and the likes. While the external “solutions” we discussed previously, temporally discredit or “remove” our demonic influences, demon casting does just the opposite, showing our social environment, our past weaknesses, or alternatively, our past demonic influences, were neither irrational, nor a reason to discredit us. By “casting” into our reality, something unique, inspiring, and perhaps even beneficial to others, we validate ourselves, providing justification and purpose to the demons, which troubled us previously. Therefore, while the external “solutions” we discussed previously imply, we have, or are, the problem, suggesting we should change ourselves, by demon casting successfully, we exemplify we are “the solution”, suggesting our social environment should change the way it perceives us, understanding we are neither troubled nor “possessed”, and that the only reason for our previous hardships, is because we are the “avant-garde” of our social environment.
Considering this, we could argue, "demon casting" is but another name for auto-angelic tendencies, as implicitly, both may result with expectations, that our social environment should cherish us. However, contrary to auto-angelic tendencies, while demon casting, we do not focus our attention on the respect or gratification, we would receive from our social environment, but rather on the task itself, meaning, the transformation of our demonically induced perspectives, into objects, exhibiting unique objectively beneficial properties. Actually, this difference is exactly the reason, why demon casts must exhibit objectively beneficial properties. To clarify, regardless of the subjective value we may find in our demon casts, usually, our social environment is angelic, and as such, it does not "care" for any irrational notions, other than those it endorses already. Therefore, usually, our social environment will either dismiss, or ridicule, the demonically induced concepts, which inspired us to demon cast originally, and hence, without an objective value, we should expect, our social environment would demotivate us from the effort, leaving us defenseless at the mercy of our demons.
However, as we suggested previously, even with the support of our social environment, our attempts to demon cast, can fail. Still, such failures suggest more than merely our failure to gain the appreciation of our social environment. There is a lot more “at risk”. To explain, first, when we fail to demon cast successfully, we fail to “beat” our demon. Indeed, because no one guarantees our social environment will "care" for our demon casts, the appreciation of our social environment does not determine the successfulness of our demon casts, and hence, the criterion, by which we determine the successfulness of our demon casts, can only be subjective. Still, if we fail to persuade ourselves, our own demon casting “worked”, inevitably, we will fail to justify our demonically induced “sufferings”, and hence, we will continue to suffer from the same state of demonically induced distress. Secondly, by repeatedly failing to “successfully” demon cast the same demon, effectively, we will exhibit symptoms of demonic possession, and risk developing obsessive-compulsive behavioral patterns, which may irreparably damage our lives. Considering this, there is an even greater, third risk. If we believe our demon casts "worked", while objectively, they fail to exhibit any objective value, we risk developing auto-angelic tendencies, and suffer their consequences.
Still, even if we demon cast “successfully”, and even if our demon casts exhibit objectively valid unique value, which potentially, our social environment could find beneficial, again, usually, our social environment "suffers" from its own fixating demonic influences (which in many cases, may be of a higher demonic measure and possession than our own), and hence, we should not expect, our social environment would cherish our demon casts automatically. In fact, this is yet another reason why demon casts must exhibit objective value, as in many cases, our struggle to validate ourselves, as neither insane nor possessed, may require we exhibit the objective value of our efforts.
Still, there is a different, arguably less "demanding" discipline, which potentially, we could utilize for demon casting, namely, art. To explain, creating art facilitates all the necessities for demon casting. With art, we “cast” our internal conceptual world, into physical elements, existing in the external world, and therefore, it is not surprising, artistic creation is both a convenient, and popular, format for demon casting. Unlike other activities, in art, we do not need to remain consistent with a single objective reality. To explain, in art, we can create not only the elements, into which we “cast” our demons, but also the artistic world, in which these elements reside, allowing a far greater variety of possible demon casts, of which all are exclusive to art. To clarify, unavoidably, the “metaphysical rigidness” of the imminent dimensions, limits the variety of objectively valuable demon casts, which we can create, with respect to the actual nature of the external world, while a fabricated artistic world, is limited only by our imagination, and level of craftsmanship. Actually, this makes art even more convenient to demon cast in, as usually, we can increase our level of craftsmanship, through formal learning, autodidact practice, or both. To clarify, while it is extremely hard to reinvent the laws of physics even once, it is only natural to create different poems, stories, paintings, sculptures, music, films, or whatever other methods of artistic expression. Therefore, considering we demon cast out of necessity, rather than out of free disinterested choice, if we care for our well-being, it is preferable we demon cast in the realm of art, than in the realm of science. It is preferable we make music, than write strange texts, such as this one, for example. I mean, yes. If you have not yet figured it out, this is my own personal demon cast. While arguably, “Delta Theory” is somewhat auto-angelic, as I mentioned before, this text is somewhat “different”.
Still, even if demon casting in the realm of art may be less demanding than demon casting in the realm of science, when demon casting in the realm of art, we must adhere to some objective criteria, or fall into depression, ridicule, obsessive-compulsive behavioral patterns, auto-angelic tendencies, or all of the above. These criteria fall into several categories, all of which we must address to some level.

1. Demonic reference.
Do our artistic works reflect actual embodiments, or results, of our demonically induced concepts? To clarify, we can create many kitsch cliché creative works, which realize none of the things that actually bother us. If we do this, it implies, we simply do not demon cast, and hence, even if we gain respect for our efforts, we will alleviate none of our demonically induced sufferings.

