Positive Gnosticism

[otherbrother]

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.

No, I think the functions are closer to mind than matter. Their being is more verb like than noun like (a being). But you are probably right that there is some there there, but not the kind of there that we associate with ordinary physical objects (or, in Quantum theory terms, “classical objects “) . From our vantage point the being is more like a movement or blur. But this is probably because of the limits that “thinking like matter” imposes on our thinking. Thinking like energy may prefer the conceptual place-holder of “function,” as in Quantum theory “wave FUNCTION.”

 

[Thomas]

... 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?).

LOL, there's a lot of selves here!

I think I'm right in saying there's only one 'self' in Christian metaphysics, and I think the same applies to most traditional metaphysical systems. There are states within the self, which is probably what you're referring to as 'selves', and one can, to a certain degree, move between states.

The simplest I can offer is the Pauline distinction between the 'psychical' and the 'spiritual' – a sóma psychikon (σῶμα ψυχικόν) is flesh-and-blood sarx (σάρξ) animated or given life by psyche, the soul, and thus becomes a living body sóma (σῶμα), whereas a sóma pneumatikon (σῶμα πνευματικόν) is a body sóma (σῶμα) that is constituted from and lives by the deathless spirit, pneuma.

The point here, as St Paul tries to explain, is that they are one and the same soma, one and the same self, but that self has been transformed, one might even say transfigured.

A way of speaking of the dead is to look at the cadaver of a person and say 'they are no longer there' – there is no soma, no self present, and to stretch the analogy one might say the sarx is a body, but no-one's home. A lived-in body is a self, a soma. That soma can be either a psychikon or a pneumatikon, but it's still the same, single self.

 

[Thomas]

Fallen off of God, like excrement or body part that atrophied and fell off...

Er ... I'm sorry, that makes no sense at all in respect to any classical or traditional idea of God.

 

[Thomas]

Yes. Fits with my notion of God as Formless Order. Then Son of Father God is emergent form from the Formless Order.

One way of looking at it.

Form seems destined to quantum wave function (and “coherence”?) collapse, or Thermodynamic theory of entropy.

Ah, steady! I wouldn't conflate the Divine / Platonic Ideas / Forms with material reality, that would be a miss-classification.

One might draw some kind of metaphor or analogy, but that's about as far as it goes.

For all its strangeness, the Quantum Realm is still very much in the material/physical world.

 

[Thomas]

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

I'd say they are two distinct orders.

The Forms derive from a single, for them transcendent, principle, which resides in the Formless.

It's like saying the existence of a triangle or a square as distinct geometric shapes corrupts the simple principle of geometry.

 

[Thomas]

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 .

Have you researched how that particular choir corresponds to the human qualities?

 

[Thomas]

God only knows!!!!

That's not really an answer.

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.

I find this idea of God rather anthropomorphic ... I don't see God in that sense.

My guess is that action itself limits the power of being because it pulls one’s attention away from wholeness/Oneness.

This is what I meant by 'inventing the wheel' – often it seems to me you ignore all the traditional, classical, metaphysical discourse about the nature of God, and invent one that fits within your own imagination.

 

[Thomas]

Are thoughts bastards of Mind Itself?

It seems to me that in our dialogues you pick up on this and that without really getting to grips with what this and that is, and fit them to your own narrative – that's a very left-brain thing. You think it's right brain, I'm not convinced it is ...

 

[Thomas]

Their being is more verb like than noun like (a being).

You can't have one without the other. You can't have something happening when there's noting there. A verb requires subject and object, a verb is what happens in the between.

But you are probably right that there is some there there, but not the kind of there that we associate with ordinary physical objects (or, in Quantum theory terms, “classical objects “) . From our vantage point the being is more like a movement or blur. But this is probably because of the limits that “thinking like matter” imposes on our thinking. Thinking like energy may prefer the conceptual place-holder of “function,” as in Quantum theory “wave FUNCTION.”

Perhaps a blur because you're trying to conceive 'it' in a way that it does not exist as, or inhabit?

 

[otherbrother]

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).

