/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19019966]

So are there actually any good refutations of gnosticism? The people who say "just read Iranaeus and Plotinus" either haven't read them or are easily convinced because their arguments suck.

[Anonymous No.19019988]

it's called the quran

[Anonymous No.19019996]

>>19019988
Serious answers please

[Anonymous No.19020007]

>>19019966
What do you mean "good refutations of gnosticism"
What is being claimed?

[Anonymous No.19020009]

>>19019996
that's a serious answer you dumb christshit

[Anonymous No.19020027]

>>19019966
The world is not evil. Just because it’s flawed does not mesn it’s evil. Dualist gnostics are just big babies who want to escape muh material because it gives them ouchies. Nondualist CHADS accept both the flawed and beautiful nature of existence.

[Anonymous No.19020037]

>>19020027
You just haven't had your delusions shattered yet. But you will in time.

[Anonymous No.19020038]

>>19020027
But that's not an argument it's just burying your head in the sand

[Anonymous No.19020041]

>>19020027
The material world doesn't exist. It is only a projection.

[Anonymous No.19020042]

>>19019966
It beats Roman Imperial Catholicism
But it’s all hooey

[Anonymous No.19020057]

>>19020037

I’ve experienced a great deal of pain and loss in my life fren. But I still see the beauty and light in the world.

>>19020041
I don’t necessarily believe the world is “real” as we experience it. But it’s close enough. It’s functionally real, filled with souls we can interact and share with; and our bodies can be temples if we acknowledge them as such. And though painful, “reality” is not necessarily a malignant simulation created to harm us or extract something from us at the hands of muh evil archon. It simply is. And God’s light shines beautifully through the flawed material.

[Anonymous No.19020059]

The question is, why would you want to refute it?
Gnosticism is the biggest whitepill there is. Only those who don't understand it think otherwise.

[Anonymous No.19020064]

>>19019966
>blocks your path

[Anonymous No.19020067]

>>19020057
You're a retard

[Anonymous No.19020071]

>>19020059
depends on what sect you are in
some are unfathomably blackpilled

[Anonymous No.19020076]

>>19020071
It's not a matter of sect, gnosticism always gave primacy to personal interpretation and development of understanding rather than acceptance of extant dogma. Which is why Valentinus' detractors were confused by his followers coming up with various different cosmologies constantly. It's a purely personal path.

[Anonymous No.19020078]

>>19020057
>and our bodies can be temples if we acknowledge them as such.
temples of what?.

[Anonymous No.19020082]

>>19020059
This, though I'd add it's the blackest blackpill and whitest whitepill at the same time.

>>19020057
Why are Gnostics projecting narcissists when you're also presuming to speak for reality? Why are "losers" forbidden from judging this world but the world is justified in judging its "losers"? Don't tell me you think the world selects for the spirit lmao.

And to answer your question OP: there aren't any. There are clarifications and elaborations but there are no refutations of the Gnostic temperament.

[Anonymous No.19020086]

>>19020057
Your worldview completely falls apart under the slightest scrutiny.
Muh emanationism is not convincing to anyone who isn't already trying extremely hard to buy into the bullshit.

[Anonymous No.19020090]

>>19020076
holy fuck you are stupid
you just said it's the biggest whitepill there is as though there is a single uniform interpretation and then when i mention that there is wide variance between the sects you say it's about personal interpretation

[Anonymous No.19020092]

>>19020082
How would you define the gnostic temperament?

[Anonymous No.19020101]

>>19020090
>as though there is a single uniform interpretation
No, that's just what your retarded ass gathered from my post. I said the path was personal, the goal isn't.

[Anonymous No.19020106]

>>19020092
In a phrase? Suffering is a condition of truth. Possibly THE condition.

Avoid scholarly cat wrangling like the plague.

[Anonymous No.19020109]

>>19019966
The demiurge briefly showed its face and menacingly laughed at me in a dream after I lightly trekked into gnosticism.

[Anonymous No.19020111]

>>19020106
>Suffering is a condition of truth.
Am I a dumbass or does this sound Nietzschean

[Anonymous No.19020132]

>>19020086
You keep saying that, but you don't apply it. Curious.
Go on and apply scrutiny. Refute the idea of emanation, the Plotinian system.
Show me, please, how Gnosticism is anle to explain itself.
Explain to me how a hard dualist system is able to sufficiently explore its own origin.
Gnosticism's hard cap is the one, but that still goes into opposition with the many. It cannot explain how the one comes into being, where it originates. It's essentially lunar in character, it stops at mysticism. You people speak of scrutiny, yet none of you ever seriously delve into metaphysics. Now that's sad.
If you cannot come up with the needed scrutiny feel free to lick my scrotum :)

[Anonymous No.19020136]

>>19020111
More Job than Nietzsche.

The rest of what is traditionally considered Gnosticism - hard dualism, acosmicism, a complex and paradoxical soteriology, the Sophia/Demiurge mytheme - are just consequences of this fundamental truth.

[Anonymous No.19020141]

>>19020132
If Evil is inherent to the all-possibility of the One (as the medium of emission, as the limit of the emanation process, as privatio boni, as this or that), then Evil is a symptom of the One.

If the Evil is the Other of the One, then the One is either: 1) not One, or 2) the One others itself.

Checkmate, it's over.

[Anonymous No.19020142]

>>19020132
>uhh god isn't responsible for evil but indirectly creates it but wait no actually evil doesn't exist and suffering is uhh...
We're reaching levels of cope that shouldn't be possible.

[Anonymous No.19020153]

>>19020141
Wow. You really have not understood Plotinus. Or you're being dishonest. Don't know which. I've had this discussion before, lemme fetch my original explanation. Your poor understanding of metaphysics is not worth my full effort.

All of that only makes sense if you believe evil to be essential - which is dualist drivel which can't explain itself.
God is the source of all being and form, of that which nourishes the cosmos. Necessarily for there to be manifestation you need differentiation. So you move away from the source and progressively see different forms, and eventually change in time.
Light a candle in a room and curse it for not blotting out the whole room, you imbecile.
If all would be evenly God, then there wouldn't be any creation, no manifestation, cause God is above space and time in the way that they procede from him. For creation to happen there has to be a continuum of more and less God. That's the world. You move on that continuum, unwittingly.
In him all forms are simultaneous, and your human mind couldn't conceptualize that.
I swear, every wannabe atheist or Gnostic that's still stuck in 2007 has never ever touched a book on metaphysics in his life

[Anonymous No.19020159]

>>19020142
See, the problem is that you stoop to a level where we'll just banter with each other, so no dialogue will be possible. Good job.

[Anonymous No.19020170]

>>19020159
Your disingenuous unwillingness to address the problem of evil head-on, and your preference for meaningless pilpul that answers nothing as shown here >>19020153 tells me there was no dialogue to be had from the start. You nondualist retards are so desperate to buy into your own garbage that you're incapable of sincere reflection.
I'm sure you'd keep preaching the nonexistence of evil and the truth of emanationism if I flayed you alive, right?
Your entire worldview is utterly refuted by the mere fact that suffering exists. Cope harder.

[Anonymous No.19020172]

>>19020153
>necessarily for there to be manifestation you need differentiation

Right, as the medium of emission: the One self-others as a necessary condition of manifestation, ergo it is the indirect cause of Evil. Why do m*nist golems think rewording their premise counts as a rebuttal?

