/lit/ - Literature

>>16161705
>and why are they blowing up right now?
where?

They aren’t. One poster desperately wants to seem relevant somewhere other than /x/

>>16161709
Gnosis threads on /pol/ and /lit/ seem to have become common. /his/ and /sci/ too. They get deleted all the time after tons of posts, that's what made me interested.

They believe in nonsense. They're blowing up because a dissatisfied youth feels spiritually dead (whatever that entails) and wishes itself and the rest of the world to be materially dead.

>>16161705
It's schizo nonsense, they can't prove an ounce of it and their response is always something along the lines of it being very old.

>>16162058
How does this differ from any other religion anon?

>>16161705
>Another one
RIP your brain and years of your life, anon

>>16162098
Not him, but it doesn't

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xr8xJXFXK0 here you go

>>16161705
Quantum mechanics has validated them all the way back to Hermes Trismigistus(hermes for the greeks, thoth for the egyptians). Hermeticism was a primitive version of science, cause and effect, observation of nature. The 7 deadly sins and virtues is another basic example of this.

God -> Demiurge(laplace transform, fourier transform) -> Reality

Coherent -> filter -> decoherent

Radiation -> things stated above -> light

>>16161710
that one poster must be OP, the same retard that makes this retard thread every 12 hours.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp1JBUc8LbM

/lit/ literally is too midwit for this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_biology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_game_theory

>>16162871
desu im deeper into this rabbit hole than OP and have never made a thread about it, though I do like to reply with redpills

We have knowledge now that would influence the ever loving fuck out of Kant and Wittgenstein, I wish they were here for the discoveries we've made in quantum mechanics.

>>16162115
>>16162058
>>16162023
>>16161710
imagine being this fucking dumb

see >>16162856
>>16162920

>>16162995
Cope baka

>>16163038
You're a function with a direction determined by the basic fundamentals of reality and you can't do anything about it kid

>>16162856
>>16162995
lol, no. that is gay post hoc synchronism. not saying there wasnt some natural philosophy element to it, but trying to related it to qm is kinda cringe. qm has more to do with the kantian framework and other more robust idealist conceptions rather than gnosticisms shit take on neoplatonism.

>>16163056
>No free willy, billy
So this is the true power of gnosticism

>>16163063
You absolutely couldn't be more wrong. As above so below. Microcosm, macrocosm. Gnosticism is a primitive understanding of structural reality. It is our job to validate gnosticism/hermeticism with the progression of science, as this is the literal basis of knowledge. The name just changed.

>>16161705
>and why are they blowing up right now?
theyt arent you just keep making posts about them

>>16163066
Free will is a necessary cope for your function to maintain momentum, sorry

>>16163086

>>16163081
false and absolutistpilled. Hermeticism and gnosticism (and you say it as if they are the same thing) did not have a monopoly in the fields of conception and knowledge. anyways, i wouldnt bring hermeticism so low as to compare it to mongrel Gnosticism anyways.

Is there a lit-approved gnostic texts chart?

>>16163119
You've made an enormous non-point that invalidates nothing.

Hermeticism and gnosticism are absolutely related, and as well they DID NOT have a monopoly on these fields. To take issue with this rather than the content of the theory proves that you have no argument, and in fact a minimal IQ. Of course knowledge is not limited to these two words. You fucking double nigger.

I tried reading about gnosticism once and I dropped it alres at the demiurge crap. how can you read all this shit without laughing your ass off hahahaha bunch of retarded schizos.

>>16163134
>f course knowledge is not limited to these two words. You fucking double nigger.
>It is our job to validate gnosticism/hermeticism with the progression of science
Hmmmm, seems like you value two general feilds if you specifically mentioned that we should validate them in specific numbnuts, maybe thats what i was referring to.
>Hermeticism and gnosticism are absolutely related
yes they did have some related elements. but so did occultism and mainline christianity/islam/neoplatinism to boot. thats my point.

>>16163243
You can wrap what is useful within those two fields, though it is clearly not restricted as reality is literally reality. Why you would continue to take issue with this is fucking absurd.

Your point is not a point and has nothing at all to do with the theory. You are mad at my writing style. You are in fact a useless idiot.

>>16163188
see
>>16162856


this is basic shit for anybody that has to utilize objectivity to progress their field

Gnostics, what specific Gnostic texts would you suggest Christians read if you wanted them to believe what you believe?

The world is made up of Spirit and Matter. These are two different substances. "God" aka the Demi Urge AKA Yahweh in the Old Testament, is actually an evil deluded being that keeps you trapped here, in this Material Plane, denying you access to the Real Reality. Via religious rituals of some kind, you can access the Real Reality, and achieve perfect communion with the Real God, who is God in the New Testament AKA Jesus.

Ignore the guy talking about quantum mechanics, Gnosticism is literally as far away from QM as you can possibly get.

>>16163296
There are no Gnostics in this thread, only sad larpers. Real Gnostics don't proselytize.

>>16163268
>>16163277
No, because the very concept of the demiurge is fucking illogical. It stops the use of god as an axiomatic reality, religating it to a partial force, and stops the effective use of idealism as a realm of perfect forms underlying apparent reality.
>>16163268
Yes i have a problem with your wording because you are elevating a historical peculiarity to the level of actually important developments in thought. fucking knock of zoroastrianism.

im being a bit harsh i know, gnosticism does have some interesting truths to revel, but i think its way to over played.

>>16161705
read Timaeus and then read Heidegger

>>16163296
I don't have any material to recommend you, just a method. The core concept is cause and effect. Drop the idea that things cannot be measured just because you can't imagine a way to measure those things. Everything is objective, even a Salvador Dali painting has an objective structure. From the very basicness of reality we can find the truth.

The primary issue we really must deal with is detaching human ideals from the perception of truth. Very hard to do, but the more we quantify qualitative things the closer we will get.

I believe that the singularity we reach from the combination of quantum computing and neuralink-like technology will show up many outliers in human perception, and thus we can derive actual direction independent of the human bias.

>>16163308
There are no more Real Gnostics unless you are a Madaean (I discount Yazidis and Alawites as "Gnostics"). Gnosticism requires a transmission of Gnosis that you either do or do not have, with no in betweens, that most schools held required either special transmission by God (who only did it once, to the school's leader) or required special, secret rituals. With the destruction of all Gnostic schools by Christianity, those secret initiations are lost to us.

You cannot convert to Mandaeism, by the way. You have to be born into it. Your soul, by virtue of not being a Mandaean, is inherently impure and corrupt.

>>16163309
Look, I literally called it a primitive version. Don't throw it away because they didn't have the same knowledge we have today. They were way close to the ballpark considering the knowledge they had. Give them credit. The direction is all angled towards truth and that is what matters. Also, the demiurge doesn't minimize the concept of God, in any case religion itself minimizes the concept of God as scripture is written by men.

>>16163343
Terrence McKenna pls go you're just gatekeeping because you want to feel important for knowing who Mandaean people are

Do you think maybe the demiurge is just misunderstood? Sure, maybe he's not perfect, but that doesn't mean he's all bad.

>>16163354
>I literally called it a primitive version
ok
> Don't throw it away because they didn't have the same knowledge we have today. They were way close to the ballpark considering the knowledge they had. Give them credit.
Sure, but i think Platonism is even more correct and older, not to mention the rationalists of the 17th and 18th centuries were even more accurate, so i do not see the reason for looking into it much in terms of new knowledge when the two movements i just described have a more complete understanding of the topic.
> Also, the demiurge doesn't minimize the concept of God, in any case religion itself minimizes the concept of God as scripture is written by men.
Compared to the God of Descarte, Spinoza, Leibnitz, Hegel, etc, it very much does.

>>16163397
t.

