Hello
Heideana
Catawampus and Zen Gnostic for their graciousness in answering my
questions. My name is Hopkins and I'm reviving my interest in the
Gnostic view after years of chasing the eastern dream from the
existential atheist position...or some variation of it. Heideana is
short for Heidegger's Analytic, which is a bit of an existential dream
more then anything else/that is a name I use for purposes of both
consulting and writing/philosophizing...or something like that.
I’ve started to slowly work my way thru both the Nag Hammadi and Dead
Sea Scrolls using my old Jerusalem bible and the Gnostic Bible to help
navigate my reading. I’ve also got a copy of the Idiot's guide to
Gnosticism which, at least academically, seems to provide a great
gestalt of the landscape. I'm also kinda/sorta grounded in Heidegger,
Kierkegaard, Levinas and a bit of Derrida for some basic
phenomenological investigation on good days; however my real education
and background is in quality healthcare stuff…
I just re-read Catawampus and Zen Gnostic's gracious responses to my
question as they were bantering and realize how naive I am and how
much there is to learn...Yesterday, I was reading about the Cathars,
which referred me back to the Manichaean Literature and came across
the notion of complete dualism and what it means to have complete
separation of good and evil as the final outcome and the problematic
of the completely good God and free-will…yow! I’d never thought of
that one and didn’t see it coming…somehow it really helped inform me
about what C and ZG bantering about…
I also came across the various meanings of Jesus and Christ and admit
my head is spinning a bit…I came across the notion of the “suffering
Christ” and think its’ my handle/access to exploring them.
I have to own my initial attraction to Gnosticism when Elaine Pagel’s
book first came out was the notion of the demiurge, which was over 20
years ago. I’d been very uncomfortable with the Old Testament god
because he was mean and cruel and somehow not totally omnipotent if he
was playing dice with the devil using Job. The light went on when I
read about the “demiurge”, which I suspend with quo marks only because
it breaks up so much when you try to frame the meaning with so many of
the different viewpoints available.
Anyhow, that’s a bit of who I am and what my philosophical groundings
are. Much thanks in advance for any help I can get from the group
time-to-time about questions I may have during my readings. Its’ most
appreciated…Heideana
Catawumpus
> My name is Hopkins and I'm reviving my interest in the
> Gnostic view after years of chasing the eastern dream from the
> existential atheist position...or some variation of it. Heideana is
> short for Heidegger's Analytic, which is a bit of an existential dream
> more then anything else/that is a name I use for purposes of both
> consulting and writing/philosophizing...or something like that.
Ah, and there I was thinking of you as a Swiss orphan-girl.
http://www.antiqbook.com/boox/blo/3404.shtml
http://cdn.harpercollins.com/harperimages/isbn/large/4/9780688145194.jpg
> I've started to slowly work my way thru both the Nag Hammadi and Dead
> Sea Scrolls using my old Jerusalem bible and the Gnostic Bible to help
> navigate my reading. I've also got a copy of the Idiot's guide to
> Gnosticism which, at least academically, seems to provide a great
> gestalt of the landscape. I'm also kinda/sorta grounded in Heidegger,
> Kierkegaard, Levinas and a bit of Derrida for some basic
> phenomenological investigation on good days; however my real education
> and background is in quality healthcare stuff.
If you're looking for a good intro, I would recommend _The
Gnostic Religion_, by Hans Jonas, or else Kurt Rudolph's
_Gnosis: the Nature and History of Gnosticism_. Either of them
will do the job, but Jonas is my favorite and might be the
best choice for you, too. He studied with Heidegger and throws
in a very nice essay where he discusses existentialism in
relation to the gnostic perspective, or vice-versa. Rudolph is
more nuts-and-bolts.
I like all the folks you've listed, though I never got too
far with Levinas. Is "the Gnostic Bible" the Meyer and
Barnstone anthology? Lotta good stuff there, although M&B make
some questionable decisions.
> Yesterday, I was reading about the Cathars,
> which referred me back to the Manichaean Literature and came across
> the notion of complete dualism and what it means to have complete
> separation of good and evil as the final outcome and the problematic
> of the completely good God and free-will...yow! I'd never thought of
> that one and didn't see it coming...Ksomehow it really helped inform me
> about what C and ZG bantering about...?
I don't remember that coming up. ZG is very unhappy with
the gnostics' world-rejecting, life-denying outlook and
replies by misrepresenting gnosticism, trying to make it match
his own point of view. He chose the Valentinians, in
particular: logical, since they're one of the more
conservative gnostic schools. But I showed where the evidence
in the ancient sources contradicts him.
> I also came across the various meanings of Jesus and Christ and admit
> my head is spinning a bit!
Understandable. Jesus and Christ are sometimes split into
two different people with multiple versions of each.
Especially confusing the first time through. Helps to focus on
individual myths or systems.
> came across the notion of the suffering
> Christ and think its my handle/access to exploring them.
In gnosticism, Christ is often unsuffering, either because
he escapes the flesh or because he was never fleshly in the
first place: one of the major differences between orthodox and
gnostic Christology.
> I have to own my initial attraction to Gnosticism when Elaine Pagel's
> book first came out was the notion of the demiurge, which was over 20
> years ago. I'd been very uncomfortable with the Old Testament god
> because he was mean and cruel and somehow not totally omnipotent if he
> was playing dice with the devil using Job.
I agree about the Creator's cruelty. The dice thing seems
like less of a problem. Pagel's book -- assuming you mean
_The Gnostic Gospels_ -- does well at bringing out the politics
in early Christianity.
> The light went on when I
> read about the "demiurge", which I suspend with quo marks only because
> it breaks up so much when you try to frame the meaning with so many of
> the different viewpoints available.
I know what you mean. Sometimes you see just one demiurge
but others you find a whole bunch. Sometimes he's formed
within the pleroma but others he's never there. Sometimes he's
destroyed, others he survives. Etc. The way it is in
gnosticism: many different schools and writings, some equipped
with conflicts of their own.
-- Catawumpus
P.S. The type in your last post did some weird stuff when
it got here (I fixed it in my reply), so if you could stick
with whatever you were doing before, that would make follow-ups
easier, at least for me.
zen gnostic
> Hi -- I realized that I should introduce myself to the group and thank
> Catawampus and Zen Gnostic for their graciousness in answering my
> questions. My name is Hopkins and I'm reviving my interest in the
> Gnostic view after years of chasing the eastern dream from the
> existential atheist position...or some variation of it. Heideana is
> short for Heidegger's Analytic, which is a bit of an existential dream
> more then anything else/that is a name I use for purposes of both
> consulting and writing/philosophizing...or something like that.
Nice meeting you. My nick of Zen Gnostic comes from Dan Simmons
Hyperion and Endymion series. Nothing more complex than that although
I do like the fact that the title is so general as to be impossible to
pin down to any precise meaning.
>
> I’ve started to slowly work my way thru both the Nag Hammadi and Dead
> Sea Scrolls using my old Jerusalem bible and the Gnostic Bible to help
> navigate my reading. I’ve also got a copy of the Idiot's guide to
> Gnosticism which, at least academically, seems to provide a great
> gestalt of the landscape. I'm also kinda/sorta grounded in Heidegger,
> Kierkegaard, Levinas and a bit of Derrida for some basic
> phenomenological investigation on good days; however my real education
> and background is in quality healthcare stuff…
Like you my real education has been healthcare for obvious reasons.
Google Clo2 for an interesting chemical making the rounds in
alternative care...very interesting! As to your work I see you take a
philosophical approach similar to our friend Catawumpus. Other than
Nietzsche I've not found much use for philosophy. Any gnosis received
from books generally come from mythologies. Everything from the Native
Americans to present day Clive Barker, Dan Simmons, Tom Robbins
(reading one by him now) type authors.
>
> I just re-read Catawampus and Zen Gnostic's gracious responses to my
> question as they were bantering and realize how naive I am and how
> much there is to learn...Yesterday, I was reading about the Cathars,
> which referred me back to the Manichaean Literature and came across
> the notion of complete dualism and what it means to have complete
> separation of good and evil as the final outcome and the problematic
> of the completely good God and free-will…yow! I’d never thought of
> that one and didn’t see it coming…somehow it really helped inform me
> about what C and ZG bantering about…
>
> I also came across the various meanings of Jesus and Christ and admit
> my head is spinning a bit…I came across the notion of the “suffering
> Christ” and think its’ my handle/access to exploring them.
In one of the books by Dan Simmons a creature called the Shrike is
used. He is from the AI god(s) and made of thorns of steel. Those who
get captured are implanted on the tree of thorns. There, the suffering
of thousands are accumulated to entice the human god of empathy (in
which they wish to kill). A good story if you get the time.
>
> I have to own my initial attraction to Gnosticism when Elaine Pagel’s
> book first came out was the notion of the demiurge, which was over 20
> years ago. I’d been very uncomfortable with the Old Testament god
> because he was mean and cruel and somehow not totally omnipotent if he
> was playing dice with the devil using Job.
You speak of the demiurge and the "mean and cruel" old testament G-d .
Perhaps they are one in the same...
In any case life was (and is) mean and cruel so we shouldn't be
surprised if G-d is described as such.
As for Job...I like the phrase "playing dice" as there does seam to be
some grand cosmic game at play and winner is decided not by G-d but by
the players such as Job. It wouldn't be as interesting if it were not
so would it?
>The light went on when I
> read about the “demiurge”, which I suspend with quo marks only because
> it breaks up so much when you try to frame the meaning with so many of
> the different viewpoints available.
Nice to see an open mind in the group about who and what the
"demiurge" is.
>
> Anyhow, that’s a bit of who I am and what my philosophical groundings
> are. Much thanks in advance for any help I can get from the group
> time-to-time about questions I may have during my readings. Its’ most
> appreciated…Heideana
No thanks needed. I find your post most enjoyable.
Catawumpus
> My nick of Zen Gnostic
Your nym is misleading, since you're fundamentally opposed
to the gnostic perspective, for example when you say, "To
state there are more than one god is arrogance. No one can know
such a thing. Pure speculation and arrogance." So the
gnostic division of the Creator of this world from the true God
is just arrogance and speculation to you. What's more, you
choose the flattering picture of the demiurge in Plato over the
critical one in gnosticism, which you call a corrupted
understanding, again showing that you firmly reject the gnostic
outlook.
Of course you're welcome to your opinions. Trouble is you
tend to confuse them with the gnostics' thinking and to
misrepresent gnosticism in order to make it conform to your own
notions. For example, you falsely say you're "in line with
and supported by the teachings of Valentinus." The evidence in
the historical sources clearly contradicts you, since
Valentinus and his followers lower the Creator from God Supreme
to inferior demiurge: precisely what you object to. They
also consider ordinary bodies corruption, contrary to your idea
the body is the temple of the soul, and describe Jesus as a
heavenly emmanation: very different from your position that he
was a mortal man.
Chapter and verse in my earlier posts, but I'll dig it all
up again if anyone asks.
> I've not found much use for philosophy. Any gnosis received
> from books generally come from mythologies. Everything from the Native
> Americans to present day Clive Barker, Dan Simmons, Tom Robbins
> (reading one by him now) type authors.
Lots of mythology in gnosticism, but no, not every myth is
gnostic.
> You speak of the demiurge and the "mean and cruel" old testament G-d .
> Perhaps they are one in the same...
Ain't no "perhaps" necessary. You really ought to do some
reading. The gnostic demiurge is clearly connected with the
OT deity in a number of gnostic systems and writings. Examples:
in Ptolemy he asserts, "It is I who am God; apart from me
there is no one." In the Apocryphon of John, Yaldabaoth states
"I am a jealous God and there is no other God beside me."
In the Gospel of the Egyptians, Sakla says, "I am a jealous
god, and apart from me nothing has come into being," and in the
2nd Treatise of the Great Seth, the Archon declares, "I am a
jealous God, who brings the sins of the fathers upon the
children for three and four generations." The sorta God in the
Testimony of Truth ("What sort of God is this?") says "I am
the jealous God. I will bring the sins of the fathers upon the
children until three and four generations."
In case you don't recognize those remarks, Yahweh explains
that he's a jealous God in Exodus 20:5, Exodus 34:14, and
Deuteronomy 5:9; others say the same of him in Deuteronomy 6:15
and Joshua 24:19. In Exodus 20:5 and 34:7 he describes
himself "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children
and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the
fourth generation." The same thought appears in Num. 14:18 and
Deuteronomy 5:9. And he repeatedly insists that there's no
other God beside him (Isaiah 44:6-8, 45:5-6 and 45:21). So the
demiurge-Yahweh link is obvious.
> As for Job...I like the phrase "playing dice" as there does seam to be
> some grand cosmic game at play and winner is decided not by G-d but by
> the players such as Job.
No, Heideana had it right the first time: the players are
the Creator and Satan, who turn Job into the dice they're
rolling. Or Yahweh and Satan are lab-coated scientists and Job
is the rat they shock.
-- Catawumpus
zen gnostic
> zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com>:
>
> > My nick of Zen Gnostic
>
> Your nym is misleading, since you're fundamentally opposed
> to the gnostic perspective, for example when you say, "To
> state there are more than one god is arrogance. No one can know
> such a thing. Pure speculation and arrogance." So the
> gnostic division of the Creator of this world from the true God
> is just arrogance and speculation to you. What's more, you
> choose the flattering picture of the demiurge in Plato over the
> critical one in gnosticism, which you call a corrupted
> understanding, again showing that you firmly reject the gnostic
> outlook.
>
> Of course you're welcome to your opinions. Trouble is you
> tend to confuse them with the gnostics' thinking and to
> misrepresent gnosticism in order to make it conform to your own
> notions. For example, you falsely say you're "in line with
> and supported by the teachings of Valentinus." The evidence in
> the historical sources clearly contradicts you, since
> Valentinus and his followers lower the Creator from God Supreme
> to inferior demiurge: precisely what you object to. They
> also consider ordinary bodies corruption, contrary to your idea
> the body is the temple of the soul, and describe Jesus as a
> heavenly emmanation: very different from your position that he
> was a mortal man.
"the entirety was inside of him--the inconceivable, uncontained, who
is superior to all thought." Valentinus (Gospel of Truth 17:5-9)
>
> Chapter and verse in my earlier posts, but I'll dig it all
> up again if anyone asks.
>
> > I've not found much use for philosophy. Any gnosis received
> > from books generally come from mythologies. Everything from the Native
> > Americans to present day Clive Barker, Dan Simmons, Tom Robbins
> > (reading one by him now) type authors.
>
> Lots of mythology in gnosticism, but no, not every myth is
> gnostic.
A story which contains gnosis (eternal truths) is a myth, otherwise,
it is only a story.
So...it appears the author of the ten commandments is the demiurge.
You're a funny guy.
>
> > As for Job...I like the phrase "playing dice" as there does seam to be
> > some grand cosmic game at play and winner is decided not by G-d but by
> > the players such as Job.
>
> No, Heideana had it right the first time: the players are
> the Creator and Satan, who turn Job into the dice they're
> rolling. Or Yahweh and Satan are lab-coated scientists and Job
> is the rat they shock.
>
> -- Catawumpus
So Job had no free will at all huh. That was/is the freaking point of
the story!
Catawumpus
> "the entirety was inside of him--the inconceivable, uncontained, who
> is superior to all thought." Valentinus (Gospel of Truth 17:5-9)
Yep, that's what it says. Doesn't remove the falsehood in
your claim to be aligned with Valentinus. You contend
separating the Creator of this world from the true God is "pure
speculation and arrogance" -- but Valentinus and his
followers do precisely what you denounce, as I showed. You say
reducing the Creator to an inferior demiurge is a corrupted
understanding of Plato -- but again the Valentinians do exactly
what you condemn. You say the body is "the temple of the
soul" -- but the Valentinians reject the material world and say
the ordinary body is corruption. You describe Jesus as a
mortal man with mortal desires -- but the Valentinians view him
as a heavenly emmanation.
Again, you're welcome to your opinions. Problem is you've
got a habit of distorting gnosticism to make the gnostics
accept them. For example, you falsely claim Valentinus rejects
the concept of the demiurge. Dead wrong according to the
historical evidence, as I demonstrated before: Valentinus very
clearly distinguishes "the uncreated Father" from the
demiurge, a being who's created by Sophia while she's "deprived
of her spiritual substance." (Irenaeus AH 1.11.1.) Ditto
other Valentinians like Ptolemy, who divides Bythos, located up
"in the invisible and ineffable heights above," from the
demiurge, "creator of all animal and material substances," once
again the product of Sophia's fall. (AH 1.1.1. and 1.5.2.)
You want argue against gnosticism, go right ahead. Want to lie
about it? Not so good.
By the way, "the entirety" -- sometimes translated as "the
all" or "the totality" -- is a gnostic term of art denoting
the aeons as a group, leading to the idea that the all contains
an absence or a lack.
> A story which contains gnosis (eternal truths) is a myth, otherwise,
> it is only a story.
Not so. Gnosis is the spiritual knowledge asserted by the
gnostics (the Sethians, the Marcionites, the Naasenes, the
Valentinians, and so forth), for example the knowledge that the
Creator of this world is not the true God and the knowledge
his Creation is a prison, exile, or labyrinth. (It can also be
a synonym for gnosticism.)
> So...it appears the author of the ten commandments is the demiurge.
Exactly. As I've said before, gnosticism reduces the Lord
and Creator of this world from supreme deity to highly
inferior demiurge, an approach that you label "pure speculation
and arrogance."
> So Job had no free will at all huh.
So you read me as badly as you do the Bible. I'm pointing
out Heideana is right to say the Almighty "is playing dice
with the devil using Job." You confused yourself into thinking
he's one of the players rather than the dice that they're
playing with. Of course the dice can roll freely. Wouldn't be
much of a game otherwise.
-- Catawumpus
zen gnostic
> zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com>:
>
>
>
> Exactly. As I've said before, gnosticism reduces the Lord
> and Creator of this world from supreme deity to highly
> inferior demiurge, an approach that you label "pure speculation
> and arrogance."
>
Some of the commandments from the "evil demiurge."
'Honor your father and your mother.'
'You shall not murder.'
'You shall not commit adultery.'
'You shall not steal.'