>You really have not understood Plotinus.

Plotinus says the One would be less perfect if the One did not actualize (the potential for) Evil. Please stop posting.

[Anonymous No.19020175]

>>19020153
Adding to that:
Even the One conceptualized (which is much more Spirit in the system, that which gives being) can only exist in differentiation. That is why a non-dual ground is needed, which manifests in spirit and matter, with soul as a dynamic intermediate. What the fag wrote about the one and evil betrays his shallow understanding. He criticized essentially this, without actually attacking the concept of the non-dual. Because he's too stupid to understand it.
Spirit is that which gives being, matter serves as privation. The "one" is in fact not one, but that which presupposes the one and the many. If you fetishize the oneness, as the Gnostics do with the Pleroma, you negate the multiplicity. You need to sink yourself into the state of the non-sual, blankness, or what's called void in other systems, to have a real experience of the world.

[Anonymous No.19020180]

>>19019966
>So are there actually any good refutations of gnosticism?
Schopenhauer's non dualism. Will is blind and irrational which answers the question of evil.

[Anonymous No.19020181]

>>19020175
>If you fetishize the oneness, as the Gnostics do with the Pleroma
Another "nondualist faggot doesn't understand the basic premise of what he's attempting to argue against" episode
I've seen too many of those lately. Go annihilate yourself in a corner and stop spouting your sophomoric garbage

[Anonymous No.19020184]

>>19020170
I'm sure you'd keep preaching the nonexistence of evil and the truth of emanationism if I flayed you alive, right?
Yes. It’s you who are coping by rejecting Creation outright simply because of the problem of suffering.
>Jesus wept.
You know?

[Anonymous No.19020192]

>>19020175
>fetishize the oneness, as the Gnostics do with the Pleroma

It's funny, because the Apocryphon of John opens with an exposition of the nature of the One that wouldn't feel out of place in the Enneads. It's just that Gnostics didn't have any illusions about the subsequent reality of Evil.

I'm not interested in non-dualistic voids beyond good and evil. You don't know what you're talking about. Keep your sleeping monad, m*nistcuck.

>>19020180
>implying Schope would be opposed to the Gnostic temperament

we need to holocaust all undergrads on his board

[Anonymous No.19020193]

>>19020184
>Yes
kek. You're beyond saving, utterly delusional.
I'm the one coping because I refuse to let myself be raped by the Highest Good which incidentally also creates the Highest Evil, while you lay down, take it, find excuses for it, and defend it. You don't know what the word "coping" means, do you?

[Anonymous No.19020197]

>>19020172
>>19020170
You are both obviously under the age of 20.
Can you refute the idea of evil as privation?
Can you prove that evil has essence?
How do you explain 2 essences? That results, logically, in a schizophrenic universe. There needs to be an envelope. The only envelope that will ever fit the bill is a non-dual reality.
Non - duality is not monism, why do you accuse me of monism?
I repeatedly say, that evil is the privation of being. Being already differentiates from the highest reality. Focusing even on the monad, and quite frankly, though it sounds paradox, Gnostics do exactly that in their dualism, through misunderstanding. The Pleroma cannot be the highest ceiling in reality, a unity simply cannot, because it negates the multiplicity. All of these descending hypostases are employed by the non-dual.

[Anonymous No.19020201]

>>19020192
>>implying Schope would be opposed to the Gnostic temperament
No he wouldn't with their notion of evil but he would still mock them for their dualism.

[Anonymous No.19020203]

>>19020197
>Can you refute the idea of evil as privation?
I already have, you just refuse to admit it. I won't humor you anymore since you're not willing to argue in good faith.

[Anonymous No.19020205]

>>19020197
>can you refute the idea of a non-existent property which I also designate as Evil
Yes, you did it for me lmao.

>There needs to be an envelope.

Yes, the Mixture. Imagine conflating the medium of interaction between Good and Evil as the Supreme Good. AHAHAHAHAH

>the Pleroma is a unity opposed to multiplicity

The Pleroma (the entirety, the Fullness) literally designates the totality of the Aeons who exist as distinct hypostases of the Forefather, the "real" One (at least in the Valentinian system)... please stop posting, for God's sake.

[Anonymous No.19020213]

>>19020181
Bro, I keep offering arguments. You are not honestly engaging them.
Yoyu say I argue erroneously against something I don't understand.
Ok, look, I've been giving you lots of space to attack by laying out arguments of cosmology. You do not engage with them in debate, you simply insult and brush away. Very easy, when you don't propose anything.
So I dare you, lay it out, show me your cosmology. Stop being an amorphous faggot.
Alternatively if you live close to me and we can meet up, and I can show you that although I'll beat the shit out of you and you'll feel pain, thats simply your privation from being an intelligent man :)

[Anonymous No.19020221]

>>19020203
>>19020205
You've done neither. I extend the invitation to fight to both of you, I've done this several times on lit, when dishonest 19yo's refuse to engage in proper debate.
Show you're man enough, nobody ever does, I'll legit name time and date if you live in central Europe.

[Anonymous No.19020224]

>>19020213
>nondualcuck is now going into full passive-agressive seething mode now
lmao are you a woman or just a 16 year old with repressed anger? You're absolutely pathetic. I would utterly demolish you, I'd bet a thousand bucks by cock is thicker than your wrist you little faggot. Shut the fuck up

[Anonymous No.19020228]

>>19020221
>point out the inconsistencies of his argument and his grievous misunderstandings of gnostic myth & cosmology
>p-post address bro
What a niggerbrain. You lost, bud. Bye bye now.

[Anonymous No.19020230]

>>19020221
Your arguments keep being addressed by the frogposter, you just overlook/disregard them and keep restating your position. It's not a real argument, everyone can tell you have no leg to stand on. Now you're doing the whole manlet rage "j-just fight me irl bro" thing, just stop embarrassing yourself.

[Anonymous No.19020242]

>>19019966
unironically read plotinus. not against the gnostics but the rest of plotinus. then compare his system against gnostic systems. its the same system as most types of gnosticism, but theirs has loads of arbitrary bullshit swapped around to make the genesis narrative still work. this suggests that their system is just a simple amalgamation of middle platonism + bible rather than any actual insight into the nature of reality.

[Anonymous No.19020247]

GnosisCHADS showing the monistcuck archon slaves what's what once again...

[Anonymous No.19020250]

>>19020224
>>19020228
Lol that's fucking weak. Live in Germany per chance? I'm willing to show up, lad. How is that passive aggressive?
I take these things serious. You disengage and refuse to debate in earnest. I offer tou an alternative. You refuse and prefer to sit on cuck mountain. Refusing to engage, lashing out from a safe position - don't you think that the charge of being effeminate is a projection?
I mean, it's your honour, bro. Not mine. I offered arguments, you dishonestly engaged. I offered a test of other sorts, you dishonestly disengage. Your choice :)

[Anonymous No.19020255]

>>19020242
Christian gnosticism is a subset of Gnosticism as a whole, not all gnostic sects were Christian/abrahamic.

[Anonymous No.19020257]

>>19020230
I fo not see the refutation. Posit I'm too thick for a moment - then I invite you to explain it to me, in depth.
I do not see any refutations, and I wish to be refuted. Do it.

[Anonymous No.19020261]

>>19020250
Stop posting kek.