>>16163404
You can use whatever words you want, to me the core concept is important not the word you refer to it by. Also, that may be true for those folks, I'm not even sure of their positions. However, if God is omnipresent then he is also responsible for evil, as he cannot be missing from the evil. Logically, there is a separation, and if there is a separation there is then a minimization of the definition of God. By making a distinction of good and evil you weaken the definition of God.

Gnosticism is a temperament, a slant of being, its mythology is an expression of truths acquired through vision and inward grace.

Whoever said gnosticism relies on a secret lineage of initiation is wrong. only relative to the individual schools, maybe, but each is encouraged to express his own understanding of these principles as far as his form will take him.

Armed with the proper intuition, the ideas alluded to in these texts are far more sophisticated than its detractors give them credit for. For example, PKD's concept of Zebra as a higher intelligence that's infiltrated the Black Cube by mimicking its determinations is already anticipated in the Apocryphon of John, which to my recollection he never mentions.

Here is the patrician's introduction to gnosticism. I guarantee you won't find a better list anywhere. No new age fluff or scholarly cat wrangling. In this order:

Jacques Lacarriere - The Gnostics
Hans Jonas - The Gnostic Religion
Kurt Rudolph - Gnosis
Couliano - Tree of Gnosis
Filoramo - History or Gnosticism

>>16163443
Good post

>>16163369
You can't become a Mandaean, people have tried. They don't want outsiders.

>>16163478
Yes, this is true. That is a part of their belief system. What exactly do you think I was trying to say?

>>16163457
Saved

>>16163440
>By making a distinction of good and evil you weaken the definition of God.
But most of the above do not. they are largely either monistic or pantheistic about the subject. God is an axiomatic entity. good and evil are just words and even that presumes a moral order to the universe without reason to do so.

And those who are more religious but in the catagory of rationalists (like liebnitz) does not sherk from this point and he declairs we live in the "best" possible world. since if we take God as axiomatically good then everything from him by definition is. and things can only be seen as bad through a particular rather than universal lense.

>>16163421
You try being God.

>>16163491
I said I didn't know their positions, and thus my argument was unrelated to the people you mentioned.

I posit that the demiurge, just like the existence of man does not degrade the definition of God. The demiurge is man's definition of an effect that God has from the point of view of humans.

>>16163488
I brainfarted and thought you were accusing me of gatekeeping by saying that you cannot join an ethnoreligion unless you were born into it.

>>16162856
brainlet

>>16163506
>The demiurge is man's definition of an effect that God has from the point of view of humans.
Than what is that? the apparent material? or apparent Evil? from my knoledge it is the supposed creator of the material vis a vis the spiritual. but this in between of the prime entity seems arbitrary. Of course it probably derives
in part from Plato's stop gap of the question of evil in timeaus, but it hardly seems well founded.

>>16163547
Do you care to extrapolate on that?
>>16163549
basically the demiurge is a fancy way of saying the filter between subreality and reality, ultimately all of it can be attributed to God

>>16163549
shit came off more antagonistic than i wanted to, sorry. I am familiar with plato's body and know that his conception of the gods as an in between between the perfect being and the world has been a point much critiqued by much of the big currents in western thought throughout the ages. especially by the big names in philoophy.

>>16163557
Do you think Noumea and phenomena in the Kantian framework is a less obscurist way to present it then? Found gnostisim way to mixed up in psuedo-religious mystic notions for me to take it too seriously.

>oh okay I did it! I finally have acheived gnosis! Now I am prepared to ascend
>*gets cancer*
>this is it I'm.... huh? It's so cold... nurse! NURSE I... Mom? Is that you? Oh mommy, oh daddy.... is that... I felt like I've known you my entire... the light... it's so warm so for just a second I'll..
>*gets reincarnated*

and that's why you don't waste your life on orphic nonsense folx: it don't do you one bit a good!

in sum: live, laugh, love and most importantly, have sex

>>16163576
I find the Kantian description actually more obscure, I believe Kant was missing information and both Kant and Wittgenstein's views would develop significantly in the modern era.

>>16163588
the least enlightened post ever

apply to be a janny

>>16163603
>I find the Kantian description actually more obscure
how? it doesnt personify the world in aperence and he explicitly tried to come from the whole subject without preconceived notions and did so in an extremely straightforward and academic way.

>>16163618
I believe Kant was working with concepts of good and evil relative to his era, this handicaps him. Kant in the modern era with a grasp of quantum mechanics and biological determinism is a much higher level of Kant. I wish we he was here lads.

>>16163557
reducing ancient systems to 'primitive science' is such a modern cope.
my high school chem teacher did the same shit its cringe
"uh yeah aristotle was a complete moron, he thought there was only 4 elements, WE NOW KNOW there are over a hundred'
yeah thanks but natural philosophy isnt science
hermeticism isnt science, just like alchemy isnt chemistry, o yeah you found the cringe jungian in this thread.
hermeticism, like other mystery type religions of that region, like mithraism and other shit like early alchemy, was all just different means of finding wisdom. its the common denominator of all religions.
now what is wisdom, no one knows, but everyone seeks it

>>16163647
Yeah, if you really want to split hairs we can just call it a wisdom thread. Weirdo.

>>16163618
>>16163576
I'm drunk and didn't answer your question very well, noumena and phenomena are both in the decoherent world, Kant had no awareness of the coherent level.

>>16163618
again, if you're armed with a particular mode of intuition, you can fit even Kant into a gnostic framework. it's very easy. you can keep Kant's architectonic while jettisoning his intentions for that architectonic.

you can derive something like a Demiurge from the problem of synthetic a priori judgments. since Kant's answer is that these judgments are "synthetic" because they apply to the form of space and time - that the triangle has properties that pertain specifically to its construction in space and not merely its concept - then we can say the human mind exists in a kind of heuristic lock with space and time, the forms of its auto-affection. if intuition can never be intellectual, but only discursive, then it's easy to see how you can derive a concept of the human whose body AND mind are products of the "Demiurge" from the Kantian notion of the human as belonging intrinsically to a transcendental structure it can never get behind the back of.

>>16163660
science is different, its not a religion (or at least it shouldnt be, modern science treads the line with requirements of faith, for example the big bang, no available experiments can prove it, purely conjecture, and therefore lands us in the realm of philosophy) science is concerned with measuring and predicting phenomenon, not wisdom. intellect is different from wisdom. wisdom is sophos, intellect is nous.

>>16163638
Kant's moral stance is rather removed to his veiws on reality and his Noumea and phenomena distinction. You can argue about his categorical imperative, but its not that related to his categorization of possible knowledge and reality.

He keeps his moral stuff in a completely different work and it really doesn't leak over to Critique of Pure Reason.

>Kant in the modern era with a grasp of quantum mechanics and biological determinism is a much higher level of Kant.
I honestly dont think that would change his stance in Critique of Pure reason, and probably not that much on his moral stance either.

>>16163670
You're close and I'm not sure I can explain it well enough to help you understand but I'll try. Kant described how the framework proliferates itself, but he wasn't aware of it beyond the classical degree. His methodology is strong enough that it is much more robust than his actual knowledge.

>>16163670
>if intuition can never be intellectual, but only discursive, then it's easy to see how you can derive a concept of the human whose body AND mind are products of the "Demiurge"
No you couldnt do that, because that engages in the Metaphysics and the inquiring about the intuition that we never can know. thats why Kant put such a high point on "Faith" as things like the demiurge or the abrahamic god can only be extrapolated by putting unwarrented speculation upon the unspeculatable and arbitrary. Kant would say the belief in the demiurge is no different than the belief in miracles or that the bush burned.

>>16163690
I agree but suggest to you that Kant didn't connect these things because he lacked the information to be able to do such, which I believe we have today. Abstractions are just copes.

>>16163679
philosophy, science and religion are the same thing for anybody worth their salt

Gnostic chart when?

>>16163714
We will quantify all qualitative perceptions within your lifetime, just watch.

Are there gnostic readings of Schopenhauer? How do his ideas relate to all this?