2. Craftsmanship.
Are we creating works of art at all, or do we merely jabber about concepts, which essentially, have little to do with the works we actually create? When attempting to demon cast through the realm of art, the results of poor craftsmanship may vary, from ridicule by those who evaluate our works, to a deluded self of identity and individualism, which can end in a heartbeat. Even though irrelevant reasons such as “hype”, or charisma, may cause others to respect our creative efforts, if our craftsmanship is extremely poor, again, we achieve no demon casting. To clarify, there is no reason we should gain respect for a work of art that is pure shit, unless the reason we gain this respect, is not the work of art. While possibly, we may think, we gained the respect of others because we demon casted, unless we will better our level of craftsmanship, this "respect" can only reflect the current "hype", or our charisma. Still, because we already gained the respect we longed for, we will not feel inclined to better our level of craftsmanship, and instead, we will do what we do best, meaning, follow the current “hype”, and socialize. Therefore, while we may think our demon casts were successful, and that our demonically induced problems are over, still, as soon as we will fail to follow the “hype”, or socialize successfully, our past "achievements" will mean nothing, as we fall into depression, quite similarly to as in any crisis of faith.

3. Uniqueness.
Are we actively demon casting, or are we merely repeating the demon casting techniques of others? Surprisingly, of all the criteria, uniqueness is perhaps the least significant. Even if past artists created artworks, exhibiting concepts and techniques, which we utilized as well, still, it was in a different context. Moreover, even if objectively, two works are identical, each artwork introduces its own flavor, as the audiences, to which both artworks direct, and the social and historical context, in which both artworks exist, are different. Furthermore, the selection of context could be the demon cast itself, such as was the case, with the famous "sculpture" "the fountain", by Marcel Duchamp, whom in 1917, chose to display a urinal in Paris's famous Louvre museum, by "renaming it", in an attempt to mock the artistic establishment. In short, just as a poet does not need to invent the terms of the language in order to gain respect, absolute uniqueness is not required in any artistic medium. In fact, total uniqueness could make a work of art so “unreadable”, it will be hard to differentiate it from low level of craftsmanship. Still, if a work of art shows total lack of uniqueness, or close, again, it is not a demon cast. If all we do is copy the works of others, then how can our artistic efforts reflect our demons? For crying out loud, it is someone else’s demon cast! How is it any different from following a religion? How is it any different form conformity or obedience? Furthermore, if these works do not reflect our demons, then why do we spend our time and energy on this effort? What exactly is our demon? Is it the concept, which the artwork we copied reflects, or is it merely our attempt to gain respect? To clarify, if our motivation, is to gain the same amount of respect, as that of the original demon caster, we suffer from a different demon. To explain, the thought we should gain the same amount of respect, as that of the original demon caster, without any reason or achievement, is irrational. On the one hand, we may envy the respect the original demon caster gained, but fail to find value in the original works we copied, and if so, by copying these works, we are doing something we do not respect, and hence, the thought others should respect us, reflects merely our arrogance, if not our complete stupidity. On the other hand, if we value the works we copied, we should know, we do not possess the internal qualities required to create them, as they already exist, and not by our doing, and hence, we should ask ourselves, why should we even attempt to gain respect for our efforts? In short, the very reason we invest our energy creating such artworks is irrational, or alternatively, demonic. While it is possible, these demons are spontaneous, in most cases, such demons are inhibitive and fixating, and if we were to actually demon cast, we should have casted these demons, rather than copy someone else’s demon cast. Still, as of yet, we did not demon cast our true demons, and therefore, we are prone to suffer from demonic possession, obsessive-compulsive behaviors, and all the other epistemological misfortunes demonic influences inflict.

4. Variety.
Are we demon casting our current demons, or are we re-performing our past successful demon casts? Variety is perhaps the biggest “Achilles heel” of the artistic demon casting “solution” to demonically induced sufferings. We had it once. We disobeyed everything. We perfected our craftsmanship, realized our talent, and conceived something truly unique, and valuable. We even earned respect for it. We affirmed ourselves as “correct”, while we proved our social environment was “wrong”. We were on our way to become “free” from our demons. However, things changed. Society changed, and with it, the inhibitive demons it endorses. Our personal life changed, and with it, yet another set of inhibitive demons emerged. New spontaneous demons came out of nowhere, and what did we do? Did we demon cast them as we did before? Why should we? We think we already “did our part”. We already gained respect for what we accomplished. Let someone else do the “dirty work” from now on.
Well, tough luck. Demon casting can only “solve” our current demonically induced sufferings. Demon casting is not an insurance policy. Had we had the time, or ability, to relax, perhaps "sleep things over", we would not have had to demon cast in the first place. The fact we are repeating the same demon cast, which once was so successful, will do nothing to protect us from the influences of our current demons, for all it implies. Furthermore, because we gained “our place in the sun” through demon casting, it is possible, we left the comfortable embrace of the inhibitive fixating demons of our social environment, and if so, we are left all alone. We relied on ourselves, and we gave ourselves "the finger". So now, the most probable “solution” we will find for our demonically induced sufferings, will be to embrace religion, begin a long and tedious psychological therapy (which most probably, would fail to yield any significant results), dive into depression, "escape" our demons using narcotics, or all of the above. Moreover, by repeatedly copying our own “solution”, we are essentially becoming auto-angels. Our repeated pattern becomes our message, and we will suffer from our auto-angelic tendencies as all angels do.

5. Quantity.
Are we really demon casting, or are we merely playing with the idea? Arguably, introducing the quantity criterion, diverts us away from the essentials of art. To clarify, in the realm of art, it does not matter, if we created only one great work of art, as if it was truly great, others will respect us for it. Still, demon casting is simply not the same endeavor as artistic creation, as essentially, it is identical in its psychological significance to religion. Again, our personal reality constantly changes. New demons can appear in our psyche every day. So how are we handling these demons? Are we demon casting them, or is there another method, by which we “solve” the sufferings they induce? If there is another method, does it not contradict the “demon casting method”? How are we addressing this difference? With demon casting, we are the ones “on the right path”, while all other manners to deal with demonic influenced concepts demand we “correct” our ways. So who wins this debate? Is it a debate at all, or is it yet another demon, ranting at us, we cannot demon cast anymore? So when will we demon cast this demon? If we constantly demon cast, quantity rises, and the dragon instinct becomes dominant. If we do not, who will “solve” this demon, other than the fixating inhibitive demons of our society? I mean, what else is left? Narcotics?

