/lit/ has better conversations on gnosticism than /x/ does

[Anonymous No.21643515]

if you talk about gnosticism on /x/ then everyone starts talking about archons, soul traps, the matrix etc (basically youtube meme stuff); meanwhile on /lit/ people are actually capable of talking about gnosticism in a meaningful way thats probably truer to the tradition than contemporary meme gnosticism.

I lost count on how many people on /x/ throw around terms like the monad or the demiurge but have never read plato in their entire lives and dont understand how these concepts actually relate to gnosticism. why is it that /lit/ has better conversations about esoterica than /x/ itself does?

[Anonymous No.21643537]

>>21643515
I was in that thread and yes, they're cringe but so is the one dude sperging about how gnosticism is platonism. /x is for paranormal shit, take philosophy to /his.

[Anonymous No.21643549]

>>21643537
ehhh, it was a preexisting thread on gnosticism. should any thread on gnosticism on /x/ be strictly contained to meme gnosticism? even at the expense of truth? the valentinians themselves had a theology that was explicitly based on platonism. you cant divorce gnosticism from platonism

[Anonymous No.21643562]

>>21643515
if you had a hint of critical reasoning skills you could have answered this yourself. manifestly a literature board will have denizens more likely to be familiar with literature then the denizen of a supernatural board whose primary subject does not necissarily concern literature. This is true for many subjects whose fundemental contents are literary. philosophy, religion, political history, etc.
>>21643537
>take philosophy to /his.
you are a retard if you actually believe this.

[Anonymous No.21643567]

>>21643562
>anon doesnt realize the OP is a prompt for humorous discussion disguised as a question

[Anonymous No.21643575]

>>21643537
/his/ are absolutely clueless when it comes to anything esoteric. You´re just going to get a bunch of Christfags screaming about the Bible and Satan.

[Anonymous No.21643585]

>>21643567
anon, I have a small window of time each day when I am lucid, and I prefer to use it to be angry at retards and show them just how stupid they are. Please dont ruin this for me.

[Anonymous No.21643586]

>>21643515
I just listened to several hours of James Lindsay on the subject
https://youtu.be/pwUUlx1HhzA
It was quite enlightening yet also terribly disconcerting, it's new subject matter to me so I will reserve full judgement for now.

[Anonymous No.21643589]

>>21643537
>>21643575
this is so true. /his/ is a fun board but the christianity shills really bring down the discussion. I find it funny how /his/ is often a shadow religion board, meanwhile /lit/ is often a shadow esoterica board. in 4chan land nothing is what it seems

[Anonymous No.21643591]

>>21643575
you get that here too retard. and its not just esoteric, its anything that requires slight analytical reasoning or primary source knowledge. that includes the non esoteric religious and non religious stuff too.

[Anonymous No.21643593]

>>21643589
ah, are you new? lit also has a pretty consistent christfag population. and the board is nowhere near dominated by esoterica, even if it does have it.

[Anonymous No.21643605]

>>21643593
not to be pedantic but I wrote that /lit/ is *often* a shadow esoterica board (which is true), I didnt say that it was dominated by it. I understand how my meaning could get misunderstood though

[Anonymous No.21643611]

>>21643586
ive just recently heard of it and this kind of 'woke gnosticism' that he's describing is completely new to me. im almost wondering if this guy isnt just trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

in all fairness I havent watched his material and dont know his arguments but just from reading the synopsis he sounds like a more high brow cultural grifter

[Anonymous No.21643615]

>>21643515
Gnosis is less intellectual, and more intuitive. Schizos/mystics/creatives/spiritualists can be overly intuitive and rapidly inclusive of novel ideas and concepts because of their ability to quickly find their common denominators beyond any factoids or particulars (or their essential "essence", in a metaphysical sense). Regardless, intellectual knowledge in esoterica is mostly superfluous, diversionary, and only necessary if you're a hylic or you want to piss off non-Gnostic Christians and argue over Scripture. Otherwise, this knowledge is innate, will find ways of unveiling Itself to you, and transcends any single philosophy—they all draw from the same Well.

[Anonymous No.21643628]

>>21643611
>woke gnosticism'
There are three lectures with that video series. He goes into detail, it's not woke gnosticism per se but the wokeism sprung from gnostic through. I was listening at work so I couldn't pay as much attention as I needed to but he seemed to be talking about overlapping elements with roots in gnostic and hermetic though at least as I currently understand it.

[Anonymous No.21643630]

>>21643615
what you say may be true but it doesnt change the fact that /lit/ seems to have better serious discussions on this stuff than /x/ does.

its really frustrating trying to discuss the finer points of gnosticism without having someone interject about reptilian archons and a matrix soul trap that is harvesting loosh after you die. do you get where im coming from?

[Anonymous No.21643631]

>>21643630
Get over yourself fag

[Anonymous No.21643639]

>>21643631
who hurt you?

[Anonymous No.21643665]

>>21643615
actually hermeticism and gnosticism have a pretty close connection sometimes. hermeticism IS an intellectual, systematic approach towards esoterica, nothing hylic about that. I think youre painting with an overly broad brush here anon

[Anonymous No.21643681]

>>21643630
Yes, I do. Ecstatic revelation can very quickly become dysphoric if you're only moving your mind and not your body as well. /x/ is its own soul trap, but so are most terminally online spaces. Your best bet would probably be to look up modern scholars, both secular and religious, who specialize in Christian esoterica and correspond with them.

[Anonymous No.21643698]

>>21643681
I think theres a misunderstanding here. im talking about a more sophisticated discussion of gnosticism in a casual sense. I can learn all I want to from a book or through correspondence with various authors, however my intent here isnt about acquiring knowledge (this was your interpolation, not mine) rather its more about entertainment, which is the same reason everyone else posts stuff on 4chan, to discuss things

[Anonymous No.21643700]

>>21643628
"Wokeism" doesn't exist, "woke" is a word used by boomers to describe anything that isn't milquetoast Reagan-era conservatism

"Woke" was originally hood slang for being acutely aware of the truth, which of course every single person from every school of thought is going to say that they are, now it's just used by out of touch politispergs who probably unironically fell for Qtard bullshit and needed a new word to use besides "liberal", "progressive", or "SJW" after those terms were beaten to death, it's no different from trannies on Twitter calling people "chud"

Actual IRL Gnostics from antiquity were too busy trying to find ways to avoid Yaldabaoth and the fire-seas to be even remotely interested in worldly politics and culture wars

[Anonymous No.21643749]

>>21643515
Books with each of those settings?