>>16163732
fuck now I want a greentext of this

>>16163696
my point is it's very easy to connect this idea of human cognition always being pre-schematized with the idea of a malevolent creator-god who installs the structure of the cosmos into the structure of the human body just as the various human organs. look at the brain. why is so much of mysticism, shit, so much of Heidegger, about unraveling the heuristic myopia of the brain? what does it mean for the brain to collapse Being into beings, and conversely, to decouple Being from beings? all of this pertains to the gnostic problematic. how to resist and overcome cosmic inertia as it is embodied in the rote functioning of my organs

>>16163715
i was right before lmao you really are a brainlet.
science and religion have the distinct difference in that science is purely concerned with what can be proved and reproduced in a lab. religion is the exact opposite. it concerns itself with faith and mystery, miracles and untruths as truths. the ever unprovable. philosophy is kinda in between, whereas religions (and now of course i can only make this point with regards to the hellenistic religions and christianity and other such in the region, due to the contraints of language and also my knowledge of the easterns precise terminology) main concern is with the logos, then one can say science is concerned with nous (i really dont know anythimg in particular about gnosticism only generalities so i dont know what part it plays in gnositicism) but philosophy, obviously, concerns itself with sophos. so i wouldnt denigrate any of the three, but i would make a distinction between their realms of operation

>>16163738
You shouldn't throw away ideas because things can be said in multiple different ways, I find holonomic brain theory to be very concise.

>>16163714
>Kant would say the belief in the demiurge is no different than the belief in miracles or that the bush burned.

Which is why I specifically said you can keep the contours of his system while jettisoning the rest. I know Kant said that, and I simply don't care. His dogmatists just need to give it a rest.

>>16163715
>>16163726
>We will quantify all qualitative perceptions within your lifetime, just watch.
>Abstractions are just copes.
This sounds almost like an empirical stance. thats kind of interesting. Usually i take gnostics to be more idealistic. Though i guess the pursuit of gnosis can open that as a possible paradigm.

>>16163745
Imagine being a philosophy 101 student and typing this paragraph out because you think it's a flex

>>16163749
I'm not really throwing any ideas away, nor am I proselytizing, it's cringe to call yourself a "gnostic" but if you resonate with these ideas then those who did will gladly encourage you to arrive at your own language and thematic in communicating them. As long as you keep your feet on the ground and your thinking sharp.

>>16163751
IDK if its dogmatism to say that something that not apodictic is not apodictic.

>>16163753
It is completely empirical from my point of view. The things I've mentioned ITT has led me to directly believe there is moral objectivity.

>>16163763
This can be said of anything, it's a weak and demoralized way to refuse to pursue something. Come on dude.

>>16163732
yes, link the Will with PKD's thematization of the "archontic function" as being basically the principle of occlusion. these "entities" operate by occluding their operation from your field of view; they obfuscate their functioning by appealing to your ego-identification with their drives. sexuality, hunger, aggression.

the Will is the ultimate transcendental structure that you can't get behind the back of. the Will disguises its hunger for propagation just as love and sexuality and procreation. remove the Will, and you'll arrive at Schopenhauer's equivalent of the pleroma, that crystalline Platonic consciousness disclosed by the great art.

Schopenhauer is gnostic in one fundamental sense: the Will is a negation of life, not its fulfillment.

>>16163760
never taken a philosophy class ttheres nothing of such that can be learned in a classroom. but nice cope. i mean your just drawing broad generalizations but the fact of the matter is science, religion, and philosophy are different and this is simply proved by the fact that we have three distinct words for them. red, red, and red are all the same since we have no other words.
its also lazy and intellectually lethargic.
what the fuck are you going to learn from such a gross simplification of such broad realms, nothing, you gain nothing from it, except being an internet edgelord and a complete faggot

>>16163765
so long as the tenor of the system is respected (you keep everything that doesn't implicate Kant's views on metaphysics), and it's fine.

>>16163772
nope. gnostics preach an individual, individuated truth. there's no such thing as dogmatic gnosticism.

>>16163789
These concepts are limited and in fact impossible to validate without each other, and you just don't know about any of the subjects to know that. You might think "faith is stand alone", but it's not. There is a reason why you have faith. Idiot.

>>16163792
So gnosticism as a concept is a bit different than goat fuckers that are gnostic

>>16163789
I mean... i dont think thats completely correct. That can easily be disproven by the fact that Science was considered a part of philosophy. thats why it was called "Natural philosophy". So there goes your "red,red, red" linguistic thing. Aristotled Organon was a treatise that nowadays could be described as both phil and "science". and likewise, Bacon's New organon is largely considered a big start of science in the modern sense,

>>16161705
Shitty time period

>>16163792
Actually there is if it must be individual.

>>16161955
/sci is so mainstream it hurt my head just to go there. Have they changed? I doubt it.
>>16163457
Pistis sophia?

>>16163825
>pistis sophia?

I recommend not even starting the Nag Hammadi texts until you get some work under you, if you start with them (especially with PS) it'll just go in one ear and out the other.

>>16163817
there are individual schools but there's no such thing as a universal gnostic church, except for maybe Manichaeism and even that has little direct connection with the ideas of Valentinus, Basilides, etc.

>>16163836
I guess so. though i find the accusation or non aqusation of dogmatism hold little weight. when an argument defeates another, that is when dogma should be held in question. as dogma conceptually can be anything in stasis. which if you apply that notino in a hegelian sense that could be nothing and everything.

>>16163865
I'm not contributing to the conversation I just want to say that Hegel was wrong about literally everything

>>16163865
the only universal here is a slant of mind. the members of these schools hailed each other as brother and sister, not clergy and laymen. as long as you Got It, there's very little that could cause a schism, and even, those few schisms we have records of, were non-violent.

>>16163879
hegel's dialectic is a perfect description of the internal dynamics of what Marcion calls the "infernal cell" of the world, the interminable circularity of Being.

Hegel formalized the ouroboros

>>16163896
Hegel was literally wrong even if he was accidentally right

>>16163879
>>16163964
I am contributing to the conversation and i would like to say you are false.

Not to go too into detail. but something can be said to consist of is and is not. there is something and there is not something. the dialectic. For something to be universal it must be both something and its absense. Does the term "everything" also encapsulate "nothing" given that the former should refer to everything including the absense of something.

>>16163964
thanks dude, scintillating discussion

>>16163997
then just imagine the "Demiurge" as whatever it is that introduces the bifurcation of Is/Is Not in the Pleroma. simple. everything else follows of its own accord, the immanent logic of the system.

>>16163997
these words are the verbal representation of survivorship bias

just because he isnt wrong doesnt make him right

I can say, everything is everything and have no grasp at all of the fine line of significance within it

>>16161710
Must be a janny because fuck... Delete these shit threads for fucks sake.

>>16164139
this is the only good thread on this garbage ass website

Gnosticism was refuted by the pagans like Plotinus a long time ago. Why are there still threads about it?

>>16164162
Edgy children.

>>16164162
read the thread and you might notice that it's the new phase of human enlightenment

>>16164146

>>16164173
more like endarkenment lmao

>>16164173
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhvVog_3v4U

>>16164012
yes, but why would i personify apparent paradoxes as a being rather than i just having a particular incomplete veiwpoint of an absolute?
>>16164018
the point is that when ralming about abstract things you will often get into self creating paradoxes. for example “freedom” is the ability to do as you will, but that very same fredom may impact another freedom, as freedom by its definition would include the ability to take away anothers freedom. if you cannot do this then you are not free, but in the same capacity it is a breach of freedom.

>>16164188
>yes, but why would i personify apparent paradoxes as a being rather than i just having a particular incomplete veiwpoint of an absolute?

you don't, you recognize that the gnostics were talking about these things in their own language.

there have been no changes in the ontological structure of the universe just because now we live in busier cities and look through fancier microscopes. if you have the intuition to not get caught on the differences in language, there is a lot of value in interpreting this stuff with a "gnostic" slant of mind, ie with an aim towards liberation and the understanding and transcendence of evil.

