Nietzsche was Not a Gnostic (and Neither is Hillary Clinton)
Nietzsche was Not a Gnostic. Not only is he missing the “G,” he simply wasn’t.
Strangely, this thought didn’t emerge unbidden from the rhetorical void. As a matter of fact, a number of individuals have, of late, been trumpeting the argument that crazy old Friederich was, in fact, a Gnostic, and therefore should be included among the unofficial “canon” of nominal Gnostic saints alongside such inarguable Gnostic brilliants as Carl Jung, William Blake and Philip Dick.
Really, though, calling Nietzsche a Gnostic makes as much sense as saying that, oh, for instance, the “Gnostic worldview” is responsible for terrorism. Or, perhaps as much sense as Eric Voegelin’s forceful abduction and rape of Gnosticism and its consequent sacrifice on the altars of American Conservatism (*HILARY CLINTON A GNOSTIC?????*).
Such claims are not only completely baseless, they’re completely devoid of any kind of provable assertion. Voegelin et al base their arguments about the Gnostics on what was said by the enemies of the Gnostics, not on what was said by the Gnostics. The difference we’re seeing is that while Voegelin claims that Gnostics were dualistic, therefore they were evil, therefore they were world-haters, therefore we must condemn Gnostics like Hitler (or Hillary), other parties claim that Gnostics were dualistic, therefore they were evil, therefore they were world-haters, therefore they deserve our praise and Nietzsche was a Gnostic Saint. The problem? Gnostics were neither dualistic nor world-haters. These were incorrect conclusions propogated by the enemies of Gnostics. Using these arguments makes as much sense as claiming that David Koresh was a brilliant genius simply because you hated Janet Reno.
These arguments are indicative of something I’m starting to think of as the “Anarchonic Fallacy,” which states that, since Gnostic myth often depicts The Demiurge/Creator God and the Archons in opposition to the True God, our singular duty is to ‘freak out the squares.’ Those under the spell of the Anarchonic Fallacy take the Gnostic myths as fundamentally literal as Bible-believing Christians take the story of the Flood. They believe that the purpose of Gnosticism is to rebel, that established institutions such as churches are no good, that Gnosticism can and should be anything we want it to be, by gum, because Nobody Can Tell Us What To Do.
The problem with the Anarchonic Fallacy is, as I see it, three-fold. First, it depends upon a *literal* understanding of Gnostic myth, i.e. there is a half-lion, half-serpent flying around in the sky directing his sinister Archons who, in turn, direct all the bad that occurs in the world. Evidence indicates, however, that this is not what the Gnostics themselves believed. Vide the Gnostic Gospel of Philip:
Names given to the worldly are very deceptive, for they divert our thoughts from what is correct to what is incorrect. Thus one who hears the word “God” does not perceive what is correct, but perceives what is incorrect. So also with “the Father” and “the Son” and “the Holy Spirit” and “life” and “light” and “resurrection” and “the Church (Ekklesia)” and all the rest - people do not perceive what is correct but they perceive what is incorrect, unless they have come to know what is correct.
The Gnostics understood their mythologies as symbolic maps, semiotic sets designed to record and help induce the experience of gnosis. The Demiurge and his Archons exist on a very hazy border between the Inner and the Outer, the myth and the metaphor.
The second problem with the Anarchonic Fallacy is that it depends upon ideas about Gnosticism that were spread by early opponents of the movement, polemicists such as Irenaeus of Lyons. This is far from surprising– until the 1970’s, 9/10ths of the information we had about Gnosticism came from its enemies. Apart from some fragmented texts and the almost unread Pistis Sophia, if you wanted to study Gnosticism before 1974 and you weren’t a student of Coptic language, you read the Church Fathers. The Church Fathers were opposed to Gnosticism– a perfectly reasonable stance for the Church Fathers to take– and therefore played more than a bit loose with their rhetoric and arguments. Now, however, that we have the Nag Hammadi texts, we’re coming to understand that the Gnosticism practiced by our Alexandrian and Syrian and Chaldaen and Roman forebears was far more complex and nuanced than that portrayed by Irenaeus et al.
Which brings us to the third, and most serious problem with the Anarchonic Fallacy: it completely misses the point because it doesn’t go far enough. Gnostic myth does, undoubtedly, caution us against placing faith in worldly control structures. It counsels us to rebel against the Demiurge, that Wrathful Face of God created by human ego, and his Archons, Fear and Terror and Blind Obedience. It does tell us to laugh in the face of authority and to cast down worldly things. It does contradict much of the doctrine of the Early Church and the mainstream churches as they’ve survived today. I’m fond of referring to the Gnostics as the “original anarchists.”
But, this is only a Tiny Fraction of the Gnostic Story.
