Well, I can accept that you perceive that passage to be describing the mental heath "industry", but it could be interpreted in many different ways. Just as people regularly come here and tell us that various verses in the Bible mean various things to them, it is entirely a matter of the interpretation you (or they) place on the words.Here, the present-day Mental Health industry is described. I've said before that their conviction that they're helping is what makes them capable of
unlimited cruelty. This is presented here as a horrible thing trying to kiss you. The book is full of great imaginative poetry like that, hitting
the nail right on the head for those who are at that level.
For example, why cannot the passage be read as a literal experience, or dream, or fantasy? Why does it have to be allegorical - and even if it is allegorical, why must we interpret it as being to do with mental health treatment rather than any other interpretation?
What you consider to be evidence doesn't seem to fit the definition of evidence here (often given as something like: any fact that leads one to consider a proposition more or less true).
None of your posts in the "Kent Hovind supports eugenics" thread contains the word "paradox". You have over 170 posts in the "Why women shouldn't wear pants" thread, and only one of those contains the word "paradox" to wit:
You assert that the true nature of love is paradox, but you certainly don't explain what you mean, or what your religion says about love.Paradoxically, in my Philosophy, this is actually just True Compassion.
Remember Colonel Kurtz : It's judgement that defeats you. That part of the movie is really about a paradox in the concept of Love for in True Love,
even suffering is Joy. It's slave morality that gets everything backwards so it's not surprising that the true nature of Love is complete paradox
to most people. 'Nor let to fools mistake Love!'
For the benefit of the readers, the "this" in the first sentence appears to refer to witch-burning, which TheAdversary advocates. No, I don't know how it's on topic for a thread about daft theists advocating control over wardrobe choices.