Positive Gnosticism

[otherbrother]

My recent theological leanings, emerging during and after writing the book Getting to Know One's Connected Self, lead me to believe that physical reality is an accident that is in the process of being corrected.

Perhaps this view is not much different than the traditional metaphysical belief that Satan broke away from God, but God's love reaches across the divide to overcome or transcend Satan's influence. Simply replace Satan with matter and a material world requiring constant specific acts that distract us from a sense of oneness and wholeness.

A few of my assumptions are:

God is not all powerful even though most powerful. To maintain a trust in a loving God, I cannot be blaming an all powerful god that created a world that includes horrible things. It's not God's fault that boulders fall on people and crush them. The physical reality that includes falling boulders, lethal diseases, deadly earthquakes and hurricanes and wars is a cosmic accident or disease. God can’t be blamed for “bad” shit like that.

And the argument that God allows free will so we can freely choose love is flimsy on two counts. First, it doesn’t cover the natural disasters and accidents.

Second, it forces the participants in physical reality to take the free will test or game. The game all but guarantees a great deal of failure and suffering for those who choose poorly. Why would a loving God torture some losers in order to prove that the winners love God or each other. It wreaks of Munchauser (sp?) disorder in which the care giver sets up a situation of making patients sick so they can depend on the “care”giver. Why would a loving all-powerful God choose anything other than blissful harmony for any part of total reality?

A loving God would not choose to put anyone through the suffering inherent in physical existence. It was an unfortunate accident or disease that we cannot blame God for.

God is the victim of it also. A loving God suffers when love and harmony is blocked or interrupted.

But even as the accident or disease persists for eons, the Stronger Force (albeit not ALL powerful force) exerts a correcting or healing influence.

Also, despite the accident or disease, God remains vital, good, beautiful, not totally affected by the accident or disease. God's divine nature rubs off on the flawed nature of physical reality that is replete with high resistance and brokenness. Because of Divine Being (verb form of being) there is enough beauty in the world to make it a happy accident that does in fact reveal good and whole things despite its flaws.

Considering these beliefs, I considered calling my current theology (admitting that it could change with additional insights) "positive Gnosticism."

When I looked up the phrase, this (below) is what Open A.I. told me. It doesn't seem a perfect fit but very close. Perhaps Opportunistic Gnosticism better fits my metaphysical notions and the theological implications, including switching thanking God to "God, You're beautiful " when appreciating good things in my life. This, because my focus is on what God IS (Being) instead of transactional actions (doing). In my view, God was not the Maker or Creator of our reality. God's divine nature simply had the effect of making the accident somewhat beautiful and good, as though it was an artist's intentional work of art.
Here's the definition of positive Gnosticism that aI found online:

Positive gnosticism (often discussed in esoteric history and religious studies) refers to a specific, optimistic strain of mysticism that embraces the material universe as a divine revelation. It contrasts with "negative" or "pessimistic" gnosticism, which views the physical world as an inescapable trap created by a flawed, malevolent deity. [1 (

), 2 (https://www.enotes.com/topics/cyber...tory-and-cyberpunk/erik-davis-essay-date-1993)]
While traditional Gnosticism is often characterized by its world-rejecting worldview, positive gnosticism—frequently found in Renaissance Hermeticism and specific branches of Islamic philosophy—emphasizes the following: [1 (

), 2 (Chapter 4: Ali And Positive Gnosticism (Irfan)), 3 (https://www.enotes.com/topics/cyber...tory-and-cyberpunk/erik-davis-essay-date-1993), 4 (Gnosticism | Modern Reformation)]
• Sacred Materialism: The visible cosmos is seen as a manifest map of divine light, where the physical plane reflects spiritual realities rather than impris
oning them. [
1 (https://www.enotes.com/topics/cyber...tory-and-cyberpunk/erik-davis-essay-date-1993)
,
2 (

)
]

•
Human Potential:
Humanity possesses divine, cosmic powers. Through the pursuit of
gnosis
(mystical enlightenment), individuals can awaken, ascend, and unite with the divine source while recognizing their spiritual autonomy.[
1 (Gnosticism | Religion and Philosophy | Research Starters | EBSCO Research)
,
2 (Techgnosis: Seed-Crystal - Techgnosis)
,
3 (

)
,
4 (https://www.enotes.com/topics/cyber...tory-and-cyberpunk/erik-davis-essay-date-1993)
]

•
Proto-Scientific Impulse:
The positive view of reality historically fueled alchemy and esoteric sciences, as practitioners believed the material universe was alive with sentient stellar forces that could be understood and communed with. [
1 (https://www.enotes.com/topics/cyber...tory-and-cyberpunk/erik-davis-essay-date-1993)
]
--------

Note that I included A.I.'s sources of information, in case anyone wants to look them up.