'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
They don't appear to be malicious. A slip in his morality?
btw, the entirety means exactly that...or put another way God is "him
who surrounds every way while nothing surrounds him" (Gospel of Truth
22:22-26)
Heideana
> On Jun 17, 6:04 pm, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com>:
>
> > > So...it appears the author of the ten commandments is the demiurge.
>
> > Exactly. As I've said before, gnosticism reduces the Lord
> > and Creator of this world from supreme deity to highly
> > inferior demiurge, an approach that you label "pure speculation
> > and arrogance."
>
> Some of the commandments from the "evil demiurge."
>
> 'Honor your father and your mother.'
> 'You shall not murder.'
> 'You shall not commit adultery.'
> 'You shall not steal.'
> 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
>
> They don't appear to be malicious. A slip in his morality?
>
I think the issue would be something like the nature of "rules" and
"laws" to rupture in their immutability or something like that. My
other understanding is that the "demiurge's" creation isn't
necessarily all bad since the "suffering Christ" is trapped in
it...its' more a problem of half-truths'...
I'm beginning to wonder if the "world" is simply the place where our
"free choice" to choice good or evil plays out before we give-up our
choices of good or bad. There's something tied in the question of
"free-will" to choose good or evil that underlies and/or obscures the
horizon or storyline. Does anyone have the Cliff notes on how the
Christian Gnostics understood or dealt with question of free-will vs.
design vs. destiny vs. being pre-determined or "fated"? The "pre-
determined/fated" thread seems incredibly boring to me if I were a
being of giving...it might be interesting if I were the "demiurge"
with deficient creation skills to see my plan actual work....
> btw, the entirety means exactly that...or put another way God is "him
> who surrounds every way while nothing surrounds him" (Gospel of Truth
> 22:22-26)
But isn't there always the excesses of the entirety ala Emmanual
Levinas...perhaps as the interstial space in "matter" or "what
matters"?
Also, isn't everything a story or the "narrative of a life"?
Catawumpus
> Some of the commandments from the "evil demiurge."
> 'Honor your father and your mother.'
> 'You shall not murder.'
> 'You shall not commit adultery.'
> 'You shall not steal.'
> 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
> They don't appear to be malicious. A slip in his morality?
A slip of yours: you skipped all of the other commands in
the decalogue, frex Yahweh's admission that he's a jealous
deity who punishes children "unto the third and fourth
generation" for their fathers' sins; you didn't mention that he
makes death by stoning the punishment for those who disobey
his theocratic demands; you conveniently forgot that he insists
on being propitiated with blood-sacrifices; you somehow
neglected to mention that he creates evil (his own admission in
Isaiah 45:7); you neglected to say that he and Satan
collaborate in torturing Job, a perfect and upright man; you've
simply ignored the massacres he orders, the curses and the
plagues he sends, his willingness to destroy the righteous with
the wicked, etc.
> btw, the entirety means exactly that...or put another way God is "him
You're demonstrating your ignorance again. As I explained
before, in gnosticism "the entirety" (also translated "the
totality" or "the all") is a term of art referring to the aeons
understood as a group: not to literally everything, not to
God. You could have seen that for yourself if you had bothered
to do some reading. Examples: in Ptolemy's system, "the
aeons were set in order," after Sophia's fall, by the annointed
and the holy spirit, and the annointed then instructed them
about the Father, saying he's uncontained, incomprehensible and
so on. This leads immediately to an explanation about the
aeons, namely "the eternal permanence of the entirety is due to
the incomprehensible aspect of the parent," in distinction
from its "origin and forming," which are linked to the Father's
"comprehensible aspect, which is to say, its child."
Irenaeus, AH 1.2.5. "The entirety" here refers to the aeons in
particular, not to everything and anything, and not to the
Father, who's clearly distinguished from them. He's the source.
They're emmanations.
Likewise in the Gospel of Truth, which says right near the
beginning that the entirety searched for the Father ("the
entirety had searched for the one from whom they had
emmanated," GT 17:4-5), discriminating between the entirety and
God. As Bentley Layton writes, "the entire system of the
aeons that are lower than the second principle is 'the entirety.'"
_The Gnostic Scriptures_ 12. Since you're so new to the
subject, I don't blame you for tripping over this kind of thing.
But you definitely _are_ blameworthy for trying to pretend
that your ignorance is plain truth about the gnostics' thinking.
> who surrounds every way while nothing surrounds him" (Gospel of Truth
> 22:22-26)
You misread. The above refers to the Father, doesn't even
mention the entirety.
-- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
> My other understanding is that the "demiurge's" creation isn't
> necessarily all bad since the "suffering Christ" is trapped in
> it...its' more a problem of half-truths'...
You've got to be kidding. That's like contending a prison
must not really be all bad because the guards torture the
prisoners. Anyway, the demiurge and his creation don't have to
be all bad to be plenty bad enough.
> Does anyone have the Cliff notes on how the
> Christian Gnostics understood or dealt with question of free-will vs.
> design vs. destiny vs. being pre-determined or "fated"?
Sure. Three classes of people, viz. hylics, psychics, and
pneumatics, i.e., material, natural (also translated as
animal, animate, or soulish), and spiritual. Hylics don't have
any chance at salvation: as material beings they're doomed
along with the world they belong to. Pneumatics are definitely
saved, just as gold isn't harmed by mud. Full salvation is
impossible for psychics, but they can swing in either direction.
ZG:
>> btw, the entirety means exactly that...or put another way God is "him
>> who surrounds every way while nothing surrounds him" (Gospel of Truth
>> 22:22-26)
Heidi:
> But isn't there always the excesses of the entirety ala Emmanual
> Levinas...perhaps as the interstial space in "matter" or "what
> matters"? Also, isn't everything a story or the "narrative of a life"?
ZG has the gnostics' story wrong. As I've already said to
him, "the entirety" is a gnostic term of art denoting the
aeons as a group, and the quote from the Gospel of Truth refers
to the Father alone.
-- Catawumpus
Heideana
> Heideana <heide...@pacbell.net>:
>
> > My other understanding is that the "demiurge's" creation isn't
> > necessarily all bad since the "suffering Christ" is trapped in
> > it...its' more a problem of half-truths'...
>
>>>You've got to be kidding. That's like contending a prison
>>> must not really be all bad because the guards torture the
>>> prisoners. Anyway, the demiurge and his creation don't have to
>>> be all bad to be plenty bad enough.
I’m on the same page with you I think…I was thinking that its’
sometimes easier to pass off lies if you mix them with some half-
truths, so to speak. I agree that his creation doesn’t need to be
totally evil to be plenty bad enough.
HD> > Does anyone have the Cliff notes on how the
> > Christian Gnostics understood or dealt with question of free-will vs.
> > design vs. destiny vs. being pre-determined or "fated"?
>
CT>>>:
>>>Sure. Three classes of people, viz. hylics, psychics, and
>>> pneumatics, i.e., material, natural (also translated as
> >>animal, animate, or soulish), and spiritual. Hylics don't have
> >>any chance at salvation: as material beings they're doomed
> >>along with the world they belong to. Pneumatics are definitely
> >>saved, just as gold isn't harmed by mud. Full salvation is
> >>impossible for psychics, but they can swing in either direction.
Hmmm…are there any apparent “outs” to allow the chance of salvation
for everyone? Are the Pneumatics like Boddisatva and Hylics like
those who need more time on the wheel of Karma and eventually get
reincarnated as Psychics who reincarnate eventually as Pneumatics?
Maybee Psychics are kinda of a purgatory holding place for souls in
transition from one incarnation to the next? I’m uncomfortable if
there’s truly a pre-ordainment without some room for movement/choice
of salvation…perhaps I’m reading something wrong? Its’ funny how this
problematic about the possibility of a personal relation with God (or
the Good) keeps popping up, no matter how much I try to move past it.
Apologies in advance, I know I asked for the Cliff notes
version….Hopkins
Catawumpus
> Iąm on the same page with you I thinkŠI was thinking that itsą
> sometimes easier to pass off lies if you mix them with some half-
> truths, so to speak. I agree that his creation doesnąt need to be
> totally evil to be plenty bad enough.
Sorry for misunderstanding. For some reason I thought you
meant the opposite. My mistake.
[hylics, psychics, and pneumatics]
> HmmmŠare there any apparent łouts˛ to allow the chance of salvation
> for everyone?
Not in this particular scheme. "The material element will
necessarily perish, in that it is unable to receive any
breath of incorruptibility." (Ptolemy according to Irenaeus in
AH 1.6.1.) So much for the hylics. And since the pleroma
excludes everything psychic (AH 1.7.1), nobody in that category
can be completely saved: a possibility open only to the
spiritual. Which makes sense in this story, where the material
and the natural are creatures of the world. Only the
pneumatic have a higher origin, only they can eventually ascend
to the divine realm.
> Are the Pneumatics like Boddisatva and Hylics like
> those who need more time on the wheel of Karma and eventually get
> reincarnated as Psychics who reincarnate eventually as Pneumatics?
Not really. Hylics are entirely material beings. Nothing
much happening with them. Psychics have the ability to
improve their fate through good works, but they lack the divine
element characterizing pneumatics.
> Maybee Psychics are kinda of a purgatory holding place for souls in
> transition from one incarnation to the next?
We're talking about already incarnated people, three types
of them, all presently in the flesh. But there's something
like what you're hoping for in the Apocryphon of John. Details
below.
> Iąm uncomfortable if
> thereąs truly a pre-ordainment without some room for movement/choice
> of salvation...perhaps Iąm reading something wrong?
Things get complicated here. It's not clear just how much
of this is preordained and how much is describing things as
they stand, including individual choices. Psychics at the very
least can influence their own fate: they're explicitly
credited with free will (Irenaeus, AH 1.6.1); they're able, tho
not necessarily willing to learn; and they proceed in
whichever direction they're inclined to move, either toward the
spiritual or toward the material.
> Itsą funny how this
> problematic about the possibility of a personal relation with God (or
> the Good) keeps popping up, no matter how much I try to move past it.
> Apologies in advance, I know I asked for the Cliff notes version.
No need to apologize. Makes sense to move from the simple
stuff to the complexities. Yes, there's a bunch. The
division of mankind into three categories that I sketched in is
found in some parts of gnosticism -- especially the
Valentinian school -- but in others it can be missing or at any
rate less consequential. For example, Marcion keeps the
Pauline distinction between the spiritual and natural or carnal
man (the _pneumatikos_ vs. the _psychikos anthropos_ in 1
Corinthians 2), but in his understanding Jesus offers salvation
to everyone, although not everyone accepts (Irenaeus, AH
1.27.3). To the Manichaeans, "all men and beasts," on the land
or in the water, contain the divine nature, which is
"continually bound, and shut up, and contaminated" in them (I'm
quoting from Augustine's _Anti-Faustus_ 3.5). In the
Apocryphon of John the savior responds to a series of questions
about the fate of the soul ((ApJohn 25:15ff) by explaining
that "those who are from the immovable race" will definitely be
saved. At the other extreme, those who gain knowledge and
then turn away will be damned. In between are those who become
victims of the counterfeit spirit: the archons throw them
back into the flesh, but it's possible for them to be liberated
by acquiring gnosis.
Just more notes, but I hope that they begin to fill things
in.
-- Catawumpus
zen gnostic
> zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com>:
>
> > 'Honor your father and your mother.'
> > 'You shall not murder.'
> > 'You shall not commit adultery.'
> > 'You shall not steal.'
> > 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
> > They don't appear to be malicious. A slip in his morality?
>
> A slip of yours: you skipped all of the other commands in
> the decalogue, frex Yahweh's admission that he's a jealous
> deity who punishes children "unto the third and fourth
> generation" for their fathers' sins; you didn't mention that he
> makes death by stoning the punishment for those who disobey
> his theocratic demands; you conveniently forgot that he insists
> on being propitiated with blood-sacrifices; you somehow
> neglected to mention that he creates evil (his own admission in
> Isaiah 45:7); you neglected to say that he and Satan
> collaborate in torturing Job, a perfect and upright man; you've
> simply ignored the massacres he orders, the curses and the
> plagues he sends, his willingness to destroy the righteous with
> the wicked, etc.
My point is that the demiurge cannot be described as "all evil" given
the 10 commandments. The commandments I provided are given to help
transcend the people to a higher plane of existence than that of
animal. I'm not sure (given these facts) how you or anyone can
maintain the purely negative concept of the demiurge.
Or in other words the Valentinian Monism argument wins out.
Heideana
>
> - Show quoted text -
But that's the precise question...if you have a system where there's
black "x" plus a white "y" on one side of the equal sign, and a "z" on
the other side represented by a pixilated mixture of black and white
spots that looks grey when you don't examine it too closely. The idea
is to separate all the white dots from the black dots in the grey "z"
so you know how much x and y are in it. Once x is separated from y,
there is no "contamination" of one by the other. If you subsitute
"evil" for x and "good" for y, then your completely separating the two
from each other and there is no evil in good and no good in evil and
never the "twain" shall meet.
If I'm understanding things correctly then I think solving that
equation is the end game/"second coming of Christ"/"The Rapture",
etc... In the mean time, we're working on cleansing ourselves to get
out of the "grey" in the equation before hand using the gift of
"gnosis" to recognize the "real nature of the world"....sorry it
that's too simplistic.
Catawampus can probably explicate it "clearer" then I...HD
Heideana
>
> - Show quoted text -
I meant to ask...how many folks are actually in this forum? Thanks
again to all for responding to my questions!
Catawumpus
> My point is that the demiurge cannot be described as "all evil" given
> the 10 commandments.
Your point is pointless, since I never claimed that the OT
deity has to be considered "all evil." As I've already
mentioned, the picture of him the Bible, the details of his law
very much included, is good reason to call him evil even
though the law contains some better commandments along with its
worse ones.
Incidentally, your examples aren't very good. Honor one's
father and mother, for example. Why? What did they do to
deserve it? What if they beat and starve you? They definitely
brought a child into this world, which hardly seems like an
honorable thing to do. Evidently one is supposed to honor them
merely because of their status as parents, the way one is
forced to follow the commandment just because it comes from the
Lord and Creator: a very _worldly_ system of values, in
contrast to your notion below about a higher plane of existence.
Also notice the contrast to Jesus' teachings in opposition
to the family in the Gospels. Examples include "Call no man
your father upon the earth" (Matthew 23:9), "If any man come to
me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and
children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also
he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26), "Who is my mother?
and who are my brethren?" (Matt. 12:48, where Jesus refuses his
natural family), "Let the dead bury their dead," Jesus
commanding a follower to skip his father's burial (Matthew 8:22
and Luke 9:60), and "I came not to send peace, but a sword"
-- Matthew 10:34, Luke 12:51 -- where he goes on "For I am come
to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother," etc. Exactly the opposite of the
Creator's law.
> The commandments I provided are given to help
> transcend the people to a higher plane of existence than that of
> animal.
Most of the commandments you quoted are about property and
procreation: animal life.
> I'm not sure (given these facts) how you or anyone can
> maintain the purely negative concept of the demiurge.
You're certainly lying, since I never claimed the demiurge
has to be called all evil. As I said to Heidi, he and his
Creation don't have to be all bad to be bad enough to merit the
label.
> Or in other words the Valentinian Monism argument wins out.
Judging by Valentinian thinking, you lose. In Valentinian
theology the Creator of this world is reduced from supreme
deity to highly inferior demiurge and divided from the true God.
Dualism. But you contend that's "pure speculation and
arrogance." If required to consider the demiurge, you pick the
flattering picture in Plato over the critical one in
gnosticism, which you insist is corrupted. So the Valentinians'
negative opinion of the demiurge is an attack on your own
outlook. You're welcome to your personal views, but they're in
opposition to the gnostics.'
-- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
> zen gnostic <borger...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> My point is that the demiurge cannot be described as "all evil" given
>> the 10 commandments.
> But that's the precise question...if you have a system where there's
> black "x" plus a white "y" on one side of the equal sign, and a "z" on
> the other side represented by a pixilated mixture of black and white
> spots that looks grey when you don't examine it too closely. The idea
> is to separate all the white dots from the black dots in the grey "z"
> so you know how much x and y are in it. Once x is separated from y,
> there is no "contamination" of one by the other. If you subsitute
> "evil" for x and "good" for y, then your completely separating the two
> from each other and there is no evil in good and no good in evil and
> never the "twain" shall meet.
> If I'm understanding things correctly then I think solving that
> equation is the end game/"second coming of Christ"/"The Rapture",
> etc... In the mean time, we're working on cleansing ourselves to get
> out of the "grey" in the equation before hand using the gift of
> "gnosis" to recognize the "real nature of the world"....sorry it
> that's too simplistic.
> Catawampus can probably explicate it "clearer" then I...
I know what you're saying. In gnosticism, the mix of good
and evil is a problem that requires fixing. Rather than
justifying the Creation or exonerating its Creator the presence
of evil alongside good is evidence that something is very
wrong (evil polluted the good or the good tumbled into the evil
world) and needs to be remedied. The answer is to separate
one from the other, for example by liberating the good from its
worldly prison.
-- Catawumpus
zen gnostic
> zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com>:
>
>
>
> Judging by Valentinian thinking, you lose. In Valentinian
> theology the Creator of this world is reduced from supreme
> deity to highly inferior demiurge and divided from the true God.
> Dualism. But you contend that's "pure speculation and
> arrogance." If required to consider the demiurge, you pick the
> flattering picture in Plato over the critical one in
> gnosticism, which you insist is corrupted. So the Valentinians'
> negative opinion of the demiurge is an attack on your own
> outlook. You're welcome to your personal views, but they're in
> opposition to the gnostics.'
>
> -- Catawumpus
Sorry but Valentinus according to all the sources I've researched is
firmly in my philosophical corner.
While Gnostic traditions are typically regarded as dualistic, "a
standard element in the interpretation of Valentinianism and similar
forms of Gnosticism is the recognition that they are fundamentally
monistic" (Schoedel, William, "Gnostic Monism and the Gospel of Truth"
in Bentley Layton (ed.) The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, Vol.1: The
School of Valentinus, E.J. Brill, Leiden.).