>>16164168
>>16164183
>>16164187

I wish you types who compulsively associate everything with America's incel epidemic would just fucking leave.

>>16163397
This was one of the original ideas behind the demiurge/gnosticism, good but flawed. People hijacked it to reeeeeee about the evil satanist moloch worshipping democrats and other political conspiracies.

>>16164217
> language, there is a lot of value in interpreting this stuff with a "gnostic" slant of mind
tes but what is it? it just seems like a more impure interpretation of fundamental questions. yes i find it an interesting paradigm, like i find the islamic practice of soaking a piece of the quaran in water and litterally imbibing the
ink of the holy word, but im not going to be doing that in my active contemplation of the absolute. as an exercise in understanding a paradigm, sure, but not as a go too methodology.

>>16162098
Based.

>>16164246
suit yourself. I can't disassociate my contemplation of the absolute from the contemplation of the nature of evil. one naturally leads me to the other. it is the only paradigm that makes sense. the one-size-fits-all vedantic monism that's making the rounds with disaffected American kids hungering for something more is honestly barely a step above new age wicca, as far as rigor is concerned.

>>16164264
making catch-alls for universal questions is probably older than the wheel

and that doesn't make it irrelevant

>>16164282
not irrelevant, but it doesn't make it interesting either.

>>16164327
perhaps you just arent interested in things to begin with, humans arent that complex

>>16161705
Their are a lot of Christian Gnostic sects but are their any Muslim Gnostic sects?

>>16164351
Sufism

>>16164351
Alawites?

>>16164359
Sufism is just mysticism it isn't gnostic
>>16164360
Cool, do you think their are any sunni sects?

gnosticism has to be correct. for the sheer reason that. do you see any god here? why do we force to have our memory wiped out? why does the truth seem to come out subconsciously in every work of art?

no the demiurge is not misunderstood. he is at best playing good cop bad cop with the archons who are pure evil and do his bidding.

Matter Bad, Spirit Good.
The thing is, they aren't exactly wrong by physics standards.
Jeremy England is coming out with a book in Sept, I pre-ordered it, on how energy animates matter to make it alive.

https://youtu.be/-OdBSbrXeTY

This sums it up pretty good.

>>16161705
>What do the Gnostics actually believe
That they were put on this earth to be bullied.
>why are they blowing up right now?
Because the name translated means, "I am euphoric because I am enlightened by my own intelligence"

If you want to really understand Gnosticism, you have to start with Platonism and the Bible. Gnostics essentially pervert Plato's metaphysics into a cynical worldview that appeals to dregs and pseuds.

Been following the thread partly and I've become interested in understanding gnosticism/hermeticism on a deeper level and be able to connect it to other philosophical works. Where should I go afer reading plato and aristotle(have read a couple of the basic platonic dialogues)?

>>16165585
Hymns Of Zoroaster by ML West, Gospel Of Mani

>>16165585
Persona 5 manga

>>16163354
>as scripture is written by men.
so every knowledge we have is knowledge coming from man and coming from man it is not metaphysical, spiritual and therefore there is nothing but the corporeal world? is this what your common-sense ''religions are bad'' mentality leads to?

>>16162856
>>16162920
>>16163056
so human consciousness is interfered by external waves, or influences? human mind is a stringed instrument plucked by divine fingers, basically? the discussion of free will and determinism is retarded since as some platonists used to say, every action here resounds in eternity

>>16163787
i have often heard schopenhauer's philosophy as voluntaristic, but did he think that this was the conditioning of every thing here in the corporeal realm and the path was intellectualistic like platonists?

>>16165671
Close enough yeah

I don't know all their specific beliefs but I will give you the science they are based on and the true interpretation of it. Ignore everything else, they don't know wtf theya re talking about if they don't know this

https://esotericawakening.com/what-is-reality-the-holofractal-universe


/thread

>>16165699
very interesting, now i ask you these three questions:
where does the demiurge stand in relation to these divine influences? what is the scientific point of view in relation to them? finally: how is this idea any different from those of egyptians, platonists and christians?

>>16165754
The truth is that Consciousness is the Demiurge.
It makes models of the actual reality, from our limited sense data, and it does it quick and dirty.
Nothing we experience is as it is.
There is a reality, and it is material. But we can't ever know it directly.
Maya-shakti is Consciousness itself

>>16165853
models according to what? what does it model upon? arent the waves (or more appropriately influences) external to the individual consciousness? models from the sense data means a pre-modeled model from which consciousness models, so again i ask, what are any of these modeled on?
>there is a reality and it is material
maya is not material, shakti is not material, what is the equivalent of material is prakriti and yet it is unintelligible (as matter itself is). the only answer for the ''models'' is purusha, quality.

>thomas metzinger
yikes

>>16162920
What the fuck does this mean?

>>16165909
The processes in reality.
They react with other processes, this is the assemblage of your senses reacting with the stuff around them. The machinery of Consciousness is then arranging this data into models.
The models are what we experience. The sense data is the incomplete data we are able to take in from our complex environment.
Maya just means illusion. Consciousness is doing that. It's making an illusion with which to calculate action strategies.
Shakti means energy, movement, process.
Process is material, energy is material.

>>16165909
Why are you yikes-ing an author you've never read (because if you did, you wouldn't be making these silly assertions)

>>16166019
>Why are you yikes-ing an author you've never read
because this is /lit/

>>16166008
yes, the senses react to the stuff around them and there is indeed a datum recognition from consciousness prompting emergence of signs, ideas or as you call it, models, but again these data presupposes an arrangement, otherwise they wouldnt be data and much less ''dated', recognized.
maya as illusion is a very narrow point of view of the mayavada, there is a myriad of discussions around what maya is.
>Consciousness is doing that.
when you say consciousness i am in doubt whether you mean a single universal consciousness or the individual one. consciousness is the experiencer and what prompts the recognition aforementioned, the means of this all is matter, which is full potentia seething with pre-imposed data; it is tricky but to assume that energy and matter coalesce in this way, as you point to a process, but the process does not explain itself and as i have been saying it still begs the question.

>>16166019
i have read some quotes of his and it seemed extremely childish

They believe, unknowingly, that all reality is evil.
Which is the natural conclusion: that the Good is evil too, if he is beyond perfect and limit and therefore Freely causing the evil Demiurge, or especially evil by proxy Demiurge because then the Good is also Evil by Proxy.)

Sissy religion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thunder,_Perfect_Mind

>>16166071
Consciousness is not a spooky ghost. It just models itself as a spooky ghost.
>Presupposes an arrangement
Yes, the arrangement of reality.
There is a reality, but the senses are limited, they cannot and should not provide full data because there is no survival need for that.
The Consciousness composes models, the models are simplified caricatures that only have to be accurate enough to keep us alive.
>a single universal consciousness
Consciousness is a mechanical process. It is obvious that it is going on everywhere because there are complex processes everywhere. A big spooky ghost is possible, like the whole process of the universe at once having a Consciousness function.
But even that would be modeling stuff, drawing cartoons for easy action choices.

>>16161705
which demon is that? snake with a monkey head? Babazooboo? Zashishimael?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzqAILjZ-oY

A term used to describe various cults throughout history that held that matter was bad. They syncretized various Greek and Egyptian mysteries, often alongside Christianity. This reality was created by the demiurge, who is either evil or incompetent depending on the tradition. Most Gnostics went extinct within a few generations; the only Gnostics that survived into modernity are ethnoreligions that refuse converts: Druze, Alawites, Yazidis, and Mandaeans.
Gnosticism got a huge revival of interest after the Nag Hammadi codex was found, which inspired countless works of art, much of which are weebshit 4channers like. Philip K. Dick, Matrix, Evangelion, Lain, Texhnolyze, Xenoblade/gears/chronicles, Persona and SMT series, etc. are all heavily Gnostic influenced.

