Jack! I was just thinking of you and wondering if you were still in my orbit. Did you listen to CM after my episode? You are an amazing scholar. That makes CM much more fresh in your mind than mine. What did you think of it?
Jack! I was just thinking of you and wondering if you were still in my orbit. Did you listen to CM after my episode? You are an amazing scholar. That makes CM much more fresh in your mind than mine. What did you think of it?
Oh! So that’s how I discovered CM! It was you who planted that seed. It all comes back to me now. I did see your post, Jesus is the OG Psy Ops. That’s how I heard about CM—I didn’t discover it independently only to find you coincidentally discussing it in your comment. Duh. I almost want to say Thank God it was just another symptom of my recent brain fog. For a moment there, I had these fleeting thoughts that you were my own personal controlled opposition and had used your AI surveillance system to monitor my Audible account :) So thank you for dispelling that bit of temporary paranoia. Damn, it wasn’t synchronicity after all. (At least now I don’t have to revisit Jung.)
In defense of my memory, now that you’ve prompted me I recall that I snuck a peak at your post in the middle of a visit by two friends from graduate school whom I hadn’t seen since before the pandemic, and we literally spent 14 or 15 hours per day for almost a week discussing every play, movie, and series we had seen in the last three years (and more), and my head is still spinning. So please pardon my memory lapse. (There is another reason or two for my recent brain fog, but I won’t go into that here.)
Now that that is cleared up (thank you!), with regard to CM, Atwill had me at hello. But that’s because his conclusions seem rather obvious (once clearly stated) to anyone who’s ever studied the early history of gnosticism—especially the suppression of gnosticism that continues to this day by the previously blatantly named “Roman” Catholic Church. However, his scholarship was impressive and, to me at least, definitive. I don’t believe in “settled” science or history, but his scholarship approaches that mark (which, for me, probably means that it articulates my own previous unarticulated sensibility).
I now recall the comment I was going to make about controlled opposition. It was that quote from Lenin: “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it yourself.” For me, it sums up the simple strategy of all empires, and, along with Atwill's book, reminds us that the Twitter files are nothing new, that the technology may have changed in the last few millennia, but lies, propaganda, dominant narratives, psyops, and controlled opposition have existed since the dawn of time. There is truly nothing new under the sun. (I have always suspected the Ecclesiastes was mistakingly allowed into the Hebrew Bible.)
Also, just a related aside, ever since reading your book, I’ve wanted to thank you for your explanation of the origins of democracy as a defense of Empire and also perhaps as the original anathematization of anarchism in western thought. That one idea continues to dramatically transform my personal political philosophy. Of course, my own personal mythos is that Empire is Yaldabaoth’s favorite flawed aeonic and material manifestation, so perhaps that should be no surprise. But thank you for disabusing me of a falsely sacred value and contributing to my gnosis (no matter how painful).
Lastly, now that I’ve read CM, I need to revisit Ki Longfellow’s novel, The Secret Magdalene. Please don’t tell me you did a video on that novel and that you know Ki, even if that is true; I have enough rewiring of my memory to do for one day.
I think "Your Own Personal Jesus" needs a new song, "Your Own Personal Controlled Op" ;-) What I tell myself and friends, when we forget things, is that it's because there are 30 things we're remembering. Something's got to give.
I will definitely be telling Joe he had you at hello, which he'll get a kick out of. And the rest of your praise that is exactly what he was aiming for, I think. He's offered to do a podcast with me and I think that's the nudge I needed to get that technology together.
Tell me more about Ecclesiastes?
"Anathematization of anarchism," I'll need to quote that if I can pronounce it. And yes, let me know if I can butcher any more sacred cows for you. That's a big one and it does change everything, I've found.
I have NOT done a video on Mary Magdalene but I want to! My theory is that no women exist in the Bible (Torah and NT) because they weren't worth the mention. Every named woman represents a territory. At the same time that Judea was rebelling, Magdala had an insurrection so fierce that the Romans were said to have run out of trees to hang people on, often with their children hung around their necks. When Jesus is presented as the only person whose torture matters, I feel it's an important context.
Every woman is named Mary, including the sisters Martha and Mary. The name comes from Mar, Greek for the sea, right, and the god of war? It means a troublemaker. Molly is a form of it, and gun moll is related. So the virgin Mary is, I think, a reference that she's innocent of rebelling. Mary Magdala is, I think, the town of Magdala being under Caesar's control again.
