Modern gnostics

[Anonymous No.16213782]

I'll start.

[Anonymous No.16213788]

OP here, sorry I meant to say "modern frauds"

[Anonymous No.16213798]

>>16213788
Why did you change your IP?

[Anonymous No.16213801]

Peg is illuminated

[Anonymous No.16213817]

>>16213782
Explain.

[Anonymous No.16213818]

Op here, I’m a tranny if that matters btw

[Anonymous No.16213826]

[Anonymous No.16213829]

>>16213818
Based. Trannies humiliate Demiurge retards who believe in gender essentialism

[Anonymous No.16213831]

anyone who's anti-lacan is honestly just a glow trying to get you committed to obeying Jung's overtly symbological psyop

[Anonymous No.16213840]

>>16213817
>… Lacan’s emphatic rejection of being as a trap constructed by the symbolic order of the Other acting as the Archon of the fictional world …

>According to the classic definitions of Gnosticism, delivered by Hans Jonas,
Jacob Taubes, Gershom Scholem, and Hans Blumenberg, it is precisely this “solid
hatred” – the unflinching constant No thrown against the whole of reality as such,
experienced as an oppressive “iron cage” – which makes for a true Gnostic: not some
theosophic desire of an ultimate knowledge/
gnosis that would magically solve all the
mysteries of the universe but a determined rejection of being as the fundamental critique of creation which, by having produced finite beings destined to misery and death, can only be called a failure or, even stronger, a cosmic catastrophe.

https://www.academia.edu/42653995/_Solid_Hatred_Addressed_to_Being_Lacan_s_Gnostic_Uses_of_Judaism

[Anonymous No.16213850]

>>16213831
Jung's system is gnosticism for housewives

[Anonymous No.16213857]

Once I believed that Gnosticism was a well-defined phenomenon belonging to the religious history of Late Antiquity. Of course, I was ready to accept the idea of different prolongations of ancient Gnosis, and even that of spontaneous generation of views of the world in which, at different times, the distinctive features of Gnosticism occur again.

I was soon to learn however, that I was a naïf indeed. Not only Gnosis was gnostic, but the Catholic authors were gnostic, the Neoplatonic too, Reformation was gnostic, Communism was gnostic, Nazism was gnostic, liberalism, existentialism and psychoanalysis were gnostic too, modern biology was gnostic, Blake, Yeats, Kafka were gnostic…. I learned further that science is gnostic and superstition is gnostic…Hegel is gnostic and Marx is gnostic; all things and their opposite are equally gnostic.

[Anonymous No.16213867]

>>16213850
how?

[Anonymous No.16213876]

>>16213857
there are resonances with gnosticism everywhere. anyone militating against or reforming reality through dialectics or revolution or whatever, is more or less a crypto-gnostic

[Anonymous No.16213890]

>>16213857
wait till you hear about eric voegelin

[Anonymous No.16213894]

>>16213867
Jung thought the gnostics were pushing a form of proto-depth psychology, he collapses their ideas and thematic into the plane of psychodynamics and the struggle for individuation.

Jung would say the Demiurge is a reflection of a tyrannical ego. A generic gnostic would say tyrannical egos are reflections of the Demiurge. That's the difference.

[Anonymous No.16213924]

>>16213890
eric voegellin is retarded no scholar cares about him
>>16213876
how?
>>16213894
Jung was not only interested in the Gnostics, but he considered them the discoverers and certainly the most important forerunners of depth psychology. The association between Jung's psychology and Gnosticism is profound, and its scope is increasingly revealed with the passage of time and the wider availability of the Nag Hammadi scriptures. My studies have convinced me that Jung did not intend to locate the content of Gnostic teachings in the psyche pure and simple. To say that Gnosticism is "nothing but" psychology would have horrified Jung, for he opposed the concept of "nothing but." What made Jung's view radically different from those of his predecessors was simply this: he believed that Gnostic teachings and myths originated in the personal psychospiritual experience of the Gnostic sages. What originates in the psyche bears the imprint of the psyche. Hence the close affinity between Gnosticism and depth psychology. Jung's view may thus be called an interpolation, but not an appropriation. The need for definitions appears greater than ever in the light of such controversies.

[Anonymous No.16213953]

>>16213924
>how?

they presuppose a deficiency that they then try to remedy. the hatred or devaluation of the world is what's gnostic, the response though typically isn't: the dialectic and revolution are all immanent schemes of realization, there's no equivalent to the Pleroma in Marx, Hegel, etc.

>Jung was not only interested in the Gnostics...

true, I may have jumped the gun, but more often than not I find that the "Demiurge = ego" brand of new age soft gnosticism you're seeing has its roots in Jung. I suppose I can't blame the man for his followers though, and 7 Sermons of the Dead is unequivocally metaphysical.

[Anonymous No.16213993]

>>16213953
I find people who disregard 'psychognosis' if I may use such a term...to be usually very unwise. You can go on any philosophy chatroom and see a bunch of scholarly learned men talk about things, but do they truly know that they're on about? I think to ignore the psychic component of reality is greatly ignorant.

[Anonymous No.16214006]

>>16213993
I'm not disregarding it, I'm saying it's just as important to incorporate it in a global ontology so you don't lose sight of the Big Other/Archon and don't accidentally invigorate it by your ignorance of its power.

