Societal Sadomasochism

[JamesRedford]

*The* great age-old social problem that has faced mankind, and still very much does, is that most people do not love themselves, but instead actually hate themselves. Human beings tend to be extreme gluttons for punishment. This can unmistakably be seen in the extreme systems of mass-horror that humans continuously construct for themselves. It's not as if we don't have essentially the entirety of civilizational human history that pointedly warns against such social systems, yet humans are utterly fascinated and enchanted by them, like moths to a flame. Obviously these systems of mass-horror are serving some deep-seated need within the human psyche.

Now, of course, this is not a conscious realization for most people, but rather is a psychological imperative which they are subconsciously controlled by. This has to do with evolutionary psychology, particularly after the Neolithic Revolution and the breakdown of the bicameral mind discussed by psychologist Julian Jaynes in his book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1976). It was the widespread belief among the ancients circa three millennia ago and before that they actually directly interacted with the gods. Jaynes's crucial insight was that before the breakdown of the bicameral mind around said era, during the evolution of humans out of an animalistic mental state, that humans were not actually conscious, but rather had no choice but to obey the commands of the gods, of which gods were actually one part of the brain communicating with a different part--the sensate, action-response part--via human language that would be heard as actual voices. In other words, our ancestors of circa that era and before were an especially extreme form of schizophrenics.

I haven't heard supporters of Jaynes mention this as an item in Jaynes's favor before, but muscarinic acetylcholine receptor antagonists, such as scopolamine, provide strong evidence for Jaynes's theory--indeed, perhaps the strongest, since it makes the voice-command state Jaynes wrote about completely reproducible. Sociologist Lloyd deMause's work on psychohistory also fits well the Jaynes theory.

Jaynes's theory is also reinforced by Artificial Intelligence researcher Marvin Minsky's concept of the Society of Mind (see Marvin Minsky, illustrations by Juliana Lee, The Society of Mind [New York: Touchstone, 1988; 1st ed., 1986]). And both Jaynes and Minsky's ideas on this are restatements and elaborations on Mark 5:1-20 and Luke 8:26-39 involving the Messiah's interaction with a demon-possessed man. When Jesus asked the demon what its name was, the entity replied, "My name is Legion; for we are many." Indeed there are a host of these entities within us all. It's amazing to think that the key to cracking the code of Artificial General Intelligence was given some 2000 years ago within these passages.

The Jaynesian demons can be usefully defined as those subset of Minskian agents which impel people to untowardness, e.g., self-destruction and social destruction.

What a demon is in actuality is a particular type of computer-program operating on the wet-computer of the human brain. Demons are utterly real, but they exist in the exact same ontological manner which the human mind exists, as the human mind is itself a particular type of computer-program operating on the wet-computer of the human brain. The demons are the destructive subsets of the human mind. Science has identified the spiritual realm, and it is the living brain--the living human brain in particular, since that brain is the most complex at present. The spiritual realm exists!

And it's not that these demons actually wish to end life's existence, i.e., that they impel humans toward suicide and social suicide. Mere nonexistence is not what they seek for us. The actual case of the matter is far, far worse than that. For what these demons actually seek is to send their host and everyone else to Hell for all eternity. The demons are infuriated that they do not have the same level of control they once had over their hosts, when they could issue what was perceived as voice-commands and the host had no choice but to obey--that they are not quite the gods they once were. Via the breakdown of the bicameral mind, the Jaynesian gods of old have more or less been relegated to Tartarus (see 2 Peter 2:4, Young's Literal Translation; Weymouth New Testament; or the note to this passage in the English Standard Version), though they still exercise great control over the subconscious mind and compel humans toward systems of extreme mass-horror.

As I said, these demonic entities are utterly real--as real as any human being, as they ontologically exist in the sameself way as the essence of what a human being is, i.e., the human personality, i.e., the human mind. If one should ever doubt the real existence of these entities, then there are psychological techniques one can use to summon them, such as Astral Projection, as what often follows attempts at Astral Projection is demon-visitation during episodes of sleep paralysis. And one's interaction with these entities can be perceived as being as real as interacting with any other person in external physical reality--nay, sometimes even more real. One can actually have sex with these entities, such as with the succubi and incubi--or what is perceived as such, seemingly every bit as real as sex with any human. Though I only recommend summoning these entities under conditions of actual scientific research, as they are not to be trifled with.