Thanks for considering these theological notions.

 

[DerekhHikmah]

My recent theological leanings, emerging during and after writing the book Getting to Know One's Connected Self, lead me to believe that physical reality is an accident that is in the process of being corrected.

Perhaps this view is not much different than the traditional metaphysical belief that Satan broke away from God, but God's love reaches across the divide to overcome or transcend Satan's influence. Simply replace Satan with matter and a material world requiring constant specific acts that distract us from a sense of oneness and wholeness.

A few of my assumptions are:

God is not all powerful even though most powerful. To maintain a trust in a loving God, I cannot be blaming an all powerful god that created a world that includes horrible things. It's not God's fault that boulders fall on people and crush them. The physical reality that includes falling boulders, lethal diseases, deadly earthquakes and hurricanes and wars is a cosmic accident or disease. God can’t be blamed for “bad” shit like that.

And the argument that God allows free will so we can freely choose love is flimsy on two counts. First, it doesn’t cover the natural disasters and accidents.

Second, it forces the participants in physical reality to take the free will test or game. The game all but guarantees a great deal of failure and suffering for those who choose poorly. Why would a loving God torture some losers in order to prove that the winners love God or each other. It wreaks of Munchauser (sp?) disorder in which the care giver sets up a situation of making patients sick so they can depend on the “care”giver. Why would a loving all-powerful God choose anything other than blissful harmony for any part of total reality?

A loving God would not choose to put anyone through the suffering inherent in physical existence. It was an unfortunate accident or disease that we cannot blame God for.

God is the victim of it also. A loving God suffers when love and harmony is blocked or interrupted.

But even as the accident or disease persists for eons, the Stronger Force (albeit not ALL powerful force) exerts a correcting or healing influence.

Also, despite the accident or disease, God remains vital, good, beautiful, not totally affected by the accident or disease. God's divine nature rubs off on the flawed nature of physical reality that is replete with high resistance and brokenness. Because of Divine Being (verb form of being) there is enough beauty in the world to make it a happy accident that does in fact reveal good and whole things despite its flaws.

Considering these beliefs, I considered calling my current theology (admitting that it could change with additional insights) "positive Gnosticism."

When I looked up the phrase, this (below) is what Open A.I. told me. It doesn't seem a perfect fit but very close. Perhaps Opportunistic Gnosticism better fits my metaphysical notions and the theological implications, including switching thanking God to "God, You're beautiful " when appreciating good things in my life. This, because my focus is on what God IS (Being) instead of transactional actions (doing). In my view, God was not the Maker or Creator of our reality. God's divine nature simply had the effect of making the accident somewhat beautiful and good, as though it was an artist's intentional work of art.
Here's the definition of positive Gnosticism that aI found online:

Positive gnosticism (often discussed in esoteric history and religious studies) refers to a specific, optimistic strain of mysticism that embraces the material universe as a divine revelation. It contrasts with "negative" or "pessimistic" gnosticism, which views the physical world as an inescapable trap created by a flawed, malevolent deity. [1 (

), 2 (https://www.enotes.com/topics/cyber...tory-and-cyberpunk/erik-davis-essay-date-1993)]
While traditional Gnosticism is often characterized by its world-rejecting worldview, positive gnosticism—frequently found in Renaissance Hermeticism and specific branches of Islamic philosophy—emphasizes the following: [1 (

), 2 (Chapter 4: Ali And Positive Gnosticism (Irfan)), 3 (https://www.enotes.com/topics/cyber...tory-and-cyberpunk/erik-davis-essay-date-1993), 4 (Gnosticism | Modern Reformation)]
• Sacred Materialism: The visible cosmos is seen as a manifest map of divine light, where the physical plane reflects spiritual realities rather than impris
oning them. [
1 (https://www.enotes.com/topics/cyber...tory-and-cyberpunk/erik-davis-essay-date-1993)
,
2 (

)
]