>>19020242
>read this guy influenced by platonism to learn why you shouldn't read this other system influenced by platonism
Kek

[Anonymous No.19020262]

>>19020257
We're done with you bro, go read Lolita and 1984 like a good little first-year and come back in 5.

[Anonymous No.19020265]

>>19020250
>>19020257
You were quoted and refuted very clearly here:
>>19020172
>>19020192
>>19020205
You refuse to address the arguments and keep acting like a woman, so there's nothing more to say to you.
>:)
jesus christ please just go seethe somewhere else, I'm cringing physically at your posts. It's over, just stop.

[Anonymous No.19020269]

>gnostic thread
>posters immediately descending into petty bickering, shitflinging, “i’ll fight you bro”
>reveal the decrepit states of their souls
you guys need Christ, man.

[Anonymous No.19020271]

>>19020257
>Posit I'm too thick
no need to posit lol

[Anonymous No.19020272]

Just go do good deeds
Don't hurt others
Try to have as less as attachments you can have with phenomenal world
Eventually death will get us
Then we will see or don't or whatever

[Anonymous No.19020278]

>>19020269
If you were being honest you'd notice that a single nondualcuck has been sperging out and seething and that he's the one acting like a child.

[Anonymous No.19020288]

>>19020261
>>19020262
>we
Lol ok, so either this is a discord troonism, or it's a samefag. Why do you have to resort to a "we"?
You have not laid out a proper cosmology, so that we are able to properly debate. The weak attempts up there were nothing but reciting dome entry lvl Hans Jonas shit.
You dogmatically follow a fate here - you are not a metaphysician. I now realize this. That's fine. There's no recourse, debating with dogmatists. Lay out a proper, metaphysical, logical argument, and I will engage with it.
Alternatively prove you're no cuck.
Those are your options otherwise you affirm that you're impotently sitting on your cuck hill, flinging shit at passerbys

[Anonymous No.19020294]

>>19020288
>>19020265

[Anonymous No.19020297]

>>19020288
>we
Because me and another guy who I happen to recognize are arguing with you. No longer, though.

[Anonymous No.19020300]

Which of Jung's books showcase his gnostic sensibilities the most aside from the Red Book?
I've read the Seven sermons and I want more.

[Anonymous No.19020303]

>>19020265
No. :)

[Anonymous No.19020305]

>>19020255
when people say gnosticism i assume they are talking about sethianism since they almost always are. most of the positions people are espousing in this thread could hardly be called mandaean or hermetic or whatever.

>>19020261
>read middle platonists
>try to apply their ideas to genesis
>end up making a hideous mess of a system that doesn't really make sense
>falsely present it as the teachings of jesus or his disciples

vs

>different guy who read middle platonists
>just closed his fucking eyes and experienced it
>wrote down as best he could what he has experienced, was completely transparent about what he was doing
>it ends up being a very elegant system despite with just one real inconsistency

plotinus btfos gnostics just by existing alongside them. his work renders all of theirs unnecessary for anyone who is serious about this stuff. if you are an immature edgelord (like the gnostics clearly were) who gets excited by saying "i beleve in the bible... but i follow the bad guys!" then you aren't serious about anything. its just attention seeking contrarianism.

[Anonymous No.19020308]

>>19020297
>>19020294
Lmao cowards

[Anonymous No.19020313]

>>19020305
Discussions in these threads end up incorporating various elements from different sects as well as the 20th century rediscovery of gnostic thought, most regular posters generally agreeing on the main ideas but otherwise deriving their own "neognostic" understanding from the interpretation of various sources. So you'd be hard-pressed to say even a majority of posts fall under the umbrella of one particular sect.

[Anonymous No.19020314]

>>19020086
>Muh emanationism
>non-dualism = emanationism
bruh, look at this dude, oh no no no no no

[Anonymous No.19020321]

>>19020300
Aion has a lot of references to gnosticism.
There was also an /x/fag who made a bunch of interesting schizo videos on the subject of Jung's Aion with gnostic influences, I'll try to find the links

[Anonymous No.19020324]

>>19020314
?

[Anonymous No.19020325]

>>19020300
7 Sermons of the Dead. They're written in the voice of Basilides. Short and punchy.

>>19020305
>blames the gnostics for his superficial understanding of them
Come on.

And please don't pretend like Plotinus doesn't also present his own glosses on Plato as Plato's true teachings. See: Monopsychism, Mysticism, and Metaconsciousness by Philip Merlan (where he makes this point, but I unfortunately forgot the finer details)

>>19020314
Yeah, we know, Valentinianism is emanationist but also soft dualist, we're clearly talking about a certain breed of emanationism.

[Anonymous No.19020334]

>>19020321
There: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjRKVS7aiGgwqWfVYXl1bjA/videos
Outlandish intepretations but I still found them interesting.

[Anonymous No.19020340]

>>19020325
i'm not denying that against the gnostics is pretty worthless. in that case he didn't know what he was talking about.

he quotes plato accurately and explains why he is interpreting plato in the way that he is.

[Anonymous No.19020351]

>>19020340
Not him but gnostics aren't interpreting platonism, they're inverting it. Calling their ideas an application of platonism to genesis is not accurate, and is also pretty caricatural.

[Anonymous No.19020353]

>>19020351
My wording was retarded since inversion is a form of interpretation but you see what I mean. It's not an exegesis of platonic doctrine in the same vein as Plotinus', is my point.

[Anonymous No.19020364]

>>19019996
Core assumptions are contradictory.
How is it possible that divine elements of the source got trapped in the world. Why did the source allow it?
Why did the demiurge was created in the first place? How was this allowed to happen? How was it possible for Sophia to hide anything from the source of everything?
The demiurge is presented like an accident - not possible in the first place, the world is presented as wicked - not possible since we know there is good in this world, the goal of existence is to escape the world - only possible with a divine messenger.

It really seems designed for people that like to explore rabbit holes but easily get lost in the details without having the computational mindfulness to create a coherent viewpoint. It is like a vicious equilibrium of thoughts that one gets trapped in because his memory is too short for the vast storyline he is given to digest.

[Anonymous No.19020367]

>>19020353
And it isn't intended as such. See what Bloom says about the Gnostic perception of Plato: Plato, like the archons who unwittingly constructed a being greater than themselves, Plato also could not perceive the real truth behind his system.

[Anonymous No.19020373]

>autists arguing words and definitions endlessly and needlessly

why are more than 50% of the lit threads like this?

[Anonymous No.19020416]

>>19020324
Classic non-dualism, i.e. Advaita Vedanta, isnt emanationist. It teaches Vivartavada whereby the universe is a false appearance projected by Brahman that never actually is created or emanated as an existing thing, some other Hindu schools teach the emanationist parinamavada model but not the classic non-dualism of Advaita. The stock arguments of gnostics dont apply to vivartavada since when the universe is a false projection there is no logical necessity that the universe shares the nature/attributes/moral status of Brahman or vice versa.

To be clear, Im not the same person who has been arguing with gnostics here, and this is only my 2nd post in this thread. I dont find gnosticism convincing and IMO have yet to see a logically-coherent explanation of how its descent and liberation works; but I dont really care about arguing against it one way or another. I was just pointing out that the classic non-dualism of Advaita is logically unassailable from any perspective, let alone the gnostic one.