The psychologist in me came out while reading that passage. Gnosis seemed like “insight” in terms of a psychological perspective. Does a person have insight to their deeper motives and values (akin to higher angels ) that are sometimes hidden by counterphobic emotional reactions and complexes that cover up our deepest desires and greatest potential?
It’s interesting how my thoughts and views bounce back a forth between metaphysical notions and psychological notions. Sometimes I suggest that my “spirit” may not be an object at all, but rather my potential for connective experiences, awareness, and spiritual growth. At other times, I assume my spirit or “Connected Self” is an actual entity. In my recent book I have a whole chapter called Holy Humanism that describes a hybrid of the metaphysical and the psychological, of traditional spiritual/religious views with modern psychological views. I keep looking this way and that way. But at least so far I don’t rule out the validity of either one. I do lean more toward seeing my True Self as being more a process than a thing, a song being sung, more than a singer singing a song. A fountain flowing deep and wide, more than a human hoping to grow spiritually.

 

[otherbrother]

It seems to me that in our dialogues you pick up on this and that without really getting to grips with what this and that is, and fit them to your own narrative – that's a very left-brain thing. You think it's right brain, I'm not convinced it is ...

You may have a good point there. Assimilating “this and that” into preconceived concepts IS a more left brain thing. But the looseness with which I do it resembles the impressionistic style of the right brain. Your observation fits with the comment I just made before I saw your comment here. I was pondering how I look this way a while and then look that way a while. as though I’m either indecisive or open minded about competing views.

 

[otherbrother]

You can't have one without the other. You can't have something happening when there's noting there. A verb requires subject and object, a verb is what happens in the between.


Perhaps a blur because you're trying to conceive 'it' in a way that it does not exist as, or inhabit?

I can’t rule out that I may merely be crossing my eyes to make the blur. But something in me senses the blur to be more real than the illusions masquerading as plain truths. There is a sense of a deeper, more interactive, convergent, and interconnected reality than I perceive on the surface. I tend to think the blur is from being affected by the illusions on the surface, rather than just mixing things up. Restless mind? Or deep-reaching mind?
I do think I am, rightly or wrongly, trying to loosen my grip of the material world (on the “surface”) in order to sense and utilize deeper “things” (be they functions or objects, verbs or nouns).

 

[otherbrother]

There are states within the self, which is probably what you're referring to as 'selves', and one can, to a certain degree, move between states.

Yes. Self states or aspects that act as though others in a relationship with one’s one self. In the book, I do talk about how the Connected Self” may well be just the spiritual (deeper?) part or aspect of oneself. The clinical psychologist in me sees a usefulness in intentional multiple personalities. Various characters in a novelist’s narrative that represent parts of the novelist’s self. Sub personalities.

 

[Thomas]

I'm treading cautiously here because I'm not a spiritual director, nor do I seek to be, nor is that what this dialogue is about ... but it does encroach on that aspect.

In a general sense, It seems to me that we're talking about the life and activity of the sóma psychikon rather than the sóma pneumatikon, that is of a different order of gnosis, of knowing and being, but then I'm talking in the Christian sense whereas what you say seems to make no allowance for that.

I must iterate that's what it suggests to me, but I may be wrong ...

Gnosis seemed like “insight” in terms of a psychological perspective.

That would be the case from the sóma psychikon view.

It’s interesting how my thoughts and views bounce back a forth between metaphysical notions and psychological notions.

Again, the life of the sóma psychikon and the life of the mind.

 

[Thomas]

But the looseness with which I do it resembles the impressionistic style of the right brain... I was pondering how I look this way a while and then look that way a while. as though I’m either indecisive or open minded about competing views.

I think that's still left brain ... but again, I'm not wedded to the left-right dichotomy absolutely – as I understand it, any mental activity involves the whole brain.

Postscript added after, and in light of, later posts ... I would suggest a grounding might be useful – I can see the LB/RB thing, but you might end up just drifting around in the nous-sphere and arrive nowhere – or arrive via a long and circuitous route at something you could have reached in a few simple steps with proper guidance.