•
Human Potential:
Humanity possesses divine, cosmic powers. Through the pursuit of
gnosis
(mystical enlightenment), individuals can awaken, ascend, and unite with the divine source while recognizing their spiritual autonomy.[
1 (Gnosticism | Religion and Philosophy | Research Starters | EBSCO Research)
,
2 (Techgnosis: Seed-Crystal - Techgnosis)
,
3 (

)
,
4 (https://www.enotes.com/topics/cyber...tory-and-cyberpunk/erik-davis-essay-date-1993)
]

•
Proto-Scientific Impulse:
The positive view of reality historically fueled alchemy and esoteric sciences, as practitioners believed the material universe was alive with sentient stellar forces that could be understood and communed with. [
1 (https://www.enotes.com/topics/cyber...tory-and-cyberpunk/erik-davis-essay-date-1993)
]
--------

Note that I included A.I.'s sources of information, in case anyone wants to look them up.

Thanks for considering these theological notions.

This is a very thoughtful and deep take on existence. I have some questions, because your idea here of "positive Gnosticism" doesn't seem very close to the original forms of Gnosticism that many of the early Christian writers were refuting. When you say "physical reality is an accident" do you mean matter and the material itself, or the pain, suffering, and destructive acts of nature are the accident? Because the distinction matters, if matter itself is the problem, that sounds much closer to classical Gnosticism. If creation itself is good but its present condition is broken, corrupted, or diseased, that seems like a very different view altogether, closer to the Biblical Genesis account.

 

[Thomas]

Hi, @otherbrother – interesting ideas.

God is not all powerful even though most powerful.

I suppose this is the crux of the issue – such a God is not the God of the Abrahamic mainline theological systems. The question then is, what is the nature of the restraint? What limits your God's freedom to act?

I cannot be blaming an all powerful god that created a world that includes horrible things.

Quite right. The fact that 'bad things' happen is neither a flaw nor fault of God – it's simply a wrong view altogether.

And the argument that God allows free will so we can freely choose love is flimsy on two counts.

I think your first counter-argument is a false one – natural phenomena is not a matter of choice.
I'd say the second one flimsy.

If not free will, are you then a determinist?

This, because my focus is on what God IS (Being) instead of transactional actions (doing).

Back to God again.

In classical metaphysics, the Transcendent God is 'beyond being' altogether.

The Immanent God is both being and doing, in that God is (being) as God acts (does), and acts (does) according to what God is.

The Palamite 'essence v energies' debate is something of a sideshow.

In my view, God was not the Maker or Creator of our reality.

Back to God again – so who is – a Demiurge?

Positive gnosticism ... refers to a specific, optimistic strain of mysticism that embraces the material universe as a divine revelation. It contrasts with "negative" or "pessimistic" gnosticism, which views the physical world as an inescapable trap created by a flawed, malevolent deity.

Christian gnosis, of a St Paul or a St John especially, sits in the first category.

While traditional Gnosticism is often characterized by its world-rejecting worldview ...

We have to tread carefully here. The catch-all terms "The Gnostics" and "Gnosticism" was coined in the 17th century, and is generally disregarded now by scholars as being too prescriptive.

While some gnostic schools had a very negative world view, eg the Sethians, other schools, eg the Valentinians, saw the Demiurge as a benign but limited figure – somewhat like your God above – whose rule reflects ignorance rather than malice.

St Paul was closer to the Sethians, in that regard. While the Almighty God is Good, etc., the rulers of this world, the archons and their ilk, are malign entities overthrown and condemned by Christ, their death-grip upon humanity shattered by the resurrection.

Human Potential:
Humanity possesses divine, cosmic powers. Through the pursuit of gnosis (mystical enlightenment), individuals can awaken, ascend, and unite with the divine source while recognizing their spiritual autonomy.

Again, I'd suggest caution here.

Does this mean everyone is God? Logically, that can't be the case. I would say human nature does not possess divine powers (Cosmic powers are of a lesser order and would have to be defined), but that life rises in and from the Divine, but God is not self-replicating, rather, God invites all created being to participate in the Uncreate according to its mode of being – in that sense I'd say human participation is the highest we can conceive (as would any mode of being), in that by being made in the divine image and likeness, we, too, can say "I" meaningfully.

(I am not arguing the merits or otherwise of Buddhism here, that is a much more nuanced discussion.)