It’s impossible to logically prove that evil exists, the notion that good/evil are a false dualistic conception remains undebunked. Arguments which try to prove the reality of evil typically rely on a semantic shift whereby “real” is treated as synonymous with “experienced”, but this doesn’t prove anything because we also have experiences of things that dont actually exist like the contents of dreams and optical illusions.

[Anonymous No.19020418]

Imagine being such a brainlet that you equate non-dualism with monism. Uhm, hello, retard department? Yes, they're on the loose again

[Anonymous No.19020430]

>>19020418
We're equating the ATTITUDES that predominate in vulgar monist and emanationist circles.

[Anonymous No.19020439]

>>19020430
Right. So why don't you address the myriad of arguments posted by several different posters above?

[Anonymous No.19020446]

>>19020416
>the notion that good/evil are a false dualistic conception remains undebunked.
I'm typically extremely suspicious of any metaphysical system that leads to the conclusion that good and evil are illusory constructs. What do you find compelling in that worldview?

[Anonymous No.19020447]

Basilides > All other Gnostic teachers

[Anonymous No.19020452]

>>19020439
Because they don't address mine.

[Anonymous No.19020455]

>>19019966
Gnosticism relies on emotional arguments, there is nothing to refute.

[Anonymous No.19020457]

>>19020452
Ok, so what is yours? Please post a coherent, proper account of what you're arguing for, so that an argument can actually take place.

[Anonymous No.19020459]

>>19020457
Already did, don't feel like getting into it again. See above.

[Anonymous No.19020460]

>>19020027
>Just because it’s flawed does not mesn it’s evil.

What does it mean then?

[Anonymous No.19020462]

>>19019966
1. Emanation is a passive rather than an active event. A perfect God would not emanate, but create.

2. Following on from this, it makes no sense functionally for a perfect, benevolent God to allow Himself to be unseated by a malevolent, lesser deity. The devil's actions in the world make sense as a result of our sin opening that gate. The demiurge's near total control over both physics and metaphysics makes no sense comparatively.

[Anonymous No.19020466]

>>19020462
>it makes no sense functionally for a perfect, benevolent God
It does if he is not omnipotent. And he is not unseated; his domain was never intruded upon by the world in the first place. This God isn't called alien for nothing.

[Anonymous No.19020470]

>>19020459
Wow, that's a really sad copout. Please try again.

[Anonymous No.19020473]

>>19020027
>Just because it’s flawed
The world is not flawed

[Anonymous No.19020477]

>>19019966
>The people who say "just read Iranaeus and Plotinus"
I can guarantee you have not read either of them.

[Anonymous No.19020492]

>>19020466
God being wholly separate from the world, to the point where He is neither incarnate nor active at any time, makes no sense. In order for clay to be shaped into a pot, it must actually have the hands of the potter on it.
>the gnostic god isn't omnipotent
Then he isn't god; he isn't the first or the highest. You're essentially just an exotic form of pagan at this point.

[Anonymous No.19020499]

>>19020492
>makes no sense
Yes, it does. That God did not make the world.
>he isn't the first or the highest.
Why does there need to be an omnipotent principle? This argument makes no sense when applied to the dyad.

[Anonymous No.19020507]

>>19019966
Best argument is the easiest: Gnostics are a bunch of circlejerking pseuds who talk about mystical nonsense to sound smart.

[Anonymous No.19020509]

>>/lit/thread/S16968080
>thread about the refutation of gnosticism ends up providing great arguments in favor of it and turns into a neognostic thread
This seems to happen frequently on here.

[Anonymous No.19020510]

>>19020499
>That God did not make the world.
In your scenario, he made or emanated "the world" that is the spirits which inhabit and/or are trapped in the material world.
>Why does there need to be an omnipotent
Because something which is lacking in some potency is imperfect and is therefore contingent. It is only right to pray to the Lord most high, to the God who is noncontingent, perfect and necessary, rather than to a greater spirit of some kind.

[Anonymous No.19020511]

>>19020499
You have never taken a philosophy class. You have neither read anything on Pythagoras, Plato, Plotinus or any non-dualist doctrine either. A dyad cannot exist by it's own virtue, it has to be engendered by that which is not it. It is engendered by that which is neitger part of said dyad. The dyad is the one and the many. Either would negate each other, were they raised to supreme status as to blot the other out. And positing an eternal equilibrium does not explain away tge origin, the possibility of relation and much more.
Thus, necessary, a principle that is neither and both needs to stand at the bounds.

[Anonymous No.19020512]

>>19020492
Gnostics reject supreme Power for supreme Goodness.

[Anonymous No.19020514]

>>19020509
What you have described is not happening though. This is why people don't like talking to mystics like you; you talk at people rather than to them, and you only hear what you want.

[Anonymous No.19020515]

>>19020510
Even the Valentinian Forefather did not emanate or create the World. If anything, he emanated the Aeons, the World is a materialization of Sophia's terror of the Void/Kenoma.

[Anonymous No.19020516]

>>19020510
>he made or emanated "the world"
No, he didn't. Only in some Valentinian interpretations is this arguably the case.
>something which is lacking in some potency is imperfect and is therefore contingent
Again this doesn't apply when the alien God only exists within his own monad. There is no contingency because there is no intersection between the world and the "other".

[Anonymous No.19020521]

>>19020514
>people talk at gnostics for two millennia when they're not burning them at the stake for babylon
>reeee you're not arguing in good faith
Leave.

[Anonymous No.19020525]

>>19020512
Supreme power and supreme goodness are the same thing though. This is why we call God simple. What is supremely powerful must, by definition, be supremely good; and what is supremely good must be supremely powerful.

[Anonymous No.19020528]

>>19020525
No, they're not, not within the coordinates of the system you're trying to refute.

[Anonymous No.19020529]

>>19019966
That's like saying no one has ever refuted Muhammad is Allah's prophet, so it must be true.

[Anonymous No.19020538]

>>19020511
>the dyad as considered within the scope of monism cannot exist by its own virtue
Yes, you're right.

[Anonymous No.19020541]

>>19020515
See >>19020511
>>19020516
>No, he didn't. Only in some Valentinian interpretations is this arguably the case.
Great. Get back to me when you've sorted your thoughts out then.
>There is no contingency because there is no intersection between the world and the "other".
There is in the sense that his emanation ultimately leads to the archons who create the world. Ergo, he is the world's ultimate author. If your God truly existed within itself and naught else, there would be nothing except him... yet here we are.
>>19020521
Why are you talking about the past? Am I those men? Are you? That a few of your fellow believers were treated poorly in the past does not give you the right to be insufferably obtuse in the here and now.

[Anonymous No.19020543]

>>19020528
Then those co-ordinates are nonsense. Ultimate power is an effect of ultimate goodness and vice versa.

[Anonymous No.19020544]

>>19020543
Why?

[Anonymous No.19020549]

>>19020541
>his emanation ultimately leads to the archons who create the world.
No, it doesn't.
This will lead nowhere, the worldview you're dismantling isn't gnosticism.

[Anonymous No.19020552]

>>19020544
We see power and goodness are both actually effects of functionality. God is ultimately functional, therefore He must be ultimately good and ultimately powerful.

[Anonymous No.19020556]

>>19020549
OK. Forgive me for not being fully across your particular interpretation. What is he, what does he do, what is his relation to Sophia and where did he come from?

[Anonymous No.19020561]

>>19020544
Ultimate goodness without ultimate power: bad is allowed to occur due to the fact that good is not ultimately powerful, so the ultimate good is not the ultimate good, and it is a contradiction in terms.

