Angels & Demons 31: Demons, Voodoo, Hypnosis, Hexes, and Psychogenic Illnesses

What do demons, voodoo, hypnosis, hexes, and psychogenic illnesses have in common? They are all physical manifestations of things that do not exist in any realm other than the symbolic. They do not actually exist in the physical realm and they are not truly divine beings. Nevertheless, they do have the power to affect human beings, because humans are by nature symbol-using animals, according to Kenneth Burke. As I stated at the end of my previous commentary, one might even go so far as to suggest that the “false information” itself becomes a spiritual force that affects humans.

Since the author of I John contrasts the Spirit of Truth with the Spirit of Error, we may assume that a spiritual force of false information does indeed exist, according to the Bible. And, as I have demonstrated in “Angels & Demons 23: Angels as the Personification of God’s Word,” the word “spirit” is to be equated with the word “word.” A spirit is a word. Hence, the Spirit of God may be understood as God’s communicative nature. Angels are also God’s spirits, as Hebrews 1:7 claims: “And of the angels he says, ‘Who makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.’” The author of Hebrews is quoting Psalm 104:4. If we stipulate that, according to the Bible, angels represent the communication of true information, demons represent the communication of false information. The huge difference for the Apostle Paul, as I discussed in my previous commentary, is that the true information emanates from an actual being—the one true God. But, Paul disputes that there is any actual divine being from which the false information emanates. Demons are the same thing as idols—which, for Paul, are nothing/nonexistent.

Kenneth Burke attributes a good deal of power, however, to hexes and psychogenic illnesses. In Language as Symbolic Action, pages 6-7, Burke explains:

“In referring to the misuse of symbols, I . . . think of ‘psychogenic illnesses’ . . . . A certain kind of food may be perfectly wholesome . . . . But our habits may be such that it . . . may be nauseating to us. (The most drastic instance is, of course, the ideal diets of cannibals.) . . . Instances of ‘hexing’ are of the same sort (as when a tribesman . . . finds . . . that . . . those in authority have decreed his death, by magic, and he promptly begins to waste away and die . . . .”

Burke tells of the anthropologist Franz Boas. Trying to establish rapport with a tribe of Esquimaux, he ate from a pot of what he thought to be whale blubber. Overwhelmed by the disgusting nature of this thought, he rushed outside to vomit. When he found out that the food was not blubber—but dumplings—Boas was able to eat the food without vomiting.

Similar to symbolically-induced food-based nausea, hexing, and psychogenic illness, is the practice of casting spells on voodoo dolls. According to the (voodoo-sympathetic) website, http://www.calastrology.com/voodoo.html, “Voodoo is a powerful mystical practice that can bring spectacular gifts and rewards to anyone who believes . . . .” That much is probably true: that the mystical practice brings results to anyone who BELIEVES. Even though the information is false, if someone BELIEVES it, s/he is under the power of the false information.

As a high school student, I viewed a demonstration of hypnosis. While under hypnosis, a student was given a post-hypnotic suggestion. He was told that there was a bucket on stage in the path of his exit. He would not actually see the bucket as he exited the stage, but that upon taking three steps toward the stairs to exit, he would trip over the bucket. There was no actual bucket on stage. Yet, upon being brought out of the hypnotic state, the student walked toward the exit stairs, and (as suggested) tripped over the nonexistent bucket. The audience exploded with laughter.

Demons may often be understood to be in the same category as voodoo, hypnosis, hexes, and psychogenic illnesses. While there are a few biblical accounts of demons that are difficult to fit into this description, the vast majority of demon-possession cases fit easily. I previously mentioned Mark 19:17-25, which refers to a “speechless spirit,” and Luke 13:11, which refers to a “spirit of weakness.” Both terminologies possibly indicate the type of affliction each spirit visited upon its host. Both physical results—speechlessness and weakness—could be replicated by post-hypnotic suggestion, hexing, or voodoo (for the believers in those practices). David Edwin Harrell, in his book, Oral Roberts: An American Life, states: “Oral was keenly aware of the emotional and psychosomatic nature of much of the healing under his tent. . . . He unashamedly laid claim to psychosomatic healings.” I assume that, so long as someone who believed s/he had an illness or physical condition that DID NOT ACTUALLY EXIST believed that Oral Roberts (or Jesus working through Oral Roberts) had the power to heal that nonexistent physical malady, the symbolic act of healing imposed by Roberts would effectively cure the nonexistent malady. Acts 19:13 suggests that some Jews had the power to cast out demons and Jesus seems to corroborate this fact in Matthew 12:27 and Luke 11:19. One might assume that ANYONE who is capable of persuading someone who believes in the existence of a nonexistent physical malady that the nonexistent malady does not exist might, thereby, effectively cast out a demon.

I, therefore, wonder how many “demons” exist in people as a result of the preaching and teaching of Bible-believing Christians who seek to persuade the populace that (contrary to the teaching of the Apostle Paul) DEMONS DO EXIST AS ENTITIES! How many novice Christians have been led to believe that they are under the influence of these entities (that Paul says do not exist)? Perhaps, even my writing of this commentary will be capable of exorcising some demons. I will address the more difficult demon-possession passages in the New Testament in future commentaries, but for now, just as is the case with those who believe the “false information” communicated in voodoo, hypnosis, hexes, and psychogenic illnesses, those who are willing to replace such false information with the true information may see their resulting physical maladies disappear.