The point behind tearing down these structures, behind admonishing the control systems and demolishing the illusion of the world is to Rebuild It For The Pleroma. Gnosticism isn’t about the hatred preached by Nietzsche or the rebellion of the sullen teenaged soul who is tired of being Told What To Do. It’s about THIS, from The Gospel of Truth:
Speak concerning the truth to those who seek it and of knowledge to those who, in their error, have committed sin. Make sure-footed those who stumble and stretch forth your hands to the sick. Nourish the hungry and set at ease those who are troubled. Foster men who love. Raise up and awaken those who sleep. For you are this understanding which encourages. If the strong follow this course, they are even stronger.
Nor is it about casting away Faith, another common trope of the Anarchonic Fallacy, that faith is somehow stupid and gnosis is where it’s at. It’s about THIS, from The Gospel of Philip:
Faith receives, love gives. No one will be able to receive without faith. No one will be able to give without love. Because of this, in order that we may indeed receive, we believe, and in order that we may love, we give, since if one gives without love, he has no profit from what he has given.
Nor is it about “freaking out the squares,” so commonly embraced by those under the sway of the Anarchonic Fallacy. Gnosticism was never about telling people how wrong they are, no matter how canonical or mainstream. Gnosticism is a path of kindness, compassion and love for ALL beings. Gnosticism is a religion of Compassion. It’s about THIS, from The Dialogue of the Saviour:
Judas said, “Tell me, Lord, what the beginning of the path is.”
He said, “Love and goodness. For if one of these existed among the Archons, wickedness would never have come into existence.”
Indeed, this is what’s missing from Nietzsche: compassion. His lackof compassion alone indicates to me that he could never be considered a member of any Gnostic canon.
Finally– and to me this is the saddest thing about the Anarchonic Fallacy– it stops short of gnosis itself. Gnosis is a mystical experience. It’s personal acquaintence with divinity. There’s nothing there about hating the world and rebelling against it; it’s about cultivating an experiential attitude in which the world itself opens its gates to the inbreaking fullness of God, the Limitless Light that exists beyond ego and individuation. It’s not dualistic, nor world-hating, nor is it equally applicable to people we simply like (Nietzsche) or dislike (Hillary). It’s an experience that needs to be had to understood, and if you aren’t seeking that experience of gnosis within the context of Gnosticism, or haven’t had that experience of gnosis for yourself, you are not a Gnostic.
I could go on about how Gnosticism isn’t Goddess worship either, or how it’s not Satanic (it’s the opposite– the figure of Satan is rebuked a number of times in Gnostic literature), but I’m going to stop here for now. Suffice to say, we’ve come back once again to that annoying and persistent idea that Gnosticism is somehow anything we want it to be, and we can fit any of our pet philosophers within it and claim that the Archons are space aliens and insist that worshipping Brigit is okay because she’s one with Sophia. This idea has always been wrong, and always will be, just as gnosis will always result in kindness, love and compassion.
Jordan Stratford+ said,
Best. Post. Evah. Thanks, Jeremy.
John Plummer said,
Amen, Amen, Amen. Thank you Jeremy.
The Necromancer said,
Beautiful. Sermon-like. Best thing I’ve read all day…
Donald Donato said,
Right on, JP.
D.
Nietzsche the Gnostic « THOUGHTS ON GOD said,
[…] the Gnostic The following is in response to Nietzsche was Not a Gnostic by Brother Jeremy at Summer Harvest. His claim is that Eric Voegelin is mistaken in his […]
madcap said,
The following is in response to Nietzsche was Not a Gnostic by Brother Jeremy at Summer Harvest. Nietzsche the Gnostic: http://thoughtsongod.wordpress.com/2007/07/05/nietzsche-the-gnostic/
Jay said,
What a fantastic post! It hit the spot the way a really good sermon or speech wakes you up and makes you want to jump up and down. Thank you for the wonderful reminder of what Gnosticism is. I look forward to more posts.
Emperor said,
Very interesting as usual. I can’t claim to know much about such matters but your quote from the Gospel of Philip is interesting as similar concepts came up in a recent post at Rigorous Intuition which contains:
–
In The Trickster and the Paranormal, George Hansen has this to say:
“It is commonly assumed that there is a simple, objective correspondence between the signifier and the signified even thought they are separate entities. It is assumed that language is only a set of names for things, events, and concepts. These assumptions are incorrect, but few recognize the extent of the implications. This lies at the heart of deconstructionism, and magic.”
There is power in the act of naming, because it imbues meaning to a thing - or to an event or a concept - that has no necessary correspondence to the thing itself.
–
http://rigint.blogspot.com/2007/07/signs-of-times.html
The comments there lead to:
–
The affairs of man are conducted by our own, man-made rules and according to man-made theories. Man’s achievements rest upon the use of symbols. For this reason, we must consider ourselves as a symbolic, semantic class of life, and those who rule the symbols, rule us.