You should pay attention, I did not include “effect” in this list. No, I did not somehow “forget it”. To explain, indeed, when evaluating an artwork, the most significant criterion, by which we should measure it, is by the amount and types of effects it has over its spectators. However, while demon casting, such an effect is optional. To clarify, even though demon casting changes our immediate personal external reality, it is not the external reality that “counts”, but rather our perspective on it, which we modify by demon casting successfully.
Arguably, this observation has profound implications, with respect to the cultural evolution of art. To explain, throughout the history of art, the definition of art was always a problematic “grey area”. From being totally commissioned (such as the Christian art of the Middle Ages), art shifted to more contemporary notions (such as “art for art’s sake”), claiming art is "free" and "disinterested".
While indeed, it is nice to think of art in such "liberating" terminology, a different “picture” emerges, when considering the notion of demon casting. To clarify, the art establishment, perceives the independence of art, as an inherent component of its essence. However, arguably, with respect to our recent observation, this independence may be but a quality inherited from demon casting, as essentially, art is merely a concept culture invented. Art has no intrinsic qualities, other than those society grants it, while arguably, demon casting reflects our neurological biological instincts, and as such, it does not need to adhere to any definition. It is what it is. The conceptually independent nature of demon casting is the result of its purpose, to alleviate our demonically induced “sufferings”. This alleviating effect does not require any definition. It merely requires, the external world would “store” the physical manifestation of our demon casts (which in this case, simply means “the artworks”).
Undemanding as it may seem, “storing” the demon cast within a physical object is essential. To clarify, if the demon is not “stored” (or alternatively, “casted”) into some sort of physical manifestation (such as an artwork, text, or physical invention), the demon cast can only exist in the mind of its future creator. Nevertheless, “storing” the demon cast in the mind of its future creator, is not enough, as before the demon is physically “casted”, the very idea it can be “casted” into matter, may in itself reflect a demonic perspective. To clarify, the demon cast does not yet exist in the external world, and hence, the thought that it is, is inconsistent. Arguably, this is just a formality. Nevertheless, before the demon is successfully casted, its future creator, can only believe it can be done, while in actuality, the final physical manifestation of a demon cast, can be radically different, from the original design its creator conceived. To explain, we should remember, the perspective, motivating us to attempt to demon cast, is demonic, and as such, to some level, it must be inconsistent with our reality, and therefore, usually, our original design for our demon casts, are inconsistent with our reality as well. Therefore, to realize our demon casts, inevitably, we must conform our initial designs to the limitations our reality imposes.
Therefore, to demon cast in the realm of art, artists simply must "get their hands dirty”. An artwork must remain consistent with the physical limitations of its artistic medium, regardless if it is fine arts, literature, cinema, music, poetry, or whatever other medium of artistic creation, as if an artwork cannot exist physically, the very notion it can, is demonic, by definition. While possibly, an artist may not be aware, that the product of a demon cast is different from its original design, still, this reflective blindness does not change the fact, it is simply different.
Still, arguably, this realization limitation has its benefits. To explain, first, as we previously suggested, the ability to merge our demonically induced concepts, with the consistent nature of our reality, rewards us with a sense of accomplishment. Secondly, as artists "get their hands dirty”, arguably, they may undergo a “correcting consistent feedback effect", as they learn the physical limitations of their artistic mediums, which inevitably, “soothes” the inherent inconsistencies of their initial designs, returning them "back into reality”. Last, by realizing the demon cast, an artist may exhibit it, and possibly, may even gain respect for it.
Still, this is only one possibility. To clarify, first, by concentrating on their demons, artists may adopt a perspective, suggesting their demons are their benefactors, which in turn, may result with devotion to their demons, deeming them slaves of the real gods, not so different from atheist and Zen type Hindu persuasions. Secondly, as we suggested before, it is also possible, that failing to cast some of the inherent inconsistencies of a demon, will result with repeated failed attempts to demon cast it, transforming the belief it can be casted at all, into a fixating possessive demon. This demon is different from the demon the artist attempts to cast, and hence, the artist must address it separately, either by casting it, or otherwise.
Arguably, these possible downsides, emphasizes the significance of the quantity criterion. To explain, by repeatedly demon casting successfully, artists learn, the ability to demon cast is more significant, than the demon or the product of the demon cast, and hence, with each success, casting each specific demon, becomes somewhat mundane. Slowly, the artist shifts form a demonic mentality, into what I call a "dragon". To explain, essentially, a dragon “masters” the “art of demon casting”, and hence, it can rely on this ability, when handling any demon, without the need to resort to external “solutions”, such as religions, psychological treatments, or narcotics, and arguably, this independency may have resulted, with the conceptual independency, which the art establishment associates with art. Moreover, because the demonically induced concepts, which serve as motivation and inspiration for demon casts, are irrational, essentially, demon casts are "free" from a need to suggest rational justifications for their conception, logically valid argumentations to explain the reason for their inception, or logical restrictions, which potentially, could demotivate us from the effort of their creation.
Nevertheless, contrary to Immanuel Kant’s definition of beauty (which later, the art establishment associated with art in general), artistic demon casting is anything but “disinterested”. To explain, not only is there a purpose to artistic demon casting, arguably, this purpose is practically imprinted into the human genes (or using the terminology of “Delta Theory”, it is imprinted into the automaton, which governs our animal body). To explain, when people say artistic creation is their therapy, they are not over glorifying anything, as essentially, whenever we demon cast through artistic creation, this is exactly what we are doing, on the most fundamental neurological biological level.
