Fascinating!

Click on pic if too small- these represent frequency of word/phrase occurrence in published literature contained within Google Books' Database over last 100+ years or so.

 

build your own fun-ness at http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/

... you're welcome. 

 

Schisms: mental, national, and political

Because I cannot help but add my small voice to the fray: 

I read in a New York Times editorial this morning the coalescing response of the Left to the apparently unique frequency of mass killings in the US. It focuses on three primary contributing factors:

1.      “The easy, unfettered access to guns.

2.      The difficulty of obtaining health care for the mentally ill.

3.      The toxic and inflammatory political rhetoric in this country.”

My thoughts: 

Gun control

Sure, more restricted access is probably a good thing (the automatic weapons that tend to make their way into Mexico, facilitating their mounting death toll, come to mind), and the lobbying power of the NRA is kinda scary to me, but I feel that gun control is a small facet of a more complicated issue. So, es, but not the whole story.

Health Care

Sure, had Loughner found some treatment, through self-concern, familial pressure, or court-order, even if mostly ineffectual, he would have been much less prone to psychotic delusions leading to murderous rampage. This point is probably intended as a strike in favor of the health care bill, though I’ve read at least one opinion that suggested even increasing involuntary commitment procedures- scary! But, even in a universal health care world, treating the mentally ill is not like treating cancer. Science, even on a good day, is mostly inept at curing mental illness, and resorts to treating symptoms through therapy, or more commonly, medication. Most people are still against the idea of institutionalization, probably for very good reason, so then what would the Left suggest for the mentally ill?

One major problem I see here is that we can’t, as a society, agree on a moral foundation from which to confront mental disease. Not that there are no physiological factors in psychopathy, but I say there are moral, even spiritual, factors as well. And in a necessarily metaphysically neutral psychological climate even the mention of spiritual factors in cases like Loughner’s is rejected out of hand by professionals –more than rejected, it’s strongly criticized as unhelpful and damaging. But, mainstream news (NBC Nightly with Brian Williams, sorry no link) has no difficulty in reporting on Loughner’s apparent emotional demons. While “demons” may be used by news types in a more prosaic sense than technical, still, it is used because it resonates with the vast majority’s perception of reality. It’s like we acknowledge the reality of the force of evil, yet make no formal room for it.

It seems that this national schizophrenia in regards to the treatment of such horrors is as much to blame as is the lack of valid mental health care support. If mental illness, such as Loughner’s, is purely neurological, then it should be more likely to result in benign psychopathy –a person perceiving his/her self to be a butterfly, for example –as in a killing spree. This points to the presence of evil as a force in this case –which, I think, only the cynical, militantly rational, would deny. So, if evil is present and more than physical, then purely physical treatment is negligent. This seems to be a blind spot in society’s response to mental illness and killing rampages, not to mention our health care system. 

Politics

Yes, I agree that the current state of political rhetoric is toxic –often hyped and orchestrated to generate response with little to no concern for possible ramifications. Surely the Right is more overtly venomous, as the Left is gleefully noting, but that the Right carries all the blame is naïve. I say this, knowing that most people who know me also know that I have little patience or love for the bombast of Glenn Beck or the absurdity of Sarah Palin.  The case, to me, is analogous to a dysfunctional marriage where the husband is loud, rude, and bullying in his manner while the wife is passive, manipulative, and self-righteous in hers. 

Conclusion:

The alleged murderer apparently suffers from a severe mental schism, while our response to such people suffers from schismatic denial and avoidance of complete treatment, while our political dialogue suffers from a kind of marital schizophrenia, and only One Person I know is able to integrate the divided self –be it individual or corporate—the Same reconciled the greatest divorce – creature from Creator –through the Crucifixion, and more than reconciled, provided for unshakeable hope through the Resurrection. I believe that the further an individual or community distances themselves from Jesus, the more schismatic they become. And sometimes this divorce from the self results in treatment, sometimes in tragedy, and sometimes in quiet desperation.