Disneology #10: Man’s Symbolicity=God’s Image?

ASSIGNMENT 11: RIDE “SPACESHIP EARTH” AT EPCOT. YOU ARE LOOKING FOR SYMBOL-USE. WHAT SYMBOLS ARE USED IN THE CAVE DRAWINGS, HIEROGLYPHICS, SCULPTURE, CHAPEL ARTWORK, MOVIES, TELEVISION, ETC.?

The centerpiece in all of Walt Disney World for the study of Communication is Spaceship Earth. Visitors journey through the history of human communication. Cave drawings, hieroglyphics, papyrus scrolls, Phoenician alphabet, Greek philosophy, Roman roads, the Dark Ages, Jewish scribes, Islamic scholars, Christian monks, moveable type, the Renaissance, sculpture and chapel artwork, newspapers, telegraph, telephone, movies, radio, television, and finally, the computer age. The entire history of human communication exemplifies the definition of humans offered by Kenneth Burke:

Man is the symbol-using (symbol-making, symbol-misusing) . . . animal, inventor of (and moralized by) the negative . . . separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making, goaded by the spirit of hierarchy (or moved by a sense of order) . . . and rotten with perfection. (LSA 16)

Take out the word “animal,” and this definition of human approximates a definition of God. In the next few commentaries, I will compare Burke’s definition, phrase by phrase. Today, I will just explore the first phrase.

PHRASE 1: SYMBOL-USING (SYMBOL-MAKING). The first attribute of a symbol is that a symbol is something that stands for or represents something else. As Korzybski observed, “The word ‘tree’ is not a tree.” Yet, the word “tree” represents or stands for a real tree. The word “tree” is therefore a symbol. Nevertheless, the word “tree” is not the ONLY symbol for a real tree. If you were German, the word “baum” would be your symbol for a real tree (as you may remember from the Christmas song, O Tannen-BAUM.) The French, Spanish, Italians, Greeks, Hebrews, Chinese, Japanese, Portuguese, Russians, etc. all use different symbols for the same real tree. If you were a caveman, the symbol for a real tree would be a drawing of a tree on the cave wall. If you used hieroglyphics, the symbol would resemble a tree. According to http://www.virtual-egypt.com/html/hieroglyphics.htm , “There were basically 604 symbols that might be put to [use] . . . as an ideogram, as when a sign resembling a tree meant ‘tree.’” The Phoenicians developed an alphabet, which most western civilizations use to this day. They created symbols (letters) to represent each sound, so t, r, e, and e, when combined, help us sound out the word “tree.” These letters are symbols, but they are not the ONLY symbols for sounds. Greek letters are somewhat different from Phoenician letters, but represent similar sounds. Hebrew, Arabic, Chinese, and Japanese letters are much different, but still help humans sound out words. Sign language provides symbols for those who may not even be able to sound out words. Braille provides symbols for those who cannot see.

Why do humans have so many symbols for the same thing? Why can’t we automatically understand the messages of other humans, from any part of the globe? Other animals have no such problem, so far as we know. Whales from the North Atlantic seem to be able to understand the communication of whales from the South Pacific. Japanese dogs seem to understand the barks of American Beagles. Bees understand the messages of the flight patterns of other bees, even though they have had no time to learn the meanings. It’s because animals communicate with “signals,” not “symbols.” A signal is “programmed communication.” The animal INSTINCTIVELY knows the meaning of the communication of its own species. Humans have a different form of communication. As Burke observes, humans MAKE their symbols.

The symbol does not even need to make sense. The second attribute of a symbol is that it may be arbitrarily chosen. Some words, such as the “hiss” of a snake appear to have been logically created. Other words may appear to make no sense whatsoever, as when I tell my students that my word for chalk is “bleh.” Yet, after having heard me say that, if I ask someone to hand me some bleh, that student hands me a piece of chalk. It may seem simple to draw a picture of a tree. But, what other animal has ever drawn even something so simple as a picture? Our cave-dwelling human ancestors did, however. Theologically, you could say that “symbol-making” is a CREATIVE act. The very fact that humans CREATE their own forms of communication argues that humans have a god-like nature. They may be said, in that sense, to be “in the image of God,” if we define God as Creator.

So, who decides which symbol we should use when referring to a tree? The third attribute of a symbol is that there must be shared meaning. English speakers are able to read this commentary, but those who know only another language cannot. Not even all English speakers know what I mean when I use words like “arbitrary,” “immutable,” etc. But, now that you know the word “bleh,” we have shared meaning. I can ask you to mail me some and you would at least understand my request. At times, we need to limit our vocabulary use to those words with which our audience is familiar—even if it means that we must be less precise in our communication.

Enter theology. One problem God may have had in communicating to humans thousands of years ago is their limited vocabulary. I discussed in an earlier commentary that Genesis uses the word “yom” or “day” in a variety of different ways. Perhaps, that is because the audience of Genesis had a limited vocabulary. One word had to do yeoman’s service. Wait! Did everyone understand the word “yeoman”? Or, did you have to look it up? This does not mean that God as a symbol-user does not know what he wants to communicate. It may mean that his audience does not have shared meaning with the terms/symbols he could use. How could the original audience of Genesis have possibly understood symbols like “the curvature of space time” or “E=MC²”? Those who are quick to criticize the scientific teachings of Genesis should at least consider that communication with humans is limited by the amount of shared meaning possible in any context.