In actuality, what elite occultism is is principally three-pronged: (1) methods of contacting these entities using various mental techniques, including coming into full possession by them; (2) getting people within important social control-sectors to engage in blackmailable behavior so as be able to control them for life; and (3) to provide a spiritual justification for extreme psychopathy. Esoterica at the top echelons is not hokum, but rather utterly practical methods of power. And the demons are outrageous liars who will present themselves as extraterrestrials, departed humans, spirit guides, etc.--though the clandestine scientific psychologists of the deep state, such as with Project MKULTRA, undoubtedly know what the actual ontological nature of these entities are.

If most people actually were to love themselves, then essentially all the major social problems of the world would be solved, for then people would not tolerate improper impositions upon themselves; but rather seek freedom for themselves, and thus also for others, for one cannot be free while living in a slave-pit. Yet societies are continuously impelled into various hellpits by subconscious psychological forces whereof most people know not--by the demons lurking within them, whispering into their ear, promising Heaven but delivering Hell. World society is quite literally under demonic control, and the demons have nothing nice in store for anyone, let alone those who make a point of consciously summoning them for power.

Here's a nice music video about the foregoing matters:

* "SNOG - Everything Is Under Control", Richard Grant ( youtube.com/user/rgrant ), Mar. 19, 2013, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFaqsc4lNyk . Mirror: id., Faustus Films ( vimeo.com/user3576277 ), Feb. 25, 2013, https://vimeo.com/60439901 . Mirror: MP4, 75509084 bytes, MD5: 20e8ea0ab2708bad5d8d1d5e29f41be0, https://wayback.archive.org/web/20160914050024/https://files.fm/down.php?i=w8sfk5dd&n=SNOG_-_Everything_Is_Under_Control.mp4 .

For more on what the above video by our good friends at Snog is about, consult the section "The New World Order: Government's Attempt at Autoapotheosis", pp. 87-98 of my following article, paying close attention to the footnotes, since much of the information on this is within said footnotes:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , https://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf .

[Lucian]

I found the parts of Jaynes' book I read pretty wacky; I now use it as an example of what can go wrong with such an approach to past cultures.

And his philology was poor and he perhaps plagiarised a translation, so there's that, too.

[JamesRedford]

I found the parts of Jaynes' book I read pretty wacky; I now use it as an example of what can go wrong with such an approach to past cultures.

And his philology was poor and he perhaps plagiarised a translation, so there's that, too.

There's nothing in your above post that constitutes an argument for or against anything. Not that I'm looking for such. You were just venting. I wasn't looking for that bad behavior, either.

You are making Jaynes's case for him. The best compliments are unintentional ones.

Not that my post relies on any evidence that Jaynes might have marshaled. So Jaynes's goodness or badness as a scholar is irrelevant to what I am presenting. I merely use his key insight, regardless of how well he did or did not present it.

[Lucian]

I found the parts of Jaynes' book I read pretty wacky; I now use it as an example of what can go wrong with such an approach to past cultures.

And his philology was poor and he perhaps plagiarised a translation, so there's that, too.

There's nothing in your above post that constitutes an argument for or against anything. Not that I'm looking for such. You were just venting. I wasn't looking for that bad behavior, either.

I wouldn't say I was venting; I was just offering my thoughts on an author whom you mentioned. If you regard that as bad behaviour, public fora might not be for you.

You are making Jaynes's case for him. The best compliments are unintentional ones.

Not that my post relies on any evidence that Jaynes might have marshaled. So Jaynes's goodness or badness as a scholar is irrelevant to what I am presenting. I merely use his key insight, regardless of how well he did or did not present it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Jaynes's case", but as for what you call his "key insight", if that encompasses the view that Homeric heroes were zombies or robots, it's probably best left unused.

[Lennon]

James,

Your first paragraph isn't true. Most people don't hate themselves. That is a unique problem of western modernity not found in many other cultures.

[kurros]

James,

Your first paragraph isn't true. Most people don't hate themselves. That is a unique problem of western modernity not found in many other cultures.

I don't think most people hate themselves in the West either. Maybe it is more common than in the past, along with other mental health issues, but then most people aren't suffering from mental illness either.

You'll also have to elaborate on what you mean by "systems of mass horror". I haven't heard that term before.

