My rules of argument, Mike, is to define the question, why it's important, and what the terms in the question mean to you. In regards to definition, etymology wins. If a word that was created to mean one thing later becomes attached to only a specific meaning, that word has been usurped--it's dead to everyone who doesn't bow to the autho…
My rules of argument, Mike, is to define the question, why it's important, and what the terms in the question mean to you. In regards to definition, etymology wins. If a word that was created to mean one thing later becomes attached to only a specific meaning, that word has been usurped--it's dead to everyone who doesn't bow to the authority inherent in that meaning. And with the death of that word is the death of imagination as applied to that question. It becomes fixed and is taken out of our vocabulary so that that channel is forever blocked.
Both you and my dinner partner agree that you are the authorities on what gnostic means. So we are left with traditional authoritarian scriptures, which you and I would both describe as Abrahamic, or one particular set of visionary scriptures that, imo, don't challenge the fundamental Abrahamic story of good vs. evil. We can't see ourselves as gnostics or believe that truth is both knowable and communicable. The word's been taken.
In the five volumes I have on 'gnostic scriptures,' there's some commonalities--and some that fit a proto-Christianity, by which I'd say before the terms 'Jesus' and 'Christ' became usurped as one and the same. But they also diverge wildly. I'd say that the term 'gnostic scripture' refers to any alternative to the Abrahamic from a particular era and place. Ones that fit a particular subset should be distinguished by a word that describes their commonality.
Your work, from glancing at it, has a lot of overlap with questions others are asking here--particularly Nefahotep with runes and their significance. It seems like an important realm of knowledge that might add new information to this conversation: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/a-royal-flush-and-irish-pharaohs
Turning gnosticism into another field of authority vs heresy seems contradictory to the mindset that developed it.
There are definitions for words, and there are meanings. If we look at the word "gay", or " gaiety" the definition of the word has been destroyed, yet the meaning still refers to a positive attainable state. So, no I don't perceive words as bound to strict definitions. I think that you are fully within your own sphere to demand strict definitions in coversations and debates you hold, yet I don't find that language actually functions this way in a broader context.
Runes, clearly are manifestations of language where meaning trumps definition.
Language is important for emanation science. Indispensible even. If you read actual inscriptions, some of the devices used are so clever it makes me laugh. Language as play, making manifest from the unmanifest.
There is more, maybe later, maybe not.
If you do not allow for the decentralized fire of vision and energy to follow it to its final breath, then you are excluding a part of the human experience, based on what? Taste?
We aren't talking about beliefs because beliefs are definitions, and they rigorously direct the flow. Vision is instructive.
Belief is didactic.
So, okay the christians ripped off the Gnostics before murdering them. They took the shiny things from their theft. Maybe the real shiny was the Healer, or as folks like to say, Jesus.
Funny that, if judaism is the great devastator then christianity is the Borg, and Islam is the clean up crew.
I suppose you think enough of my statements to give them a little time, and for that I thank you. You have a formidable intellect, Ms. C.
Thanks, Mike. I don't demand strict definitions, I just need to know what the word means to you and vice versa, if we're going to have a conversation about the ideas themselves. Otherwise, we can spend hours arguing about the gnostics, for instance, only to find that we actually agree about the ideas but merely have different definitions for what a gnostic is.
By your meaning, what is a gnostic? Is it only someone who lived and wrote long ago or can a contemporary person be a gnostic? As an originator or only a follower? Is it a form of practice or a set of parameters for beliefs? Is it anyone who has a vision? And how do you define vision?
Moreover, what word would you use to describe someone who believes we each have equal access to divine knowledge, that truth/ reality/ god is something we can each experience and talk about with equal authority to those who lived 2000 years ago? If agnostics are those who believe god isn't knowable, what is their opposite, who doesn't adhere to an authoritarian theology?
Yes, understood, regarding the issue with definitions. Forgive me, but I have lost the ability to look at anything simply anymore, and language is a huge key to this entire reality.
So, Gnostic, in order to truly live, must have application to the here and now. Therefore, I subscribe to the notion that Gnosticism is available to people today. Further, I hold the view that the reveal of ancient Gnosticism was precisely timed, and ordained by what the ancients referred to as the Great Power. In other words, the call went out
Its weird, okay, but Crowley actually had something to do with this, and maybe Gurdjief as well, for different reasons. The wave of pre-christian allegiance also figures prominently here.
So, a Gnostic then, is a living person who has heard the call.
So far so good. But now the explanation gets especially demanding. To get to the explanation one must work upon levels, and at certain points some of the levels can seem to be quite baffling, even contradictory.
First off, we need to understand that the beliefs are lava. They are molten and shifting, and indeed, the scripture is written for this intentionally. So, when Pistis Sophia describes the vision of the Healer, they are conveying both a practice and an exercise. Foundationally, it is to open the doors of perception as Blake instructs us, to withstand the sheer power of the encounter with the numinous.
This is so different from establishing a concept-which is what we are trained to do, build associations upon it, and then separate it from ourselves so that it can be seen and recognized.