>>16166071
Let me do this from another angle:
There is only Shakti, there is only Process.
The sub-process, the motion, the vibration of your nervous system is generating a process that has quality and is a model. That model is the way we experience life, as a bunch of objects with distinct surfaces and so on, made out of stuff.

When I say material in my other posts I mean it as in physical, as in not ideal.
Ideals and ideas are cartoons generated in the Consciousness process.

>>16163063
Neoplatonism came after gnosticism. Plotinus shreds the Sethians.

>>16163343
Mandaeans lost their gnosis. Their highest ranking initiates all died in a cholera outbreak and so they can only get halfway up the ladder.

>>16166133
presupposes an arrangement of the data recognized by the conscious process
>the senses are limited
yes they can't self-convert into this recognition (awareness)
properties are not modeled by the brain from nothing, but it is recognized from the qualitative whatness, the smell of a pear tree is not the same as the smell of a olive tree
>survival need for that.
>caricatures that only have to be accurate enough to keep us alive.
this is what makes all of it so clumsy and ilogical, this materialistic evolutionary bias which does not understand that the changes are not structural (and influenced by environments which would presuppose a whole chain of consequential implications of influences) but qualitative

>>16166206
yes indeed, ''neo''platonism is a term coined only in the 18th century. now, platonists compose a single tradition dating back to plato

>>16166185
>There is only Shakti, there is only Process. The sub-process, the motion, the vibration of your nervous system is generating a process that has quality and is a model.
this is ilogical. a movement, motion, vibration implies extension but above all a self-conversion.

>material in my other posts I mean it as in physical, as in not ideal.
yes and it implies extension as i said before. material as in physical does not exist, everything physical is not purely material but corporeal and also qualitative therefore.

>>16166252
>>16166299
I don't see how process can't have quality.
By extension I think you mean to say that if there is vibration this implies a stuff is being vibrated.
If that's so, how can you then deny stuff exists?

>properties are not modeled by the brain from nothing, but it is recognized from the qualitative whatness, the smell of a pear tree is not the same as the smell of a olive tree
>this is what makes all of it so clumsy and ilogical, this materialistic evolutionary bias which does not understand that the changes are not structural

Spooky nonsense.
Why would smells and differentiation between them be a reason to discount survival? What do you even mean by structural change here? If there is only change, then you can have a concept like the Forms. Whitehead even does this.
Why would the changes not be structural? A quality IS a structure.

>>16166363
the process is the unfolding of what it refers to, or what it contains within itself, so to speak.
by extension i mean a more qualitative load, a spatial locus, a covering field, which is what vibrates and extends vibrations.

>Why would smells and differentiation between them be a reason to discount survival?
i don't imply it discounts survival, even so because it is worthy for it as well, but what i implied is what i have been pressing on in my posts, their referential differentiations are proper to what each smell refers and not a model modeled from a datum emerged out of nowhere, by reason of nothing, by consciousness itself. that is why i have been talking about pre-arranged data which consciousness recognizes.

>structural change, quality is a structure
yes, i think my employing the term structure was to imply a more physical form, but you could see take the quality as a formula, an idea.
in that post i wanted to convey the qualitative aspect proper to man in relation to animals and that the supposed change could not be only structurally, physically, in a way solely related to the environment. however even admitting this change by the environment, it would, as i said, implicate this chain of structural relations. but this is another discussion.

>>16166599
None of this disagrees with my points

>>16166616
i'm literally arguing for an intellectual ordering and structure of the whole phenomenal reality which lies outside this very realm, do any of your points agree with it?

>>16166655
If by this realm you mean experiential reality, that experience is only unreal in that it is constructed in our Consciousness. It is the Consciousness that makes the false reality.
The world it is trying to model is real.

None of your points do anything whatsoever to invalidate that distinction.

>>16166713
I think there is an overlap between ego and consciousness in your discourse. is not the false reality the attribution to the phenomenal reality of that same sense of reality the ego has of itself?
by 'the world it is trying to model' you mean the forms, ideas, influences both imposed on matter and recognized by the individual loci of consciousnesses?

>>16164351
Deep Sufi groups maybe, the closest large sect would be the Ismailis

>>16166796
Ego is the model of the self generated by Consciousness.
Ideas are models generated by Consciousness.
The world being modeled is a real actual world.
The spooky ghost inside is how Consciousness models itself for itself.

I can tell you how to move if you have your eyes shut. I can only give you a basic description of the room you are in. It has to be just accurate enough to get you where you need to go.
I can't explain the wall hangings, if the table is wood or not, if the carpet is green or blue.
It is irrelevant to a blinded person.
What matters is me guiding you away from obstacles and into the next room.
Does this mean that my description of the room is more real than the room?
Does it mean that there is not a real complex room there?

>>16167039
I really can't understand your point and it seems you cannot understand mine.
>Ego is the model of the self generated by Consciousness.
A model based upon what?
>Ideas are models generated by Consciousness.
Likewise, what are the models referring to?
Can you get my point that in the same way sense-perceptions are loaded with informations recognized by the mind (which prompt to emerge, for example, the idea of bitterness, the mind itself has the structure of recognition of the world outside, the propriety contained in what is experienced?
Consciousness is a duplex state, it is the mimetic impulsion towards its own realization.

>>16167155
It's modeling Reality.
How much more clear can I be?
It's just not capable of doing it in full detail and with full understanding.

You seem to think that the symbol is more real than the thing it refers to.
I can scratch any pattern into a rock and assign it any sound, and we agree it means a tree, the tree is the actual thing, not the pattern we assign it.
Yes, our experience of the tree is a pattern like this, an arbitrary abstraction.
Does it follow the outline of what is really there? Sure. But we cannot efficiently draw a whole specific tree. We have to simplify it radically.

So this is true when we consider the reality of the thing we experience as a tree which we have assigned an even simpler symbol to.

What part of this makes you think that it is the simplification that is the real thing in the situation?
Why do you think a silhouette of a man is real but the man isn't?

>>16167297
Just like the seed contains the tree, the symbol is the potentia of this re-cognition of the universality of a tree which all trees partake in.. There is no comparison between the specification of a tree and the idea of tree, its universal scope. There is no comparison between the particular and the universal.
All what the process unfolds is presupposed before its unfolding.

>>16161705

>>16168596

>>16168605

>>16168610

>>16162058
>they can’t prove it

Are you new to religion and philosophy anon?

>>16161710
Gnosticism is massive rn. Flat earth theory is just another iteration of gnosticism

>>16168617

>>16168627

>>16168641
>>16161705
Sarkic cunt. Fuck your priors and learn to fucking read something other than comic books and menus.

>>16168645

>>16163308
You don’t have to be a gnostic to be interested in study Gnosticism. Just how you don’t have to be a Greek pagan study the classics or a utilitarian to read Mills.

Can someone give me the tl;dr on how modern physics supposedly proves the gnostics correct, and how knowing this helps you achieve gnosis?

>>16168680
Physics prove nothing you fucking dogbrained double-niggered fuckhead cunt.

>>16168645
>>16168653
LOL the text is so whimsical XD It's so cute how they talk all retarded but know a lot, I love it <333

>>16168680
gnositicism is literally the rejection of reality and the material world. Physics is antithetical to gnosticism

>>16168726
Suck off a shotgun and turn your head into a canoe.

>>16168705
Take your PMS meds.

>>16168727
There are gnostics in this ITT thread going "dude quantum physics totally proves the gnostics right!" while posting links to obscure scientific tomes and long videos about quantum consciousness or some shit.

>>16168866
Take your dad out to the back of a barn and shoot yourself in the mouth, faggot.

>>16168902
Did the Bad Demiurge man touch you in your no-no place?