 

[otherbrother]

This is a very thoughtful and deep take on existence. I have some questions, because your idea here of "positive Gnosticism" doesn't seem very close to the original forms of Gnosticism that many of the early Christian writers were refuting. When you say "physical reality is an accident" do you mean matter and the material itself, or the pain, suffering, and destructive acts of nature are the accident? Because the distinction matters, if matter itself is the problem, that sounds much closer to classical Gnosticism. If creation itself is good but its present condition is broken, corrupted, or diseased, that seems like a very different view altogether, closer to the Biblical Genesis account.

Right or wrong, I think matter, physical existence, itself. Sounds awfully negative, but not if an out-pouring loving God is healing and beautifying it out of Divine Being’s greater strength (not all powerful, but more powerful than physical reality). And you and I, or your spirit and mine, are healing agents in what I call the Grand Reclamation Project. God is not doing the Project. He is simply and completely Being. Our actions (to make existence more Godly) that are fed by Divine Being are like God’s natural immune system that He/She/It doesn’t have to try to do. It flows out of the Being or Formless Order of God. Love is the Being-based closing of the gaps that accidentally led to matter (the ten thousand things), especially the gaps between the classical objects called humans. Ironically, the very best thing physical existence has to offer (love) is from the “other side,” a different (probably deeper) dimension. But the fact that it makes its way here is beautiful, “positive.” Hence the positive in Positive Gnosticism.
Of course I am only pontificating, reporting to you how I currently see overall or ultimate reality. Your distinction between corrupted creation and creation itself certainly warrants my attention and further thought. But as I see things now, matter itself is an accident or disease.
Thanks for playing in this sandbox!

 

[otherbrother]

Hi, @otherbrother – interesting ideas.


I suppose this is the crux of the issue – such a God is not the God of the Abrahamic mainline theological systems. The question then is, what is the nature of the restraint? What limits your God's freedom to act?


Quite right. The fact that 'bad things' happen is neither a flaw nor fault of God – it's simply a wrong view altogether.


I think your first counter-argument is a false one – natural phenomena is not a matter of choice.
I'd say the second one flimsy.

If not free will, are you then a determinist?


Back to God again.

In classical metaphysics, the Transcendent God is 'beyond being' altogether.

The Immanent God is both being and doing, in that God is (being) as God acts (does), and acts (does) according to what God is.

The Palamite 'essence v energies' debate is something of a sideshow.


Back to God again – so who is – a Demiurge?


Christian gnosis, of a St Paul or a St John especially, sits in the first category.


We have to tread carefully here. The catch-all terms "The Gnostics" and "Gnosticism" was coined in the 17th century, and is generally disregarded now by scholars as being too prescriptive.

While some gnostic schools had a very negative world view, eg the Sethians, other schools, eg the Valentinians, saw the Demiurge as a benign but limited figure – somewhat like your God above – whose rule reflects ignorance rather than malice.

St Paul was closer to the Sethians, in that regard. While the Almighty God is Good, etc., the rulers of this world, the archons and their ilk, are malign entities overthrown and condemned by Christ, their death-grip upon humanity shattered by the resurrection.


Again, I'd suggest caution here.

Does this mean everyone is God? Logically, that can't be the case. I would say human nature does not possess divine powers (Cosmic powers are of a lesser order and would have to be defined), but that life rises in and from the Divine, but God is not self-replicating, rather, God invites all created being to participate in the Uncreate according to its mode of being – in that sense I'd say human participation is the highest we can conceive (as would any mode of being), in that by being made in the divine image and likeness, we, too, can say "I" meaningfully.

(I am not arguing the merits or otherwise of Buddhism here, that is a much more nuanced discussion.)

As usual, you bring a wealth of knowledge about metaphysical beliefs, beyond what I’ve been exposed to or found. But it makes it all the more fun when my playing by ear matches the “music” of other sincere thinkers in history!
I’m opting to take a while to process some of your points. My current views do seem to match the Gnostic school that started with a V. But my notions might include some of the beliefs from the other branch of Gnosticism that you said Paul adhered to. I might be a hybrid Gnostic?!

 

[otherbrother]

Demiurge

Help me out with the meaning of that word, devil? Or God? Big difference I know. That’s why I needed clarification.