Still, the art establishment claims this independence its own, without mentioning, the origins of this independence are "demonic". Instead, the art establishment relies on rational philosophical argumentations, such as those endorsed by post modernism, for example. While the art establishment is happy to accept the truly remarkable artistic achievements, which demon casts exhibited throughout the ages, formally, it refuses to differentiate demonically influenced artworks, from non-demonically influenced ones. Arguably, it is understandable. To explain, because demon casts are independent of both rational reasoning, and social limitations, we simply cannot prove, an artwork embodies a demon cast, and not merely a manifestation of craftsmanship. We can only guess, what thought or demon bothered the mind of an artist, while creating an artwork, and actually, usually, artists do not really know this either. To clarify, usually, demon-casting artists are only aware, that somehow, the creation process makes them “feel better”, without having a concrete explanation why.
Nevertheless, arguably, we may learn to differentiate between demon casting artworks, and manifestations of pure craftsmanship, by repeatedly attempting to demon cast, becoming familiar with a large variety of artworks, or both. To explain, by repeatedly demon casting, we learn to differentiate the elements, within a work of art, which are “just for show”, from those, which are imperative to successful demon casts. In contrast, by becoming familiar with a large variety of artworks, we learn to recognize repeated patterns in seemingly unrelated artworks, which potentially, can help us with this classification, as essentially, demon casts reflect their demonic randomness, which arguably, cannot be converted into mere craftsmanship. Still, because of the unpredictability of demonic influences, these methods can only be speculative, meaning, they grant us a vague classification sensibility, and not a set of objective criteria.
Moreover, again, to "decipher" the true value and meaning of an artwork, including its demonic references, we must know the historical and cultural context of its creation, as even if an artwork may be merely a manifestation of craftsmanship, potentially, there may have been a time, in which similar artworks, may have embodied artistic demon casts. For example, if we consider the development of rock music, arguably, there was a time, not so long ago, when the “rough” attitude of rock music, was both new, and reactionary. However, as rock music became ever more popular, it transformed from the expression of individual demons, to a "code", which all rockers must obey, effectively undermining these founding “dragonish” attributes. Arguably, rock music may still reflect a sense of rebellion against something (whatever that is). Still, similarly to religions, this rebellion, and its "dragonish attributes", were already "casted" for today's rockers, transforming rock music, to a general external “solution” for our demonically induced sufferings, which in many cases, may be ineffective when dealing with the specifics of our demons. Actually, in this respect, we can even claim, the "founders of rock music” are in fact, angels, as arguably, they exhibit all the angelic necessities and downsides, including the imminent falsity of their message, transforming our expression of individual freedom, into a list of strict and oppressive fashion codes.
Considering this, we should enhance our terminology. Instead of differentiating demon casting artworks, from manifestations of pure craftsmanship, we should use the term "angel casting artworks". To clarify, while similarly to demon casting artworks, angel casting artworks exhibit demonic influences, still, the demons they exhibit are obsolete, suggesting they can only be inhibitive. While as we just suggested, it is possible, there was a founding demon caster, whom casted this demon into the artistic format, by which we know it today, this format no longer reflects any personal or individual demonic influence, and neither do angel casters attempt to mutate it, so to reflect their current personal demonic influences. In fact, similarly to as in religions, the artistic formats of angel casting artworks, persuade us to exhibit irrational behaviors, a product of a fixating inhibitive demon. For example, if we consider rock music, its angel casting properties, manifest in many ways, beginning from the type of music angel casting artists create, and ending with idiotic "groupie" behavioral patterns. Therefore, while demon casting artworks may serve us as means to alleviate our demonically induced “sufferings”, angel-casting artworks achieve the exact opposite, enhancing our demonic influences, while leaving us incapable of using the artistic medium, as means of demonic alleviation, forcing us to resort to other methods, such as religions, psychological treatments, narcotics, or whatever other means, by which we can escape our mental reality (such as sexuality, and hedonism, in general).
Arguably, angel casting is somewhat similar to an alarming behavioral pattern we described in "Delta Theory", namely, logical bestiality, which as we suggested, transforms our lives into a somewhat "mechanical" algorithm, which many times, may result with a sense of shame, for our inability to realize our ideals. Still, angel casting artists may be more versatile in their non-artistic endeavors, and hence, essentially, angel casting is different from logical bestiality. Moreover, creating angel-casting artworks is not necessarily a harmful practice. To explain, first, similarly to demon casting, angel-casting answers a biological cognitive instinct, namely, the will "to belong" socially, and from an evolutionary perspective, for humans, the will "to belong" is a necessity, as we depend on our social environment to survive. Secondly, while angel-casting artists may not mutate the formats of their creations, they may still express creativity and ingenuity, by focusing their efforts on improving their level of craftsmanship and techniques, striving to be the best in their genres, and may achieve remarkable feats in the process. Therefore, arguably, it might even be beneficial, if artists were to begin their artistic endeavors, with angel casting, as potentially, it may better their future craftsmanship.
Nevertheless, due to its inherent properties, angel casting causes great resentment and antagonism among demon casters. To explain, first, while when demon casting, we focus on our personal demons, when angel casting, our subjective perspectives are simply irrelevant. Secondly, when demon casting, essentially, we "rebel" against our demons, while when angel casting, we adhere to our inhibitive fixating demons. Thirdly, angel casting artists aspire to reach the top of existing social hierarchies, while demon casting artists wish to disrupt these hierarchies. Fourthly, while the ideal, to which angel casting artists aspire, is to be “superstars”, the ideal of demon casting artists is to be "dragons". Fifthly, not only is there a colossal difference between the two practices, there is exploitation as well. To explain, as we suggested, arguably, the “artistic freedom” is the product of art's demon casting heritage, which angel casting artists are more than happy to exploit to their selfish needs, which in many cases, are irrelevant to art, such as expectations, society will grant them a "special treatment", as reward, for the cultural achievements of their demon casting counterparts. Sixthly, the inevitable adherence to existing formats, deems the sincerity of angel casting artists, irrelevant to their creative efforts, while when demon casting, sincerity is all that "counts".