>>16161705
Gnostics were essentially the forerunners of hippies. Many of their views contain a dualistic aspect. The Cathars for instance shared the view of the Bogomilists that the material world was the product of an evil god, the demiurge, and that the true God was the God of the spirit. They loathed institutional hierarchies and saw symbols such as the cross as idolatries. They rejected clericalism and taught that anyone who is spiritually pure can attain the highest esteem of God. Some even believed in reincarnation, an exceedingly rare tenant among Christian varietals of belief. They did not build churches because they believed their own body was a church and the rest is ostentation. Some were adoptionists, which meant that the Christ depicted in the New Testament was merely a sort of projection or shadow of the spirit-Christ who resided in heaven.

>>16168960
Also Satan was the son of God and Jesus was actually the archangel Micheal manifested. Jesus defeated Satan and took away his status of godhood and forced him to fall to the material plane which infected matter with evilness.

>>16168975
>archangel Micheal
Actually, I stand corrected. Jesus is the manifestation of the archangel Uriel.

>>16162920
>>16162995
did you watch the video? how is this related to gnosticism, it is a theory pointing to nondual consciousness

>>16168920

>>16165274

>>16165274

>>16168836
haha but it's so quirky XD
like, they're communicating the concepts...~
but it's in this whimsical language!!!
i love it so much, it's like my favorite web comics!
<3

>>16165671
Neurons are voltage gated, something that solar winds can fuck with.

>>16169220
Yeah. Pleroma.

>>16162856

>>16168680

They don't, every shallow new-age dogshit pseudo-religion just latches on to what is in vogue. For a long time it was neuroscience, which is why faggot (especially western) guru's always talk about the brain, and say brain when they mean psyche or even person. Now it's quantum physics because gullible retards think that sounds profound because it's beyond their understanding. It's all hogwash.

>>16161705
Based bait thread

Though honestly the gnostic posting on /lit/ got me interested and I will definitely be checking it out. so I suppose thank you and keep making threads!

>>16169680
yes but more like plato proved right about everything again

>>16169680
>>16169876
oh yeah forgot to note: that means the pleroma, divine intellect plays a fundamental role in the constitution of this world, so no evil, incompetent, bad demiurge

>>16165754
ultimately the details aren't nearly as important as understanding the logical methodology, the details will come with time

>>16169880
Wrong.

>>16170620
go on

>>16167468
I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this but the map is simply not the territory.

Is monism compatible with gnosticism?

>>16171795
If you consider PicRel as Gnosis and our experience of Consciousness as the Demiurge, then sure.

But it isn't how Gnosticism sees itself. It sees itself as a pluralism of substances all distinct and hierarchically arranged, much like Madhva Vedanta.

>>16162856
It blows my mind how this anon thinks he's dropping knowledge bombs in this schizophrenic rambling

>>16171795
No. Although the only aspects anyone likes about it is taken from Platonism(including the concept of gnosis itself and its relation to ontology) it is still delivered in a strictly Jewish metaphysical lens, which means that it is monotheistic, though in some sects it is an imperfect dualism and is expressed in monotheism.(which is common in Christianity regardless)

>>16171795
In 'After God' Sloterdijk (p47) remarks that:

"On the matter of the 'authentic' nature of gnosticism, there predominates what we would properly expect to find among scholars: disagreement. Some tried to make metaphysical dualism its criterion - and then failed when confronted with the monistic and triadic varieties of older systems."

So I would think that there are monistic compatibilities.

>>16172374
In this you are correct.
People act as if Gnosticism is formalized and codified.
It's not, Gnosis by definition is personal experience of the numinous.

Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism, Catharism, these are codified Religions based on the Gnosis of a group of special individuals.

Gnosticism doesn't even have to be Judeo-Christian at all.

>>16171460
you should read plato and the platonists

>>16173240
You're conflating Potential or the Implicate Order with Ideal or Consciousness.
That's fucking stupid, and it was stupid when Plato said it too.
I get how they fucked that up, I do. But while I understand it, I do not accept it.

Read Whitehead or really any process philosopher. Heraclitus even.

Why would potentiality (transcendence) necessarily have priority over actuality (Immanence) anyway? You think that because you can only experience reality through Consciousness that Consciousness is reality.
That's silly, you're silly.

>>16173284
Matter is pure potentiality. I'm asking you genuinely to expand on this because it does not make any sense, really. Our symbols are not the Forms themselves, yes, our mode of thinking is like a mapping of the territory (of Forms), but they are a sketch of the Forms. Here potentiality meets actuality, this is the very unfolding by the process.
>>16167231
>>16167302

>>16173418
I'm saying that your shadow-casting transcendental objects are in fact not transcendental except in that they are outside of consciousness, and it is the mechanism of Consciousness that mediates, that is the shadow-forming actor. The object cannot be seen by us directly, we can only see the shadow.
That doesn't mean that the original object is not part of the same reality we are, that we are shadows of shadow-casting objects.
Our self-image or ego, our model of being a soul in a body, differentiated from a bunch of other objects with surfaces and so on, this perception in itself is the shadow.
The shadow is Consciousness, our simplification of the real physical world that is only change.

The popular Perennialist substance Ontology, Essentialism, thinks that the standard for something being real is that it is unchanging.
The opposite is true. Unchanging things can only exist in the imagination. Things that are unrelational can only exist in the imagination.

That isn't to say that reality is one continuous substance, no, it is to say that there is a plurality of changes.

Now your forms can still exist, your potentialities.
But they don't come from some giant Spooky Ghost universal consciousness realm.
Eternal Objects are only capable of existing as capacities.

We think the same thing, but we have a different opinion on which part of the scenario is primary.

>>16173798
>Our self-image or ego, our model of being a soul in a body, differentiated from a bunch of other objects with surfaces and so on, this perception in itself is the shadow.
Gross misreading of Jungian psychoanalysts, though I doubt that's what you were drawing on as opposed to some pseud shit. (((You))) are literally too intellectually stunted to engage with gnosticism.

Just read more PKD

I will just stumble in this thread and hope somebody spoondfeeds me some information. I would like to start reading Jung, is there anyone else I should consider paying attention to and read some works of theirs before starting him? The reason I'm interested is due to all the mysticism he surrounded himself with.

>>16171795

Yes.

>>16173798
Consciousness differs from everything else in the fact of its self-revelation. There is no complexity in consciousness. It is extremely simple, and its only essence or characteristic is pure self-revelation. Consciousness is always steady and unchangeable in itself. The immediacy of this consciousness is proved by the fact that, though everything else is manifested by coming in touch with it, it itself is never expressed, indicated or manifested by inference or by any other process, but is always self-manifested and self-revealed. All objects become directly revealed to us as soon as they come in touch with it.

You get things inverted when you ascribe potentiality to the realm of Forms and think that the forms are our mental sketches, those replies I linked in my last post describes this mistake.
There is no separation as you pose between the intelligible and the sensible world. The sensible world flows from this intelligible world depending on its artificer intellect in the same manner as shadow on its forming substance. The divine intellect caused the sensible world to be coexistent with himself.

>>16162936
Why does this man have no (you)s? FFS.

>>16175919
Wtf ?
Random number generators in computers are (usually and especially in the 70s) just iterative functions. Is he saying the computers will calculate the wrong numbers or that math changes ? Like 2+3=4. Did he even say that ?

>>16176024
He apparently did:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3239316/#!po=1.02041
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=The+Demon+Haunted+World:+Science+as+a+Candle+in+the+Dark&author=C+Sagan&publication_year=1997&

>>16176155
(Ctrl+F "Sagan" in the first link)

>>16161705
Saturn is Jaldabaoth, the Demiurge of Gnosticism
https://videos.utahgunexchange.com/watch/saturn-is-jaldabaoth-the-demiurge-of-gnosticism-extended_CJHgDkUt4Dh9xzu.html

>you are pure soul your matter doesn't determine you
>so biology doesn't matter when you or society tells whatever you want to be
It's a Trojan horse for totalitarianism and gender ideology

>>16163188
Plato and almost all the philosophy is like this

>>16177510
I hate agreeing with the retards on /lit/ but sadly you're right. I couldn't help but laugh when reading the magnet analogy in Ion. Or in Shorter Hippias when Socrates compares wrong doing to physical exercises.