Ultimate power without ultimate goodness: Power is used arbitrarily and results in a random scattering of good and bad effects. Without goodness, "ultimate" power is also self-defeating because it is unable to use it in a manner which is "good", thereby defeating the idea of "ultimate power", because it cannot even be exercised in a way that is good and thus "ultimate."

So if either have to exist, then they have to exist together. This of course does not demonstrate the existence of either, merely the co-dependence.

[Anonymous No.19020563]

>>19020556
I've been asking him to explain this the whole thread over and he refused

[Anonymous No.19020569]

>>19020321
>>19020325
What kind of gnostic was Jung?

[Anonymous No.19020575]

>>19019966
Gnosticism is not a monolith. Ultimately it became simply a way for mystery religions including monotheism to proclaim hidden truths (Join us to find out today!). You have everything from The Gospel of Thomas to fullon demiurge and 64 archons

[Anonymous No.19020576]

>>19020561
>so the ultimate good is not the ultimate good
This doesn't logically follow though
The ultimateness of a principle doesn't imply infinite potency

[Anonymous No.19020582]

>>19020561
>>19020576
it sounds like you guys are mixing up Neo-Platonism with basic Gnosticism and arguing past each other.

[Anonymous No.19020586]

>>19020563
It's been explained, the posts have been re-quoted for you, everything's been pointed out, you just don't want to address the arguments. It's as >>19020582 says.

[Anonymous No.19020589]

>>19020586
It hasn't. You didn't.

[Anonymous No.19020592]

>>19020589
Sure.

[Anonymous No.19020594]

>>19020576
>The ultimateness of a principle doesn't imply infinite potency
It implies maximum (ultimate) potency (power), whether that is equivalent to "infinite" I'll let you decide.

[Anonymous No.19020599]

>>19020594
>It implies maximum (ultimate) potency (power)
Again this doesn't logically follow, either you're missing a step in your reasoning or you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.19020616]

>>19020373
It's so tiresome. These debates are sterile and never lead anywhere. People should form an idiosyncratic worldview and system instead of looking for the best dogma to follow.

[Anonymous No.19020617]

>>19020541
Fine, I don't think I'm obtuse, I'm just being combative. Fine, you don't deserve it, but seeing the same arguments posted again and again takes its toll.

[Anonymous No.19020624]

>>19020616
The point is that we've precisely arrived at those personal, idiosyncratic systems, and it's the dogmatics who can't stand it.

[Anonymous No.19020628]

>>19020599
Nothing can be ultimately good if it allows evil to occur. Power is an inherent aspect of good, which is the entire point, power is subsumed within its nature. If you posit an ultimately good principle which allows bad to occur or exist, then it isn't ultimately good. There is no flaw in my reasoning, there is a flaw in yours: Anyone who posits good as passive and permissive of evil is contradicting the selfsame principle. There is no ultimate good which would be capable of permitting evil, because then it would no longer be ultimate, it would be some lesser kind of good.

[Anonymous No.19020636]

>>19020592
You cherrypick who to engage with, there are several posts you haven't addressed, and several more where you used the same copout repeatedly.
Conclusion: you are either dishonest, unknowing or a troll. You do not wish to openly converse.
You refuse, over, and over, and over again to make a comprehensive post so we can disvuss this properly.
Why is that? Because you have fallen prey to the typical teenage style of writing on 4chan: you make ypurself amorphous and slippery like an eel, while biting in all directions.
Answer me honestly and truthfully: how old are you, and how long ago did you discover Gnosticism for yourself? I understand that finding this doctrine has radically widened your horizon, and it baffles you, as it would anyone at first, but you're making the mistake of getting dogmatically stuck in it. You make it the new normal for yourself, after moving on from either simple, exoteric Christianity or the materialist scientism.
I can read you because you're open as a book. Cease your silly behavior and engage.

[Anonymous No.19020637]

>>19020628
>Power is an inherent aspect of good
This is baseless.

[Anonymous No.19020679]

>>19020636
There isn't just one person ITT arguing in favor of Gnosticism. And my position from the very start has been anti-dogmatic, as it should be for anyone seriously interested in this subject.
The rest of your post is a pathetic projection you're trying to pass off as a gotcha with the usual trite assumptions about my life and background I'd expect to see on a shithole like /adv/ or reddit, keep the "who hurt you"-tier womanly shit to yourself. You're boring, and far from being as intelligent as you think you are.
Now you're just going to come up with another witty reply with a few quips to put me in my place, keep being an obnoxious faggot if you want, but I'm not obligated to help you jerk yourself off.

[Anonymous No.19020684]

>>19020679
Based. Nailed him .

[Anonymous No.19020693]

>>19020684
Watch him call samefag now

[Anonymous No.19020697]

>>19020679
So give an answer of yourself: why don't you post a concise, coherent explanation of your views of what constitutes Gnosticism, so we can actually debate it?
Until you've done that you're simply debating on sentiment, and can consuder yourself btfo.

[Anonymous No.19020714]

>>19020446
>What do you find compelling in that worldview?
The reason I find Advaita compelling is not primarily *because* they say good/evil are a false understanding, but rather because I personally find their teachings about consciousness to be accurate and because their account of the origin of the cosmos seems more logically coherent to me than the alternatives like materialism, emanationism, a realist model of creation ex-nihilio or the Buddhist model of contingency without any foundation doubling back on itself. The notion that good/evil are relative makes sense to me because it involves a rejection of the “antropomorphization of reality” for lack of a better term, a rejection of the assumption that we can reliably know that human mental concepts independently exist as something that denotes the nature of reality itself; IMO it involves a greater leap of logic to assume they do instead of being open to the notion that they dont.

[Anonymous No.19020747]

>>19020714
>antropomorphization of reality
I think I understand our disagreement better now, as I don't think there is any other way to describe reality than through an anthropocentric view, one that places man (the individual) at the absolute center of it all. Everything follows from there and I suppose your worldview is the one that makes most sense if you decide to discard the primacy of man's subjectivity over the cosmos. That's what the most famous criticisms of Gnosticism boil down to after all once you get past the sterile nitpicking: indignation at this shift in perspective. But I get your point of view at least.

[Anonymous No.19020773]

>>19020679
>anti-dogmatic
You're dogmatic about your salvation. Stop denying the obvious.

[Anonymous No.19020825]

>>19020679
>>19020684
>>19020693
Fishy that you'd even claim this in short succession... Screenshot?

[Anonymous No.19020826]

There aren't any, /thread, and if you think you the answer see pic related.

[Anonymous No.19020830]

>>19020624
Why does gnosticism lend itself so well to idiosyncrasy and personal adaptation?

[Anonymous No.19020839]

>>19020637
No it's not. Good is not good without power, it is simply nothing. Try to assert otherwise without simply turning "good" into something meaningless and non-existent. Even "good" restrained to a particular person, and not over all reality (as is the case with "ultimate good"), implies power over oneself, otherwise it isn't good but merely being passively moved by whatever instinct appears in oneself.

[Anonymous No.19020845]

>>19020830
Because it is not philosophy, it's got nothing to do with metaphysics. It is essentially sentimental, completely dependent on the merely conditioned faculties of feeling, and ofcourse discursive thinking informed by it.
You see it throughout the whole thread, no metaphysical organ in these lads whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.19020848]

>>19020825
lmao I fucking called it cocksucker

[Anonymous No.19020855]

>>19020848
And now your age please :)

[Anonymous No.19020857]

>>19020845
...And that's a good thing!