"Valentinian gnosticism...differs essentially from dualism" (Pagels
1978)
zen gnostic
It is due to our ignorance of the true nature of reality that we
believe that things can be separated into opposites. This is discussed
in the Gospel of Philip: "Light and darkness, life and death, right
and left are mutually dependent; it is impossible for them to
separate. Accordingly the 'good' are not good, the 'bad' are not bad,
'life' is not life, 'death' is not death." (Gospel of Philip 53:14-23)
Catawumpus
>> In Valentinian
>> theology the Creator of this world is reduced from supreme
>> deity to highly inferior demiurge and divided from the true God.
>> Dualism. But you contend that's "pure speculation and
>> arrogance." If required to consider the demiurge, you pick the
>> flattering picture in Plato over the critical one in
>> gnosticism, which you insist is corrupted. So the Valentinians'
>> negative opinion of the demiurge is an attack on your own
>> outlook. You're welcome to your personal views, but they're in
>> opposition to the gnostics.'
zen gnostic <borger...@yahoo.com>:
> Sorry
You have alot to apologize for, but rather than correcting
your mistakes you just come up with new ones (though in
fairness you sometimes repeat the same errors you were carrying
with you when you came in).
> but Valentinus according to all the sources I've researched
In other words you're still cribbing from Wikipedia. When
are you going to do some reading?
> is firmly in my philosophical corner.
You have your head shoved firmly up your ass. As I showed
with evidence from the ancient sources, the Valentinians'
thinking is directly opposed to your personal outlook, contrary
to your claim to be aligned with Valentinus et al. We've
been over this several times now, but it won't hurt anything to
cover the ground again.
In your opinion, dividing God from the Maker of this world
is "pure speculation and arrogance," and if required to
consider the concept of a demiurge, you pick Plato's flattering
portrait over the critical picture in gnosticism, which you
label corrupted. But the Valentinians do just what you condemn.
Valentinus distinguishes "the uncreated Father" from the
demiurge, a being who's created by Sophia while she's "deprived
of her spiritual substance." (Irenaeus AH 1.11.1.) Ditto
other Valentinians like Ptolemy, who divides Bythos, located up
"in the invisible and ineffable heights above," from the
demiurge, "creator of all animal and material substances," once
again the product of Sophia's fall (Irenaeus AH 1.1.1. and
1.5.2); Heracleon, who explains pneumatics "worship neither the
creation nor the Demiurge, but the Father of truth" (I'm
quoting from Frag. 20), and Marcus, who similarly separates God
the Father from the demiurge, the Maker of this world (see
Irenaeus AH 1.16.3-1-17.2), who we're told "followed that which
was false."
So Valentinian theology makes a very clear division between
the demiurge and God: exactly what you object to and an
example of the dualism you wrongly contend isn't there. What's
more, the Valentinians share the negative opinion of the
Creator characteristic of gnosticism, not the positive one seen
in Platonic philosophy. Separating him from the true God
removes him from his traditional role as supreme being, and the
Valentinians go on from there, e.g., they describe him as
unspiritual (Valentinus), picture him doing evil (in the Gospel
of Truth), depict him as a combination of ignorance and
arrogance (Ptolemy), label him disgusting (Theodotus, _Excerpta
33.4), and accuse him of incompetence: Marcus. Once again
Valentinian thinking contradicts yours, here by criticizing the
Creator of the world.
You say that the body is the temple of the soul and you're
unhappy with judgments against the Creation. (You even
rejected Jesus' relatively mild teaching "Be passers-by" in the
Gospel of Thomas.) But the Valentinians look forward to
ascending to the pleroma leaving body and soul behind, and they
prophesy the destruction of material existence (example:
Ptolemy in Irenaeus, AH 1.7.1). Valentinus labels the ordinary
body "corruption" (Clement of Alexandria Strom. 3.59.3) and
teaches the nullification of this world (Strom. 4.89:1-3). Etc.
You like to think about Jesus as a "mortal man with mortal
desires." But the Valentinians see him as a heavenly
emmanation (Irenaeus AH 1.11.1, AH 1.2.6): "perfect beauty and
star of the fullness." Time and again the Valentinians
plainly stand opposed to your own beliefs despite your pretence
to the opposite.
> While Gnostic traditions are typically regarded as dualistic, "a
> standard element in the interpretation of Valentinianism and similar
> forms of Gnosticism is the recognition that they are fundamentally
> monistic" (Schoedel, William, "Gnostic Monism and the Gospel of Truth"
> in Bentley Layton (ed.) The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, Vol.1: The
> School of Valentinus, E.J. Brill, Leiden.).
> "Valentinian gnosticism...differs essentially from dualism" (Pagels
> 1978)
So the sum total of your research is just an argument from
authority lifted from Wikipedia. Truth be told the
Valentinian perspective includes any number of dualities. Some
examples: God vs. the demiurge, the divine realm vs. the
demiurge's Creation, incorruptibility vs. corruption, knowledge
versus ignorance, infinity vs. finitude, reality versus
illusion, completion versus deficiency, incorruptibility versus
corruption, and eternity vs. time.
-- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
>> In gnosticism, the mix of good
>> and evil is a problem that requires fixing. Rather than
>> justifying the Creation or exonerating its Creator the presence
>> of evil alongside good is evidence that something is very
>> wrong (evil polluted the good or the good tumbled into the evil
>> world) and needs to be remedied. The answer is to seate
>> one from the other, for example by liberating the good from its
>> worldly prison.
zen gnostic <borger...@yahoo.com>:
> It is due to our ignorance of the true nature of reality that we
> believe that things can be separated into opposites.
You've firmly established your ignorance of gnosticism and
your lack of interest in learning. Your pontifications on
reality's "true nature" are neither here nor there. But thanks
all the same.
> This is discussed in the Gospel of Philip: "Light and darkness, life and death, right
> and left are mutually dependent; it is impossible for them to
> separate. Accordingly the 'good' are not good, the 'bad' are not bad,
> 'life' is not life, 'death' is not death." (Gospel of Philip 53:14-23)
Interesting where you broke off the quote. The next thing
in the same passage is an assertion that "each will be
dispersed to its original source," showing that the idea "It is
impossible for them to separate" is highly qualified: come
the day they _will_ be unmixed. What's more, the mixes of life
and death, light and dark, etc. are distinguished from "the
things that are superior to the world," which are claimed to be
eternal. You left that out, too.
Also notice the immediately preceding section, which talks
about the annointed liberating "those who were alien" from
captivity in this world, rescuing the soul from its prison here:
that is, separating the spiritual from the material and
returning what belongs in the higher world from its place below.
Gospel of Philip 52:35-53:13.
-- Catawumpus
zen gnostic
> Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm>:
>
> >> In Valentinian
> >> theology the Creator of this world is reduced from supreme
> >> deity to highly inferior demiurge and divided from the true God.
> >> Dualism. But you contend that's "pure speculation and
> >> arrogance." If required to consider the demiurge, you pick the
> >> flattering picture in Plato over the critical one in
> >> gnosticism, which you insist is corrupted. So the Valentinians'
> >> negative opinion of the demiurge is an attack on your own
> >> outlook. You're welcome to your personal views, but they're in
> >> opposition to the gnostics.'
>
Actually the sum total of the argument is from years of research from
Schoedel and others who came to the conclusion that the teaching of
Valentinus is monistic. This in NO way states non-duality and it's to
bad you can't comprehend this concept. Are they incorrect in this
assessment?
Catawumpus
> Actually the sum total of the argument is from years of research from
Your argument-from-authority consisted of two quotes you'd
lifted from a Wikipedia page (although you didn't bother to
say so, pretending that you'd been doing research), neither one
offering even a scrap of evidence from the sources. By
contrast, I gave chapter and verse showing Valentinian thinking
is directly opposed to your beliefs on one point after the
next, contrary to your claim to line up with Valentinus and his
followers.
Short version. You say dividing the Creator of this world
from the true God is "pure speculation and arrogance." The
Valentinians do just what you condemn by distinguishing between
God and the demiurge. If forced to consider the idea of a
demiurge you pick Plato's flattery over the gnostics' criticism.
Granted the Valentinians take a mild view of the demiurge
compared to other gnostic schools. Nonetheless they once again
do exactly what you object to, describing him or her as
unspiritual, arrogant and ignorant, evil, incompetent, given to
falsehood, disgusting, and so on. You call the body the
temple of the soul, but the Valentinians call it corruption and
look forward to leaving it behind. You're offended by
judgments against the Creation, but the Valentinians label this
world a mountain of evil and predict its destruction. You
consider Jesus "a mortal man with mortal desires," while to the
Valentinians he's a heavenly emmanation. You're fully
entitled to your opinions, but your claim that the Valentinians
share them is false.
Quotes and cites in my previous post, if anyone wants them.
> Schoedel and others who came to the conclusion that the teaching of
> Valentinus is monistic. This in NO way states non-duality and it's to
> bad you can't comprehend this concept. Are they incorrect in this
> assessment?
You're incorrect to contend that the Valentinians stand in
your corner, as you put it, since their outlook, like the
gnostic perspective generally speaking, contradicts yours again
and again, including your rejection of dualism, e.g. the
division of the true God from the demiurge and of the spiritual
world from the material one.
-- Catawumpus
zen gnostic
> zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com>:
>
Well Shoedel,Pagels and myself will keep our version of Valentinus and
you and uh...you can have yours.
Catawumpus
>> You're incorrect to contend that the Valentinians stand in
>> your corner, as you put it, since their outlook, like the
>> gnostic perspective generally speaking, contradicts yours again
>> and again, including your rejection of dualism, e.g. the
>> division of the true God from the demiurge and of the spiritual
>> world from the material one.
zen gnostic <borger...@yahoo.com>:
> Well Shoedel,Pagels and myself will keep our version of Valentinus and
> you and uh...you can have yours.
All you've got is the false claim that your beliefs are in
line with the Valentinians.' The evidence in the sources
plainly contradicts you, as I already demonstrated, and so does
the description in Pagels. In fact that's where we began: you
wrongly said that you "share her view on pretty much
everything" when she actually _disputes_ you about the gnostics
and gnosticism.
One more time. In your opinion, dividing the Creator from
the true God is "pure speculation and arrogance," but the
Valentinians do just what you condemn. Valentinus
distinguishes "the uncreated Father" from the demiurge, a being
created by Sophia while she's "deprived of her spiritual
substance" (Irenaeus AH 1.11.1). Ditto other Valentinians like
Ptolemy, who divides Bythos, located "in the invisible and
ineffable heights above," from the demiurge, who's described as
the "creator of all animal and material substances," once
again the product of Sophia's fall (Irenaeus AH 1.1.1. and
1.5.2); Heracleon, who explains pneumatics "worship neither the
creation nor the Demiurge, but the Father of truth" (I'm
quoting from Frag. 20), and Marcus, who similarly separates God
the Father from the demiurge, the Maker of this world who
"followed that which was false." See Irenaeus AH 1.16.3-1-17.2.
If you're required to consider the idea of a demiurge, you
choose the flattering portrait in Plato over the gnostics'
critical picture, and again once the Valentinians clearly argue
against you. Granted they don't attack the demiurge as
sharply as some other gnostic schools. Nonetheless they demote
him from his traditional position as supreme being and
describe him as unspiritual (Valentinus), depict him doing evil
-- Gospel of Truth 16:15-20, 16:30-36 -- picture him as
arrogant and ignorant (Ptolemy), call him disgusting (Theodotus
in _Excerpta_ 33.4), and accuse him of incompetence and
falsehood (Marcus), contradicting your claim that you have them
on your side.
You say that the body is the temple of the soul and you're
unhappy with judgments against the Creation. (You even
rejected Jesus' relatively mild teaching "Be passers-by" in the
Gospel of Thomas.) But the Valentinians look forward to
ascending to the pleroma leaving body and soul behind, and they
prophesy the destruction of material existence (example:
Ptolemy in Irenaeus, AH 1.7.1). Heracleon refers to this world
as "a total mountain of evil," (Fragment 20), Valentinus
labels the ordinary body "corruption" (Clement of Alexandria in
Strom. 3.59.3) and teaches the nullification of this world
(Strom. 4.89:1-3), yet again showing your opinions are contrary
to the Valentinians.'
You like to think about Jesus as a "mortal man with mortal
desires." But the Valentinians see him as a heavenly
emmanation (Irenaeus AH 1.11.1, AH 1.2.6): "perfect beauty and
star of the fullness." Time and again the Valentinians
plainly stand opposed to your own beliefs despite your pretence
to agree with them.
Pagels tones things down, but the gist is still there. In
_The Gnostic Gospels_, for example, she says, referring to
Valentinus, "What gnostics know is that the creator makes false
claims to power ('I am God, and there is no other') that
derive from his own ignorance." (Ch. two, "One God, One Bishop."
The quote is on page 37 in my copy.) There she plainly
describes Valentinus dividing God from the creator of the world
-- i.e., the demiurge -- who he accuses of falsehood and
ignorance. She also recognizes the Valentinians (Heracleon, in
particular) feel materiality "belongs to 'the devil'; it is
'his cosmos,' the totality of evil, 'the dwelling place of wild
beasts.'" (_The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis_, ch.
five, "Two Types of Conversion," p. 89.) She mentions that the
Valentinians identified "the demiurge and his archons" with
the enslaving elements in Gal. 4:3. (See _The Gnostic Paul_ ch.
four, "Galatians," p. 109 in my paperback.) Etc. The
Valentinians, in Pagels' description, separate the Creator from
God, reduce him to a very inferior demiurge, attack his
Creation, and so on, putting their perspective in conflict with
yours, contrary to your claim to have them lined up behind
you, but consistent with the evidence in the historical sources.
-- Catawumpus
zen gnostic
>
> You like to think about Jesus as a "mortal man with mortal
> desires." But the Valentinians see him as a heavenly
> emmanation (Irenaeus AH 1.11.1, AH 1.2.6): "perfect beauty and
> star of the fullness." Time and again the Valentinians
> plainly stand opposed to your own beliefs despite your pretence
> to agree with them.
I don't have the time to correct all the lies but for the record
Valentinians draw a sharp distinction between the human and the divine
Jesus. In fact it's central to Valentinian theology.
"Joseph the carpenter planted a garden because he needed wood for his
trade. It was he who made the cross from the trees which he planted.
His own offspring hung on that which he planted. His offspring was
Jesus..." Gospel of Philip
Catawumpus
> I don't have the time to correct all the lies but for the record
For the record, the lies are all yours, and you don't have
any excuse for not correcting them, especally since you've
found the time to repeat them again and again. As I've already
showed, your claim that your beliefs are in line with the
Valentinians' is false. Examples: you deny a division between
the Creator of this world and God, calling it "pure
speculation and arrogance" -- but the Valentinians separate God
from the Creator, reduced to a mere demiurge. If forced to
consider the idea of a demiurge, you opt for Plato's flattering
portrait over the critical picture in gnosticism, but the
Valentinians consider the demiurge arrogant and ignorant, label
him disgusting, picture him doing evil, describe him as
incompetent, etc. You call the body the temple of the soul and
reject criticism of the material world. But to the
Valentinians the ordinary body is _corruption_ and the material
world is a "total mountain of evil," a place made from
suffering and destined to be destroyed. Etc. Quotes and cites
in my earlier posts.
kimmerian-03EE4...@unknown.sj.astraweb.com has the
specifics, or most of them.
Confronted with the evidence about the Valentinians in the
historical sources, which shows their thinking directly
opposes your point of view, you tried to pretend you had Pagels
on your side: an argument-from-authority or less, since
Pagels' description of the Valentinians _still_ contradicts the
claims you make about them. According to her, they
distinguish God from the Creator of this world, who they reduce
to a demiurge, accuse of falsehood and ignorance, and
connect, together with his archons, with the enslaving elements
in Galatians 4. They also take a very critical view of the
material world, calling it evil, assigning it to the devil, etc.
The Valentinians stand opposed to your opinions both in the
sources _and_ in the account that Pagels gives. Details in the
post I linked to above.
> Valentinians draw a sharp distinction between the human and the divine
> Jesus.
In some cases true. Again note the difference between the
Valentinian concept of a divine Jesus and your preferred
understanding that he's is a mortal man with mortal desires, as
you put it before.
Let's take Ptolemy's system as an example. Two distinctly
different beings called Jesus there. One is the heavenly
Jesus emmanated by the aeons and said to be the "perfect beauty
and star" of the pleroma (Irenaeus AH 1.2.6), explicitly
reported to be an immaterial being (AH 1.6.1). As you could've
learned from Pagels, he borrows the _likeness_ of a man
without putting on the flesh. The demiurge, by contrast, makes
his own, earthly Jesus, "of an animal nature," i.e., "the
animal Christ" worshipped in Christian proto-orthodoxy. See AH
1.7.2.
-- Catawumpus
shriven leper
wrote:
>zen gnostic <borger...@yahoo.com>:
>
>> I don't have the time to correct all the lies but for the record
>
> For the record, the lies are all yours
>-- Catawumpus
Yeah, this guy seems neither gnostic nor zen. Maybe if he changed
his nym he would become more open to the truth you've been patiently
spooning him. Doubtul, though.
- sl -
zen gnostic
> zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com>:
>
>
> For the record, the lies are all yours, and you don't have
> any excuse for not correcting them, especally since you've
> found the time to repeat them again and again. As I've already
> showed, your claim that your beliefs are in line with the
> Valentinians' is false. Examples: you deny a division between
> the Creator of this world and God, calling it "pure
> speculation and arrogance" -- but the Valentinians separate God
> from the Creator, reduced to a mere demiurge. If forced to
> consider the idea of a demiurge, you opt for Plato's flattering
> portrait over the critical picture in gnosticism, but the
> Valentinians consider the demiurge arrogant and ignorant, label
> him disgusting, picture him doing evil, describe him as
> incompetent, etc. You call the body the temple of the soul and
> reject criticism of the material world. But to the
> Valentinians the ordinary body is _corruption_ and the material
> world is a "total mountain of evil," a place made from
> suffering and destined to be destroyed. Etc. Quotes and cites
> in my earlier posts.
>
> specifics, or most of them.
>
> Confronted with the evidence about the Valentinians in the
> historical sources, which shows their thinking directly
> opposes your point of view, you tried to pretend you had Pagels
> on your side: an argument-from-authority or less, since
> Pagels' description of the Valentinians _still_ contradicts the
> claims you make about them. According to her, they
> distinguish God from the Creator of this world, who they reduce
> to a demiurge, accuse of falsehood and ignorance, and
> connect, together with his archons, with the enslaving elements
> in Galatians 4. They also take a very critical view of the
> material world, calling it evil, assigning it to the devil, etc.