Demon casting artists will consider themselves as "real" artists, and actually, this is partially true, as the art they create is intrinsically connected with their psychological reality, even if their level of craftsmanship may be questionable. In addition, demon casting artist may believe, their angel-casting counterparts are “sellouts”, or “fake”, and again, this is partially true, as indeed, all angel casting artists care for is success, and mostly, their creative efforts do not exhibit any type of "sincerity". In contrast, angel casting artists will believe they are simply realists, and actually, this is partially true, as existing social-cultural structures and establishments, support their creative efforts, both socially, and financially. Moreover, angel casting artists may accuse their demon-casting counterparts of being insane, and again, considering the ideal, to which demon casting artists aspire, namely, to be "dragons", this is also partially true, I mean, come on.
Therefore, it appears, associating demon casting artists, and angel casting artists, with the same practice, namely, art, does nothing but harm, as essentially, the two practices are contradictive. Nevertheless, our difficulty to objectively differentiate between them, deems it impossible to grant each practice its own cultural realm. Obviously, this “arrangement” yields much resentment within the art world. To clarify, demon casting artists suffer from this arrangement, because as soon as they achieve a successful artistic demon cast, a flock of angel casting artists begins to capitalize on their turf (and possibly, “kicking them off the thrown", which they singlehandedly conceived), while angel-casting artists suffer from it as well, as our misconceptions with respect to their craft, forces them to pretend they are rebellious, sincere, and free, while in practice, they are enslaved to the formats of their genres.
Nevertheless, arguably, in practice, this "arrangement" betters angel-casting artists, and actually, this is understandable, as essentially, angel casters both adhere to social restrictions, and are predictable, and hence, provide the "stability" required to capitalize on their creative efforts, allowing angel casting artists to earn their livelihood from their craft, while demon casting artists can only dream of such an option. To explain, because demon casting artists respond to their personal inconsistent unpredictable demons, they cannot ensure any type of "stability", so essential to financial exploitation. Indeed, seldom, demon casting artists may be financially successful. Still, even in such cases, inevitably, they will have to choose whether to remain true to their demon-casting path, and risk their financial success, or "convert" to angel casting, and handle their demons outside the realm of art.
Still, in no way does this suggest, artistic demon casts are culturally insignificant. On the contrary, potentially, demon-casting artworks can be as valuable to human culture, as Einstein’s relativity theories. To explain, a demon cast does not need to deal with sciences to be significant. For example, if indeed, concrete angels have written the western monotheist bible, its compilation into a single book, qualifies as a demon cast, and hence, essentially, it is identical to literature, meaning, it is an artwork. Nevertheless, the cultural significance of demon-casting artists may not always reflect in their personal lives, and in many cases, society and culture have exploited their efforts, while the business of art roamed its wheels, such as was the case with Vincent van Gogh for example, who hardly sold a single painting during his life, while today, his works are priceless.
Still, as we previously suggested, arguably, there might be a change coming. To explain, not only did our contemporary self-centeredness, and the contemporary rising popularity of auto-angelic tendencies, make us believe, we have “a message from god”, in addition, it made us express ourselves more freely, and abundantly, through our creative efforts, and hence, unintentionally, more of us began attempting to demon cast. To clarify, while indeed, people have been demon casting throughout human history, still, the manner, by which we demon cast today, has changed. To explain, in the past, people were reluctant to demon cast without the embrace of a backing establishment, ranging from academic institutes, galleries, newspapers, to the media in general. While indeed, these establishments granted an outlet for demon casting, still, they imposed their list of demands and requirements as well. For example, in academic institutes, the requirement is to base our current efforts, on previously published academic research, while in art-oriented establishments, the requirement is to be aware of previous artworks, and art theories. Many times, failure to comply with these requirements, resulted with rejection by these establishments, and without their support, reluctantly, many individuals chose to abandon their demon casting attempts, in favor of more “sound” endeavors.
While arguably, the requirements such establishments impose, are a good practice, repeatedly, individuals have made significant discoveries and achievements, outside the embrace of any establishment, which possibly, could have been demon casts. Still, regardless, the significance of these achievements, was always in their product, and not in the manner, by which people achieved them, and hence, currently, no one acknowledges demon casting even exists, neither as a method to progress cognitively, or technologically, and nor as a human neurological biological instinct.
Still, again, even without such acknowledgement, today, the practice of demon casting has become widespread. With the introduction of the internet, and the publishing capabilities it grants us, we simply do not need these establishments anymore. No longer do we need to devote our lives to studying existing knowledge (or alternatively, angel casting techniques), just to be able to publish our demon casts. We are free to create and publish whatever we want. If we have demons to address, we are free to cast them, without first acquiring proper "education". Nevertheless, this comes with a price. To explain, because the internet is practically “littered” with works of so many individuals, we lost our ability to reach a significant audience for our efforts.
Surprisingly, this made demon casting even more popular. To clarify, at first, people were publishing their works, from an auto angelic perspective, thinking they would reach a significant audience. However, the abundance of published works changed our perspectives. To explain, on the one hand, failure to reach an audience suppressed our beliefs, reaching a significant audience is feasible, helping us obvert our auto angelic tendencies. On the other hand, as more of us “got our hands dirty”, while attempting to demon cast, we began to learn the value of this endeavor, regardless of the level of financial success or popularity it granted us. Still, by repeatedly attempting to demon cast, we increased our self-centeredness, as well as our sense of antagonism, toward obedience in general. To explain, as we suggested in chapter three, mostly, the morality of our social environment, reflects some sort of inconsistency. Regardless if this inconsistency, is of a religious or scientific origin, from the perspective of a “serial demon caster”, these are all demons, and the more we demon cast, the less we will be willing to follow them. This is especially true for inhibitive demons, as usually, inhibitive demons are "static", and therefore, are somewhat easier to “spot”.