Where we almost always go wrong is the resultant notion that Gnosticism stems from a series of extremely bizarre beliefs.
No.
Gnosticism stems from a series of extremely volatile units of meaning that are masterfully coordinated to burn the living shit out of the supplicant, and replace all that fodder inside with an energetic that builds its own purpose, one which is often unknowable to the conscious mind.
In order to create a modern view on Gnosticism we tend to expect it to play by our rules, but Gnosticism doesn't play ball like that. So, when the modern mind describes a set of premises and beliefs, it believes that it can then compare them to others, and frankly, this is exactly where Gnosticism is today in scholarly circles, in revitalized religion, and in popular fiction. Cyberpunk is all about taking a Gnostic structure and building a dystopian fantasy around it.
So, I suppose at this point someone might say-well who the fuck do I think I am to question this?!?
And like, okay, I'm nobody so whatever.
But there is just one little tiny thing.Gnosticism works so well on the visionary level that its beyond just some coincidence.
So, there are all kinds of visions. My best example, because its practical was when I kept getting these intense, absorbing visual phenomenon of my place burning to ash. So, a vision can be just a connection of sorts, this time it was the guvcorp frying my place, which they really did, BTW.
Vision can also be when you walk into a room and you just know something is up, and you find out you're right.
But the kind of vision Gnosticism was originally about was the one from higher power, and this one is the most intense of all They are unmistakable.
The Gnostics were all about developing this state. I don't know what other conclusion makes any sense, from the Book of Iao, for example.
Why all this is incredibly hard to understand goes to the gaping holes in modern language, because without words, we only have images, and music, and there is no modern lexicon for the state of vision.
If one applies this to your last question, then Source, God, the Great Power is unknowable until one develops the inner muscle to withstand the encounter...thus if one must know, then they must experience, that is the Gnostic way.
Personally, I'm all for the experience of deeper states. I knew this was going on at rock concerts, not everybody, but you know some people would just trance out, and it was beautiful.
Hope this reply isn't too long, and I hope I did the topic some justice.
Well now you've done it. You've sent me down another rabbit hole! Intriguing answers that leave me with more questions. I just read the intro to The Gnostic Bible and I think it needs to be expanded into a post. I'd like to also include your post on runes because I think that fits into some questions we've been asking about deciphering the words. May I link it?
Yes, I would be honoured if you link to my post on Runes.
Your questions were quite good. I do believe for anyone interested in the topic, these were the type of questions they would want to be asked...and answered, of course.
I hope your readers found this discussion interesting.
My rules of argument, Mike, is to define the question, why it's important, and what the terms in the question mean to you. In regards to definition, etymology wins. If a word that was created to mean one thing later becomes attached to only a specific meaning, that word has been usurped--it's dead to everyone who doesn't bow to the authority inherent in that meaning. And with the death of that word is the death of imagination as applied to that question. It becomes fixed and is taken out of our vocabulary so that that channel is forever blocked.
Both you and my dinner partner agree that you are the authorities on what gnostic means. So we are left with traditional authoritarian scriptures, which you and I would both describe as Abrahamic, or one particular set of visionary scriptures that, imo, don't challenge the fundamental Abrahamic story of good vs. evil. We can't see ourselves as gnostics or believe that truth is both knowable and communicable. The word's been taken.
In the five volumes I have on 'gnostic scriptures,' there's some commonalities--and some that fit a proto-Christianity, by which I'd say before the terms 'Jesus' and 'Christ' became usurped as one and the same. But they also diverge wildly. I'd say that the term 'gnostic scripture' refers to any alternative to the Abrahamic from a particular era and place. Ones that fit a particular subset should be distinguished by a word that describes their commonality.
Your work, from glancing at it, has a lot of overlap with questions others are asking here--particularly Nefahotep with runes and their significance. It seems like an important realm of knowledge that might add new information to this conversation: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/a-royal-flush-and-irish-pharaohs
Turning gnosticism into another field of authority vs heresy seems contradictory to the mindset that developed it.
There are definitions for words, and there are meanings. If we look at the word "gay", or " gaiety" the definition of the word has been destroyed, yet the meaning still refers to a positive attainable state. So, no I don't perceive words as bound to strict definitions. I think that you are fully within your own sphere to demand strict definitions in coversations and debates you hold, yet I don't find that language actually functions this way in a broader context.
Runes, clearly are manifestations of language where meaning trumps definition.
Language is important for emanation science. Indispensible even. If you read actual inscriptions, some of the devices used are so clever it makes me laugh. Language as play, making manifest from the unmanifest.
There is more, maybe later, maybe not.
If you do not allow for the decentralized fire of vision and energy to follow it to its final breath, then you are excluding a part of the human experience, based on what? Taste?
We aren't talking about beliefs because beliefs are definitions, and they rigorously direct the flow. Vision is instructive.
Belief is didactic.