[Anonymous No.19020863]

>>19020857
And exactly that is the reason no comprehensive system is being posted.

[Anonymous No.19020875]

>>19020839
Why does goodness depend on power? Is a lamb or an innocent child supposed to be powerful to be gentle and carefree?

[Anonymous No.19020879]

>>19020845
>m-m-m-muh sentimentality
Sentimentality, emotion, blood and fire, are based. Sorry we're not repressed angloborgs

[Anonymous No.19020881]

>>19020863
You're almost there.

[Anonymous No.19020901]

>>19020879
Bro, if you actually engaged with what I'm saying, you'd realize what I advicate for, which is essentially integration.
Only a non-dual system is able to explain and integrate the whole, being and nothing.
Equating what I posit with a monad will not make my point go away.
I reiterate: out of the absolute non-dual come the one and it's privation. Between them the possibilities, again after them sequence, space, time. It isa polar system, which means that there is a hierarchy which employs monad, dyad, possibilities, space, time, and all the other concepts in their integrated, proper place.
I, contrary to you, am the one who is arguing against supression. Move up and down the polar axis and simply know how to orient yourself along the path. And if you got the gumption, become the pole.

[Anonymous No.19020909]

>>19020848
>>19020855
Why not simply admit your age? Why? Perhaps because it'd discredit you?

[Anonymous No.19020916]

>>19020901
I reject your scheme. The non-dual is only the field of play or topos in which the Mixture and its attendant dialectics are in effect. It's the Lurianic Void, the primal matter where everything and anything inheres. leaving this field because of what it subjects the Light to is the goal of the Gnostic.

[Anonymous No.19020917]

>>19020916
Filtered.

[Anonymous No.19020920]

>>19020909
You got humiliated, just leave it at that, you're sounding desperate now.
Since you're an insincere little cocksucker, telling you my age will have you deny it and say I'm lying, so what's the point? I'll just leave you hanging and seething instead. ":)"

[Anonymous No.19020924]

>>19020917
>has nothing to say
That's what I thought. Cretin.

[Anonymous No.19020926]

>>19020920
How did I get humiliated?
Where is your system?
What is your age?
;)

[Anonymous No.19020929]

>>19020917
...out of the kenoma, yes. But by all means, enjoy the recycling.

[Anonymous No.19020938]

>>19020924
Why do you equate the non-duality with thing-ness? That is exactly what it is not. That is why I said you got filtered. Cause you were.
The non-dual neither is, nor is not. It's not a medium, it's not a monad.

[Anonymous No.19020940]

>>19020875
"Gentle" and "carefree" are not goods in themselves, especially not carefree. Additionally there is nothing inherently good about children or lambs. In fact, I'd argue children are born bad, and mature through proper education into good, responsible and upright adults.
>Why does goodness depend on power?
For the reasons I just gave you. It's almost equivalent to asking why existence depends upon being. Without power, the being of goodness (which is not equivalent to being, static, but action, dynamic), it loses all existence.

[Anonymous No.19020945]

>>19020929
Nope

[Anonymous No.19020957]

>>19019966
Not sure but the fact that it makes so many people seethe is based

[Anonymous No.19020967]

>>19020920
Oh and btw, why do you use words like primal (sic) matter without knowing what they signify?
Prima Materia =/= Non-dual
Jfc, I am convinced by now that you guys simply read /x/ type blogs, the odd Hans Jonas chapter and whatnot.
Please explore other systems to compare and ground your own. It's ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.19020980]

>>19020916
>>19020967
Meant like this, ofcourse

[Anonymous No.19020992]

>>19020967
Because I've made connections that cucks like you who think on rails will never make. Imagine that! Someone interested in Gnosticism arriving at an idiosyncratic understanding of everything that's come before..

[Anonymous No.19020999]

>>19020940
I decouple Goodness from Power just like I decouple Life from the World. You're so cucked by the synarchy you can't think straight. I couldn't either, and it took a lot of work to deprogram it, but at least I had a begrudging respect for those who it seemed were on to something.

>nooooo you have to think the prescribed terms I've set!!!
No

[Anonymous No.19021019]

>>19020992
Subjective experience necessarily moves in an absolute reality. You are free to feel superior through delusion :)
Help me understand your system further, then. Tell me more about it, and about your primal matter

[Anonymous No.19021034]

>>19021019
I will refer to my formula: the tetralemma applies to Thomistic prima materia, the Zoroastrian Devil and (curiously) the Buddhist Void. Given that the Zoroastrian Devil is a function or "property" of the field of manifestation, it's not hard to make the jump that I've made.

[Anonymous No.19021043]

>>19021034
How does it apply to the void?

[Anonymous No.19021081]

>>19021043
When asked to describe the death state, the Buddha refers to the tetralemma.

[Anonymous No.19021099]

>>19020999
>I decouple Goodness from Power just like I decouple Life from the World.
You are mixing Power as it is coming from subjugation of others, either 'master or slave', with Power (Dynamis) coming out of itself, from its own origin. Child is inherently powerful. Child is Mighty in the primordial sense.
This thread reminds me the beginning of the Rosicurian poem, where they sit in a basement barking at each other. Until there's a rope appearing, to lift oneself up.

[Anonymous No.19021105]

>>19021081
Not him; doesn't the Buddha deny/reject the tetralemma in the unanswered questions?
>neither is
>nor isn't
>nor both
>nor neither
Maybe I've misunderstood and that's what you were saying though.

[Anonymous No.19021107]

>>19021081
Why do you designate this as matter? By being above all these definitions, it ought to be above any other definition, any form. That's the idea of the non-dual. You're obscuring here. You use the word in a constellation where it's not potent. Matter is something worked upon. Using it that way it makes sense.
Go on. What lies beyond this primal matter? How is it related to that which informs it (I suspect the Demiurge)? How is it related to the alien god? How can the alien god enter here?

[Anonymous No.19021108]

>>19021099
Except even in this sense the True God's dynamis is defined by the boundaries of the Pleroma. God is omnipotent, but only within his domain - if he has to be omnipotent at all.

[Anonymous No.19021123]

>>19021108
well, if some adept achieves synchronization with the True God, he would be able to experience Godly Dynamis here.. or there? either way, he would be able to enchant that essence on himself: Kabbalistic Shekinah, Zoroastrian Khvarenah. I am saying, there is possibility of Master (Power) without a slave. that is also Deleuzean project. you don't need to make left to be right.

[Anonymous No.19021125]

>>19021105
That is what I'm saying. Refer to this:

>What is the classical tetralemma? In reading Buddhist texts, we may encounter something like this: "It cannot be said to exist. It cannot be said not to exist. It cannot be said to both exist and not exist. It cannot be said to neither exist or not exist." (this line is applied to, for example, the Tathagata after death.)

There is an additional connection via Zizek I haven't elaborated on. In any case, I'm open to corrections.

[Anonymous No.19021128]

>>19021099
>This thread reminds me the beginning of the Rosicurian poem, where they sit in a basement barking at each other. Until there's a rope appearing, to lift oneself up.
Gnostic threads are usually more fun.