Do you always give homework assignments that even the greats have never sorted out, including everyone from Shakespeare and Tolstoy to Bob Dylan?
Okay, but anything I write is vanity and blowing in the wind….
I am always confused when I read the scholarly debate about whether gnosticism originated with the Christians or Jews (as if it must be one or the other). My own personal view is that gnosticism did not flow from any religious philosophy, but is the default of all human spirits. Qohelet certainly had all the right questions and nailed the framing of the human condition, and it is the voice of that spirit I read and not the bankrupt answers/reprimands to obey God and trust Him to make it all right ex post facto in some future judgement, which IMO are the obvious edits and additions of later orthodox scribes and censors to head off Qohelet’s most excellent question “How do I/we make straight what God has made crooked?”, which is one of the first contemplations of gnosis.
BTW, I think there is enough linguistic evidence to suggest that the original text was written by a foreign female. In its uncorrupted form, I imagine this as the lamentation of Sophia herself, possibly expressed not through wise Solomon but rather through wiser Queen Sheba, and it applied not just to this world, but very likely even to the Pleroma and the ineffable transcendent androgyne of the gnostics.
BTW, I prefer to think that Sophia’s action to birth this place and its demiurge was totally independent and not an act from ignorance. It was instead the first act of sovereignty. (In gnostic lingo, perhaps Sophia, too, like Christ, is a divine self-originate.) I think she never repented and never will. Her lamentation is that this world, along with the Pleroma, are both just two of the infinite Russian nested eggs of Reality.
So, I prefer to think of Sophia as a rebel—the mother of all those New Testament Marys. Her message, I think, is that the vaunted gnosis of this world is hardly the whole story. But I leave that for another day perhaps.
Woah, woah, woah, Jack. Who is this masked man marauding on my Substack? I studied the gnostics for the better chunk of a decade, and you just dropped ten terms I'd never heard of. What's your day job again?
And everything you said is something I want to hear more about and understand better. Please start your own Substack so I can be your first subscriber and post extensive comments. You can call it Vanity and Blowing in the Wind ;-)
So first, I didn't realize there was a connection between Ecclesiastes and the gnostics. The part I know about them are the Nag Hammadi texts. My private interpretation of the word is that God/ truth/ meaning is knowable, wants to be known, unlike the agnostic position that God/ truth/ meaning can't be known.
That is a most excellent question of Qohelet. It's interesting that Wikipedia (since I needed to cheat to even fake an intelligent response here) says that Qohelet is the feminine form and yet it refers to the speaker as he throughout.
Wiki defines pleroma as fullness, are you meaning 'all that is', the full extent of reality? And I'm lost on the Sophia reference although I know the name means wisdom. But I'm very much intrigued.
My recent post has sparked some comments I think you'll like--all roads seem to be leading back to the Bible. Ajax the Great has a link to the 42 Egyptian commandments and Helene has listened to four of my old radio episodes on the topic! I remember that you looked at the site and complained I was too prolific ;-) But I forgot how fun they are to listen to, if you ever have a bunch of drudgery to do that occupies your hands but not your mind: http://thirdparadigm.org/themes.php.
With regard to my own Substack, it has already been started, then deleted. I will reconsider.
For me, gnosticism is the story of Sophia, though the gnostics--yes, even the gnostics--had to favor the males, Seth and Christ, who were just the supporting cast.
Had some drudgery, so I took your advice and listened to one of your old radio shows, What Would Judas Do? Now I'm hooked on the Dick Gaughan song "Stand Up for Judas." I'm imagining Judas locked up in Belmarsh Prison, while Jesus attends Davos.
Isn't that a great song? I looked up everything Dick Gaughan did after I discovered it. Love Judas in Belmarsh, Jesus at Davos.
Yay for reconsidering! Since my comment's down to four words per line in this narrow column, that would give our conversation on Sophia a new lease. Having looked her up, my mind is reeling with connections to the concept I've been playing with, that our collective identity in reality is the consort of God, in eternal tantric union with the universe in our belly. Sophia and the demiurge could correspond to the Spirit that's the voice for God going between reality and this world of nightmare. The demiurge is the dreamer who's stuck in the nightmare he doesn't know he created. Or maybe Sophia is the Christ-mind. So many new possibilities!
I'm also very curious about the Fourth Philosophy the zealots followed, and whether that was connected to the gnostics. But I better let you be so you can comment on new videos. I just noticed that this one was first in a list of 19 (all by more famous people than me) on the Breggin's page called Who is Dr. Robert Malone? My one by that title is third!