> The Valentinians stand opposed to your opinions both in the
> sources _and_ in the account that Pagels gives. Details in the
> post I linked to above.
>
> > Valentinians draw a sharp distinction between the human and the divine
> > Jesus.
>
> In some cases true. Again note the difference between the
> Valentinian concept of a divine Jesus and your preferred
> understanding that he's is a mortal man with mortal desires, as
> you put it before.
He is a mortal man with mortal desires. When baptized into the holy
spirit he became much more...UNDERSTAND YET?
zen gnostic
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:04:24 -0400, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
>
> >zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com>:
>
> >> I don't have the time to correct all the lies but for the record
>
> > For the record, the lies are all yours
> >-- Catawumpus
>
> Yeah, this guy seems neither gnostic nor zen. Maybe if he changed
> his nym he would become more open to the truth you've been patiently
> spooning him. Doubtul, though.
>
> - sl -
don't think that I haven't noticed his ability to avoid my questions
while repeating the same ol demiurg fetish.
Catawumpus
Catawumpus <kimm...@fastmail.fm>:
>> zen gnostic <borger...@yahoo.com>:
...
> Yeah, this guy seems neither gnostic nor zen. Maybe if he changed
> his nym he would become more open to the truth you've been patiently
> spooning him. Doubtul, though.
Agreed about ZG. I can't claim patience (I never have too
much of it) or diplomacy (ditto), but ZG's tendency to
pronounce on things he's clueless about was obvious practically
from the time that he showed up here, and he can't seem to
correct himself even when given detailed evidence. He's a type
that appears in ARG periodically: a person, usually a
New-Ager, in basic opposition to the gnostics' perspective, who
distorts gnosticism in order to make it conform to a very
different outlook. In fact this is ZG's second go-round in the
role.
-- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
> He is a mortal man with mortal desires. When baptized into the holy
> spirit he became much more...UNDERSTAND YET?
I understand you're in the habit of confusing your opinion
about this, that, and the other with gnosticism: the
Valentinian school in specific. You reject the division of God
from the Creator of this world -- but according to the
evidence in the ancient sources, the Valentinians did precisely
what you deny, reducing the Creator from supreme being to a
mere demiurge. You prefer the positive picture of the demiurge
in Platonism to the gnostics' critical view -- but the
Valentinians describe him as unspiritual, incompetent, given to
falsehood, arrogant and ignorant, disgusting, etc. You say the
body is the temple of the soul and you object to negative
comments on the material world -- but the Valentinians call the
ordinary body corruption, refer to material existence as a
mountain of evil, claim that it's made from suffering, and look
forward to its destruction.
Your retreat to argument-from-authority isn't any help and
not merely because of the logical fallacy: Pagels'
description of the Valentinians includes everything I've listed.
Their thinking stands in opposition to yours both in the
historical source material _and_ in the account that she offers.
Quotes, details, and citations my earlier posts, where you
skipped right over them.
Same thing with christology. You call Jesus "a mortal man
with mortal desires" -- but to the Valentinians he's a
spiritual being, not a material one, an emmanation of the aeons.
You're right, for once, when you say that the Valentinians
distinguish between a divine Jesus and a human one. In
Ptolemy, for example, there are two different figures who go by
the name Jesus: the unmaterial heavenly emmanation on one
hand and on the other hand "the animal Christ" who's created by
the demiurge. As Pagels could have taught you, if you
bothered to read her, the spiritual Jesus takes on the likeness
of man without becoming fleshly. Again, the details and
citations are in my previous posts, where you were happy enough
to ignore them.
-- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
>> Yeah, this guy seems neither gnostic nor zen.
Agreed. He _might_ be able to work Zen into his New-Agery.
But gnosticism is a big problem for him.
zen gnostic <borger...@yahoo.com>:
> don't think that I haven't noticed his ability to avoid my questions
I notice that you make false claims about the gnostics and
gnosticism when you ought to be asking questions or else
finding the answers on your own. You're interested in reciting
your dogma rather than in learning, and certainly not in
fixing your mistakes, which you're now repeating for the second
or third time.
> while repeating the same ol demiurg fetish.
I'm repeatedly pointing out the evidence you avoid showing
the gnostics -- with the Valentinians very much included --
reject Creator and Creator, despite your claims to have the V's
lined up behind you. I've also showed that Pagels gives a
similar description of the Valentinians, despite your attempted
retreat to argument-from-authority.
-- Catawumpus
zen gnostic
> zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com>:
>
From the post I can see you either clearly do not understand the
basics of Valentinus theology or wish to obfuscate his meanings. For
a full understanding may I suggest..
http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Jesus_Valentinianism.htm
Valentinian Christology emphasizes that the human Jesus is redeemed by
being joined with the Savior at his baptism. The Son is "the Name
which came down upon Jesus in the dove and redeemed him" (Excerpts of
Theodotus 22:6). The redemption of the human Jesus is seen by the
Valentinians as applying to all who form part of the "church of the
superior seed". The human Jesus is joined to the Savior.
shriven leper
wrote:
>shriven leper <bastas...@comcast.net>:
>
>>> Yeah, this guy seems neither gnostic nor zen.
>
> Agreed. He _might_ be able to work Zen into his New-Agery.
>But gnosticism is a big problem for him.
>
snipped
Probably because of the psychology of many New Agers - they tend to
exalt nature, the body, the material world - "Creation" generally - to
the point that materiality's inherent evils are (so they say)
neutralized. They tend to exonerate the Creator for incorporating
evil into creation, for not acting to remove evil from the world (as
you've pointed out, this problem disappears if they'll admit that God
the Creator is not all-powerful, but they can't let go of omnipotence
as an essential quality of of God). They don't like having it pointed
out to them that the problem of evil is still a problem. All is
bright, except for a few shadows that are either illusory or in some
other way irrelevant...
- sl -
Heideana
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 04:51:20 -0400, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
>
> >shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net>:
That problematic of evil just keeps rearing its' ugly
head...seriously, the question of evil does need to be dealt with or
sorted out if you desire true knowledge. At least that is my
"gut"...people don't like to be reminded of it, I totally agree. On
the other hand, lots of folks are spell bound by it in the
media...its' a funny problematic...
shriven leper
Yes, seems the Gnostics traced the world's evil back to an evil or at
least an inadequate Creator. For me, it's easier to just toss the
idea of a Creator itself. I do believe in god, but that god is not
responsible for the universe because that god is not a creator.
> At least that is my
>"gut"...people don't like to be reminded of it, I totally agree. On
>the other hand, lots of folks are spell bound by it in the
>media...its' a funny problematic...
Yeah, isn't that weird. The media especially pump up bad news, except
when it's in their interests to downplay it. Then as you hint, take
the phenomenon of horror entertainment, books, etc... very popular
stuff. Not only slasher and supernatural horror, but documentary
stuff about serial killers, etc...
- sl -
Catawumpus
>> You're in the habit of confusing your opinion
>> about this, that, and the other with gnosticism: the
>> Valentinian school in specific. You reject the division of God
>> from the Creator of this world -- but according to the
>> evidence in the ancient sources, the Valentinians did precisely
>> what you deny, reducing the Creator from supreme being to a
>> mere demiurge. You prefer the positive picture of the demiurge
>> in Platonism to the gnostics' critical view -- but the
>> Valentinians describe him as unspiritual, incompetent, given to
>> falsehood, arrogant and ignorant, disgusting, etc. You say the
>> body is the temple of the soul and you object to negative
>> comments on the material world -- but the Valentinians call the
>> ordinary body corruption, refer to material existence as a
>> mountain of evil, claim that it's made from suffering, and look
>> forward to its destruction. ...
>> Quotes, details, and citations my earlier posts, where you
>> skipped right over them.
zen gnostic <borger...@yahoo.com>:
> From the post I can see you either clearly do not understand the
> basics of Valentinus theology or wish to obfuscate his meanings.
From your answer I can see that you're tossing unsupported
accusations and continuing to duck the evidence that I've
offered from the ancient source materials: a logical follow-up
to the bullshit you've already posted, e.g. your falsehoods
that you're in line with the Valentinians and that Pagels backs
up your claim.
> For a full understanding may I suggest..
You're not interested in a full understanding. All you're
concerned with is reciting your dogma and pretending the
Valentinians have lined up behind you. So happens the opposite
is true. You're strongly against dividing God from the
Creator of this world, but the Valentinians distinguish between
the true God and the Creator, lowered from supreme being to
mere demiurge. If required to consider the demiurge you choose
the positive evaluation found in Plato over the gnostics'
criticism, but to the Valentinians the demiurge is arrogant and
ignorant, unspiritual, incompetent, evil, even disgusting.
You dislike attacks on the material world, but the Valentinians
call it a mountain of evil, describe it as a place made from
suffering, and predict its complete destruction. You claim the
earthly body is "the temple of the soul," but to the
Valentinians it's corruption. Etc. The Valentinians' thinking
contradicts yours time after time.
> http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Jesus_Valentinianism.htm
Heh. Still hasn't dawned on you that random web-pages are
not evidence. The guy who you're quoting is especially
unreliable. Example: he denies the Valentinians are docetists
and says they "never claimed that Jesus only appeared to
suffer or that his body was an apparition." Not so. I already
showed the contrary in Ptolemy's system, where Jesus is a
purely spiritual being, an emmanation of the aeons, who took on
human shape but remained non-material. Irenaeus AH 1.6.1:
"He did not take anything material ... for the material essense
is incapable of salvation."
Same idea is in AH 1.7.2. "It is impossible that material
substance should partake of salvation (since, indeed, they
maintain that it is incapable of receiving it)": the principle
on which Jesus has no material body.
As I mentioned before, the same discussion _also_ includes
an earthly Jesus made by the demiurge. (I assigned him to
Ptolemy, but he seems to belong to other Valentinians, since he
comes up after the preface "Some say...") Result: two
different beings named "Jesus," one of them earthly, one divine.
The one made by the demiurge has a material body but the
divine Jesus is explicitly _non-material_, disproving the claim
on the webpage you linked to. Instead of a "full
understanding" it gives a false one by wrongly denying docetism
is part of Valentinian christology.
Another example: according to Hippolytus the Valentinians
disagreed among themselves about whether or not Jesus was
fleshly, with the Italian school saying that "the body of Jesus
was animal," but the Oriental school, by contrast, stating
that "the body of the Saviour was spiritual." (See _Refutation
of All Heresies_ 6.30.)
Instead of the "research" you claimed, you're quoting from
whatever you happen to see on the web, and according to the
webpage you grabbed onto the Valentinians _never_ contend Jesus
was a non-material being: a notion disproved by the
historical evidence, which shows them making the very assertion
your latest authority denies.
So your own claims are contradicted by the evidence, which
shows the Valentinians rejecting Creator and Creation, and
your appeal to Pagels' authority failed twice-over: not merely
because of the logical fallacy but also because she talks
about the themes in Valentinian thinking you're trying to avoid.
And the web-page that you're now claiming gives a "full
understanding" makes statements directly opposed to the info in
the sources.
> "Valentinian Christology emphasizes that the human Jesus is redeemed by
> being joined with the Savior at his baptism."
True of the "animal Christ" made by the demiurge (Irenaeus
AH 1.7.2), false about the Jesus created by the aeons in
Irenaeus AH 1.2.6, the "perfect beauty and star" of the pleroma.
-- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
[New Agers]
> exalt nature, the body, the material world - "Creation" generally - to
> the point that materiality's inherent evils are (so they say)
> neutralized. They tend to exonerate the Creator for incorporating
> evil into creation, for not acting to remove evil from the world (as
> you've pointed out, this problem disappears if they'll admit that God
> the Creator is not all-powerful, but they can't let go of omnipotence
> as an essential quality of of God). They don't like having it pointed
> out to them that the problem of evil is still a problem. All is
> bright, except for a few shadows that are either illusory or in some
> other way irrelevant...
Exactly. Of course gnosticism sometimes has the same kind
of trouble from the opposite side. When gnostic theology
either fails to distance itself sufficiently from power-worship
or slides back by insisting on God's omnipotence then the
problem of evil immediately re-appears. Something we've agreed
about before.
Another difficulty for New Agers is that gnosticism screws
with their "all rivers flowing to the same ocean" dogma (a
direct quote from ZG). Even if they can negotiate a Merton-ish
rapprochement between, let's say, Catholicism and Zen, the
gnostic outlook remains unassimilable, the exception disproving
their desired rule.
-- Catawumpus
zen gnostic
That's very true. As in the star wars episode(sorry bout the sci-fi)
the hero must go into the darkness to conquer that which is inside
him. The "demiurge" is not only out in the world but inside our selves
as well. For true gnosis this part of us must be explored. (ie dealt
with). Of course this then destroys the illusion of two gods. Are
there little tiny demiurges in us? The idea is as absurd as a
Catawumpus argument.
Heideana
> shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net>:
>
C-wumpus or SL, could talk more about the problematic of evil and free-
choice vs. "fated" predeterminism and inability of the good to ever
make a choice of evil? When all of the good and evil are separated at
the end-of-time, I'm assuming that all of fragments of the "suffering
Christ" will have had enough time on the Karma Wheel here in the world
to decide if the want to choose the Transcedental God's path or not.
That's the only solution I see to the problematic? Any insight
greatly appreciated...Hopkins
Heideana
>
> - Show quoted text -
ZG - You might want to check out "The Complete Idiot's guide to the
Gnostic Gospels" by Matkin ( http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiots-Guide-Gnostic-Gospels/dp/1592573886
) for a birds' eyeview of all the different gnostic schools,
arguments, etc...that Catawampus and SL are getting at to help you
understand the "facts" about what Christian Gnosticism is about. It
was really helpful for me....
I see there's also an Idiots' guide to Mary Magdeline that looks
interesting! http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiots-Guide-Mary-Magdalene/dp/1592573452
Hopkins
zen gnostic
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 04:51:20 -0400, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
>
> >shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net>:
>
>
> > Agreed. He _might_ be able to work Zen into his New-Agery.
> >But gnosticism is a big problem for him.
>
> snipped
>
> Probably because of the psychology of many New Agers - they tend to
> exalt nature, the body, the material world - "Creation" generally - to
> the point that materiality's inherent evils are (so they say)
> neutralized.
Nature is survival of the fittest where animals eat others to survive.
No...I don't think I've ever "exalted" such a thing.
> They tend to exonerate the Creator for incorporating
> evil into creation, for not acting to remove evil from the world (as
> you've pointed out, this problem disappears if they'll admit that God
> the Creator is not all-powerful, but they can't let go of omnipotence
> as an essential quality of of God).
We've discussed free will and the fact that as of today the "demiurge"
is hard at work. Genocide, depleted uranium poisoning, torture to name
a few.
>They don't like having it pointed
> out to them that the problem of evil is still a problem. All is
> bright, except for a few shadows that are either illusory or in some
> other way irrelevant...
>
> - sl -
It's anything but a few shadows. We are at a crossroads in which we
either slide into a NWO of tyranny or turn it around by following a
thing called the constitution. The battle continues...Point is what
are you going to do about it? Whose side are you going to join?
zen gnostic
> ) for a birds' eyeview of all the different gnostic schools,
> arguments, etc...that Catawampus and SL are getting at to help you
> understand the "facts" about what Christian Gnosticism is about. It
> was really helpful for me....
In what way?
zen gnostic
You may want to try this link.
http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/sitemap.html
If you want pagan gnosticism without duality though Catawumpus is your
guy.
shriven leper
wrote:
Very well said. Gnosticism's unassimilability is one of its primary
features. It indeed represents "a raft from the other shore"... to
borrow a Buddhistic, but hopefully not a New Agey, phrase...
- sl -
shriven leper
I'm not much of a philosopher, and I'm sure Catawumpus can reply to
your Gnostic-related questions far better than I. However, I do agree
that choosing the Alien God is the only choice, since compromise with
the "creator's" universe equates to a kind of groveling capitulation.
As Catawumpus has said many times, just as Gnosticism is unassimilable
by creation-creator-loving systems, so too is the Alien God, who
cannot be named but only hinted at by terms such as The Profundity,
The Abyss, The Silence, etc. Again, as Catawumpus has pointed out -
especially in debating with atheists in this group maybe a year or so
ago - "No-Thingness" is part of this deity's attributes. You can't ask
for a less wordly category than that.
- sl -
Heideana
>
> - Show quoted text -
What I hear you describing is Levinas' notion of the other and primacy
of the ethical relation as the basis of everything else. Kinda if I
don't you to share language with, then I don't have anything and can't
exist....I require conversation with the other to have any
understanding of "things" in the world. In truth, the other is
completely alien and can never be understood completely...only in some
damaged way where "things" show-up in the "clearing" for us, but its'
only thru my ethical relation with the 'Other" that "clearing" even
exists.....thanks! This is very interesting and I need to set with it
for awhile. Blanchot also writes about the difficulty of talking to
the "other"....
The english translation of "Otherwise than being or beyond essence" is
atrocies, but what you say resonants with his major work. Curiously,
he can't be really used for any new age stuff...his major criticism of
Heidegger was that he believed in pantheism or nature worship. :)
Something in me feels that we need to understand gnosticism if we want
to understand and intergrate ourselves fullly into the Western
Traditions hard wired into us by our "mother tongue"...its' nice to
read about and understand eastern thought, buddhism, etc...but you
can't truly understand the eastern tradition unless you were born into
it thru your "mothers' tongue". That is what made me realize that I
really needed to learn about the western traditions rather then new
age pantheism...or something like that...Tee-hee!
Heideana
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Idiot's guide gives a birds' eye view of which school believed in
docetism and which didn't, who thought what about the demiurge, etc.,
without bogging down in dense writing or source material. From what I
can tell, its' pretty much on the money with the source materials that
I've been reading. I've got a friend who's getting interested in
gnoticism and I sent a copy to her as an intro...:)
shriven leper
<heid...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>On Jun 28, 2:15 pm, shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net> wrote:
snipped
I'm not philosophically informed enough to have encountered the
ethical theories you mention... I was just thinking of "the Alien
God" as "alien" to this universe. I agree that such an entity "can
never be _understood_ completely" - but nonetheless can be _known_
spiritually - if not intellectually. In fact, that's one of
Gnosticism's claims - that we can know our spiritual selves and know
the Gnostic True Father. Spiritually, not just intellectually.