>>16177510
>>16177568
Americans should be forbidden from reading philosophy. Just stick to your YA, please.

>>16177597
>What you think some of the things Plato said are ridiculous!!! You're an American who shouldn't read Philosophy
Don't get me wrong I don't hate Plato nor do I think he's an idiot. But some of the stuff he says is just ridiculous. The Magnet analogy is retarded dude.

>>16177631
Stick to Artemis Fowl. Maybe Narnia.

>>16177648
Ok dude, just suck off Plato forever. Literally NPC tier.

>>16161705

I think Gnosticism is "blowing up" because it's a very elegant metaphor. Intelligent people are put off by the literalism that defines a lot of modern religion, but Gnosticism provides a workable symbolic map of reality that accounts for the nature of consciousness/the human psyche, the problem of evil, the importance of spiritual growth, etc.

>>16177690
idk, ive personally found that people who are not very well read, but are given to questioning get drawn to gnosticism. most of those that are read and intellegent usually follow the general trend of western phil.

>>16177712
No one gives a fuck about academic philosophy, aka recreational philosophy, anymore. The only good outsider philosophy is gnostic

>>16177775
Disagree immensely. Gnosticism fails to answer basic questions and ive failed to met a self proclaimed gnostic who has read through most of the western Cannon. they usually are some kind of christian, agnostic, Heideggerian, etc.

>>16161705
Because the Nag Hammadi texts were only somewhat recently rediscovered and translated so we're having the first wave of creative types coming out with gnostic inspired forms of media.

>>16163129
>>16163296
You could try the Gnostic Bible. It includes books outside of what is strictly known to be Gnostic but there is a debate if these other closely related religious movements are truly Gnostic. Otherwise just stick to the Nag Hammadi texts as they're all we actually have of the Gnostic movement.

>>16177842
I promise you you haven't read a single book on the subject or even given it enough thought. You're all tedious unintuitive spergs, go play sudoku for tenure.

>>16177869
sure thing bud. recommend me a gnostic source that does not devolve into sophestry, im open to read it. Ive already done some reading on esoteric islam, so im not apposed to looking more in depth on such things.

Im saying from my experience gnostics do not tend to have the best arguments for their position that does not devolve into arbitrarity. and they dont usually invoke the concept of faith that most well developed religions have to combat this.

>>16177902
Because the emphasis is on knowledge, intuition. And you're here looking for syllogisms. Now why do you think I think you're a pseud?

>>16177913
I am asking you for a reading you would recommend so i am not against being convinced otherwise. and intuition isnt just a wishaway for everything. what can i intuit? Its one thing if its a basic form of apparent reality i cannot prove, like causation, which i can intuite, but not say is true. But I have no assurity that my knowledge can ever be complete.

please recommend me a reading instead of throwing insults. I simply told you my experience with Gnostics and never attacked you. your aggression speaks to insecurity on your part if anything.

>>16177951
Read Hans Jonas' book on the gnostics

>>16177974
ok i will.

True gnosis is knowing that the Koran is real, and that God is Dead, so you don't have to follow it. Jesus Christ, or God II, is who you should follow now.

>>16161705
You know the Matrix? Yeah, it's that but Jesus is Neo and Yahweh is Mr. Smith

I've never bought into the "question of evil' any more than the "hard problem".
These are the kind of superficial questions little kids ask, because they can't get their heads around the world outside the protection of their parents.
You have to make up an evil god because you can't stand to think that God is capable of evil, and actually has to be, because he's the supreme being.
You can't have an antigod. Satan works for God in Job and in the Gospels. He worked for him in Genesis.
God, like the King, doesn't have to explain any of his decisions. Because he's the ultimate king.

You just don't want to face that God could hate you.
He gets to hate you, because you are the most insignificant of his creations.
In fact he can hate his greatest creation as well, and even himself.
He's fucking God, the definition of God is being ultimately powerful.

Who ever said God had to love you? He doesn't have to do shit, he's the king or the whole universe.

As for the hard problem, just because something is really neat doesn't mean it's magical. Redness isn't compelling. Subjectivity simply isn't so impressive.
Redness is a simplification of the light vibrations that actually exist. If we saw those as they were it would be truly spectacular.

Why Mystify the accessible simplification?
>I can draw a stick figure and it corresponds to a real man, YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT

FUCK OFF

>>16178311
beautiful bait or a noxious retard. you have to be 18+ to post here. I know you're going to reply with "not an argument", too.

>>16178332
SEETHE, life-denying cuckold

>>16178382
Anti-consciousness fag calling others life-deniers, ahahaha your algorithm is improving. Hot off the latest TED talk?

>>16178311
kinda this
>>16178332
>>16178332
at least he made an effort post, better than you. unironically read your own comment and follw its advice kid.

>>16178400
>at least my turd was really big, what you got huh?

kids like him don't deserve discussion. they never argue in good faith. How new are you?

>>16178415
Old enough to not be a gnostic zoomer.
>beautiful bait or a noxious retard. you have to be 18+ to post here. I know you're going to reply with "not an argument", too.
litterally every phrase here is basically copypasta. Saying
>"not an argument",
doesnt make it still not an argument you fucking idiot.

>>16178447
>claims philosophical rigor
>can't distinguish between an argument and an assertion

lol every time. Noxious fucking pseud.

>>16178463
where did i claim philosophical rigor in saying his post is better than yours?
>can't distinguish between an argument and an assertion
congratulations fuckwad for being a pedant. you are a fucking child. the point is your post contributed nothing while at least the other anon's did.

>>16178482
Seethe brainlet. If you call that a contribution you are one.

>>16178391
>Me, a person aware that Consciousness is not to be trusted, still desiring the fuller possession of life right now.
>You, a person convinced that life isn't even real or worth living, wanting to escape to imagination-land.

Yeah, totally, how will I ever recover

>>16178549
>you, not even aware of the contours of the debate or possessing even a cursory knowledge of the thread topic

shut up brainlet

>>16178562
You won't deny my point because you can't.
You can incorrectly say I don't know the materials all you want, but your cult is life-denying and you can't even muster up a way to make it seem life-embracing because it's impossible.
If life is an illusion created by an evil demigod, which we must escape, then you are literally life-denying.
You fucking child

>>16178596
>You can incorrectly say I don't know the materials all you want

I can and I will, because you really don't. Stop posting you nietzchoid brainlet, no one's impressed.

>>16178615
I hate Nietzsche.
Stop projecting what you think I am onto me.
You're fighting a straw man.
I'm not seeing how your cult is life-embracing.
Educate the audience.
Wait: you can't, because you only know Gnosticism from memes

>>16178630
Here's one: gnostics reject the world, not Life. simple distinction. in order to refute a position, you have to demonstrate an INTERNAL inconsistency, and since they don't take the value of what you call "life" as axiomatic, it really is you batting at strawmen. your "arguments" were dead from the jump. stop posting.