Looked it up:

A demiurge is a philosophical or religious figure responsible for creating, shaping, or maintaining the physical universe. The word derives from the ancient Greek dēmiourgos, which literally translates to "public worker," "craftsman," or "artisan". [1, 2, 3]


The concept takes on different meanings depending on the tradition:

• Platonic Philosophy: Introduced by the philosopher Plato in his dialogue Timaeus, the Demiurge is viewed as an architect or divine craftsman. Rather than creating something out of nothing, the Demiurge takes pre-existing, chaotic matter and fashions it to conform to eternal, rational ideals. [1, 2]
• Gnosticism: In various Gnostic belief systems, the Demiurge is viewed much more negatively. Gnostics separated the spiritual realm (which is good) from the material world (which is flawed or evil). They viewed the Demiurge as an ignorant or malevolent subordinate figure who created the imperfect material world, which keeps human souls trapped away from the supreme, transcendent God. [1, 2]
• Modern or Literary Usage: In broader, secular contexts, it is often used to describe a powerful, autonomous creative force or a ruling, shaping power (such as a highly influential artist or architect). [1, 2]

You can explore the different historical interpretations in detail on Wikipedia's Demiurge Page. [1]


If you are researching a specific context—such as Platonic texts, Gnostic mythology, or its use in popular media/literature (like Overlord or Honkai: Star Rail)—let me know and I can provide more specific details! [1, 2]

Now this

• the Demiurge takes pre-existing, chaotic matter and fashions it to conform to eternal, rational ideals.

seems in line with my ideas here, except I don’t think an intentional fashioning makes as much sense to me as God’s divine nature simply rubbing off on the chaotic stuff.
As a busy thinker (a kind of doing), perhaps I am needing to emphasize the verb form of being in myself and in God as a way to restore wholeness. I don’t need a busy God. I need a serene God who specializes in simply being. That version of God can also help move me towards unconditional love. There are no specifications for true love other than it being true, genuine, deep. There are however many specifications or conditions for doing jobs.

 

[otherbrother]

They viewed the Demiurge as an ignorant or malevolent subordinate figure who created the imperfect material world, which keeps human souls trapped away from the supreme, transcendent God. [1, 2]

That actually aligns with my current thought . Not necessarily malevolent but ignorant of oneness/wholeness. And not really a being, so much as a function (whatever process led to or was behind the accident of matter and physical existence)

 

[Thomas]

Okeydokey –

Some gnotes on the gnostics (geddit? ) from an essay by D.B.H.:
The 'Gnostic' schools of the early Christian era were not so much heresiarch cults as rather extreme orthodox expressions of Christianity – sometimes with wildly imaginative mythologies – following a dualism already present, if in a more restrained form, in the New Testament, and most especially in the Pauline and Johannine writings.

Generally, then, "gnostic" narratives tell of a cosmic dispensation under the reign of the god of this aeon (2 Corinthians 4:4) or the Archon of this cosmos (John 14:30; Ephesians 2:2) or the "Evil One" (1 John 5:19). Of spiritual beings hopelessly immured within heavenly spheres thronged by hostile archons and powers, principalities and daemons (Romans 8:3, 39; 1 Corinthians 10:20–21; 15:24; Ephesians 1:21; etc.), bound under and cursed by a law that was in fact ordained by lesser, angelic or archontic powers (Galatians 3:10–11, 19–20). This world of imprisoned spirits knows nothing of the true light (John 1:5), descended from the Aeon above (John 3:31; 8:23; etc.), bringing with him a knowledge that has been hidden from before the ages (Romans 16:25–26; Galatians 1:12; Ephesians 3:3–9; Colossians 1:26), a secret wisdom unknown even to "the archons of this cosmos" (1 Corinthians 2:7–8) and the power to liberate fallen spirits (John 8:31–32, etc.). ...

(Aside: Ignatius of Antioch said, in a letter to the Church at Ephesus: "Now the virginity of Mary was hidden from the prince of this world, as was also her offspring, and the death of the Lord; three mysteries of renown, which were wrought in silence by God.")

Now, supposedly, those blessed persons who possess 'gnosis' (1 Corinthians 8:7; 13:2) constitute something of an exceptional company, 'spiritual persons' (πνευματικοί), who enjoy a knowledge of the truth denied to the merely 'psychical' (ψυχικοί) among us (1 Corinthians 2:12-16; 14:36; Galatians 6:1; Jude 19). It tells us also that, by his triumph over the cosmic archons (1 Corinthians 15:24-28), this saviour has subdued the powers in the celestial spheres above and opened a path to God's true heaven, and that now no spiritual adversary or gulf of cosmic separation can separate us from our true home above, in the shelter of God's love (Romans 8:38–39).