>only in some
>damaged way where "things" show-up in the "clearing" for us, but its'
>only thru my ethical relation with the 'Other" that "clearing" even
>exists.....thanks! This is very interesting and I need to set with it
>for awhile. Blanchot also writes about the difficulty of talking to
>the "other"....
>
>The english translation of "Otherwise than being or beyond essence" is
>atrocies, but what you say resonants with his major work. Curiously,
>he can't be really used for any new age stuff...his major criticism of
>Heidegger was that he believed in pantheism or nature worship. :)
Thanks for the info - it's all new to me...
>Something in me feels that we need to understand gnosticism if we want
>to understand and intergrate ourselves fullly into the Western
>Traditions hard wired into us by our "mother tongue"..
Well, I can see wanting to integrate ourselves into the Western
Traditions, as a matter of being historically informed. However,
Gnosticism's "unassimilability" makes it per se unintegratable into
most Western systems I know of. Catawumpus may have some more
detailed thinking on this.
>.its' nice to
>read about and understand eastern thought, buddhism, etc...but you
>can't truly understand the eastern tradition unless you were born into
>it thru your "mothers' tongue".
Ummm... not sure I agree with that. I think that learning new
religious modes is like learning new languages. It can, with varying
degrees of difficulty, be done. However, the real proof is in the
practice.
Once you have learned Gnosticism from the inside via the chants,
prayers, meditations, etc., mentioned by Pagels in The Gnostic
Gospels, then you might just experience, first-hand, Gnosticism's
essence. Ditto the Buddhist traditions: after you've read their
scriptures, you perform the practices and in so doing, hopefully
experience the spiritual realities claimed in those scriptures. So I
think it goes beyond "learning a new language" - it gets into
immersing one's self in the spiritual modes offered by a particular
tradition.
>That is what made me realize that I
>really needed to learn about the western traditions rather then new
>age pantheism...or something like that...Tee-hee!
There's value in the Western stuff, particularly the mystical-union
claims of people like Meister Eckhart...
- sl -
Heideana
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 14:49:22 -0700 (PDT), Heideana
>
> >On Jun 28, 2:15 pm, shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> snipped
>
>
> ethical theories you mention... I was just thinking of "the Alien
> God" as "alien" to this universe. I agree that such an entity "can
> never be _understood_ completely" - but nonetheless can be _known_
> spiritually - if not intellectually. In fact, that's one of
> Gnosticism's claims - that we can know our spiritual selves and know
> the Gnostic True Father. Spiritually, not just intellectually.
I think we're on the same page, its' the problem with the density of
language...the "Other" can never be "known", but can be understood
spirtually where spirituality is making sense of the world and giving
it meaning, i.e. connecting with the transcendent God and
understanding the duality that this god is not the same as the
"creator god". Its' the process of understanding that gives you
access to the "other" thru language or something like that...It really
resonanted with me when you mentioned "the Alien God" and got me
excited!
>snipped text
> >Something in me feels that we need to understand gnosticism if we want
> >to understand and intergrate ourselves fullly into the Western
> >Traditions hard wired into us by our "mother tongue"..
>
> Well, I can see wanting to integrate ourselves into the Western
> Traditions, as a matter of being historically informed. However,
> Gnosticism's "unassimilability" makes it per se unintegratable into
> most Western systems I know of. Catawumpus may have some more
> detailed thinking on this.
I'm sensing that gnosticism is very much a part of the western
tradition's roots, along with Greek thought and hope Catawampus replys
In some way it would seem that orthodox Christianity is a product of
gnosticism (primarily jewish and christian gnosticism, but the other
schools seem to have a pretty stong voice too) and Platonism. I think
what I'm getting at is that all of this early stuff is embedded in our
western languages in a way that can only be totally understood if
you're mother tongue is one of them. That's not to say you can get a
very good understanding and come close if you study Eastern philosophy
and learn one of the Eastern mother tongues...its' just that I don't
think you'd have the same understanding as someone born into that
cultural.
> >.its' nice to
> >read about and understand eastern thought, buddhism, etc...but you
> >can't truly understand the eastern tradition unless you were born into
> >it thru your "mothers' tongue".
>
> Ummm... not sure I agree with that. I think that learning new
> religious modes is like learning new languages. It can, with varying
> degrees of difficulty, be done. However, the real proof is in the
> practice.
Agreed about the real truth being in the practices...it turns out that
Heidegger was quite informed about Eastern thought and the similarity
to some our Western mysticism, etc....however he would never write
about it because of his feelings about being born into a mother
tongue, etc..., despite lots of requests as I recall.
> Once you have learned Gnosticism from the inside via the chants,
> prayers, meditations, etc., mentioned by Pagels in The Gnostic
> Gospels, then you might just experience, first-hand, Gnosticism's
> essence. Ditto the Buddhist traditions: after you've read their
> scriptures, you perform the practices and in so doing, hopefully
> experience the spiritual realities claimed in those scriptures. So I
> think it goes beyond "learning a new language" - it gets into
> immersing one's self in the spiritual modes offered by a particular
> tradition.
Agreed, I probably forgot to mention that "language" is what makes up
the "world", or at least our perception of it in most post-modern
thought...a big Heidegger thread. You can't talk, describe, think, or
have anything without language. Levinas's point is that you can't
have language without another person to converse with, which is what
makes the ethical relation primary to him. Sort of you got to take
care of the other if you want to maintain the "world"..then it gets
murky. I'm also am probably thinking about the "western" traditions
as being philosophical thought..sorry if I confused you....
As an aside, is there some controls folks are using to indicate
snipped text and hiding quoted text?
Best...Hopkins
shriven leper
<heid...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>On Jun 28, 4:22 pm, shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 14:49:22 -0700 (PDT), Heideana
>>
>> <heide...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >On Jun 28, 2:15 pm, shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> snipped
>>
>>
>> I'm not philosophically informed enough to have encountered the
>> ethical theories you mention... I was just thinking of "the Alien
>> God" as "alien" to this universe. I agree that such an entity "can
>> never be _understood_ completely" - but nonetheless can be _known_
>> spiritually - if not intellectually. In fact, that's one of
>> Gnosticism's claims - that we can know our spiritual selves and know
>> the Gnostic True Father. Spiritually, not just intellectually.
>
>I think we're on the same page, its' the problem with the density of
>language...the "Other" can never be "known", but can be understood
>spirtually where spirituality is making sense of the world and giving
>it meaning, i.e. connecting with the transcendent God and
>understanding the duality that this god is not the same as the
>"creator god". Its' the process of understanding that gives you
>access to the "other" thru language or something like that...It really
>resonanted with me when you mentioned "the Alien God" and got me
>excited!
Glad to hear it... yeah, language density is one of the problems, esp.
in religion talk...
>>snipped text
>
>> >Something in me feels that we need to understand gnosticism if we want
>> >to understand and intergrate ourselves fullly into the Western
>> >Traditions hard wired into us by our "mother tongue"..
>>
>> Well, I can see wanting to integrate ourselves into the Western
>> Traditions, as a matter of being historically informed. However,
>> Gnosticism's "unassimilability" makes it per se unintegratable into
>> most Western systems I know of. Catawumpus may have some more
>> detailed thinking on this.
>
>I'm sensing that gnosticism is very much a part of the western
>tradition's roots, along with Greek thought and hope Catawampus replys
It certainly seemed to motivate Marcion, whose collection-editing of
scripture is said to have pressed the church to finalize its canon.
>In some way it would seem that orthodox Christianity is a product of
>gnosticism (primarily jewish and christian gnosticism,
I don't know to what extent ortho Xty was a Gnostic product, but it
seems to at least be a reaction to Gnosticism - look how it treated
Gnostics, Marcion included. One poster to this group who hasn't been
active lately, Klaus Schilling, maintained that the original Jesus was
a Gnostic spirit docetically projected into the earthly plane.
I suppose that is one way that Xty could be viewed as a Gnostic
product: maybe it was a spinoff, along with other systems - a reaction
to the docetic Christ. However, early on, according to Schilling, it
divested itself of its otherworldly garments and falsely began to
identify itself with the "this-worldly" claims of Judaic religion. It
sought to find its roots not in experience of the Gnostic Jesus, but
in "the teachings of (Jewish-hylic) men," exemplified by the
Apostles...
>but the other
>schools seem to have a pretty stong voice too) and Platonism. I think
>what I'm getting at is that all of this early stuff is embedded in our
>western languages in a way that can only be totally understood if
>you're mother tongue is one of them. That's not to say you can get a
>very good understanding and come close if you study Eastern philosophy
>and learn one of the Eastern mother tongues...its' just that I don't
>think you'd have the same understanding as someone born into that
>cultural.
I see now what you mean.
That's okay, I'm usually confused anyway...
>As an aside, is there some controls folks are using to indicate
>snipped text and hiding quoted text?
>
>Best...Hopkins
There must be, but I'm as ignorant of computering as I am of
philosophy. Maybe Cat would have the kindness to inform us.
- sl -
Catawumpus
> C-wumpus or SL, could talk more about the problematic of evil and free-
> choice vs. "fated" predeterminism and inability of the good to ever
> make a choice of evil? When all of the good and evil are separated at
> the end-of-time, I'm assuming that all of fragments of the "suffering
> Christ" will have had enough time on the Karma Wheel here in the world
> to decide if the want to choose the Transcedental God's path or not.
> That's the only solution I see to the problematic? Any insight
> greatly appreciated...Hopkins
I'd be glad to talk about it, but some clarification could
be helpful. Maybe if we narrowed things down, for the time
being, to one particular form of gnosticism. Are you thinking
about a specific mythology? Hard to deal with all the
complexities at once. For now I'll say this: rather than evil
and free-will vs. predestination, try providence vs.
imprisonment and liberation vs. _heimarmene_, meaning fate, the
rule of the cosmic powers.
-- C-Wump
Catawumpus
> him. The "demiurge" is not only out in the world but inside our selves
> as well. For true gnosis this part of us must be explored. (ie dealt
You've misrepresented the gnostics and gnosticism so often
and so glaringly it's obvious you're in no position to
pontificate about "true gnosis," as your comments below confirm.
> with). Of course this then destroys the illusion of two gods.
Gnosis is in part the knowledge of two gods: that is, the
recognition the Creator's claim to be the only god is a
falsehood and the awareness of a god above him. As Pagels puts
it, "What gnostics know is that the creator makes false
claims to power ('I am God, and there is no other') that derive
from his own ignorance." _Gnostic Gospels_ 37. You say
you're in agreement with Pagels and the Valentinians (the folks
she's referring to), but your beliefs are opposed to the
Valentinians' as they're described in the sources and in Pagels'
summary.
-- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
>> I was just thinking of "the Alien
>> God" as "alien" to this universe. I agree that such an entity "can
>> never be _understood_ completely" - but nonetheless can be _known_
>> spiritually - if not intellectually. In fact, that's one of
>> Gnosticism's claims - that we can know our spiritual selves and know
>> the Gnostic True Father. Spiritually, not just intellectually.
Heideana <heid...@pacbell.net>:
> What I hear you describing is Levinas' notion of the other and primacy
> of the ethical relation as the basis of everything else. Kinda if I
> don't you to share language with, then I don't have anything and can't
> exist....I require conversation with the other to have any
> understanding of "things" in the world. In truth, the other is
> completely alien and can never be understood completely...
I never got far enough with Levinas to find out how far he
goes with otherness, but the thought was around before
becoming a cliche of post-modernism. Barth, for example, talks
about a radically other God. Or he tries to. Nice enough
idea, but he's referring to the same old same old one, Mr. I Am
That I Am.
In gnosticism, as Shriven is explaining, the idea is taken
much more seriously. The otherness of God lies in his
relationship with the cosmos as a whole; in Leper's words, he's
alien to the universe. The "alien God" is first of all a
reference to Marcion's deity, but the phrase applies to gnostic
theology in general.
Of course there's an epistemological aspect: God can't be
adequately described or categorized. Since he radically
transcends the world, he can't be captured in its understanding.
But just as importantly he isn't the God of this world.
Unlike certain other forms of negative theology which deify the
Creator, gnosticism puts the divine in opposition to the
cosmos. In Marcion's terms, the God of Creation is not the God
of Salvation.
Apologies in advance if I'm telling you things you already
know.
-- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
> You may want to try this link. http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/sitemap.html
Very bad advice. Maybe intentionally bad advice. Instead
of linking to the primary sources on Valentinus and his
followers, ZG's URL goes to the highly unreliable set of essays
about them he quoted before, articles that are directly
contradicted by the historical evidence. The author, a certain
David Brons, falsely contends Jesus' body is never an
apparition to the Valentinians, wrongly says that "the demiurge
certainly could not be considered evil," etc. Gnosis.org
_does_ have alot of useful stuff on-line, including most of the
Nag Hammadi texts (both gnostic and otherwise), some
miscellaneous gnostic writings, and info on gnosticism from the
Fathers, all of which ZG ignored.
> If you want pagan gnosticism without duality though Catawumpus is your
> guy.
More misinformation from ZG. He might have been sincerely
confused when he first arrived here but by now he's simply
lying. Instead of "pagan gnosticism without duality," I filled
him in on the dualities in Christian gnosticism -- the
Valentinian perspective, in specific -- for example God vs. the
demiurge, incorruptibility versus corruption, the divine realm
vs. the demiurge's Creation, spirit vs. matter, eternity
versus time, infinity vs. finitude, and reality versus illusion.
-- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
> I'm sensing that gnosticism is very much a part of the western
> tradition's roots, along with Greek thought and hope Catawampus replys
I have to disagree with you there. Seems to me gnosticism
runs directly counter to the basics of Western thinking.
Consider the gnostics' relation to Greek philosophy: inversion
of values. Even Socrates, who views life in this world
critically, teaches faith in its gods and in the justice of the
cosmos. So if the Greeks put down the roots of Western
culture then the gnostics tried to pull them up, much like "the
Other," Elisha ben Abuya, the dissenting Jewish sage who's
said in the Talmud to have "mutilated the shoots," i.e., ripped
up the roots of tradition.
> In some way it would seem that orthodox Christianity is a product of
> gnosticism (primarily jewish and christian gnosticism, but the other
> schools seem to have a pretty stong voice too) and Platonism.
The idea that Christian orthodoxy defined itself partly in
reply to gnosticism is reasonable. Not sure what you mean
when you call it a product of gnosticism, since the two of them
are antithetical. You mean it developed as a heresy of the
original gnostic Christianity, or are you saying something else
here?
> As an aside, is there some controls folks are using to indicate
> snipped text and hiding quoted text?
That's Google's screwed-up idea of what Usenet is supposed
to look like. They've done a good thing by saving the old
DejaNews archive and keeping it freely available, but what they
did _to_ the place isn't helpful. If you have standard
internet access, I'd suggest dumping GoogleGroups and switching
to a newsreader (frex Free Agent for Windows or one of the
Newswatcher family for the Mac) rather than working through the
web.* If you're stuck with Google I can't offer you much
advice, since I only go there for searches, not for reading and
posting.
*Those are free programs, so don't worry about what they'd
cost you.
-- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
>> Something in me feels that we need to understand gnosticism if we want
>> to understand and intergrate ourselves fullly into the Western
>> Traditions hard wired into us by our "mother tongue"..
shriven leper <bastas...@comcast.net>:
> Well, I can see wanting to integrate ourselves into the Western
> Traditions, as a matter of being historically informed. However,
> Gnosticism's "unassimilability" makes it per se unintegratable into
> most Western systems I know of. Catawumpus may have some more
> detailed thinking on this.
There's some later things in the same line: Manichaeanism
followed by the Paulicians, Bogomils, and Cathars (not to
mention the Frankists), but to me that's all the same tradition.
Heckler: "It all sounds the same!" Neil Young: "It's all
one song!" (_Year of the Horse_.) There are also some obvious
points of comparison (truth vs. reality in Plato and in
Nietzsche, world-rejection in Schopenhauer, alienation anywhere
you look, frex Heidegger), but nothing that occurs to me is
compatible on the whole -- definitely not the philosophies I've
listed.
-- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
> Gnosticism's unassimilability is one of its primary
> features. It indeed represents "a raft from the other shore"... to
> borrow a Buddhistic, but hopefully not a New Agey, phrase...
How about "the news from nowhere"? The title of a William
Morris novel I've never read.
-- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
zen gnostic
> zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com>:
>
> > You may want to try this link.http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/sitemap.html
>
> Very bad advice. Maybe intentionally bad advice. Instead
> of linking to the primary sources on Valentinus and his
> followers, ZG's URL goes to the highly unreliable set of essays
> about them he quoted before, articles that are directly
> contradicted by the historical evidence. The author, a certain
> David Brons, falsely contends Jesus' body is never an
> apparition to the Valentinians, wrongly says that "the demiurge
> certainly could not be considered evil," etc. Gnosis.org
> _does_ have alot of useful stuff on-line, including most of the
> Nag Hammadi texts (both gnostic and otherwise), some
> miscellaneous gnostic writings, and info on gnosticism from the
> Fathers, all of which ZG ignored.
I've proved you false by posting the ten commandments. What "evil" god
would tell it's people to not kill,steal,etc. I suggest reading the
Letter to Flora for a better understanding on "Jehovah".
As for linking to primary sources he does that so why hell would I?
You're just mad because we have similar views with do not agree with
your OPINION.
>
> > If you want pagan gnosticism without duality though Catawumpus is your
> > guy.
>
> More misinformation from ZG. He might have been sincerely
> confused when he first arrived here but by now he's simply
> lying. Instead of "pagan gnosticism without duality," I filled
> him in on the dualities in Christian gnosticism -- the
> Valentinian perspective, in specific -- for example God vs. the
> demiurge, incorruptibility versus corruption, the divine realm
> vs. the demiurge's Creation, spirit vs. matter, eternity
> versus time, infinity vs. finitude, and reality versus illusion.
>
> -- Catawumpus
I find it amusing that you bring up Valentinian perspective without
mentioning Christ.