[Anonymous No.16214023]

>>16214006
i have read there is no big other. and how do you see archons exactly? i'm curious on your pov.

[Anonymous No.16214037]

>>16213840
>someone else mentions blumenberg
Oh shhit

[Anonymous No.16214055]

>>16214023
what that person is saying is the subject is born always-already in submission to a symbolic structure outside it, it's just because the Big Other is a fiction that it is also operative, a kind of optical illusion that tries to mediate the Loss that it itself is and engenders. to be a slave to this structure is to be a slave to the Archons

[Anonymous No.16214083]

>>16214055
could you explain in more simple terms?

[Anonymous No.16214123]

>>16214083
people are born into a world that pre-exists them. on the one hand, they're born into a world where all things decay and die. on the other, they're born into social systems that run rampant with narratives and appearances that try to make sense of this lack, tries to fill it with the infinite movement of desire. in order to be allowed "into" the social order, you have to limit (castrate) yourself to be receptive to the Other. this structure of death and illusion is the Archon. the gnostic rejects his participation in a world like this.

[Anonymous No.16214156]

>>16214123
>you have to limit (castrate) yourself to be receptive to the Other. this structure of death and illusion is the Archon.
got you but could explain these two parts in simple detail for me please? thanks

[Anonymous No.16214169]

>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.16214175]

ITT: Everything I like is Gnostic

[Anonymous No.16214196]

>>16214156
in order to enter into language, growing up from a kid into a responsible adult, you have to submit to its structure. language is something outside you, it is an Other that is how you express yourself, obviously, but in the act of that expression, there's a cut between you (as the person whose expressing something) and the language itself (as the expression). you don't invent languages, they're invented for you, and you speak them just as much as they speak through you.

everything you say is mediated, related to, its connection with something outside you, and it is this connection that grounds the possibility of not only pathology but also death, just because it is a connection, ie malleable and severable.

[Anonymous No.16214268]

[Anonymous No.16214296]

Can you pronounce the g if you really prefer to do so? I think it sounds better

[Anonymous No.16214313]

>>16214196
>ou don't invent languages, they're invented for you
individually maybe, but collectively as humanity we did, so how can you apply this throwness to all of humanity?

also are you the schizojak poster?

[Anonymous No.16214350]

>>16214313
but there's no locus of invention, a place where that invention is localized and can be pointed to, everyone is just displacing the Other as the guarantor of meaning onto the next guy, and the next. it is everywhere and nowhere, hence it is the most pervasive illusion. it's a magic trick founded on nothingness, that is, it appears real just because it is nothing.

language negates the "pleroma" of childhood, retroactively idealized as the lost paradise (or projected into the future as the utopia-to-come). the gnostic move here as the author describes it as the negation of this negation by a turning-back performed AFTER your entrance into the symbolic order.

yes.

[Anonymous No.16214358]

The word has lost all of its original meaning ad has become an annoying buzzword. I propose that Gnostic from now on shall be the description of the 1st century ad sect and the Cathars of France and Bulgaria.

[Anonymous No.16214379]

>>16214268
what is that

[Anonymous No.16214383]

>>16214350
log into your discord mullato, i would like to talk about your manichaeism

[Anonymous No.16214391]

>>16214268
anton

[Anonymous No.16214392]

>>16214383
I've been trying to, discord's locked me out of my account because of security shit. post your thing again

[Anonymous No.16214397]

>>16214392
unnamed#3436

[Anonymous No.16214432]

>>16214397
sent

[Anonymous No.16215096]

[Anonymous No.16215178]

[Anonymous No.16215242]

>>16214268
based anton

[Anonymous No.16215264]

>>16214379
>doesn't know about the metahuman

[Anonymous No.16215275]

>>16214392

anton#0131

[Anonymous No.16215279]

>>16215096
how's he a gnostic?

[Anonymous No.16215373]

>>16213798
How you guys tell this shit? How do people here know who is a tripfag? I don't get it all.

[Anonymous No.16215380]

>>16215279
He thought Sade was a Carpocratic gnostic who sought to escape from the demiurgic laws of nature by embracing worldly crime and sin: the more libertine one is against this world, the sooner one will succeed through the cycles of reincarnation and eventually escape. Though later I think he renounced this, and saw no way out (something similar for Bataille): that there is only the eternal return of vicious souls. That's what The Baphomet is about, where a bunch of debauched Templar souls eternally float around without peace.

[Anonymous No.16215381]

THE. STRATUM. ARE. JUDGEMENTS. OF. GOD.

[Anonymous No.16215394]

>>16215380
>that there is only the eternal return of vicious souls. That's what The Baphomet is about, where a bunch of debauched Templar souls eternally float around without peace.

Jesus christ. Link? Oh and yeah Bataille is definitely a modern Carpocratian.

[I No.16215413]

>>16213782
who is this child molester?

[Anonymous No.16215444]

>>16215394
To The Baphomet? : https://monoskop.org/images/4/47/Klossowski_Pierre_The_Baphomet_1988.pdf
The rest is in Sade My Neighbor.

[Anonymous No.16215454]

>>16215444
Quads of death. Thanks bud.