+++

So, as said, Gnostics covers a wide variety of beliefs, and there was no more an 'orthodox Gnosticism' than there was an 'orthodox Christianity', that latter only emerging as such in later centuries as a hardening against theological speculation in defence of pastoral preservation.

 

[Thomas]

We have to hold in mind a view of the Cosmos that is hierarchical and layered.

God the Almighty Father sits at the very top, far removed from the day to day – for 1st century Jews, God the Father acting or doing, appearing or speaking, was something that had ceased way back in their distant past, an almost mythological age of Moses and his like. There were prophets and oracles, miracles and wonders, but the direct intervention of HaShem in person was not assumed or expected.

Instead there were, as I said, hierarchies, each ranked in order – in Christian terms, there are nine choirs of angels (Seraphim, Cherubim and so on); there are, for the educated Jew and GrecoRoman alike, God and gods, demingods and heroes, angels and daemons, spirits, on and on, including fairies or various varieties. These spiritual entities were real and active, sometimes beneficial, sometimes not so much, and sometimes malign.

Fairies were seen for centuries as generally malign little devils, until their rehabilitation in the Romance Movement around the 18th century – before that, if you had faeries in you life, you were in a lot of trouble.

Very definitely, evident in the words of Jesus, and clearly in St Paul, there was a layer of daemonic orders directly opposed to God who held the earth and humanity in thrall, under the power of death.

For some Gnostics, their demiurge was a demigod of the latter kind, holding humanity in chains and determined to keep them that way.

 

[Thomas]

In that Platonic reality commonly assumed in late antiquity, Pauline and Johannine thought equated Jesus with the Divine Nous, the Mind of God which emanates from the One as the secondary principle of reality, containing the entire intellectual universe in which all the Ideas reside undifferentiated, and who acts as the true Demiurge (craftsman) of the universe.

Pagans agreed with the principle, but what they disputed was whether Jesus was worthy of divine honours (His somewhat shabby death was hardly heroic). Celsus argued that Jesus was not. He saw Jesus as a magician and, being a good, pious GrecoRoman, magic was morally wrong and spiritually dangerous.

Porphyry saw the wisdom and sanctity of Jesus, but questioned whether Jesus was anything more than a son God among other sons of God, and whether His elevation to the exclusion of traditional worship of the gods was morally justified. Porphyry wanted to integrate Christianity into the framework of Greco-Roman religion.

Gnostics of the extreme saw Jesus as a demiurge on the one hand, or a charlatan on the other.

So whether one speaks of Jesus as a Demiurge rather depends upon how that understanding is framed, as some saw the Demiuge as akin to the Mind and Wisdom of God, while others saw it as the bastard offspring of an ignorant and misguided god ...

 

[Thomas]

seems in line with my ideas here, except I don’t think an intentional fashioning makes as much sense to me as God’s divine nature simply rubbing off on the chaotic stuff.

Then the question is, where does the chaotic stuff come from? If not of God, then you have God plus stuff, so God is not Infinite, etc., etc., and again, who made the stuff ... saying stuff is eternal is one way out, I suppose, but to many its not satisfactory.

I don’t need a busy God. I need a serene God who specializes in simply being.

Here, as so often, it seems to me you're expending a huge amount of effort trying to invent the wheel ... I admire your effort, I just wonder if there's not a better way?

And not really a being, so much as a function (whatever process led to or was behind the accident of matter and physical existence)

Well something has to be to function ... but if you're saying that the malevolent powers lack 'mind', then you're way off kilter with regard to the kind of stuff we're talking about.

I mean the Adversary in the Hebrew Scriptures was not evil nor malevolent; more like a state prosecutor. They were of the angelic order.

I think it was Terry Jones, of Monty Python fame, who was quite well versed in English history of the early medieval era, wrote a story about a philosopher whop sold his soul to the devil in return for knowledge, only to discover, when it came to his final reckoning, that rather than meeting the Devil, who he assumed to be the most knowledgeable being outside of God, there on the throne sat an incontinent and drooling idiot ...

(What that's got to do with our discussion, I have no idea.)