will

 “A man ought to eat because he has a good appetite to satisfy, and emphatically not because he has a body to sustain. … The food will really renovate his tissues as long as he is not thinking about his tissues. … Let us, then, be careful about the small things, such as a scratch or a slight illness, or anything that can be managed with care. But in the name of all sanity, let us be careless about the important things, such as marriage, or the fountain of our very life will fail.” (G.K. Chesterton, Heretics, pg. 30)

Were I merely an elegant machine, a product of determined processes, I should tell myself what to eat, when to exercise, who to marry, what to buy, how much to save, all according to the most rigorous scientific counsel, and, crucial, be successful at doing so. But it turns out that I, knowing in large part what is good for me, have mixed success in these and other disciplines. I believe it’s not difficult to show that this is true in the general case as well. It seems obvious that I am not moved like a digital machine- by dull command. And neither does it seem that I am motivated like a natural machine- by individual or communal welfare. Rather, I seem to be driven by a mix of desire, duty, love, hunger, and lust, among other things, which, to varying amounts, constitute my will. For example, I want a healthy body, but I also want a Reese’s peanut butter cup, and I do not want to go running. Or I want to be a loving faithful husband, but I also want the option to indulge lust from time to time. 

In the above quote, Chesterton is building an argument for H.G. Wells who, in Utopia, starts with disbelief in sin, and proceeds to outline a perfect society, achieved through the triumph of reason, apart from any Creator or faith. This fanciful, positivist, Enlightenment-influenced philosophy was common and popular before the atrocities of World War II, and Chesterton has no difficulty in politely ripping it to shreds. But my thought is concerned only with the will. Though I may deny God’s existence, yet I cannot, rationally, deny my own existence, or more appropriately, that of my unreliable will. And for human will, in all its varied subtlety, there seems to exist no natural explanation. Therefore a source beyond nature seems wanting. Not only does the Christian worldview provide the Source, it also provides cogent explanatory evidence for the sometimes divine, sometimes capricious, and sometimes diabolical, nature of the will.

“15 For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. …  For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. … 22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! … .” (Romans 7:15-25, ESV)

Going back to the examples above, some fad diets try to get the dieter to trick themselves into believing they are a machine, that is, only eating when and what is appropriate. Behave according to specifications (eat well) and receive a reward (health). But a person must first want to eat right else any program to motivate them otherwise will fail. Of course, I can start not wanting a thing and over time begin to want it, but the kernel is that I eventually and truly do want it. Similarly, some people think of Christians as participating in something like history’s longest-running (and therefore most deceptive) fad diet. That is, like machines, believers induce themselves to behave according to specs (biblical morality) in return for earning a reward (eternity). Input instruction: do not display anger. Output behavior: “Well Gladys, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.” But the truth is that if one’s will does not line up, at least sometimes, with their behavior, then their religion is vain at best and demonic at worst. That is, if Christians believe that God’s will is good and perfect, then the realization of His will, individually, corporately, and globally, provides the singular path to peace, joy, sustainability, etc- i.e., H.G. Wells’ Utopia. Far from the frequently referenced image of the religious hypocrite critiquing the moral decay of society, while secretly engaging in illicit behavior, a Christian has a heart, broken, yet healed, and somehow filled with desire for whatever is true, honorable, just, pure, lovely  (Philippians 4:8, ESV). And this new heart, rooted in the love of God, produces behavioral fruit organically. That followers of Christ engage in a morality diet is too shallow. Christians may be deluded, but they do believe they are partakers of a joyous feast and inheritors of wealth beyond imagination, all to no one’s credit save their Benefactor. That people can be forced, manipulated, or somehow incentivized to behave according to socially profitable and scientifically ordained strictures is naïve. The existence of human will (free, determined, predestined, or some mixture) is a thorn in the religion of naturalists and an incorrigible mystery for anyone who tries to subject it to reason. So, outshining positivism and determinism, and shattering caricatures of religious types, the Christian worldview provides a Source, an explanation, and a restoration of human will.