(As I understand it, one can't psychoanalyse oneself)

 

[Thomas]

Yes. Self states or aspects that act as though others in a relationship with one’s one self. In the book, I do talk about how the Connected Self” may well be just the spiritual (deeper?) part or aspect of oneself. The clinical psychologist in me sees a usefulness in intentional multiple personalities. Various characters in a novelist’s narrative that represent parts of the novelist’s self. Sub personalities.

I used to think my view was holistic rather than dualistic, now I'm inclining towards monism (but not pantheism). Well I'm of a Hartian, monistic outlook, it's soma all the way up, and pneuma all the way down, and vice versa.

If I were to put a Buddhist hat on for a moment (thus less informed than my Christian understanding) I'd say all these 'selves' are artificial categories of the psyche raised as blinds or baffles, a chimera or what was traditionally, in some circles, called a 'glamour' (from which we derive the English term for alluring) – a dance of the seven veils to keep you distracted.

 

[Thomas]

If I were tvo offer any advice, I'd say put all your psychological categories on the back burner for a bit.

Sit down and decide whether you're going to be a theist or not, and in light of that, pick a recognised master commentary and, rather than try and fit that within what you understand, look to see what it is actually saying – which means reading commentaries on the commentaries.

An Eckhart or a Bonaventure, an Ibn'Arabi or a Shankara. I'd avoid Henri Corbin because it would be too easy to fall into old tracks. If non-theist, then maybe the Shōbōgenzō of Dogen.

+++

My only other advice is don't look for insight or commentary on YouTube, as the place is full of all sorts of dross. There's gold there to be sure, but I'd check sources elsewhere and look for reference.

My go-to is Substack, but then that's often subscription based and I'm stretching my finances enough as it is ...

Hermeticism! Have you looked into Hermeticism!

Check out Michael Martin on Substack

 

[otherbrother]

• 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. [

I agree with that up to a point. Since the Divine is more potent than matter it does modify it and the modification is incremental, ongoing. But matter and flesh and egoistic thought still have their day or eon and do imprison spirit to some extent, making spirit somewhat frustrated even though it senses its inherent superiority.
In my view, the accident of physical existence is both a setback and an opportunity for spirit to reclaim its liberation and primacy. My belief might be “opportunistic Gnosticism” ?

 

[RJM]

Sorry I have not read carefully through the whole thread, because it is quite dense.

I know its not a new observation but what makes Gnosticism attractive is that the New Testament teachings of Jesus can seem to contradict those of the Old Testament so greatly that they seem not come from same God at all?

Christians who want to justify abusing the gentle teachings of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount for war and so on, usually have to revert to the Old Testament instead?

Stripped down to basics, Gnosticism seems to say that the deity speaking from the Old Testament is not the true God of creation, but is Yaldabaoth, the demiurge who is responsible for this world. Christ came from the true immortal realm of Barbelo to abrogate the purposes of Yaldaboth and restore the intention of the true God?

From the Gospel of Judas

The Gospel of Judas

www.interfaith.org

They said, “Master, you […] are the Son of our God!”

Jesus said to them, “How do [you] know me? Truly say to you, no generation of the people among you will know me.”

When his disciples heard this, [they] started to get angry and furious and started to curse him in their hearts.

But when Jesus noticed their ignorance, [he said] to them, “Why are you letting your anger trouble you? Has your God within you and [his stars] become angry with your souls? If any of you is [strong enough] among humans to bring out the perfect Humanity, stand up and face me.”

All of them said, “We’re strong enough.” But their spirits weren’t brave enough to stand before [him] – except Judas Iscariot. He was able to stand before him, but he couldn’t look him in the eye, so he looked away.

Judas [said] to him, “I know who you are and where you’ve come from. You’ve come from the immortal realm of Barbelo, and I’m not worthy to utter the name of the one who’s sent you.”

Then Jesus, knowing that he was thinking about what’s exalted, said to him, “Come away from the others and I’ll tell you the mysteries of the kingdom. Not so that you’ll go there, but you’ll grieve much because someone else will replace you to complete the twelve [elements] before their God.”

Judas said to him, “When will you tell me these things, and when will the great day of light dawn for the generation […]?”

But when he said these things, Jesus left him.

 

[wil]

Judas got the bread...material thought..but Jesus did not offer him the wine, spritual understanding....me thinks many think i have a similar issue.