[JamesRedford]

I found the parts of Jaynes' book I read pretty wacky; I now use it as an example of what can go wrong with such an approach to past cultures.

And his philology was poor and he perhaps plagiarised a translation, so there's that, too.

There's nothing in your above post that constitutes an argument for or against anything. Not that I'm looking for such. You were just venting. I wasn't looking for that bad behavior, either.

I wouldn't say I was venting; I was just offering my thoughts on an author whom you mentioned. If you regard that as bad behaviour, public fora might not be for you.

Oh, were it that easy. The problem with humans is that almost to a person they overwhelmingly believe in the methods of rape. My nonengagement with them won't stop their unwanted engagement with me. They force me to be a part of their vile idiocy whether I want to be or not.

What I regard as bad behavior in this case is dismissing something based upon unreason. Further, what I regard as bad behavior in this case is the shutting off of the mind, the consciousness. Other than the "Julian Jaynes" trigger-words which you lashed-out on, you gave no indication that you even read my post or had any desire to engage with it.

Also in the article I cited my following free article (actually, a book):

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , https://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf .

The foregoing article concerns physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God's existence per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), which is also required by the known physical laws. The Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals. The article further details how Tipler's Omega Point Theorem uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described in the New Testament, while also addressing the societal implications of said Omega Point cosmology.

A simple "Thank you." would have sufficed.

You are making Jaynes's case for him. The best compliments are unintentional ones.

Not that my post relies on any evidence that Jaynes might have marshaled. So Jaynes's goodness or badness as a scholar is irrelevant to what I am presenting. I merely use his key insight, regardless of how well he did or did not present it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Jaynes's case", but as for what you call his "key insight", if that encompasses the view that Homeric heroes were zombies or robots, it's probably best left unused.

Humans tend to be full of themselves on this matter. Humans are far more zombie-like and robot-like--and loveless--than they commonly imagine themselves to be.

Humans are mentally-retarded apes. Humans are apes, and so humans act as apes. That humans are a great deal brighter than their closest Great Ape cousins, the chimpanzees, still doesn't diminish that humans are severely mentally-retarded creatures--as compared to what truth is. Humans are ornery goats against the truth--i.e., Jesus Christ--and docile lambs to horrifically-destructive lies.

Humans are vicious and malicious; violent and pernicious. Humans are truly sick and vile creatures. And that's the supposed "good" ones--other than the immortal Messiah.

In Christian theology, this is known as original sin.

[JamesRedford]

James,

Your first paragraph isn't true. Most people don't hate themselves. That is a unique problem of western modernity not found in many other cultures.

I don't think most people hate themselves in the West either. Maybe it is more common than in the past, along with other mental health issues, but then most people aren't suffering from mental illness either.

You'll also have to elaborate on what you mean by "systems of mass horror". I haven't heard that term before.

Humans overwhelmingly tend to hate themselves. But as I said, their extreme self-hatred is subconscious.

Most humans are natural-born slaves in their mentality, which encompasses extreme sadomasochism. As over the ages, those who were born with a great deal of the spirit of liberty have been more or less systematically weeded-out of the gene-pool, as historically, about the quickest way to a brutal death was to question or oppose the reigning assumptions and power-structure.

Regarding the "'systems of mass horror'" (sic), I go into them a great deal in my following work, had you paid attention:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , https://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf .

The foregoing article concerns physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God's existence per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), which is also required by the known physical laws. The Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals. The article further details how Tipler's Omega Point Theorem uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described in the New Testament, while also addressing the societal implications of said Omega Point cosmology.

[Lucian]

What I regard as bad behavior in this case is dismissing something based upon unreason. Further, what I regard as bad behavior in this case is the shutting off of the mind, the consciousness.

I haven't done any of this, though. It's unclear why you'd assume I have.

Other than the "Julian Jaynes" trigger-words which you lashed-out on, you gave no indication that you even read my post or had any desire to engage with it.

I didn't lash out at anything, though; I merely offered my thoughts on an author you mentioned. As for engagement, I've already done so, though it seems to have offended you.

[Mammal]

Tell me James, are your so-called papers falsifiable? Have you received any commentaries from educated experts in these fringe fields of investigation? Come to think about it, are there any "demon" experts? If you don't get the kind of reaction that you were hoping for from your academic peers, it may be because of lack of interest..?