Jack! I was just thinking of you and wondering if you were still in my orbit. Did you listen to CM after my episode? You are an amazing scholar. That makes CM much more fresh in your mind than mine. What did you think of it?
Oh! So that’s how I discovered CM! It was you who planted that seed. It all comes back to me now. I did see your post, Jesus is the OG Psy Ops. That’s how I heard about CM—I didn’t discover it independently only to find you coincidentally discussing it in your comment. Duh. I almost want to say Thank God it was just another symptom of my recent brain fog. For a moment there, I had these fleeting thoughts that you were my own personal controlled opposition and had used your AI surveillance system to monitor my Audible account :) So thank you for dispelling that bit of temporary paranoia. Damn, it wasn’t synchronicity after all. (At least now I don’t have to revisit Jung.)
In defense of my memory, now that you’ve prompted me I recall that I snuck a peak at your post in the middle of a visit by two friends from graduate school whom I hadn’t seen since before the pandemic, and we literally spent 14 or 15 hours per day for almost a week discussing every play, movie, and series we had seen in the last three years (and more), and my head is still spinning. So please pardon my memory lapse. (There is another reason or two for my recent brain fog, but I won’t go into that here.)
Now that that is cleared up (thank you!), with regard to CM, Atwill had me at hello. But that’s because his conclusions seem rather obvious (once clearly stated) to anyone who’s ever studied the early history of gnosticism—especially the suppression of gnosticism that continues to this day by the previously blatantly named “Roman” Catholic Church. However, his scholarship was impressive and, to me at least, definitive. I don’t believe in “settled” science or history, but his scholarship approaches that mark (which, for me, probably means that it articulates my own previous unarticulated sensibility).
I now recall the comment I was going to make about controlled opposition. It was that quote from Lenin: “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it yourself.” For me, it sums up the simple strategy of all empires, and, along with Atwill's book, reminds us that the Twitter files are nothing new, that the technology may have changed in the last few millennia, but lies, propaganda, dominant narratives, psyops, and controlled opposition have existed since the dawn of time. There is truly nothing new under the sun. (I have always suspected the Ecclesiastes was mistakingly allowed into the Hebrew Bible.)
Also, just a related aside, ever since reading your book, I’ve wanted to thank you for your explanation of the origins of democracy as a defense of Empire and also perhaps as the original anathematization of anarchism in western thought. That one idea continues to dramatically transform my personal political philosophy. Of course, my own personal mythos is that Empire is Yaldabaoth’s favorite flawed aeonic and material manifestation, so perhaps that should be no surprise. But thank you for disabusing me of a falsely sacred value and contributing to my gnosis (no matter how painful).
Lastly, now that I’ve read CM, I need to revisit Ki Longfellow’s novel, The Secret Magdalene. Please don’t tell me you did a video on that novel and that you know Ki, even if that is true; I have enough rewiring of my memory to do for one day.
I think "Your Own Personal Jesus" needs a new song, "Your Own Personal Controlled Op" ;-) What I tell myself and friends, when we forget things, is that it's because there are 30 things we're remembering. Something's got to give.
I will definitely be telling Joe he had you at hello, which he'll get a kick out of. And the rest of your praise that is exactly what he was aiming for, I think. He's offered to do a podcast with me and I think that's the nudge I needed to get that technology together.
Tell me more about Ecclesiastes?
"Anathematization of anarchism," I'll need to quote that if I can pronounce it. And yes, let me know if I can butcher any more sacred cows for you. That's a big one and it does change everything, I've found.
I have NOT done a video on Mary Magdalene but I want to! My theory is that no women exist in the Bible (Torah and NT) because they weren't worth the mention. Every named woman represents a territory. At the same time that Judea was rebelling, Magdala had an insurrection so fierce that the Romans were said to have run out of trees to hang people on, often with their children hung around their necks. When Jesus is presented as the only person whose torture matters, I feel it's an important context.
Every woman is named Mary, including the sisters Martha and Mary. The name comes from Mar, Greek for the sea, right, and the god of war? It means a troublemaker. Molly is a form of it, and gun moll is related. So the virgin Mary is, I think, a reference that she's innocent of rebelling. Mary Magdala is, I think, the town of Magdala being under Caesar's control again.
Rewiring complete! Let the brain fizzle begin!
“Tell me more about Ecclesiastes?”
Do you always give homework assignments that even the greats have never sorted out, including everyone from Shakespeare and Tolstoy to Bob Dylan?