He became a fruit of the knowledge of the Father. He did not, however,
destroy them because they ate of it. He rather caused those who ate of
it to be joyful because of this discovery. (Gospel of Truth)
Heideana
> shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net>:
>
> >> God" as "alien" to this universe. I agree that such an entity "can
> >> never be _understood_ completely" - but nonetheless can be _known_
> >> spiritually - if not intellectually. In fact, that's one of
> >> Gnosticism's claims - that we can know our spiritual selves and know
> >> the Gnostic True Father. Spiritually, not just intellectually.
>
>
> > What I hear you describing is Levinas' notion of the other and primacy
> > of the ethical relation as the basis of everything else. Kinda if I
> > don't you to share language with, then I don't have anything and can't
> > exist....I require conversation with the other to have any
> > understanding of "things" in the world. In truth, the other is
> > completely alien and can never be understood completely...
>
> I never got far enough with Levinas to find out how far he
> goes with otherness, but the thought was around before
> becoming a cliche of post-modernism. Barth, for example, talks
> about a radically other God. Or he tries to. Nice enough
> idea, but he's referring to the same old same old one, Mr. I Am
> That I Am.
I think Levinas takes the other as foundational in the practices and
works really hard to get the understanding across that it is in the
everydayness where the primacy of the ethical relation plays out in a
way that can never be captured or assimulated accurately in a
theoretical sort of way. It strikes me that the creator can be
understood by thinking of theoretical/scientific framework/
methodologies' as flawed instruments for understanding how the flawed
world works (Statistical analysis is supposed to minimize the
flaws...which is why all the soft sciences have what is sometimes
referred to as "cartesian envy"...another tee-hee!!!). They've got
great points and potential for fixing the flaws in this world, but
also have problems and don't always work out well in the everyday. I
think this is where ZG seems to be stuck in not seeing the duality of
the creator god and the "God" god in the ten-comandment example. Even
though theory/science have got some goodness, sometimes even
extrodinarily goodness, they also have some "not so goodness" (some
gnostics would probably say "evil"), in it as well that contaminants
it so to speak, resulting in a flawed instrument. Unfortunately for
us, "flawed instruments" are all that we have for exploring and
manipulating the creators' world, including our flawed, physical
bodies; so its' what we use. In time, people tend to forget about the
"flawed" part and focus only on the "goodness". Most actual clinical
scientist will dance around this and finally use their "gut" (i.e.
"the suffering Christ" in my limited understanding of Gnosticism) to
make sense of the flawed data or something like that. I think that
basic duality is fundemental to the definition of Gnostic belief/faith
embedded in our Western cultural language, no????????? You can turn
it on its' had and redefine it, but then its' no longer Gnosticism.
It becomes something else...
Totally agree that Barth and all of them were chatting each other up
as they developed "french phenomenology" in the early 30's and 40's.
Levinas' claim to fame is that he was one of Heidegger's students
early on and brought his translations of Heide's early works into
french (along with his dissertation) to their attention...then
everyone got crazy with Nietzsche who had been bringing threads of
eastern thought into the Western Tradition (whatever that may be...tee-
hee!) under the guise of Orientalism or something like that. It makes
me think of Victorian parlors with hookahs' and smoking robes or
something like that. At least that's my understanding...I'll own that
its' a bit loose.
> In gnosticism, as Shriven is explaining, the idea is taken
> much more seriously. The otherness of God lies in his
> relationship with the cosmos as a whole; in Leper's words, he's
> alien to the universe. The "alien God" is first of all a
> reference to Marcion's deity, but the phrase applies to gnostic
> theology in general.
Thanks for the clarification about the "alien God's" source in
Marcion. I'll tune in as I move into that part of the Gnostic Bible.
> Of course there's an epistemological aspect: God can't be
> adequately described or categorized. Since he radically
> transcends the world, he can't be captured in its understanding.
> But just as importantly he isn't the God of this world.
> Unlike certain other forms of negative theology which deify the
> Creator, gnosticism puts the divine in opposition to the
> cosmos. In Marcion's terms, the God of Creation is not the God
> of Salvation.
>
> Apologies in advance if I'm telling you things you already
> know.
>
> -- Catawumpus
This all gets me excited me and resonants with much of my
understandings of the world... :) Much thanks and apologies to all
from me for battling around with my scientific/philosophical
background. Its' currently the only understanding I have to access
Gnosticism...I'll pick more of who's who and had which notion as I
read more...
Heide --- perhaps with some blond hair... :)
Heideana
> Heideana <heide...@pacbell.net>:
>
> >> Something in me feels that we need to understand gnosticism if we want
> >> to understand and intergrate ourselves fullly into the Western
> >> Traditions hard wired into us by our "mother tongue"..
>
>
> > Well, I can see wanting to integrate ourselves into the Western
> > Traditions, as a matter of being historically informed. However,
> > Gnosticism's "unassimilability" makes it per se unintegratable into
> > most Western systems I know of. Catawumpus may have some more
> > detailed thinking on this.
>
> There's some later things in the same line: Manichaeanism
> followed by the Paulicians, Bogomils, and Cathars (not to
> mention the Frankists), but to me that's all the same tradition.
> Heckler: "It all sounds the same!" Neil Young: "It's all
> one song!" (_Year of the Horse_.) There are also some obvious
> points of comparison (truth vs. reality in Plato and in
> Nietzsche, world-rejection in Schopenhauer, alienation anywhere
> you look, frex Heidegger), but nothing that occurs to me is
> compatible on the whole -- definitely not the philosophies I've
> listed.
>
> -- Catawumpus
Oh do I agree with you on the "same old song" -- right on up thru
Hegel...we all rock around the clock. Then enter Henri Bergson stage
left I believe and he's question of what the "clock" was all about.
Heidegger used his work as an underlying (and not very mentioned as
Derrida points out) theme of his work up thru "Being and Time". At
that point he realized the "Flaw" in our understanding of the world if
you will and stopped dead in his tracks, had his moment of "the
turning", and began writing about language and humans as being the
shepards of it while interpreting poetry and greek
philosophy...everyone thought he was a little off by that point and
there are those concerns about nazism, but Derrida did a lot to "fix
the flaws" if such a thing is possible.
I think Levinas and Maurice Blanchot are probably compatible, as are
possible some of the other French phenomenologists like Lyotard and
Merlou-Ponty with his really radical notions of phenomenology, however
they are very late in the game and have some real serious concerns in
reaction to the holocaust. Levinas was in a concentration camp at one
point and was really into radical "otherness", as were a lot of the
other early French phenomenologist.
As I think about it, Kierkegaard might be a good candidate to include
in the group...even though he was overly religious and zealous, "Fear
and Trembling" and "Repetition" come to mind as having this weird
effect of side-stepping the whole issue and turning it upside down...I
think in my reading of Kierkegaard, I also remember getting this
excited resonance that he was also on to the creator god vs. the alien
god. It was reminescent of a Zen Koan example where the light went on
in my head...
Thanks again for all the conversation...Hopkins
shriven leper
wrote:
Hey, that's a really good one.
- sl -
Catawumpus
>> Catawumpus <kimm...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>> Gnosticism's unassimilability is one of its primary
>>> features. It indeed represents "a raft from the other shore"... to
>>> borrow a Buddhistic, but hopefully not a New Agey, phrase...
>> How about "the news from nowhere"? The title of a William
>> Morris novel I've never read.
> Hey, that's a really good one.
Cool, huh? I'm worried the book might not be half as good.
-- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
> Oh do I agree with you on the "same old song" -- right on up thru
> Hegel...we all rock around the clock. Then enter Henri Bergson stage
> left I believe and he's question of what the "clock" was all about.
I know this game: date the epistemological break. Always
fun. Can't be later than Nietzsche, though I'd say it's
periodic ("all you gotta do to join is to sing it the next time
it comes around on the guitar").
> Heidegger used his work as an underlying (and not very mentioned as
> Derrida points out) theme of his work up thru "Being and Time". At
> that point he realized the "Flaw" in our understanding of the world if
> you will and stopped dead in his tracks, had his moment of "the
> turning", and began writing about language and humans as being the
> shepards of it while interpreting poetry and greek
> philosophy...everyone thought he was a little off by that point and
> there are those concerns about nazism, but Derrida did a lot to "fix
> the flaws" if such a thing is possible.
Better: Derrida discusses the significance of Heidegger's
fascism instead of just condemning his politics or making
excuses for him. de Man is also very good, especially after he
gets over phenomenology.
> I think Levinas and Maurice Blanchot are probably compatible, as are
> possible some of the other French phenomenologists like Lyotard and
> Merlou-Ponty with his really radical notions of phenomenology, however
> they are very late in the game and have some real serious concerns in
> reaction to the holocaust. Levinas was in a concentration camp at one
> point and was really into radical "otherness", as were a lot of the
> other early French phenomenologist.
The question for me is still about the radicality of those
proposed othernesses. Like I said, I haven't read much
Levinas, but Barth's "radically other" God is just the same one
again, so I have my doubts. It's also unclear how radical
claims for otherness can actually be. _Pas d'au-dela_, to coin
a phrase.
> As I think about it, Kierkegaard might be a good candidate to include
> in the group...even though he was overly religious and zealous, "Fear
> and Trembling" and "Repetition" come to mind as having this weird
> effect of side-stepping the whole issue and turning it upside down...I
> think in my reading of Kierkegaard, I also remember getting this
> excited resonance that he was also on to the creator god vs. the alien
> god. It was reminescent of a Zen Koan example where the light went on
> in my head...
If your periodizing begins with "on up through Hegel" then
Kierkegaard is unavoidable: his critique of the System is
aimed right at you-know-who. Calling him "overly religious" is
hard for me to understand. "Because thou art lukewarm, and
neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." Catch
is that is he's committed to the same old God. If there's
somewhere he denies Yahweh, I'd love to see. Doesn't seem very
likely, but I'm interested.
> Thanks again for all the conversation...
Ditto.
-- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
> Thanks for the clarification about the "alien God's" source in
> Marcion. I'll tune in as I move into that part of the Gnostic Bible.
The Meyer and Barnstone anthology? Not there. Like I was
saying, they make some questionable choices. It's a real
doorstop, so they had lots of room, but they give big chunks to
stuff that either isn't gnosticism -- Islamic mystical
writings -- or may not be (Thomas stuff, Hermeticism), using up
space they could've offered to Marcion or other gnostics.
Still a good collection, but it could've been a much better one.
> This all gets me excited me and resonants with much of my
> understandings of the world... :) Much thanks and apologies to all
> from me for battling around with my scientific/philosophical
> background. Its' currently the only understanding I have to access
> Gnosticism...I'll pick more of who's who and had which notion as I
> read more...
Not a problem. Sorry that I can't talk more about Levinas
with you, but we can chat about those other folks with
gnosticism in view. Too bad they don't address it directly (so
far as I know). Derrida takes an interest in negative
theology, but he picks out the canonical example, Dionysius the
Areopagite, not the gnostic ones.
-- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
> I've proved
You've proved that you peddle misinformation by suggesting
flagrantly unreliable articles make a good place to learn
about the Valentinians. Again, the essays that you recommended
at gnosis.org offer claims directly contradicted by the
evidence in the sources. For instance, they deny that docetism
is part of Valentinian thinking, but it appears in several
places including Ptolemy (Jesus "did not take anything material"
according to the account in Irenaeus, AH 1.6.1) and "the
Orientals," the eastern wing, who thought that "the body of the
Saviour was spiritual" in opposition to their western
counterparts, who said "the body of Jesus was animal" (quoting
Hippolytus, RG 6.30). Another example: the web-pages you
linked to argue "the demiurge certainly could not be considered
evil" in Valentinian myth. Obvious nonsense, since the
Gospel of Truth pictures him (or her) "preparing with power and
beauty the substitute for the truth" -- i.e., the Creation --
and "preparing works and oblivions and terrors" (see the Gospel
of Truth 17:18-20 and 17:31-35).
> you false by posting the ten commandments.
The falsehood is yours, as always. You posted a carefully
selected set of the Ten Commandments, leaving out e.g. the
Creator's statmement that he punishes the children for the sins
of the fathers "unto the third and fourth generation."
Reminded what you'd removed, you claimed you were debating with
the proposition the Creator is "all evil." Nothing but a
strawman, since nobody was making that claim. In fact I'd said
to Heidi that the Creator and his Creation don't have to be
all bad to be bad enough to merit the label. As I've explained
to you before, the picture of him given in the Bible, the
specifics of his law very much included, is good reason to call
him evil even though the law has some better commandments
along with the worse ones you're ignoring, like for example the
items concerning blood-sacrifice or death by stoning (the
punishment for dissent from his theocracy). Not to mention the
evils he inflicts on Job, a blameless and upright man, the
massacres that he orders, his willingness to harm the righteous
along with the wicked, etc.
Even the commands you quoted have some problems. Honoring
father and mother, for example. Why? What did they do to
deserve it? What if they beat and starve you? They definitely
brought a child into this world, which hardly seems like an
honorable thing to do. Evidently one is supposed to honor them
merely because of their status as parents, the way one is
forced to follow the commandment just because it comes from the
Lord and Creator: a very _worldly_ system of values, in
contrast with your notion the decalogue concerns a higher plane
of existence.
Also notice the contrast to Jesus' teachings in opposition
to the family in the Gospels. Examples include "Call no man
your father upon the earth" (Matthew 23:9), "If any man come to
me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and
children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also
he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26), "Who is my mother?
and who are my brethren?" (Matt. 12:48, where Jesus refuses his
natural family), "Let the dead bury their dead," Jesus
commanding a follower to skip his father's burial (Matthew 8:22
and Luke 9:60), and "I came not to send peace, but a sword"
-- Matthew 10:34, Luke 12:51 -- where he goes on "For I am come
to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother," etc. Exactly the opposite of the
Creator's law.
> I suggest reading
Take your own advice. Sit down, shut up, and try to learn
about gnosticism -- I already suggested some good books --
instead of repeatedly demonstrating your ignorance on the topic.
> the Letter to Flora for a better understanding on "Jehovah".
Even Ptolemy's very diplomatic Letter to Flora (written to
an uninitiated Christian woman and breaking off before the
teachings she'll receive if and when "deemed worthy") expressly
denies the demiurge's goodness (Pan. 33.7.5), and in the
full-size system he can never be completely saved. Although he
eventually accepts Jesus he's nonetheless eternally barred
from the pleroma, consigned to the place Sophia occupied during
her fall. Irenaeus, AH 1.7.1.
> As for linking to primary sources he does that so
The joker you recommended doesn't provide any links in his
articles. I'm not holding that against him, but it's very
revealing that you pasted in the URL for a false interpretation
of the Valentinians while ignoring the archive of primary
source material on-line at the same site. Pretty much sums you
up right there.
> why hell would I?
My point exactly. The evidence in the sources clearly and
repeatedly contradicts your claims about the Valentinians --
something I've showed over and over again -- so you'd naturally
ignore it whenever you could.
> You're just mad because we have similar views with do not agree with
> your OPINION.
I've given chapter and verse demonstrating the evidence in
the historical sources repeatedly contradicts the claims
you've made about the Valentinians as well as assertions on the
same topic in the web-pages you linked.
While I was at it, I also showed you're also badly at odds
with Pagels, who disputes you on all the same points even
though you claimed to "share her view on pretty much everything."
Now you've thrown her overboard.
> I find
You find whatever suits your preconceptions and you ignore
anything that threatens them.
> it amusing that you bring up Valentinian perspective without
> mentioning Christ.
You're piling lies on top of lies. Especially stupid ones
since they're about a public conversation. You claimed I
offered "pagan gnosticism without duality" after I had reminded
you about the dualities in Christian gnosticism. Now you
insist I didn't mention Christ even though I've referred to him
about a dozen times.
-- Catawumpus
zen gnostic
> zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com>:
>
In case you forgot I've always claimed one God with duality. Thanks
for proving the point.
>
> > I suggest reading
>
> Take your own advice. Sit down, shut up, and try to learn
> about gnosticism -- I already suggested some good books --
> instead of repeatedly demonstrating your ignorance on the topic.
>
> > the Letter to Flora for a better understanding on "Jehovah".
>
> Even Ptolemy's very diplomatic Letter to Flora (written to
> an uninitiated Christian woman and breaking off before the
> teachings she'll receive if and when "deemed worthy") expressly
> denies the demiurge's goodness (Pan. 33.7.5), and in the
> full-size system he can never be completely saved. Although he
> eventually accepts Jesus he's nonetheless eternally barred
> from the pleroma, consigned to the place Sophia occupied during
> her fall. Irenaeus, AH 1.7.1.
And if the perfect God is good by nature, in fact he is, for our
Savior declared that there is only a single good God, his Father whom
he manifested; and if the one who is the opposite nature is evil and
wicked, characterized by injustice; then the one situated between the
two is neither good nor evil or unjust, but can properly be called
just, since he is the arbitrator of the justice which is his.
So you are on the same page as Pagels eh? This is on her book cover of
Beyond faith (which I'm enthusiastically reading) "Drawing on new
scholarship - her own, and that of an international group of scholars
- Pagels shows that what matters about Christianity involves much more
than any one set of beliefs. Traditions embodied in Judaism and
Christianity can powerfully affect us in heart, mind, and spirit,
inspire visions of a new society based on practicing justice and love,
even heal and transform us."
Wow...sounds like all rivers flow to the same Ocean. Now why does this
sound familiar?
A good summary from herself can be found here.
http://southerncrossreview.org/29/pagels.htm
Sometimes the person who receives baptism “receives the holy spirit…
this is what happens when one experiences a mystery.” Divine grace,
this implies, isn’t sufficient; the initiate’s capacity for spiritual
understanding is also a factor. “Faith is our earth, in which we take
root; hope is the water through which we are nourished; love is the
air through which we grow; gnosis is the light through which we become
fully grown.
Exactly what I've been saying all along.
shriven leper
wrote:
Yeah.... never heard of him, so Googled him - is he the "British
socialist-designer-fantasist-poet" guy I saw there...?
- sl -
Heideana
> fascism instead of just condemning his politics or making
> excuses for him. de Man is also very good, especially after he
> gets over phenomenology.
I suspect that my "whole" understanding of things is grounded in
Derrida "front and center"...he's essentially the "lens" I've used to
read back through Levinas, Heidegger, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. On
the other hand, he's confusing or alienating to most folks I know, so
its' been easier to go back to the sources. I think he makes it a lot
easier to start connecting the dots about what the Western Tradition
is actually about if you know what your listening for in his readings
and writings.