It is hard to predict, where this path will lead us. To explain, while indeed, it is possible, change is upon us, still, currently, the balance between demon casting and obedience, did not reach a critical point. Apparently, only the semantics of the demons society embraces changed, shifting our society from embracing religions, to capitalism. Today, our heroes are the rich, while we care little, if their morality is somewhat "distasteful". We follow their words like sheep, so similarly to the manner, we used to follow our religious leaders in the past.
Arguably, this is all there is to it. I will not assume the role of a "prophet", and claim otherwise. To explain, if writing this text taught me anything, it is to avoid my auto angelic tendencies. Still, the rising popularity of demon casting is a fact, and as we can expect, its effects are unpredictable. It is hard to believe a “serial demon caster”, let alone a “dragon”, could “embrace god” in the event of a “religious revolution”. Therefore, it is hard to predict, what will transpire, in the event of a full frontal confrontation, between the secular capitalist western world, and religions (such as could possibly happen, with respect to the contemporary rising popularity of Islam). Moreover, a colossal global financial fiasco, can seriously shake the “following” capitalism has today (and I am referring to an event, in a scale, which we have not yet witnessed), allowing our growing demon casting skills to strive. To explain, because demon casting does not rely on external affirmations, it can help us obvert our demonically induced distress, even without the support of any establishment. Therefore, it is possible, that as a result of some sort of cataclysmic social event, and in the absence of any other means to alleviate our demonically induced sufferings, the practice of demon casting, may replace the role, which currently, religions, conformity, and faith, have in our lives, transforming into a dominant feature of our future morality, enhancing our dragonish capabilities, and placing dragons, as the heroes and leaders of our future societies.
Will it happen? I do not know. Is it worth a thought? Well, in the practical sense, I am not sure. To explain, it is hard for me to think of a situation, where most people will think for themselves, and follow their own subjective convictions, in the manner demon casting requires. Furthermore, there is much more at stake here, than affirming or refuting the significance of this text. To clarify, there are worldwide establishments, both religious, and financial, on which billions of lives depend, for everything, ranging from the basic means of survival, to worldwide aspirations of power, and such a colossal web of interests and dependencies must already plan, how to secure dominance, in any reasonable, or even unreasonable scenario. Still, colossal as it may be, again, size was never "an issue" for the real gods, and while arguably, it may be easier for us to think of them as “forces of nature”, if they really have an “agenda”, then it is visible, as we have managed to establish a link between seemingly unrelated events, such as the discovery of physical randomness, and the social evolution, which led to the reality we know today. Furthermore, considering science predicts impending worldwide cataclysmic events as well, such as global warming, global fossil fuel depletion, non-sustainable economic systems, food shortage, and the likes, it is hard to tell.
Still, even if such cataclysmic events would transpire, and even if our dragonish tendencies will become dominant, it does not suggest any type of "apocalypse", or utopia. To explain, regardless of their arguable merits, dragons are neither "perfect beings", and nor do we require such cataclysmic events to become them. Still, currently, without such cataclysmic events in formation, being a dragon, is a mixed blessing at best. To clarify, in the current state of human evolution, the role the dragon instinct takes, in the formation of our society, is marginal. At our early years, society repeatedly attempts to inflict us with its angelic convictions, causing us to repress our "dragonish tendencies", which later, we find hard to uncover, without severely disrupting our lives, through possibly tragic circumstances. Moreover, to become dragons, we must learn to obvert our auto-angelic tendencies, as if we do not, the “training” of our dragonish instincts, may end prematurely, suggesting we must be both conceptually independent of the inhibitive demons our society follows, as well as critical toward our own past achievements. In short, currently, developing our dragonish instincts, is irrational, and hence, to become dragons, we must suffer from a high measure of spontaneous demonic influences, while somehow obverting possession, suggesting a paradoxical, arguably undesired existence.
To explain, to develop our dragonish instincts, we must experience the effects of many demons, which we repeatedly cast, until we manage to master this practice. Still, while spontaneous demons may appear in any variety, inhibitive demons are repetitive, and hence, they cannot yield the same variety, while without it, unintentionally, our attempts to demon cast, could transform into a fixative demonic possession, as by repeatedly casting the same demons, we may become oblivious to the variety, by which demons may appear, causing us to adopt demonic perspectives, such as believing our "purpose" in life, is to fight our immediate social environment, our family, and friends. In other words, if we are "obsessed" with our inhibitive demons (either by following, or fighting them), we may fail to recognize the effects these demons have over our psyche, thinking we are logical and rational, while failing to comprehend, how ridiculous we appear from afar. These are definitely not the markings of a dragon, but rather of an auto-angel.
To summarize, for our dragonish instincts to mature, we require a very specific measure of spontaneous demonic influences. Still, because naturally, we cannot predetermine our spontaneous demonic influences, in many ways, currently, only the real gods may determine our "dragonish levels", and considering the arguable significance of demon casts, in the development of our culture and technology, this conclusion further asserts, the significant role, which the real gods take, in the formation of human history. In other words, it appears the real gods determined both the timing, in which the dragon instinct first emerged in human evolution, as well as the timing, in which it will become dominant.