 

[otherbrother]

This world of imprisoned spirits knows nothing of the true light (John 1:5), descended from the Aeon above (John 3:31; 8:23; etc.), bringing with him a knowledge that has been hidden from before the ages (Romans 16:25–26; Galatians 1:12; Ephesians 3:3–9; Colossians 1:26), a secret wisdom unknown even to "the archons of this cosmos" (1 Corinthians 2:7–8) and the power to liberate fallen spirits (John 8:31–32, etc.). ...

Interesting that my recent book is based largely on mystical dream experiences suggesting both astral projection AND imprisoned spirit looking to be liberated, paroled, or furloughed (feeling spiritually abundant although still here in the physical body and physical world). More specifically, my “Connected Self” or spirit in the dream takes the role of therapist or teacher who has keys or permission to navigate between the dream world (spiritual domain?) and the physical world (semi-lucid awareness of being there in bed and in a body while experiencing the dream drama). I would like to think my main Self is working on the enlightenment suggested in that narrative (St. John?).

 

[otherbrother]

Interesting that my recent book is based largely on mystical dream experiences suggesting both astral projection AND imprisoned spirit looking to be liberated, paroled, or furloughed (feeling spiritually abundant although still here in the physical body and physical world). More specifically, my “Connected Self” or spirit in the dream takes the role of therapist or teacher who has keys or permission to navigate between the dream world (spiritual domain?) and the physical world (semi-lucid awareness of being there in bed and in a body while experiencing the dream drama). I would like to think my main Self is working on the enlightenment suggested in that narrative (St. John?).

Here I am again replying to my other brother Darrell! (refer to old Bob Newhart sit com, his second, when a Vermont Innkeeper!). These song lyrics evolved partly from the notion of love not only being the best thing that physical existence, life, has to offer, but being from the “other side.” Proving the saying (one I made up. Don’t know if used before me) , “You can’t get there from here. You can only get here from there!”

A Good Time



He’s the one I tried follow

Yet somehow it left me hollow

Cause I only seemed to know him

like I was holding a belief.



But my heart, it started leaping once my mind could hear him speaking.

These words he really lived by

gave my troubled soul relief:



“It’s a good time to practice what you preach.

It’s a good time to turn your yearn into a reach.

It’s a good time to be

the student who can teach

‘This is the way to love’.



It’s a good time to rise above your fear.

It’s a good time to turn that sigh into a cheer.

It’s a good time to say

‘Hey, look over here.

This is the way to love’.”





Come join the resistance

to a meaningless existence.

Life can be a cold cold prison,

But He can set you free.



This old world is broken,

and you know He came to heal it.

Even so, I couldn’t feel it

until He said these words to me:



“It’s a good time to practice what you preach.

It’s a good time to turn your yearn into a reach.

It’s a good time to be

the student who can teach

‘This is the way to love’.



It’s a good time to rise above your fear.

It’s a good time to turn that sigh into a cheer.

It’s a good time to say

‘Hey, look over here.

This is the way to love’.“



Instrumental bridge



We hope to have a good life,

looking forward to the good times,

following and fumbling

to find a better way.



But the key is not outside us

or down a dark and lonely road.

We unlock the chains inside us

when we hear our Dear Friend say:



“It’s a good time to practice what you preach.

It’s a good time to turn your yearn into a reach.

It’s a good time to be

the student who can teach

‘This is the way to love’.



It’s a good time to rise above your fear.

It’s a good time to turn that sigh into a cheer.

It’s a good time to say

‘Hey, look over here.

This is the way to love’.“



Instrumental bridge





“It’s a good time to practice what you preach.

It’s a good time to turn your yearn into a reach.

It’s a good time to be

the student who can teach

‘This is the way to love’.



It’s a good time to rise above your fear.

It’s a good time to turn that sigh into a cheer.

It’s a good time to say

‘Hey, look over here.

This is the way to love’.“

 

[otherbrother]

Then the question is, where does the chaotic stuff come from? If not of God, then you have God plus stuff, so God is not Infinite, etc., etc., and again, who made the stuff ... saying stuff is eternal is one way out, I suppose, but to many its not satisfactory.

Fallen off of God, like excrement or body part that atrophied and fell off. But unlike us, God is whole and powerful enough to heal from the broken or fallen state. But individual spirits like yours and mine are the active mechanisms involved in the “Grand Reclamation Project.” God’s “Oops!” leading to a correction of the problem/accident. “Clean up on aisle 4!!!!”