[Anonymous No.19021133]

>>19021128
you mean more fun than this thread? or than the poem

[Anonymous No.19021134]

>>19021133
Than this thread.

[Anonymous No.19021140]

>>19021107
>he thinks primal matter is actually a matter, instead of a pure receptive non-thing which is enformed by God in the Aristotelian sense

[Anonymous No.19021145]

>>19021134
because they usually weed out the brainlets fast and the rest of it just big brain chads talking metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.19021147]

>>19021140
But did ever claim that? Read again.

[Anonymous No.19021153]

>>19021125
Yeah that's what I thought.
Where does one start with Zizek?

[Anonymous No.19021174]

>>19021145
list some of the archived threads, pls.

[Anonymous No.19021177]

>>19021153
His articles on Lacan.net.

If you're feeling ballsy, Less Than Nothing.

The Zizek connection I hashed out in his Sex and the Failed Absolute. That's where he comes closest to articulating his own "layered ontology."

the pre-ontological/quantum Real/Chaos = the "Pleroma", eternally inaccessible (though keep in mind he'd put out a cigar in my eye if he ever heard me say this)

the Void = which transubstantiates this inaccessible Real into appearance, and which Zizek says Buddhism can only traverse (but never remain in and overcome = ding ding ding, the "Demiurgic principle")

Appearance = everyday reality

[Anonymous No.19021189]

>>19021174
>>/lit/thread/S18974283

Only one I can think of right now. There are others.

[Anonymous No.19021194]

>>19021174
The one that was linked earlier ITT was really good past the first few posts. >>19020509

[Anonymous No.19021213]

>>19020473
based and monadologypilled.

[Anonymous No.19021224]

>>19021194
thx. haven't seen it.
>>19021189
+
I value that discussion remain ideosyncratic. you can see how posters are coming from their own dynamis >>19021099 not being interested solely in 'owning an opposing-idpol-camp'.

[Anonymous No.19021225]

The more I learn about Gnosticism the more I realize I am Gnostic.

[Anonymous No.19021226]

>>19021177
Thanks.
>Buddhism can only traverse (but never remain in and overcome
Zizek denies the possibility for Buddhism to access the pre-ontological? To what end then does it "traverse" the Void as opposed to overcoming it (what is the movement directed towards?)

[Anonymous No.19021248]

>>19021226
He says Buddhism can never overcome that "recoil" off the Void that generates what recoils in the first place (basically Hegel's "Spirit is the result of its own activity", Zizek is just not a fan of permanent cures, the only thing that is permanent is our reconciliation to the fact there is no cure for our condition: and that is precisely the cure: suffering, pursued all the way, is the eradication of suffering: the World contains within it the means of its own overcoming as world, and that's how he reads Hegel's Absolute Knowing). Basically, Buddhism can arrive at the doorstep of the Limit by "traversing the fantasy" and dissolving our fantasmic overlays but never pass through. Sometimes I think he's just a (relative) brainlet who forgot the distinction between nirvana and parinirvana.

[Anonymous No.19021262]

>>19021224
To be fair to that poster you quoted, "Child is Mighty in a primordial sense" is a good take and more Gnostic a notion than he probably realizes.

Remember that the Father of Greatness in Manichaeism is surrounded by light-children, aeonlings, and it is because these beings are not made for war that he has to emanate the First Man.

Darger was pretty gnostic

[Anonymous No.19021324]

>>19021248
>Buddhism can arrive at the doorstep of the Limit
I think I get how he would come to that conclusion but doesn't that imply that passing through the Limit would be by definition impossible? Regardless of the vehicle, the intention of "passing through" itself being meaningless to the actual process of overcoming.
>who forgot the distinction between nirvana and parinirvana.
If Nirvana cannot break through the Void, yet Parinirvana is the "out" (that Zizek didn't factor into consideration), then the attainment of the former is inconsequential to the latter. Which would simply equate Parinirvana to death itself.

[Anonymous No.19021328]

>>19019966
Gnosticism is mostly a case of throwing out the baby along with the bath water.

[Anonymous No.19021365]

>>19021328
no. only baby piss..

[Anonymous No.19021372]

>>19020999
>I decouple Goodness from Power just like I decouple Life from the World
Yes, which is to say, arbitrarily and without reason (the exact reason "life" has never and will never be adequately defined without arbitrary boundaries). And don't condescend to me about thinking straight when you're clearly making logical jumps to justify an "ultimate good" which is totally impotent and weak. It's very easy to tell this is some kind of weird psychological complex where you wish to believe ultimate good is some sort of impotence and weakness, which likely stems from some sort of persecution complex in your own personality.

[Anonymous No.19021375]

>>19021324
With Zizek, everybody's always negotiating with the Limit, and passing through the Limit you exit any and all coordinates which would have made the passage meaningful and worthwhile to begin with. It kills that "for which" you are passing in the first place. This is the finger-trap.

>parinirvana

I'd say parinirvana is a final and perfect death, death without the lamella "recoiling" off the inherent inconsistency of Nothing back into life. The real blackpill is that the return to life has nothing to do with a conscious decision to return, but is more like an involuntary "ontological" tic.

>>19021328
Good, cause the baby won't stop shitting in it.

[Anonymous No.19021379]

>>19021372
>p-persecution complex!!!!

Kek spare me the fembrain psychoanalysis, you cringy dolt.

[Anonymous No.19021380]

>>19021372
>another brainlet who thinks he's being insightful by armchair psychologizing metaphysics

[Anonymous No.19021421]

>>19021379
>>19021380
The "psychology" is only a guess, an additional observation. I'd still like you to respond to the fact that you have arbitrarily decoupled two things which are fundamentally co-dependent for no justifiable reason whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.19021446]

>>19021421
If Life (in the most eminent sense) is trapped in the World, then it stands to reason it is independent of. It is the World which is dependent on Life, not the other way around.

All of this follows naturally from the Gnostic understanding of our predicament.

[Anonymous No.19021497]

>>19021446
Life is the world and the world is life. You cannot rationally separate these two principles without appealing to "common sense" or other arbitrary criteria.

[Anonymous No.19021508]

>>19021497
Ok, but the Gnostics don't buy that, and you're just going to have to deal with it.

[Anonymous No.19021664]

>>19021508
I can deal with it just fine, I'm just interested to see how they can maintain such an assertion without appeals to belief.

[Anonymous No.19021672]

>>19021375
>passing through the Limit you exit any and all coordinates which would have made the passage meaningful and worthwhile
That just seems like a natural consequence of exiting all ontological points of reference to me. The passage through the Limit, and the gnostic goal in general, is meaningful insofar as it represents an alternative to the World. But that alternative being completely removed from the World, once it's reached I would imagine that the whole process of escape becomes as meaningless as everything else that you've just left behind. Same thing as the "desire for Nirvana" conundrum in Buddhism (which isn't even really one).
>is more like an involuntary "ontological" tic.
The recycling is reflexive, not coercive? I guess you could see it as a blackpill, but it doesn't really change anything in the end. Even the Tibetans had the same intuition that this kind of yearning for being was purely internal, not imposed.

[Anonymous No.19021694]

>>19021672
It is a natural consequence, and it's why Zizek says it is unthinkable, that these coordinates are far harder to "unthink" than we believe they are.

>The recycling is reflexive?

Yes, but Zizek's innovation consists in formalizing that through Hegel and Lacan.

[Anonymous No.19021757]

What a dumpster fire. You suck.