And actual proof of Jesus being God to all the animals of this world..? That must be popular.

[kurros]

James,

Your first paragraph isn't true. Most people don't hate themselves. That is a unique problem of western modernity not found in many other cultures.

I don't think most people hate themselves in the West either. Maybe it is more common than in the past, along with other mental health issues, but then most people aren't suffering from mental illness either.

You'll also have to elaborate on what you mean by "systems of mass horror". I haven't heard that term before.

Humans overwhelmingly tend to hate themselves. But as I said, their extreme self-hatred is subconscious.

Most humans are natural-born slaves in their mentality, which encompasses extreme sadomasochism. As over the ages, those who were born with a great deal of the spirit of liberty have been more or less systematically weeded-out of the gene-pool, as historically, about the quickest way to a brutal death was to question or oppose the reigning assumptions and power-structure.

Well I think here the only appropriate statement here is "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

Regarding the "'systems of mass horror'" (sic), I go into them a great deal in my following work, had you paid attention:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , https://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf .

The foregoing article concerns physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God's existence per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), which is also required by the known physical laws. The Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals. The article further details how Tipler's Omega Point Theorem uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described in the New Testament, while also addressing the societal implications of said Omega Point cosmology.

I don't see why you think I would have read that. And I'm not sure why you think I am going to read it, you haven't really provided much motivation to do so. If you don't want to define the terms in your basic thesis then fine, I guess there is nothing left here to talk about.

[Mammal]

Tipler's Omega Point (and The Physics of Christianity) attracted critical acclaim such as:

"It is a masterpiece of pseudoscience" - George Ellis
"I am tempted to describe Tipler's new book as nonsense—but that would be unfair to the concept of nonsense" - Lawrence Krauss
"I began to wonder if the book could be a subtle, hilarious hoax. Sadly, it is not." - The Strange Case of Frank Jennings Tipler, Review by Martin Gardner for the Skeptical Inquirer

[JamesRedford]

Tell me James, are your so-called papers falsifiable? Have you received any commentaries from educated experts in these fringe fields of investigation? Come to think about it, are there any "demon" experts? If you don't get the kind of reaction that you were hoping for from your academic peers, it may be because of lack of interest..?

And actual proof of Jesus being God to all the animals of this world..? That must be popular.

You "so-called" them "papers".

Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology is a mathematical theorem per known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), of which have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid Tipler's Omega Point Theorem is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].) Further, Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals.

Nor is falsifiability even a logically-coherent methodology of science *per se*, as it's easy to conceive of possibly-true statements about physical reality which are impossible to disconfirm yet possible to prove. As an example, if we currently existed as a level of implementation in a powerful-enough computer simulation, there is no experiment that we could possibly conduct which could reveal that to us *unless* the beings running the computer simulation wanted us to know. Hence, there would be no possible way to empirically disconfirm this possibly-true statement about physical reality, yet it would be easily proven *if* the beings running it decided to make their presence know to all humanity.

Undoubtably a great deal of what people accept as quite obviously true about our physical reality falls into this category. Take the proposition, or hypothesis, made by some person, any person: "I have a mind." How could such a hypothesis made by a person possibly be disconfirmed by them? Is it possible to observe one's own complete nonobservance? Yet the hypothesis "I have a mind." is proven true just by proposing it.

Or take the proposition, or hypothesis, "There is a ball in physical reality that is both pure solid red and pure solid blue all around its outer surface." This hypothesis can never be empirically disproved without investigating all of physical reality: even so, empirical disconfirmation of this statement is possible! But it's the hight of absurdity to say that we should start looking for this ball to either empirically prove or disprove its existence, for it does not exist in any reality given the very meaning of its words! It is an untrue statement by logic.