Another thing I think that light things up for me was realizing that
Dilthey was essentially using "biblical exegesis" to found the
interpretive sciences...that was an eye-opener. I'm pretty sure that
the practice of exegesis is a big concern of both Gnostic and
Orthodoxy Christianity and its' sometimes pretty easy for me to start
seeing how things link-up in their relationships, even though say
someone like Heidegger doesn't actually come out and talk about the
primacy of the other, but in his works after the turning you can
almost hear it on the tip of his tongue...almost like a grasping for
the language to describe it.
The place that comes to mind is in Derrida's reading of "Fear and
Trembling" in "The Gift of Death"...in that way of showing Abraham and
his family as being essentially dysfunctional in that all know what's
going on but can't talk about and the notions' of what an asshole of a
god would require such a thing...or at least that's my memory. But
again it could be contaiminated by my background in Gnosticism...
--- Heidiana...
Heideana
I'm pretty sure I came across references that some Gnostics thought of
children/offsprings as being they're "sins". Maybee by diluting the
spark of Christ in the individual and/or having an obligation to keep
the individual in this world??? It sounds like Jesus's advice is
aimed at liberating the individual from the natural family and at
least from the obligation aspect?
I may have this all wrong since I'm still in that overview of learning
something new and have lots to re-read...Heide
Catawumpus
> I'm pretty sure I came across references that some Gnostics thought of
> children/offsprings as being they're "sins". Maybee by diluting the
> spark of Christ in the individual and/or having an obligation to keep
> the individual in this world???
Dunno what you were reading, but I can give you an example
or two of the theme.
The lord revealed unto me what the soul must say when it
is ascending into heaven and how it must reply to each
of the higher powers: 'I have come to be acquainted with
myself' - it says; 'I have collected myself from
everywhere; I have not sown children for the ruler, but
have eradicated its roots and collected the scattered
members. And I know who you [singular] are. For it is I'
- it says - 'who belong to those from the above.' And
so - it says - the soul departs. But if - it says - it
is found to have produced a child, it is restrained
below until it can get back its own offspring and return
to itself.
Gospel of Philip (the still-missing one). Epiphanius, Pan.
26.13.2.
... By the Marcionites nature is regarded as evil because
it was created out of evil matter and by a just Creator.
On this ground, that they do not wish to fill the world
made by the Creator-God, they decide to abstain from
marriage. Thus they are in opposition to their Maker and
hasten towards him who is called the good God, but not to
the God, as they say, of the other kind. As they wish to
leave nothing of their own behind them on this earth,
they are continent, not of their own free choice, but
from hatred of the Creator, being unwilling to use what
he has made.
Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 3.3.12. Notice the parallel
between "they wish to leave nothing of their own behind
them on this earth" -- the Marcionites -- and "I have collected
myself from everywhere; I have not sown children for the
ruler" in the Gospel of Philip. Same principle, but associated
with opposite practices.
> It sounds like Jesus's advice is
> aimed at liberating the individual from the natural family and at
> least from the obligation aspect?
Liberation from the natural family and more generally from
life in the natural world. Of course the scriptures are
anything but consistent, so you can easily find verses teaching
the contrary -- I'm talking about the canonical NT -- but in
many places Jesus' ideas have what sounds to me like a strongly
gnostic ring.
-- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
> I suspect that my "whole" understanding of things is grounded in
> Derrida "front and center"...he's essentially the "lens" I've used to
> read back through Levinas, Heidegger, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche.
I know what you mean. I came to Nietzsche, Heidegger, and
Kierkegaard on my own, but there are others (Bataille and
Blanchot are both examples) who I discovered by reading Derrida.
> The place that comes to mind is in Derrida's reading of "Fear and
> Trembling" in "The Gift of Death"...in that way of showing Abraham and
> his family as being essentially dysfunctional in that all know what's
> going on but can't talk about and the notions' of what an asshole of a
> god would require such a thing...or at least that's my memory.
Been awhile since I've read _Fear and Trembling_, but it's
a good bet that Kierkegaard sticks with Yahweh rather than
arguing on behalf of any alien gods. Point of the thing is the
unqualified submission necessary in response to God's
unconditional command (Yahweh ordering Abraham to sacrifice his
son Isaac), which makes a total call and requires the same
kind of reply: "absolute duty to God," in K's phrase, over all
other values and considerations.
-- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
>>> Catawumpus <kimm...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >>>> Gnosticism's unassimilability is one of its primary
> >>>> features. It indeed represents "a raft from the other shore"... to
> >>>> borrow a Buddhistic, but hopefully not a New Agey, phrase...
> >>> How about "the news from nowhere"? The title of a William
> >>> Morris novel I've never read.
...
> Yeah.... never heard of him, so Googled him - is he the "British
> socialist-designer-fantasist-poet" guy I saw there...?
That's the one. 19th c. British utopianism. I'm not sure
about the odds.
-- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
> In case you forgot I've always claimed one God with duality.
You claimed one God by arguing against the division of God
from the Creator of this world, the demiurge. You also
claimed critical pictures of the demiurge are corruption of the
concept in Plato. Of course you're entitled to your own
opinions, but they clearly put you in conflict with the gnostic
perspective, since the gnostics -- even the Valentinians, a
relatively conservative school -- do exactly what you object to.
> Thanks for proving the point.
I've proved your claim to be in line with the Valentinians
is repeatedly contradicted by the evidence in the historical
sources. Just for fun I've also showed you're in conflict with
Pagels' desciption of Valentinian thinking even though you
believe that you're in agreement with just about everything she
says.
> So
So you're a liar and a fool. In this discussion alone you
recommended a set of highly unreliable web-pages on the
Valentinians -- ignoring a useful collection of source material
on the same site -- you attacked the strawman that Yahweh
always gives evil commandents, you falsely claimed I'm offering
"pagan gnosticism without duality" -- this after I had
reminded you about the dualities in Christian gnosticism -- and
followed up that piece of nonsense by insisting I hadn't
mentioned Christ, even though I'd referred to him about a dozen
times.
> you are on the same page as Pagels eh?
Pagels plainly contradicts you despite your claim to agree
with "pretty much everything" she says. According to you
dividing the Creator from the true God is "pure speculation and
arrogance." If required to consider the concept of the
demiurge, you opt for the flattering portrait in Plato over the
critical one in gnosticism. Opinions you're welcome to.
Catch is that you wrongly claim the Valentinians agree with you:
an idea disputed both by the evidence in the sources -- as
I've already showed -- and by Pagels' account of their thinking.
In _The Gnostic Gospels_, e.g., she says, referring to
Valentinus, "What gnostics know is that the creator makes false
claims to power ('I am God, and there is no other') that
derive from his own ignorance." (Ch. two, "One God, One Bishop."
The quote is on page 37 in my copy.) There she plainly
describes Valentinus dividing God from the creator of the world
-- i.e., the demiurge -- who he accuses of falsehood and
ignorance. She also recognizes the Valentinians (Heracleon, in
particular) feel materiality "belongs to 'the devil'; it is
'his cosmos,' the totality of evil, 'the dwelling place of wild
beasts.'" (_The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis_, ch.
five, "Two Types of Conversion," p. 89.) She mentions that the
Valentinians identified "the demiurge and his archons" with
the enslaving elements in Gal. 4:3. (See _The Gnostic Paul_ ch.
four, "Galatians," p. 109 in my paperback.) Etc. The
Valentinians, in Pagels' description, separate the Creator from
God, reduce him to a very inferior demiurge, attack his
Creation, and so on, putting their perspective in conflict with
yours, contrary to your claim to have them lined up behind
you, but consistent with the evidence in the historical sources.
-- Catawumpus
shriven leper
wrote:
At least he tried...
- sl -
zen gnostic
> zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com>:
>
checkmate
Catawumpus
> checkmate
If you mean you checkmated yourself, then yes: but that's
condition you've been in since you arrived, when you
mistakenly claimed gnosticism referred to some undifferentiated
kind of spirituality rather than to a particular religious
perspective and just as wrongly insisted Pagels agreed with you.
Since then you've moved on to falsely claiming the
Valentinians share your particular perspective, an idea at odds
with both the historical evidence, as I demonstrated, and
counter to Pagels' interpretation, since she notes the features
of the Valentinian outlook directly opposed to yours, e.g.
their separation of God from the Creator of the cosmos, reduced
to a mere demiurge, their critical attitude toward the
demiurge, and their correspondingly negative view of this world.
-- Catawumpus
Heideana
> zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com>:
>
C's got a point...if you're deconstructing a notion, you still have to
honor its' interpretive guardrails (or something like that).
Otherwise you turned it (the text) into something other what it was
when you started and it sort of desolves at your feet as one Professor
once told me. Whatever you interpret out of it is no longer in sync
(or resonants with it) and is not valid for interpreting the text or
something like that. I believe its' whats' sometimes referred to as
"the Hermeneutics of Suspicion"....Heide with the blond hair
Catawumpus
[to ZG]
>> ... You
>> mistakenly claimed gnosticism referred to some undifferentiated
>> kind of spirituality rather than to a particular religious
>> perspective and just as wrongly insisted Pagels agreed with you.
>> Since then you've moved on to falsely claiming the
>> Valentinians share your particular perspective, an idea at odds
>> with both the historical evidence, as I demonstrated, and
>> counter to Pagels' interpretation, since she notes the features
>> of the Valentinian outlook directly opposed to yours, e.g.
>> their separation of God from the Creator of the cosmos, reduced
>> to a mere demiurge, their critical attitude toward the
>> demiurge, and their correspondingly negative view of this world.
Heideana <heid...@pacbell.net>:
> C's got a point...if you're deconstructing a notion, you still have to
> honor its' interpretive guardrails (or something like that).
> Otherwise you turned it (the text) into something other what it was
> when you started and it sort of desolves at your feet as one Professor
> once told me. Whatever you interpret out of it is no longer in sync
> (or resonants with it) and is not valid for interpreting the text or
> something like that.
I don't notice anybody doing any deconstructing around here.
ZG has been trying to co-opt the gnostics, i.e., to
appropriate the gnostic perspective by insisting it matches his
own view of things, but he's contradicted both by the
historical evidence and by Pagels, who he claimed to agree with.
> I believe its' whats' sometimes referred to as "the Hermeneutics of Suspicion"
What is? If you mean "hermeneutics of suspicion" includes
deconstruction, then I agree.
-- Catawumpus
zen gnostic
Then why did he snip out everything concerning Pagel's book cover?
Something about what Christos brings to the table horrifies the poor
soul.
Catawumpus
> Then why did he snip out everything concerning Pagel's book cover?
When are you going to stop dodging the evidence disproving
your claims to be lined up with the Valentinians and with
Pagels' interpretation? In your opinion it's wrong to separate
God from the Creator of this world, wrong to criticize the
Creator, and wrong to take a negative view of the Creation. By
contrast, Valentinian thinking, as its described in the
historical source materials, divides God from the Maker of this
world, reduces the latter to an inferior demiurge --
variously depicted as arrogant, ignorant, evil, disgusting, etc.
-- and describes the cosmos as a "mountain of evil," a
nightmare, a place made of suffering, and so on: precisely the
opposite of your opinions.
Same in Pagels. Although she tones things down, she notes
the features in Valentinian thinking contrary to your own
outlook: their division of the demiurge from God, the critical
attitude they take to the demiurge, and their similarly
negative view of the world he shaped: again the exact opposite
of your own feelings.
Quotes and cites in my earlier posts, where you completely
ignored them. As I said, you're free to reject gnostic
theology and to dispute the gnostics' devaluation of this world.
Nobody here is demanding that you to accept the gnostic
perspective, or even asking you to. But it would be kinda nice
if you stopped misrepresenting gnosticism while trying to
pretend the gnostics are lined up behind your preferred beliefs.
> Something about what Christos brings to the table horrifies the poor
> soul.
Since you lie about the gnostics and about Pagels, it's no
surprise you also lie about me, in this instance falsely
insisting that I left Christ out of Valentinianism, even though
I mentioned him about a dozen times. You also claimed I
offered "pagan gnosticism without duality" after I had reminded
you about the dualities in Christian gnosticism (the
Valentinian version in particular), again showing you're unable
to defend your position honestly.
-- Catawumpus
zen gnostic
> zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com>:
>
Not all of them. You are free to stick to many of the gnostic schools
but you can't have Valentinus. He was going to be Pope due to his
"faith" in Jesus not some demiurge concept which did not matter to
Jesus or myself. Two gods or one with duality...To those suffering in
this world it doesn't make a damn bit of difference. (like your
argument)
>
> > Something about what Christos brings to the table horrifies the poor
> > soul.
>
> Since you lie about the gnostics and about Pagels, it's no
> surprise you also lie about me, in this instance falsely
> insisting that I left Christ out of Valentinianism, even though
> I mentioned him about a dozen times.
You mentioned him heh? For Pagels and myself he is the leading
character (not the demiurge). Understand Christ and one has attained
gnosis.
>You also claimed I
> offered "pagan gnosticism without duality" after I had reminded
> you about the dualities in Christian gnosticism (the
> Valentinian version in particular), again showing you're unable
> to defend your position honestly.
>
> -- Catawumpus
Well here is her book cover again as she informs us how all rivers of
faith flow to the same ocean. Agree or disagree?
Catawumpus
> You are free to
I'm free to show that you're talking crap when you pretend
to be aligned with the Valentinians, and so I've done, both
with evidence from the sources and, just for kicks, with regard
to Pagels, who you claim to agree with.
> stick to many of the gnostic schools but you can't have Valentinus.
Too late: I already do. As I already showed -- I'll give
the details again below -- Valentinus and his followers
divide God from the Creator of this world, who they lower to an
inferior demiurge, and strongly criticize the Creation:
exactly the things you condemn, contrary to your idea you're in
line with their thinking.
> He was going to be Pope due to his
> "faith" in Jesus not some demiurge concept which did not matter to
> Jesus or myself.
The same falsehood you already tried to peddle. According
to the evidence in the sources, Valentinus and his various
fallowers clearly divided the true God from the Creator of this
world, reducing the latter to an inferior demiurge. He
distinguishes "the uncreated Father" from the demiurge, a being
created by Sophia while she's "deprived of her spiritual
substance" (Irenaeus AH 1.11.1). Ditto other Valentinians like
Ptolemy, who separates Bythos, located "in the invisible and
ineffable heights above," from the demiurge, i.e., the
"creator of all animal and material substances," once again the
product of Sophia's fall from the pleroma ( AH 1.1.1. and
1.5.2); Heracleon, who explains pneumatics "worship neither the
creation nor the Demiurge, but the Father of truth" (I'm
quoting from Frag. 20), and Marcus, who similarly separates God
the Father from the demiurge, the maker of this world, who
"followed that which was false." See Irenaeus AH 1.16.3-1-17.2.
If you're required to consider the idea of a demiurge, you
choose the flattering portrait in Plato over the gnostics'
critical picture, and again once the Valentinians clearly argue
against you. Granted they don't attack the demiurge as
sharply as some other gnostic schools. Nonetheless they demote
him from his traditional position as supreme being and
describe him as unspiritual (Valentinus), depict him doing evil
-- Gospel of Truth 16:15-20, 16:30-36 -- picture him as
arrogant and ignorant (Ptolemy), call him disgusting (Theodotus
in _Excerpta_ 33.4), and accuse him of incompetence and
falsehood (Marcus), contradicting your claim that you have them
on your side.
You say that the body is the temple of the soul and you're
unhappy with judgments against the Creation: you even
rejected Jesus' relatively mild teaching "Be passers-by" in the
Gospel of Thomas. But the Valentinians look forward to
ascending to the pleroma leaving body and soul behind, and they
prophesy the destruction of material existence (example:
Ptolemy in Irenaeus, AH 1.7.1). Heracleon refers to this world
as "a total mountain of evil," (Fragment 20), Valentinus
labels the ordinary body "corruption" (Clement of Alexandria in
Strom. 3.59.3) and teaches the nullification of this world
(Strom. 4.89:1-3), yet again showing your opinions are contrary
to the Valentinians.'
You like to think about Jesus as a "mortal man with mortal
desires." But the Valentinians see him as a heavenly
emmanation (Irenaeus AH 1.11.1, AH 1.2.6): "perfect beauty and
star of the fullness." Time and again the Valentinians
plainly stand opposed to your own beliefs despite your pretence
to agree with them.
> Two gods or one with duality...To those suffering in
> this world it doesn't make a damn bit of difference.
Makes a big difference to the gnostics -- the Valentinians
very much included -- who divide the Creator of this world
from the true God. Of course you're fully entitled to your own
opinions about theology, but it's no use pretending the
gnostic perspective fits yours or lying about what the evidence
says.
> (like your argument)
My argument is based on the historical evidence. Yours is
missing.
> You mentioned him heh?
I mentioned Christ a dozen times or so when discussing the
Valentinians, contrary to your claim I left him out of my
description. I also listed about a half-dozen of the dualities
in their thinking, despite your assertion I was offering
"pagan gnosticism without duality." Obviously you can't defend
your position honestly.
> For Pagels and myself he is the leading
> character (not the demiurge). Understand Christ and one has attained
> gnosis.
Pagels slaps you in the face by describing the
Valentinians as Christian gnostics who divide the true God from
the Creator of this world, reducing the latter to a badly
flawed demiurge and holding a similarly negative opinion of his
Creation.
> Well here is her book cover again as she informs us how all rivers of
Um, no. You still haven't figured out that you're quoting
the publisher's blurb. Pagels very clearly identifies the
gnostics with a particular religious perspective, contradicting
your earlier notion that she agrees with you in thinking
gnosticism is merely a generic term for spirituality in any and
every tradition.
> faith flow to the same ocean. Agree or disagree?
Pagels disputes your b.s. about the Valentinians, even tho
you claim to agree with her on practically everything. In
_The Gnostic Gospels_, for example, she says, referring to
Valentinus, "What gnostics know is that the creator makes false
claims to power ('I am God, and there is no other') that
derive from his own ignorance." (Ch. two, "One God, One Bishop."