We cannot change this disposition. To clarify, as we suggested in the previous chapter, contrary to notions, somewhat popular among new-age psychedelic circles, we cannot change the levels of our spontaneous demonic influences, as spontaneous demons do not adhere to causality of any type. Moreover, even if we can mutate our perception, using mind altering narcotics for example, essentially, our perception under the influence of such substances, is neither irrational, nor demonic. It is simply "different". In fact, arguably, the effects of such narcotics may interfere with our dragonish cognitive development, as in many ways, to develop these cognitive capabilities, we require a clear and sober mind. Arguably, it is possible, that by changing our perspective, we may increase the significance we find in our spontaneous demons. Still, again, demon casting does not suggest, we follow our demons, but rather overcome them, and hence, such perspectives hardly assist our dragonish cognitive development, and actually, considering the effects of narcotics are external to our consciousness, meaning, they affect our biology, rather than the concepts with which we think, and because the memories with which they leave us, are inconsistent with the manner, by which our senses stream sensations into our consciousness normally, arguably, such psychedelic habits may increase our measure of inhibitive demonic influences. Moreover, because usually, we choose to use such narcotics, it is most probable, we will recline from casting the inhibitive demons with which they inflict us, diving deeper into our demonically induced perspectives, believing they are meaningful and significant.
In short, currently, our dragonish tendencies cannot be of our doings, and neither can we share them with others. To explain, because the development of our dragonish cognitive capabilities, requires the involvement of spontaneous demons, it implies, we must endure these demonic influences alone, as usually, spontaneous demons affect our consciousness directly, without the mediation of our social environment. Moreover, because the dragonish "training" requires demonic influences, there may be times, when these demons overwhelm us, without us having anyone with which we could confide our experiences, which potentially, may cause us to fall into depression. Still, even if we manage to "handle" our demonic influences on our own, the sense of mental struggle, which dragonish tendencies suggest, is anything but enjoyable, and may reflect in a generally hostile attitude. To clarify, while indeed, the sense of antagonism, which reflects in the dragonish desire to disobey demonic influences, is conceptual, still, we can easily associate specific individuals with specific concepts, converting the somewhat abstract dragonish sense of antagonism, into conflicts of a more personal and concrete nature, which in turn, may result with individuals and social circles, showing a similar resentment toward individuals exhibiting dragonish behavioral patterns, and actually, this "feedback effect" may enhance these patterns, forcing dragons to be even more self-reliant, perfecting their demon casting skills. Still, even if we manage to realize our "dragonish potential" to the full, it does not promise us a joyful life, as by casting and "defeating" all our demons, accidentally, we may repress all our deltas, meaning, our wills and desires, causing our neural biology to misinterpret our cognitive condition, as idleness, and hence, as we suggested in "Delta Theory", we may suffer from extreme boredom. To conclude, there is nothing "ideal" about the dragonish option, and if it is to become widespread, it must be due to necessity, rather than our choices.
Still, arguably, some of these drawbacks, may merely reflect the incompatibility between dragonish behavioral patterns, and contemporary social tendencies, and in the event of cataclysmic social changes, such as those we suggested previously, they might no longer be relevant. Moreover, as we previously suggested, arguably, the art establishment owes quite a lot to the achievements, attained through demon casting, and hence, even today, it welcomes dragons into its midst.
Unlike religious establishments, the art establishment is already accustomed to the criticism of its demon-casting "residents", and learned to accept the antagonistic dragonish attitude. Indeed, some art establishments will not accept some demon casters. For example, many art establishments would reject either artists, or artworks, which exhibit Nazi symbolism and ideals. Nevertheless, because art is so pluralist and decentralized, usually, all true "serial demon casters", can find a "home", somewhere in the vast realm of art, regardless if their works are somewhat "distasteful".
Still, arguably, there may be another link between dragons and art. To clarify, dragons are “serial demon casters”, and as such, obviously, they have an affinity for demon casts, meaning, they are somewhat “drawn” to “solutions” of demonically induced “problems”, which manifest through physical objects. While these physical objects can vary greatly, still, usually, they share a few characteristics. To explain, before we cast a demon, its inherent inconsistencies, prevents the thoughts it invokes in our minds, from “adding up”, or “making sense”, causing each thought, somewhat related with this demon, to remain in our consciousness, as an "unsolved riddle", resulting with an ever growing sensational burden. However, once we cast this demon successfully, this sensational burden, transforms into the justification for our efforts. For example, if we demon cast in the realm of science, then naturally, we take great pride in the issues we solved, and which troubled the scientific community, prior to our efforts.
The same applies to demon casting in the realm of art. To explain, when demon casting in the realm of art, usually, the contradictions the demons we casted reflect, reflects in the physical properties of our artistic demon casts, somewhat resembling a trophy, exhibiting the semantics, by which the demon bothered our consciousness previously, as well as exemplifying we can dismiss this demon, by transforming it to our motivation to create artistically, rather than adhering to its semantics within our lives, outside the scope of artistic creation. Moreover, whenever we will observe our previous demon casting artworks, although we will see these semantics, usually, we will not be bothered by the demon, which inspired us originally, and instead, we will view our creations as complete experiences, or alternatively, gestalts, and considering our sense of accomplishment, we may actually feel a sense of sensational relief, due to the cognitive idleness we attained through our previous demon casting efforts. In fact, this is another reason why demon casts must manifest through physical objects, as to sense this sensational relief, there must be a difference, between our cognitive disposition before, and after, we perceive our past creations. Moreover, to really impress us, these objects must reflect a real objective accomplishment, which may induce us with sensations of pride, reminding us the scope of our achievements.
In "Delta Theory", we suggested a similar, somewhat more natural cognitive experience, namely, beauty. To explain, according to "Delta Theory", we feel sensations of beauty, whenever we sense a sensational variety, which the internal epistemological order it reflects, allows our consciousness to select any specific detail from the vastness of our experience, to comprehend our perception in its entirety, reducing the cognitive burden our consciousness senses usually, while evaluating inbound stimulations, and leaving our consciousness in a state of relative idleness, which makes us feel sensational relief and pleasure. Therefore, subjectively, we can claim, our demon casts are inherently beautiful, meaning, whenever we sense our previous demon casted creations, we will feel sensations of beauty, regardless if we demon cast in the realm of art, or otherwise. Indeed, because others may not comprehend the cognitive meaningfulness of our demon casts, meaning, the manner they helped us solved our demonically induced sufferings, they may not share our sense of appreciation. Nevertheless, by incorporating objectively beautiful elements into our demon casts, meaning, elements, which exhibit an ordered variety, we may enhance the effectiveness and persuasiveness of our demon casts, so to make others respect it as well, increasing our sense of accomplishment even further.