Okay, but anything I write is vanity and blowing in the wind….
I am always confused when I read the scholarly debate about whether gnosticism originated with the Christians or Jews (as if it must be one or the other). My own personal view is that gnosticism did not flow from any religious philosophy, but is the default of all human spirits. Qohelet certainly had all the right questions and nailed the framing of the human condition, and it is the voice of that spirit I read and not the bankrupt answers/reprimands to obey God and trust Him to make it all right ex post facto in some future judgement, which IMO are the obvious edits and additions of later orthodox scribes and censors to head off Qohelet’s most excellent question “How do I/we make straight what God has made crooked?”, which is one of the first contemplations of gnosis.
BTW, I think there is enough linguistic evidence to suggest that the original text was written by a foreign female. In its uncorrupted form, I imagine this as the lamentation of Sophia herself, possibly expressed not through wise Solomon but rather through wiser Queen Sheba, and it applied not just to this world, but very likely even to the Pleroma and the ineffable transcendent androgyne of the gnostics.
BTW, I prefer to think that Sophia’s action to birth this place and its demiurge was totally independent and not an act from ignorance. It was instead the first act of sovereignty. (In gnostic lingo, perhaps Sophia, too, like Christ, is a divine self-originate.) I think she never repented and never will. Her lamentation is that this world, along with the Pleroma, are both just two of the infinite Russian nested eggs of Reality.
So, I prefer to think of Sophia as a rebel—the mother of all those New Testament Marys. Her message, I think, is that the vaunted gnosis of this world is hardly the whole story. But I leave that for another day perhaps.
Woah, woah, woah, Jack. Who is this masked man marauding on my Substack? I studied the gnostics for the better chunk of a decade, and you just dropped ten terms I'd never heard of. What's your day job again?
And everything you said is something I want to hear more about and understand better. Please start your own Substack so I can be your first subscriber and post extensive comments. You can call it Vanity and Blowing in the Wind ;-)
So first, I didn't realize there was a connection between Ecclesiastes and the gnostics. The part I know about them are the Nag Hammadi texts. My private interpretation of the word is that God/ truth/ meaning is knowable, wants to be known, unlike the agnostic position that God/ truth/ meaning can't be known.
That is a most excellent question of Qohelet. It's interesting that Wikipedia (since I needed to cheat to even fake an intelligent response here) says that Qohelet is the feminine form and yet it refers to the speaker as he throughout.
Wiki defines pleroma as fullness, are you meaning 'all that is', the full extent of reality? And I'm lost on the Sophia reference although I know the name means wisdom. But I'm very much intrigued.
My recent post has sparked some comments I think you'll like--all roads seem to be leading back to the Bible. Ajax the Great has a link to the 42 Egyptian commandments and Helene has listened to four of my old radio episodes on the topic! I remember that you looked at the site and complained I was too prolific ;-) But I forgot how fun they are to listen to, if you ever have a bunch of drudgery to do that occupies your hands but not your mind: http://thirdparadigm.org/themes.php.
With regard to my own Substack, it has already been started, then deleted. I will reconsider.
For me, gnosticism is the story of Sophia, though the gnostics--yes, even the gnostics--had to favor the males, Seth and Christ, who were just the supporting cast.
Had some drudgery, so I took your advice and listened to one of your old radio shows, What Would Judas Do? Now I'm hooked on the Dick Gaughan song "Stand Up for Judas." I'm imagining Judas locked up in Belmarsh Prison, while Jesus attends Davos.
Isn't that a great song? I looked up everything Dick Gaughan did after I discovered it. Love Judas in Belmarsh, Jesus at Davos.
Yay for reconsidering! Since my comment's down to four words per line in this narrow column, that would give our conversation on Sophia a new lease. Having looked her up, my mind is reeling with connections to the concept I've been playing with, that our collective identity in reality is the consort of God, in eternal tantric union with the universe in our belly. Sophia and the demiurge could correspond to the Spirit that's the voice for God going between reality and this world of nightmare. The demiurge is the dreamer who's stuck in the nightmare he doesn't know he created. Or maybe Sophia is the Christ-mind. So many new possibilities!
I'm also very curious about the Fourth Philosophy the zealots followed, and whether that was connected to the gnostics. But I better let you be so you can comment on new videos. I just noticed that this one was first in a list of 19 (all by more famous people than me) on the Breggin's page called Who is Dr. Robert Malone? My one by that title is third!