 

[otherbrother]

I think it was Terry Jones, of Monty Python fame, who was quite well versed in English history of the early medieval era, wrote a story about a philosopher whop sold his soul to the devil in return for knowledge, only to discover, when it came to his final reckoning, that rather than meeting the Devil, who he assumed to be the most knowledgeable being outside of God, there on the throne sat an incontinent and drooling idiot ...

(What that's got to do with our discussion, I have no idea.)

The Valentine (?) version of Gnosticism. Would be my guess as to why your mind went there. “The mind has a mind of its own” usually refers to rather intelligent subconscious mind, perhaps the right brain hemisphere. It makes dot connecting associations that goes right over left brain’s “head!”
Once again your left brain gifts and my right brain gifts seem to compliment each other! Your left brain blows mine out of the water, but my right brain is an excellent swimmer!!!!!!!!!!

 

[otherbrother]

In that Platonic reality commonly assumed in late antiquity, Pauline and Johannine thought equated Jesus with the Divine Nous, the Mind of God which emanates from the One as the secondary principle of reality, containing the entire intellectual universe in which all the Ideas reside undifferentiated, and who acts as the true Demiurge (craftsman) of the universe

I’m a bit frightened! That actually made sense to me (or so I thought it did!)!
I seem to be in a playful exclamation mark state of mind today!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes. Fits with my notion of God as Formless Order. Then Son of Father God is emergent form from the Formless Order. Form seems destined to quantum wave function (and “coherence”?) collapse, or Thermodynamic theory of entropy.

 

[otherbrother]

I’m a bit frightened! That actually made sense to me (or so I thought it did!)!
I seem to be in a playful exclamation mark state of mind today!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes. Fits with my notion of God as Formless Order. Then Son of Father God is emergent form from the Formless Order. Form seems destined to quantum wave function (and “coherence”?) collapse, or Thermodynamic theory of entropy.

Even seemingly incorruptible forms like triangles stand separate from (say) squares and rectangles, thus potentially corrupting Oneness or Formless Order.

 

[otherbrother]

Instead there were, as I said, hierarchies, each ranked in order – in Christian terms, there are nine choirs of angels (Seraphim, Cherubim and so on); there are, for the educated Jew and GrecoRoman alike, God and gods, demingods and heroes, angels and daemons, spirits, on and on, including fairies or various varieties. These spiritual entities were real and active, sometimes beneficial, sometimes not so much, and sometimes malign.

Interesting that during my writing of a book about an imagined model, spiritually-principled, community, I conceived 5 “Virtues” that seemed to correspond with five characteristics of a healthy community. When I looked up any spiritual reference to “Virtues,” I came across a belief that the Virtues were the FIFTH rank of angels. I felt that possibly my thoughts had been guided from the other side and that my spiritual development had me at that angelic level at the time.
The original title of the book was The Marketing of Virtue, but was later changed to Allsville Emerging .

 

[otherbrother]

I suppose this is the crux of the issue – such a God is not the God of the Abrahamic mainline theological systems. The question then is, what is the nature of the restraint? What limits your God's freedom to act?

God only knows!!!! But I’m guessing God is powerful and smart enough to have meaningful insights that various ranks of energy constellations or angels can put to use in the Grand Reclamation Project.
My guess is that action itself limits the power of being because it pulls one’s attention away from wholeness/Oneness. Once, I noticed how the simple act of walking, even ever so slowly, diminished my meditative buzz at the time, but I was able to regain and/or maintain some of the buzz via concentration, focusing on the buzz as I acted/walked.

 

[otherbrother]

So whether one speaks of Jesus as a Demiurge rather depends upon how that understanding is framed, as some saw the Demiuge as akin to the Mind and Wisdom of God, while others saw it as the bastard offspring of an ignorant and misguided god ...

Are thoughts bastards of Mind Itself? I suppose if the connective thread is severed and the thoughts become too autonomous, then at those times thoughts are whole-mind’s (Mind Itself’s) bastards. But If the connection and flow is adequately maintained, then the thoughts are the beloved sons of Mind Itself.
Quite interesting though that other thinkers throughout the ages see, like me. action or doing as secondary to being. And this in a world that seems heavy on doing. Whoever has the most toys when they die wins.