Regarding demonology, I have with my originating post in this thread put it on a scientific footing. Rather than misguided Christians prattling on about unseen parallel spiritual realms/dimensions which apparently have their own peculiar laws of physics, yet somehow are able to interact with this world while leaving no lasting physical evidence, I have cast the phenomenon into the modern scientific language and while using phenomena which science already accepts as quite true. As it sounds like a phenomenon which has its locus and sphere of proximate influence in the brain. Said misguided Christians do great damage to Christianity in multiplying entities without necessity--i.e., these parallel spiritual realms--when they should be looking to cut out all unnecessary cruft from their philosophy, thereby strengthening it and making it sharp. By cruft, I don't mean diminishing the theology of Christianity, but rather using the latest science to explain it. And modern science is confirming the truth of Christianity in spades. So yes, disconfirmability can indeed in particular instances have great value, since in prattling on about parallel spiritual realms which can neither be disproven or (immediately) proven to exist, there's no rational reason to accept these realms' existence. Yet demons and the spiritual realms can be proven to exist! The error many make is naïvely thinking that they understand the ontological nature of this phenomenon, and thereby proposing additional unnecessary entities to explain it. Many Christians--as with pretty much all people--have not yet learned the eternal value of Friar William of Ockham's epistemic razor.

As I pointed out in my originating post of this thread, one can actually contact these entities if one should doubt their existence. So *something* quite real is going on here. The issue is what is the actual ontological nature of the phenomenon. I gave the only explanation that actually matches all of the data; again, unless one posits the computer-simulation hypothesis--but that hypothesis has its own extreme failings.

And besides sharpening Christianity, I have in mind by putting demonology on a scientific footing other extremely practical matters. I would like actual scientific research conducted into this, both for reasons of Artificial Intelligence research and to better understand our own selves. As such research cannot help but to bear good fruit: if for no other reason than to understand ourselves better and what makes us tick. Surely in understanding ourselves better, that cannot but be of benefit to us.

Among other very humble tasks that I have set for myself, I wish to raise up dissectors of demons; anatomists of demons. Let's hunt them down, bag 'em, tag 'em, slice them open and see what they're made of. For in understanding them, we will come to have a clearer understanding of our own psychological matrix.

I gave one method of contacting these entities in my above originating post, that of Astral Projection. But I know of other methods, such as ayahuasca and Freon R-22 (difluoromonochloromethane). Again, I can only recommend contacting these entities under conditions of actual scientific research, as such research is not to be undertaken lightly.

Continuing on regarding scientific epistemology, one can derive the known laws of physics a priori. The only reason they were not derived a priori historically is because no one had been smart enough to do so. So empiricism was used as a necessary crutch for human minds in discovering the known laws of physics. But now that we do have these known physical laws, we can see mathematically how there was no contingency in regards to them, i.e., in order to have a three-dimensional space in which beings complex enough to be self-aware can exist, the physical laws have to mathematically be the ones we actually observe. And so these known laws of physics are not going to start being disconfirmed, unless we already exist in a computer simulation and the beings running that simulation decide to alter the simulated environment (however, those beings themselves, or beings on an even lower level of implementation, would have to exist in a universe where the aforesaid known laws of physics are in operation).

For the details on how the known laws of physics are actually mathematically unavoidable if one is to have a three-dimensional (or higher) world with self-aware beings in it, see the following resource:

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk@4ax.com , July 30, 2013, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo , https://archive.is/a04w9 , https://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS .

In the above resource are different sections which contain some helpful notes and commentary by me pertaining to multimedia wherein Prof. Tipler explains the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE.

[wonderer]

"I gave one method of contacting these entities in my above originating post, that of Astral Projection. But I know of other methods, such as ayahuasca and Freon R-22 (difluoromonochloromethane). Again, I can only recommend contacting these entities under conditions of actual scientific research, as such research is not to be undertaken lightly."

 Some might find that taking a break from the meds that their doctor prescribed increases the chance of contacting these entities.  However, it is probably not a good idea to do so without letting your doctor know.

[Lennon]

James,

I do find it interesting that Shamanic cultures around the world have ways of contacting what they believe to be a spirit world of beings - be it through trances or drugs. However, the beings they do contact are not always evil, but also good. And the beings they contact are always based on the spiritual beliefs and environment they find themselves in. Shamanic cultures in Mongolia will contact 3- eyed Eagles while Amazonian cultures will contact Jaguars etc.. In Vajrayana Buddhism they will contact various past Buddhas.

The best explanation for this is that shamans are schizoids as Dr. Robert Sapolsky suggests, prone to hearing voices etc, and will interpret these voices and beings they see under trance within the cultural milieu of their society. Normal people through the use of drugs, trances, can also access these schizo states as you mention.

Dr. Sapolsky also says and I believe him, that Jesus was a schizoid. The demons he heard were symptoms of his schizoid personality and he interpreted these voices as demons from his religious heritage.