In short, from an artistic perspective, beauty is a useful instrument, by which we can increase the chances our demon casts will be successful, and therefore, dragons are instinctively drawn to it, as quite simply, “it gets the job done”, further enhancing the connection, between dragons and art. Furthermore, because for dragons, demon casting is not a past time, or a hobby, but rather an epistemological instrument, allowing them to endure their demonic influences, arguably, they do not have the liberty to "wait" until they stumble across a scientific discovery, which will show mathematical grace, and hence, of all endeavors, art is the favorable dragonish choice, if only for the simple reason, that it is always “available”.
To conclude, it appears, the link between dragons and art, consists of both social and practical motivations. Nevertheless, unlike other artists (angel casters, or otherwise), when dragons create art, they do not have “art” in mind. Casting demons comes first, and quite honestly, “art” is not “at the top of the dragon’s agenda”. The cultural value of art means very little to dragons. Even when dragons create significant, or influential works of art, inevitably, all they care for are the demons yet left to be casted. Therefore, even if the realm of art may welcome dragons, “belonging” is simply not on their agenda. Furthermore, because usually, artistic establishments demand we follow a few ethical and technical regulations, dragons feel somewhat uneasy within them. Moreover, artistic establishments welcome angel-casting artists as well, which dragons simply loath. Therefore, dragons are anything but “enthusiastic” to belong in artistic establishments, for both social and “ideological” reasons.
To summarize, even though dragons may be masters of the arts, even if their demon casts may be beneficial to culture, and even if dragons are “blessed” with internal strength, they simply cannot find a home, as dragons will find demons to cast, in every establishment that will accept their disobedience. Moreover, they may feel resentment to any type of human interaction, as inevitably, their dragonish “perspective” will draw them to repeatedly search their social environment, for demonic influenced behavioral patterns, while inevitably, dragons may cast only their own demons, as only by casting our own demons, may we feel the sense of achievement, so imperative to the epistemological benefits, which demon casting offers.
As a result, in most cases, dragons will find their sense of “belonging” only in esthetic ideals. Still, because obviously, "an ideal" does not possess a consciousness, the thought we can "belong" with our ideals, is irrational, and hence, dragons will not accept such fantasies either, and most probably, will attempt to demon cast them.
Currently, the only way a dragon can find peace, is by nothing less, than I would say, a "miracle". To find peace, a dragon requires an esthetical ideal, which possesses a consciousness, meaning, another human, which the dragon will find attractive, while somehow managing to "dodge" the dragon's resentment to demonic influences. To explain, all humans suffer from demonic effects, including the person representing this esthetic ideal. Innocently, we could think, a dragon may feel comfortable with another "dragonish partner". However, because dragons manage to "subdue" their demonic influences, such "dragonish partner" would fail to exhibit demonic behaviors, resulting with an ever growing mutual sense of boredom, causing such "dragonish partners", to search for other, somewhat more demonic sources of interest.
No. To find a "home" a dragon requires, what I call a "dragon mate", or better said, "dragonish counterpart". Surprisingly, the more a dragonish counterpart is demonically influenced, the more a dragon will find its counterpart attractive. However, naturally, the more a dragonish counterpart is demonic, the less value he, or she, will care for the rationality of a dragon, finding little value in the dragon's demon casted achievements, undermining the dragon's sense of pride, resulting with a sense of resentment toward the dragonish counterpart. Still, because dragonish counterparts are demonically influenced, essentially, dragonish counterparts do not exhibit rationality, and hence, in many ways, we cannot predetermine anything, with respect to a dragonish counterpart psyche, regardless if it is attraction, or revolt. In other words, just as the "dragonish training" demands a specific fine measure of demonic influences, so does the emergence of a dragonish counterpart in the life of a dragon.
Therefore, essentially, the feasibility of "a harmonic merger" of a dragon, and a dragonish counterpart, is improbable. Still, if the real gods really "wish it", it may happen, but only with the dedicated assistance of the real gods, as only their demons may realize such an improbable event, and actually, considering our previous conclusions, with respect to the tyrant untrustworthy nature of the real gods, in most cases, the meaningfulness of a dragonish counterpart will reduce from being a real life partner, to serving as but another source of dragonish inspiration, not so different from all demonically disturbed individuals. In short, dragonish counterparts are definitely not a general solution to the dragonish existential difficulties, and unless our future will bring nothing but chaos, in no way may dragonish counterparts represent a general "vision" for any future dragonish society.
To conclude, even if angelic ideals are flawed, the ideals of demon casters are not much better. To clarify, while angelic ideals are flawed, because they consist of false beliefs, which can easily clash with reality and collapse, still, the demon-casting ideal, leaves us in a constant epistemological struggle, with little chances to find peace.
So what should we make of this? To explain, this chapter began with a sense of rebellion and resentment, toward angels and the real gods, and ended with the realization, that the method by which we may realize this rebellion, will take us on a one-way ticket to depression. However, if this is indeed the case, then what is the purpose of this text? Does it really have none, as we suggested previously? To explain, even if we may accept the real gods are deities, and even if we may agree, that the real gods are “changing their tendencies”, why should our culture shift to the dragonish path? Why would anyone want to endure the dragonish existential distress, on top of the hardships, which global cataclysmic events will unleash? Why should we leave the angelic path? Still, again, with respect to our previous conclusions, can we really embrace our angelic heritage? If we cannot, then again, what are we to make of this text?

Well, I was thinking about this quite a lot, and it appears, there is only one solution.


No comments:

 
Real Time Web Analytics