The quote is on page 37 in my copy.) There she plainly
describes Valentinus dividing God from the creator of the world
-- i.e., the demiurge -- who he accuses of falsehood and
ignorance. She also recognizes the Valentinians (Heracleon, in
particular) feel materiality "belongs to 'the devil'; it is
'his cosmos,' the totality of evil, 'the dwelling place of wild
beasts.'" (_The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis_, ch.
five, "Two Types of Conversion," p. 89.) She mentions that the
Valentinians identified "the demiurge and his archons" with
the enslaving elements in Gal. 4:3. (See _The Gnostic Paul_ ch.
four, "Galatians," p. 109 in my paperback.) Etc. The
Valentinians, in Pagels' description, separate the Creator from
God, reduce him to a highly inferior demiurge, attack his
Creation, and so on, putting their perspective in conflict with
yours, contrary to your claim to have them lined up behind
you but consistent with the historical evidence, as I've showed.
-- Catawumpus
zen gnostic
> zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com>:
>
So the publisher's blurb does not describe what her book is about and
Valentinus was never considered for the pope position...OK, whatever.
Catawumpus
> So
So your claims are contrary to the evidence, which clearly
shows the Valentinians rejecting Creator and Creation, and
your appeal to Pagels' authority failed twice-over: not merely
because of the logical fallacy but also because she talks
about the themes in Valentinian thinking you're trying to avoid.
> the publisher's blurb does not describe what her book is about and
You didn't claim that the blurb describes what the book is
about; you said that you were quoting Pagels when you were
merely cut-and-pasting the jacket copy. The second time you've
confused Pagels with advertising. In your own words, you
really are "that @#$%ing stupid." Hard though it is to believe.
> Valentinus
Valentinus isn't behind you, since the historical evidence
indicates he and his followers do what you condemn: they
divide God from the Creator of this world; reduce the latter to
a highly inferior demiurge; take a critical view of the
material world, including the body; and so forth: the opposite
of your point of view.
> was never considered for the pope position...
The story is that Valentinus was rejected for Pope because
he didn't accept orthodoxy: another guy got the job "by
reason of a claim which confessorship had given him." (Quoting
Tertullian's _Against the Valentinians_ 4.) Not very
surprising, since Valentinus divides God from the Maker of this
world. Irenaeus AH 1.11.1.
-- Catawumpus
zen gnostic
> zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com>:
>
>
> So your claims are contrary to the evidence, which clearly
> shows the Valentinians rejecting Creator and Creation, and
> your appeal to Pagels' authority failed twice-over: not merely
> because of the logical fallacy but also because she talks
> about the themes in Valentinian thinking you're trying to avoid.
>
> > the publisher's blurb does not describe what her book is about and
>
> You didn't claim that the blurb describes what the book is
> about; you said that you were quoting Pagels when you were
> merely cut-and-pasting the jacket copy. The second time you've
> confused Pagels with advertising. In your own words, you
> really are "that @#$%ing stupid." Hard though it is to believe.
So the fucking blurb does not describe whats in the GD book?!? This
childish bullshit has officially ended.
>
> > Valentinus
>
> Valentinus isn't behind you, since the historical evidence
> indicates he and his followers do what you condemn: they
> divide God from the Creator of this world; reduce the latter to
> a highly inferior demiurge; take a critical view of the
> material world, including the body; and so forth: the opposite
> of your point of view.
>
> > was never considered for the pope position...
>
> The story is that Valentinus was rejected for Pope because
> he didn't accept orthodoxy: another guy got the job "by
> reason of a claim which confessorship had given him." (Quoting
> Tertullian's _Against the Valentinians_ 4.) Not very
> surprising, since Valentinus divides God from the Maker of this
> world. Irenaeus AH 1.11.1.
>
> -- Catawumpus
or that maybe because he professed the kingdom in which Jesus spoke is
available to everyone.
Catawumpus
> So
So your claims are contrary to the evidence, which clearly
shows the Valentinians rejecting Creator and Creation, and
your appeal to Pagels' authority failed twice-over: not merely
because of the logical fallacy but also because she talks
about the themes in Valentinian thinking you're trying to avoid.
> the fucking blurb does not describe whats in the GD book?!?
You didn't claim that the blurb describes what the book is
about; you said that you were quoting Pagels when you were
merely cut-and-pasting the jacket copy. The second time you've
confused Pagels with advertising. In your own words, you
really are "that @#$%ing stupid." Hard though it is to believe.
> This childish bullshit has officially ended.
Thus far your childish bullshit shows no signs of stopping.
> or that maybe because he professed the kingdom in which Jesus spoke is
> available to everyone.
No evidence for your blathering, but considerable evidence
to the contrary. The Valentinians divide mankind in three
classes. Only pneumatics can be fully saved; psychics can gain
at most partial salvation, since they can never enter the
pleroma (Irenaeus AH 1.7.1), while hylics can't be saved at all.
-- Catawumpus
Heideana
Catawumpus wrote:
> zen gnostic <borger...@yahoo.com>:
>
> > So
>
> So your claims are contrary to the evidence, which clearly
> shows the Valentinians rejecting Creator and Creation, and
> your appeal to Pagels' authority failed twice-over: not merely
> because of the logical fallacy but also because she talks
> about the themes in Valentinian thinking you're trying to avoid.
>
> > the fucking blurb does not describe whats in the GD book?!?
>
> You didn't claim that the blurb describes what the book is
> about; you said that you were quoting Pagels when you were
> merely cut-and-pasting the jacket copy. The second time you've
> confused Pagels with advertising. In your own words, you
> really are "that @#$%ing stupid." Hard though it is to believe.
>
> > This childish bullshit has officially ended.
Somehow this feels like a deconstruction, "if such a thing can
exist", and I have to side with Catawampus and his argument that you
can't use a jacket cover quote to explicate someone's view point...you
have to read the whole book and be able to quote paragraph and page to
support your arguments...on the other hand, ZG is sure rattling the
rafters....
> Thus far your childish bullshit shows no signs of stopping.
>
> > or that maybe because he professed the kingdom in which Jesus spoke is
> > available to everyone.
>
> No evidence for your blathering, but considerable evidence
> to the contrary. The Valentinians divide mankind in three
> classes. Only pneumatics can be fully saved; psychics can gain
> at most partial salvation, since they can never enter the
> pleroma (Irenaeus AH 1.7.1), while hylics can't be saved at all
> -- Catawumpus
I'm just starting to read "The Revelation of Adam" from the Nag
Hammadi and the intro mentions this text divides peoplekind into three
categories of enlightenment...I'm not sure how it plays out yet and
very interested in how this solves the Christian notion that
"salvation" is available to everyone. It might be in the differance
between "salvation" and "enlightenment"...thanks to all for the
deconstructive edge to read the text by.... :) I think this is
probably a crucial differance between RCC and Gnostic Christianity.
Does anyone know how the 3 levels of enlightenment plays out in
Byzantine Christianity?
Heideana (with the gold braids...)
Catawumpus
> Somehow this feels like a deconstruction, "if such a thing can
> exist", and I have to side with Catawampus and his argument that you
> can't use a jacket cover quote to explicate someone's view point...you
> have to read the whole book and be able to quote paragraph and page to
> support your arguments...on the other hand, ZG is sure rattling the
> rafters....
Not hardly. ZG couldn't possibly be rafter-rattling since
there isn't any force to his arguments. All that he's
offering is a pretence that the Valentinians conform to his own
outlook. Unfortunately for him the evidence indicates
otherwise, demonstrating that the Valentinian perspective, like
gnosticism generally speaking, divides the Creator of this
world from God, sees him as a crappy demiurge, and looks at his
Creation with a critical eye.
ZG is also disputed by Pagels, who he claims to agree with
on nearly everything, since her interpretation of the
Valentinians includes the same themes that he tried to avoid in
their theology.
> I'm just starting to read "The Revelation of Adam" from the Nag
> Hammadi and the intro mentions this text divides peoplekind into three
> categories of enlightenment...I'm not sure how it plays out yet and
> very interested in how this solves the Christian notion that
> "salvation" is available to everyone. It might be in the differance
> between "salvation" and "enlightenment"...thanks to all for the
> deconstructive edge to read the text by.... :) I think this is
> probably a crucial differance between RCC and Gnostic Christianity.
> Does anyone know how the 3 levels of enlightenment plays out in
> Byzantine Christianity?
What's it mean to solve a notion? Yes, the idea salvation
is universally available is _not_ always part of gnostic
thinking, which tends to distinguish a spiritual elite from hoi
polloi.
-- Catawumpus
zen gnostic
> Catawumpus wrote:
> > zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com>:
>
> > > So
>
> > So your claims are contrary to the evidence, which clearly
> > shows the Valentinians rejecting Creator and Creation, and
> > your appeal to Pagels' authority failed twice-over: not merely
> > because of the logical fallacy but also because she talks
> > about the themes in Valentinian thinking you're trying to avoid.
>
> > > the fucking blurb does not describe whats in the GD book?!?
>
> > You didn't claim that the blurb describes what the book is
> > about; you said that you were quoting Pagels when you were
> > merely cut-and-pasting the jacket copy. The second time you've
> > confused Pagels with advertising. In your own words, you
> > really are "that @#$%ing stupid." Hard though it is to believe.
>
> > > This childish bullshit has officially ended.
>
> Somehow this feels like a deconstruction, "if such a thing can
> exist", and I have to side with Catawampus and his argument that you
> can't use a jacket cover quote to explicate someone's view point...you
> have to read the whole book and be able to quote paragraph and page to
> support your arguments...on the other hand, ZG is sure rattling the
> rafters....
>
Before purchasing a book do you read the book cover? If so...why?
Concerning the "categories of enlightenment" I found this review of
great interest.
By Michael Hoffman (Egodeath.com) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
I'm surprised this book does not summarize the distinctions it
constantly makes between the two main conceptions of Christianity
according to the Valentinians' reading of Paul.
This book has a lot to offer for the Christ-myth theory. The book
explains the Valentinian gnostic reading of Paul's early epistles.
"Jews" means literalists, the uninitiated, lower Christians. "Greeks"
means spiritualists, the initiated, higher Christians. Paul encouraged
the higher Christians to feel united or married with the lower
Christians.
The book would greatly benefit from a 2-column listing of the ideas
the Valentinians associated with the higher and lower Christians. As a
philosopher and theorist of ego death who is looking for a rational
reading of the Christian scriptures, I agree with everything that
falls into the group of ideas the Valentinians associated with higher
Christians, and I disagree with all the ideas that fall into the group
of ideas the Valentinians associated with lower Christians.
The two sets of doctrines -- the book The Gnostic Paul divides the
religious ideas as follows, from the Valentinian reading of Paul's
early writings:
HIGHER, ESOTERIC CHRISTIANITY
"Greeks"
The religion of Heresy
Early Paul
The Truth, wisdom, enlightenment
The initiated, adults
A secret mystery is revealed to some apostles, but not to other
apostles
The sacrament of apolytrosis (apo- can mean after-, post-, and
separate redemption) in addition to common eucharist
Redemption
Spiritual freedom from moral codes -- but metaphysical determinism/
fatedness, predestined election
Reject idea of responsible moral agency and idea of our culpability of
sin/guilt
The apple was a gift of gnosis
All blame is placed on the Ground, not us
No death on the Cross (it was mythic and could be seen as a pseudo-
death)
Sacrifice is mythic, mental, conceptual, a mental experience
No bodily resurrection
Mythic Christ
Belief in higher and lower Christians (with a principled respect for
the lower)
No point in moral-reward heaven or moral-punishment hell
We are spirits, controlled by God
LOWER, EXOTERIC CHRISTIANITY
"Jews"
The Orthodox religion
Peter, The Church Fathers and their forged later Paul
The Lie, error, darkness, foolishness
The uninitiated, children
No secret mystery; all apostles have authority through simple ordinary
seeing of miraculous resurrection
The common eucharist, only
Salvation, baptism
Spiritual enslavement to morality -- with delusion of free will and
choosing faith oneself
Belief in responsible moral agency and our culpability for sin/guilt
All blame is placed on us
The apple was bad
Jesus died on the Cross
Sacrifice is bodily, bloody, magically effective, physical
Bodily resurrection
Supernaturalist Jesus
Disbelief in higher level of Christianity -- to obtain unity and
harmony of the Church
Moral-reward heaven and moral-punishment hell exist, for the
responsible agent/soul
We are souls, controlled by ourselves
Each point I listed above should have page references to Pagel's book
to prove that the ideas break out this way in her book.
An important reason why Christ-myth scholars should read this book is
that Pagels shows how to read the scriptures in a 2-valued ambiguous
way, where the meaning deliberately toggles between two distinct
readings. It's not just that Paul was misinterpreted; Pagel's
treatment seems to indicate that Paul deliberately wrote in an
encoded, ambiguous way that flips between the two conceptual systems.
If people were confused, it is because Paul meant for them to be
confused and carefully chose his words so that they could support both
readings: literal and spiritual. The epistles were written as encoded
mysteries and should be read as such.
The most remarkable thing presented repeatedly in this book is the
idea that the Pauline writings intentionally withheld the higher view
from the uninitiated. Pagels never ventures to explain why. Perhaps
the Valentinians wanted to protect and preserve the delusion of the
ego just as we protect children. This problem extends beyond the
Christian mystery-religion; the Greek mystery religions forbade, by
punishment of death, publically revealing the things shown in the
mysteries. There were political reasons to veil a deterministic belief
system, because cosmic determinism has been used to justify an
oppressive status quo ("I was meant, fated, and divinely ordained by
Necessity to dominate you") rather than democracy. So the Pauline
writings were deliberately written in a way that would be read in a
supernatural, Literalist way but could be read as a non-supernatural,
mystery-religion, mystic allegory.
Heideana
>
> Before purchasing a book do you read the book cover? If so...why?
I'd look at the cover to tray and get and idea about the books
contents, but then you shouldn't judge a book by its cover and there's
always the possibility that the blurbs are way off base, along with
the problematic of reifying the book's contents in a few sentence
without losing the richness of the text....
>
> Concerning the "categories of enlightenment" I found this review of
> great interest.
>
> By Michael Hoffman (Egodeath.com) - See all my reviews
> (REAL NAME)
> I'm surprised this book does not summarize the distinctions it
> constantly makes between the two main conceptions of Christianity
> according to the Valentinians' reading of Paul.
>
> This book has a lot to offer for the Christ-myth theory. The book
> explains the Valentinian gnostic reading of Paul's early epistles.
> "Jews" means literalists, the uninitiated, lower Christians. "Greeks"
> means spiritualists, the initiated, higher Christians. Paul encouraged
> the higher Christians to feel united or married with the lower
> Christians.
>
> The book would greatly benefit from a 2-column listing of the ideas
> the Valentinians associated with the higher and lower Christians. As a
> philosopher and theorist of ego death who is looking for a rational
> reading of the Christian scriptures, I agree with everything that
> falls into the group of ideas the Valentinians associated with higher
> Christians, and I disagree with all the ideas that fall into the group
> of ideas the Valentinians associated with lower Christians.
You might want to check any notion of or need for "rational" at the
door when conversing about Gnostic beliefs, unless you want to spend
some care in defining what you mean by the word...that might be the
problem of understanding what Catawump is trying to tell you....or at
least that's what jumps out at me, or I should say literally "jumps
off the page at me" when I'm reading your text. I tend to read things
more in terms of non-rational coherencies or something like that. I
could be wrong, but whenever you get into the realms of mysteries,
leaps of faith, etc., then your getting into systems of non-
rationality.
> An important reason why Christ-myth scholars should read this book is
> that Pagels shows how to read the scriptures in a 2-valued ambiguous
> way, where the meaning deliberately toggles between two distinct
> readings. It's not just that Paul was misinterpreted; Pagel's
> treatment seems to indicate that Paul deliberately wrote in an
> encoded, ambiguous way that flips between the two conceptual systems.
> If people were confused, it is because Paul meant for them to be
> confused and carefully chose his words so that they could support both
> readings: literal and spiritual. The epistles were written as encoded
> mysteries and should be read as such.
I hate to say it, but this sounds like Derrida's diferance, or
whatever he was getting at, with the comparison of two systems. That
might be Hegel's synthesis too??? Also the part about carefully
choosing his words and confusing people. A good "deconstructionist"
carefully chooses words to slow you down and force you to read the
text...if you read it too fast, it makes no sense.
zen gnostic
> > Before purchasing a book do you read the book cover? If so...why?
>
> I'd look at the cover to tray and get and idea about the books
> contents, but then you shouldn't judge a book by its cover and there's
> always the possibility that the blurbs are way off base, along with
> the problematic of reifying the book's contents in a few sentence
> without losing the richness of the text....
My understanding of the phrase is that it's more of a metaphor
concerning people. How they look on the outside says nothing about who
they are on the inside. As far as books I've read my fair share and
always read the book cover because they've always given me a fair
summary as to what is in the book. That's their purpose.
Have you ever seen the footage of soldiers in Vietnam who jump out of
a helicopter under heavy fire to bring their wounded comrades back to
safety? Do you think it's rational to risk ones life for someone you
have never met before? It may not be "rational" but it is no doubt
"real". This is the mystery I talk about and the mystery in which (it
appears) neither of you comprehend.
>
> > An important reason why Christ-myth scholars should read this book is
> > that Pagels shows how to read the scriptures in a 2-valued ambiguous
> > way, where the meaning deliberately toggles between two distinct
> > readings. It's not just that Paul was misinterpreted; Pagel's
> > treatment seems to indicate that Paul deliberately wrote in an
> > encoded, ambiguous way that flips between the two conceptual systems.
> > If people were confused, it is because Paul meant for them to be
> > confused and carefully chose his words so that they could support both
> > readings: literal and spiritual. The epistles were written as encoded
> > mysteries and should be read as such.
>
> I hate to say it, but this sounds like Derrida's diferance, or
> whatever he was getting at, with the comparison of two systems. That
> might be Hegel's synthesis too??? Also the part about carefully
> choosing his words and confusing people. A good "deconstructionist"
> carefully chooses words to slow you down and force you to read the
> text...if you read it too fast, it makes no sense.
I'll need time to grok the above. I liked what he wrote but I disagree
with his reasonings on why Paul did not disclose the higher view
from the uninitiated. It's simple...when the student is ready the
master will appear. Giving the higher view to the uninitiated would
not only be fruitless but a serious danger to one's own life.
Christian gnosticism is blasphemy to the uninitiated.