>The term gnosticism comes from the Greek word gnōsis, which means knowledge. Gnostics are those who are "in the know." And what is it that they know? They know secrets that can bring salvation. For gnostics, a person is saved not by having faith in Christ or by doing good works. Rather, a person is saved by knowing the truth—the truth about the world we live in, about who the true God is, and especially about who we ourselves are. In other words, this is largely self-knowledge: Knowledge of where we came from, how we got here, and how we can return to our heavenly home. According to most gnostics, this material world is not our home. We are trapped here, in these bodies of flesh, and we need to learn how to escape. For those gnostics who were also Christian (many gnostics were not), it is Christ himself who brings this secret knowledge from above. He reveals the truth to his intimate followers, and it is this truth that can set them free.
Bart D. Ehrman, "Christianity Turned on Its Head: The Alternative Vision of the Gospel of Judas", in The Gospel of Judas (2006)

>"To seek myself and know who I was and who and in what manner I now am, that I may again become that which I was:" This is a characteristic formulation of the Gnostic goal. According to Gnostics, we must realize that there is at our core a spark of spirit which was once part of the universal spirit; that this individual spirit has become embedded in gross matter, in the body, through activities of lesser powers (often called archons or rulers), like the creator-lawgiver god of the Jews, who wish to keep the human spirit in thrall; that we can escape this bodily prison by recognizing our true original home and evade the grasp of the archons and ascend again to that home — the spiritual Pleroma, the Fullness — to be reunited in Oneness. To put it another way, a human being can overcome the differentiation of this world, its dividedness into multiplicity, and merge again into the primordial unity.
Herbert Christian Merillat, in The Gnostic Apostle Thomas: "Twin" of Jesus? (1997)

>>16178656
1984 doublespeak right here.
Living isn't really living, the life we experience every day is not life.
But it is I who is the life-denier?
Because I want life right now, and you want to die so you can "really live" because this world is a punishment to you?
Okay, pessimist death-worshipper

>>16178708
>gnostics worship death and oblivion

lol you don't know what the fuck you're talking about you blithering dipshit, I'm done

>>16178744
Oh that's right, death is how we get to happy imagination land

>>16178840
>you need to kill yourself to reach the pleroma

Find me a primary or secondary source that says this.

>>16178857
I don't remember saying anything about suicide.
That's just you projecting what you think I'm saying instead of actually thinking about what I really said again

>>16178920
Find me a primary or secondary source that advocates a natural death as guaranteed passage to the pleroma. I'll wait.

>>16178692
>the spiritual Pleroma, the Fullness
interestingly, the equivalent for 'fullness' in Sanskrit is 'Purnam', there may be some older proto-Indo European P----M word they are both derived from

>>16178929
>>16178929
Gnosis is what makes it possible in Gnostic Soteriology, but you do not ascend while living.
You die and then the Gnosis you achieved in life aids you in getting through the snares of the Archons.

It's really very much like Madhva Vedanta.

But I mean, what is by you a valid primary source?
Apocrypha?
Valentinus?
Cathars?
Nag Hammadi?
Mani?
The Mandaeans?

I mean, the thing is though, your shit is weak.
You structured the demand in bad faith. You already tried it with the suicide thing, now you're trying to put words in my mouth again that would make me ignorant of gnostic soteriology.
Which I am not.
Faggot

>>16168596
>>16168605
>>16168610
>>16168617
>>16168627
>>16168641
>>16168645
Here is them all in 1 image

>>16179193
>1 hour later

We both know you were frantically googling for an answer. You call gnostics life-deniers but it's your mincing defense of this world that they would call true life-denial. I bet you eat fast food and drink soda, too, and have the gall to preach the sanctity of life

>>16179322
I actually own books on the subject, it would take more than one hour to search them with my human eyes to prove to you what you openly admit already:
Gnostics believe that Life Right Now, what we actually have in front of us, is bad and to be escaped, in favor of imagination land.
That's your "life-affirming" "Philosophy".

>>16172298
Low IQ

>>16179542
Yup, this world is a slaughterhouse that thrives on the exploitation and consumption of sentients. What you have in front of you is a constant push-and-pull with the decay of your body. You're a cringy little worldling with a tweeny soul whose still fascinated by the bread and circuses. The truth hurts.

>>16179564
>>16179542
Both of you are fucking wrong

Things can just fucking be, get your human centric bias the fuck out of here

>>16179574
Stop eating for a few months and see how far just Being Bro Oh My God The Roses Bro And Like The Butterflies Bro gets you you cringy little insect

>>16179583
You are the king of retards, to think that possessing the capacity to separate the human bias from fundamental truths somehow means that you're a hippy that shifts that delusional view of significance towards other objects is just a projection of how god damned brain dead you are. You are literally incapable of grasping reality.

>>16179594
Why does every single post from brainlets like you always come down to the projection of the other guy's narcissism? All life needs to eat. That is a fact. An observation a child would agree with, but not coping faggots like you who use language to obfuscate and dissimulate. Schopenhauer was right. You're all cringe faggot slaves of the cum between your legs.

>>16179618
Bro. You literally do not understand the neutrality of existence. It is amazing that you can only see things from the lens of "what does this mean to humans?". You will NEVER learn a thing.

>>16179627
Life isn't neutral you fucking simp, it is a phenomenon of craving, deficiency, every day is a struggle to stall the dying of your body, and congratulations this serene untroubled neutrality is exactly what the Pleroma is supposed to be, you're a gnostic without even knowing it

>>16179638
You need to ask "what does this mean?" Not "what does this mean to humans?"

One is truth, one is utility

You fucking idiot

>>16179655
The point you're making is a point already acknowledged in one work of gnostic fiction, and undoubtedly the members of the ancient schools themselves in their private musings. Manichaeism, for example, was anti-anthropocentric in its anthropocentrism.

I've done the homework. You're not blowing my mind.

>>16179638
>Clinical Dissociation is Enlightenment
Haha, okay Bhagavad Gita, go to bed

>>16179665
>umm akshually the DSM manual refuted gnosticism

Kek, people like you actually exist?

>>16179678
How is it to be a neet, sponging off the state because you won't take your pills, always on the edge of being kicked out of your parents house like Terry Davis?

>>16179723
>meaningless americanoid strawmen

Keep your faggot political caricatures to yourself

>>16179734
I didn't say you were a leftist, Terry wasn't a leftist either.
Terry was schizo, and so are you, and so is Gnosticism.
Paranoid Schizophrenia.

>>16179663
Lol what a retraction from your original position towards me

Stupid fag

>>16180554
I've demonstrated knowledge that you don't get from a 5 second google search, try harder next time

>>16180563
I never said you werent a gnostic and werent fucking knowledgable

I said you were a fucking idiot because you think of shit the wrong fucking way and are too god damned fucking dumb to notice when you do it

Maybe you just ignore it who knows. I am literally only making the claim that specifically your brain is composed of cancer cells.

>>16180592
What you've thought of, I've already considered, I guarantee it.

>>16180602
You bitch nigger what im telling you should be as obvious as breathing it isnt fucking profound yet here you are trying to act like a defensive mystic

>>16180609
The neutrality of existence? That humanity's problems are humanity's problems alone? Already internalized and digested. It doesn't threaten anything, it even supports the gnostic narrative.

>>16180617
My only claim is about an internal problem you have equating reality only through a human lens. That is it. And no I wasnt EVER threatening the concept of gnosticism.

>>16180629
completely inconsequential to the issue at hand, it just moves the problem back a step: instead of human problems, it's the fact that there are human problems, ie that there are localized perspectives like ours that are almost biologically pre-disposed to generating problem ecologies

>>16180638
Yes and see I think weve passed that point, we can make quantifiable determinations about things now. Gone are the days of abstract guesses. I talked about this very early on ITT in regards to quantum mechanics.

I have to make it clear, I was just making the point that people tend to be unable to understand that the human lens it's separate from reality as it is a perception of reality.

You don't need to feel like you have to take issue with this.

>>16180651
anthropocentrists are cucked archon slaves. I am not one, so I think you were preaching to the choir.

>>16180657
Fantastic

Hello. I keep asking this one question but so far I haven't got good answer. How gnostics know that Sofia and Aeons aren't doing exactly the same shit with souls that Demiurge does? How can you be sure that their plane isn't another prison and that they prefer more enlightned souls just like someone prefers fine wine or expensive whisky over cheap canned beer (I know this is technically food analogy but I find it fitting). Feel free to point me to the texts explaining this.

>>16180936
What does the katakana sa even mean here?