[Anonymous No.19022431]

>>19019966
the world isnt merely evil. it isnt in itself the Finality or the Ought either. also an ultimate good without a dyad is impredicable and unascertainable. by stating evil has no part or issue pertinent to the Good is not only myopic but indicative of a lack of spirituality/serious understanding. don’t take mythology literally, its a literal device.

[Anonymous No.19022893]

>>19021757
no u

[Anonymous No.19022903]

>gnostic thread
>ctrl+f
>Magic
>0/0 results
What the fuck is wrong with /lit/. How is it that /x/ is better at reading esoteric texts and learning from them? This thread sucks.

[Anonymous No.19022914]

>>19022903
Magic in Gnosticism is pretty subterranean. It's basically just the Book of Jeu

[Anonymous No.19022922]

>>19022903
/x/ is retard central and their understanding of Gnosticism is meme tier

[Anonymous No.19022992]

>>19022914
Isn't most chaos magic and like the entire lesser keys of solomon gnostic?

[Anonymous No.19022995]

>>19022914
you're a Jeu

[Anonymous No.19023140]

>>19022992
Why would it be

[Anonymous No.19023207]

>>19022992
Nah, has nothing to do with it. Chaos Magic is basically Deleuze with a dash of discordianism.

[Anonymous No.19023239]

>>19023207
What's the deal with Deleuze?

[Anonymous No.19023254]

>>19023239
the whole degenerate tranny chaos magician thing came out of bastardizations of crowley and deleuze and filtered down into morrison and his fetish for chaos magic and all that, not a thematic gnosticism is interested in at all (even if the Invisibles is explicitly gnostic, but its idea of the Pleroma is a polysexual eden pretty much)

[Anonymous No.19023365]

>>19020109
What did it look like?

[Anonymous No.19023391]

>be me
>writing my upcoming thread about the true meaning of monism and the true meaning of absence
>be in this thread
>google "deleuze gnostic" on a whim
>click this shit: https://books.google.ro/books?id=bZA8oiXJBQ4C&pg=PA142&lpg=PA142&dq=deleuze+gnostic&source=bl&ots=cVxcRVRuNB&sig=ACfU3U0ibLmpuPgETsJnmXx7jvxvc522VA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj7sYCIjfXyAhWWgf0HHUSBDvgQ6AF6BAgCEAM#v=onepage&q&f=false
>randomly scroll down
>MFW

[Anonymous No.19023420]

>>19023391

ALSO, this mentions Laruelle: https://non.copyriot.com/the-repetition-of-generic-gnostic-matrices/

[Anonymous No.19023423]

>>19020170
>I'm sure you'd keep preaching the nonexistence of evil and the truth of emanationism if I flayed you alive, right?
Your entire worldview is utterly refuted by the mere fact that suffering exists. Cope harder.
They don't understand this because they are essentially bourgeois dabblers. Here to preach "peace and love maaaaaan peace and love, God is good" even while a veritable sea of incomprehensible suffering swirls around them.
Suffering is an abstract, philosophical concept for them.
If pressed they will swear that they have "suffered deeply" yet they have no appreciation for it as a reality. Suffering is just a theory to them, a dispassionate idea, a mathematical variable to weigh against other variables. They are literal monsters. The demiurge given flesh.

[Anonymous No.19023467]

>>19023420
I've read that, great article, great exposition on what Laruelle really means by identity and sameness.

>>19023423
Couldn't have said it better myself. The embers of hippies, not even flower children.

[Anonymous No.19023478]

>>19023420
Lmao who made that? Gnosticism has officially hit the bigtime.

Based!

[Anonymous No.19023534]

I haven't read any of this thread and I'm not going to. Gnosticism isn't a topic that deserves 225 replies.

[Anonymous No.19023544]

I'm just tired of mainline Christians. Their entire fucking religion revolves around their god's passion and suffering and yet they're the only ones who don't seem to take suffering seriously at all. They've been conditioned to just dismiss it with a handwave as though it's been solved.
It's like they are dead inside, they have no sense of the adventure of life, it's like they have no apprehension of what makes suffering so unbearably tragic, it's just something you endure like a stone or worse just outright pretend it doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.19023559]

>>19023544
I want to cave the face in of anyone whose ever posted "if god gud y bad ting happen????? :("

[Anonymous No.19023594]

>>19023559
Yeah it must fill you with violent rage when your entire religious framework can be demolished by such a simple question.

[Anonymous No.19023622]

>>19023594
I was posting in agreement with you, but I can see why you'd take it that way

[Anonymous No.19023624]

IMO the universe is best understand as a battle between cosmic forces of good and evil, with the souls of men as the warriors and Earth as the field. It is the most natural to how people actually think, it maintains the adventure and meaning of life, and it still offers a hope of salvation.
But Christians couldn't tolerate such a story because it wasn't enough for their god to just be powerful and knowing and present, he had to be ALL powerful and ALL knowing and ALL present, even though this leads to obvious and ridiculous contradictions that even children can see through.

[Anonymous No.19023630]

>>19023624
gay retard

[Anonymous No.19023645]

>>19023624
based

>>19023630
le shades of le grey le game of le thrones

[Anonymous No.19023705]

>>19023645
>le shades of le grey le game of le thrones
I don't know why this made me laugh like a retard

[Anonymous No.19023746]

What does the dream of two snakes eating one snake means? One is biting him on the neck and other is biting him the tail.

[Anonymous No.19023768]

>>19019966
Can someone explain dualism vs nondualism to me? I tried googlin it but it seems like depending on the context the meaning changes a lot

[Anonymous No.19023776]

>>19023768
>can someone explain this incredibly abstract thing to me?
>yes i'll show zero effort in my 1 line spoonfeed me post
>no I won't provide context

[Anonymous No.19023794]

>>19023645
>le game of le thrones
better than a "battle between cosmic forces of good and evil"

>>19023705
because you are

[Anonymous No.19023797]

>>19023776
ok... is the dualism in this thread being used to denote the possible separation between mind/body, reality vs perceived reality, or God and ultimate good vs Demiurge and ultimate Evil?

[Anonymous No.19023801]

>>19023794
Seethe

[Anonymous No.19023806]

>>19023768
dualism = 2 opposite realities
non-dualism = one reality

you are welcome

[Anonymous No.19023821]

>>19023768
Monism: there is one thing
Dualism: there are two things
Nondualism: there aren't two things

[Anonymous No.19023828]

>>19023768
the very basic rude idea itt is that for dualism, good and evil are real things with real essences that can never be made to play nice.

non-dualism is about saying that they're, more or less, categories or subjective interpretations of an underlying reality which is neither good nor evil

[Anonymous No.19023930]

What is some distinctly gnostic art? Music, film, etc

[Anonymous No.19023942]

>>19023930
pic related

[Anonymous No.19023964]

>>19023746
You want to fuck your mother

[Anonymous No.19023971]

>>19023930
Eden: It's an Endless World!
I know it's a manga but it draws heavily upon gnostic themes. Good story too.

[Anonymous No.19024057]

"And God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good. And the evening and morning were the sixth day"

[Anonymous No.19024079]

>>19024057
lol

[Anonymous No.19024102]

>>19020364
All the actual criticisms you have are essentially the problem of evil except I don't believe gnostics give the title of omnipotent to any of the righteous entities

[Anonymous No.19024103]

>>19019988