So, okay the christians ripped off the Gnostics before murdering them. They took the shiny things from their theft. Maybe the real shiny was the Healer, or as folks like to say, Jesus.
Funny that, if judaism is the great devastator then christianity is the Borg, and Islam is the clean up crew.
I suppose you think enough of my statements to give them a little time, and for that I thank you. You have a formidable intellect, Ms. C.
Thanks, Mike. I don't demand strict definitions, I just need to know what the word means to you and vice versa, if we're going to have a conversation about the ideas themselves. Otherwise, we can spend hours arguing about the gnostics, for instance, only to find that we actually agree about the ideas but merely have different definitions for what a gnostic is.
By your meaning, what is a gnostic? Is it only someone who lived and wrote long ago or can a contemporary person be a gnostic? As an originator or only a follower? Is it a form of practice or a set of parameters for beliefs? Is it anyone who has a vision? And how do you define vision?
Moreover, what word would you use to describe someone who believes we each have equal access to divine knowledge, that truth/ reality/ god is something we can each experience and talk about with equal authority to those who lived 2000 years ago? If agnostics are those who believe god isn't knowable, what is their opposite, who doesn't adhere to an authoritarian theology?
I appreciate the compliment, Mr. K ;-)
Yes, understood, regarding the issue with definitions. Forgive me, but I have lost the ability to look at anything simply anymore, and language is a huge key to this entire reality.
So, Gnostic, in order to truly live, must have application to the here and now. Therefore, I subscribe to the notion that Gnosticism is available to people today. Further, I hold the view that the reveal of ancient Gnosticism was precisely timed, and ordained by what the ancients referred to as the Great Power. In other words, the call went out
Its weird, okay, but Crowley actually had something to do with this, and maybe Gurdjief as well, for different reasons. The wave of pre-christian allegiance also figures prominently here.
So, a Gnostic then, is a living person who has heard the call.
So far so good. But now the explanation gets especially demanding. To get to the explanation one must work upon levels, and at certain points some of the levels can seem to be quite baffling, even contradictory.
First off, we need to understand that the beliefs are lava. They are molten and shifting, and indeed, the scripture is written for this intentionally. So, when Pistis Sophia describes the vision of the Healer, they are conveying both a practice and an exercise. Foundationally, it is to open the doors of perception as Blake instructs us, to withstand the sheer power of the encounter with the numinous.
This is so different from establishing a concept-which is what we are trained to do, build associations upon it, and then separate it from ourselves so that it can be seen and recognized.
Where we almost always go wrong is the resultant notion that Gnosticism stems from a series of extremely bizarre beliefs.
No.
Gnosticism stems from a series of extremely volatile units of meaning that are masterfully coordinated to burn the living shit out of the supplicant, and replace all that fodder inside with an energetic that builds its own purpose, one which is often unknowable to the conscious mind.
In order to create a modern view on Gnosticism we tend to expect it to play by our rules, but Gnosticism doesn't play ball like that. So, when the modern mind describes a set of premises and beliefs, it believes that it can then compare them to others, and frankly, this is exactly where Gnosticism is today in scholarly circles, in revitalized religion, and in popular fiction. Cyberpunk is all about taking a Gnostic structure and building a dystopian fantasy around it.
So, I suppose at this point someone might say-well who the fuck do I think I am to question this?!?
And like, okay, I'm nobody so whatever.
But there is just one little tiny thing.Gnosticism works so well on the visionary level that its beyond just some coincidence.
So, there are all kinds of visions. My best example, because its practical was when I kept getting these intense, absorbing visual phenomenon of my place burning to ash. So, a vision can be just a connection of sorts, this time it was the guvcorp frying my place, which they really did, BTW.
Vision can also be when you walk into a room and you just know something is up, and you find out you're right.
But the kind of vision Gnosticism was originally about was the one from higher power, and this one is the most intense of all They are unmistakable.
The Gnostics were all about developing this state. I don't know what other conclusion makes any sense, from the Book of Iao, for example.
Why all this is incredibly hard to understand goes to the gaping holes in modern language, because without words, we only have images, and music, and there is no modern lexicon for the state of vision.
If one applies this to your last question, then Source, God, the Great Power is unknowable until one develops the inner muscle to withstand the encounter...thus if one must know, then they must experience, that is the Gnostic way.
Personally, I'm all for the experience of deeper states. I knew this was going on at rock concerts, not everybody, but you know some people would just trance out, and it was beautiful.
Hope this reply isn't too long, and I hope I did the topic some justice.
Best-M.
Well now you've done it. You've sent me down another rabbit hole! Intriguing answers that leave me with more questions. I just read the intro to The Gnostic Bible and I think it needs to be expanded into a post. I'd like to also include your post on runes because I think that fits into some questions we've been asking about deciphering the words. May I link it?
Thank you Ms. C.
Yes, I would be honoured if you link to my post on Runes.
Your questions were quite good. I do believe for anyone interested in the topic, these were the type of questions they would want to be asked...and answered, of course.
I hope your readers found this discussion interesting.
Best-M.