–
http://www.greylodge.org/occultreview/glor_009/symbol.htm
Searching for semiotics and the paranormal takes me straight back to the Trickster book which starts with this quote:
“semiotics is in principle the discipline studying everything which can be used in order to lie”
http://www.tricksterbook.com/BookDescriptions/Semiotics.htm
Sooooooo, if I understand correctly, what you are describing is less destroying the world and remaking it to your own designs (as the critics seem to be suggesting in the original and that follow-up) but more breaking out of a “semiotic cage”? That concepts like “God” are imposed by humans and may actually be hindering understanding?
“The map is not the territory” is certainly one of the main things Robert Anton Wilson hammered home in his books.
JP said,
Emperor: Yes!
madcap: I read your post with some amusement. The false premises are still there; they’re dependent upon a definition of Gnosticism created whole-cloth by Voegelin. I’m referring, of course, to the term “Secular Gnosticism,” which is a little like saying “Secular Christianity” or, perhaps, “Religious Golf.” There’s no such bird; never has been, never was. Now, if you and Voegelin want to claim that such a thing exists, you’re welcome to do so; you’re supplying your own premise to the equation, so there’s no real argument here. We could go back and forth on this until blue in our faces, but since we’re starting from such radically different suppositions, no minds would be changed, here.
Essentially what Voegelin’s logic boils down to, for me and for everyone involved in the contemporary Gnostic religion, is that he is taking the name of our religion and applying it to his own political ideologies. This isn’t just a semiotic quibble, it’s sloppy reasoning; what he’s doing is observing that some modern people like to ride horses and concluding that therefore these people are members of the Golden Horde. It don’t make no sense, chappie.
You can claim that Hitler et al are “Secular Gnostics” all you want, but you’ll never find support for your arguments among the modern Gnostic community until one of these indivduals so labelled says “I am a Gnostic,” reads the Nag Hammadi library, attends a Gnostic service, and acheives gnosis.
At least we’ll be in agreement on one thing: neither of us wants to claim Hillary Clinton as one of our own! ;)
Emperor said,
jp: Thanks. If nothing else I think this controversy has helped this agnostic understand things a bit better (how much diffrence a vowel makes ;) ).
It also gives me a few things to chew on - it certainly shows the importance of memetic engineering and related areas.
Also it is the core of how the blog can move so seamlessly from gnosticism to Forteana ;)
madcap said,
JP,
“Essentially what Voegelin’s logic boils down to, for me and for everyone involved in the contemporary Gnostic religion, is that he is taking the name of our religion and applying it to his own political ideologies. This isn’t just a semiotic quibble, it’s sloppy reasoning; what he’s doing is observing that some modern people like to ride horses and concluding that therefore these people are members of the Golden Horde. It don’t make no sense, chappie.”
Thank you for your responses. Rather than trying to convince each other, why don’t we pursue the matter as a joint quest for truth. Most Christians would consider me a heretic just as much as they would you.
You’re quite correct that this would be a sloppy line of reasoning. This however is not the reasoning I am employing. What I am saying is that both members of the golden horde and some modern people ride horses. Therefore both groups share something in common, while at the same time being distinctly different groups.
The modern Gnostic church has no monopoly on the ideas they ride, any more than the golden horde were the only people to ever ride horses. Traditionally, Gnosticism is born out of other religions. The spiritual schools of the Gnostics, both ancient and modern, share some ideologies with many Hindu and Buddhist philosophies. It would be sloppy reasoning as well to state that the contemporary modern Gnostics are Buddhists. That’s not to say that they don’t both ride horses. In fact, they ride many of the same theological, and methodological horses.
I was a member of Ananda Marga for several years. I practiced advanced tantric meditation and studied the philosophy of Shrii Shrii Anandamurti. This school is anything but an official contemporary Gnostic church. None of the Nag Hammadi texts are ever mentioned or studied. Ananda Marga is from the Hindu traditions, and a Gnostic enterprise.
It is Gnostic in that, and this would be my broad definition, it offers self salvation through a method of realization (i.e. gnosis that all things are divine consciousness; duality is an illusion). It places God in the creation, and claims the possibility of total “liberation” from the self, in the here and now, as an ontological perfection of the soul, via their particular “secret system.”
How religious Gnosticism translates into the “secular world” is through Marx and Nietzsche. Obviously both of these thinkers were less than friendly toward religion. You will not see Nietzsche state he is a Gnostic who reads aloud the Nag Hammadi texts at Gnostic services. However, Nietzsche found some relevance in Buddhism. “Buddha makes no promises and keeps every one of them.” (Twilight of the Idols and the Antichrist) What Fred was referring to was the Buddhist concept that you can know in the here and now, in opposition to the Christian concept of faith. Nietzsche was not a Buddhist, but he was a Gnostic in his idea of the superman. In this light, his Thus Spake Zarathustra can be rationally considered to be a secular Gnostic text. Nietzsche does not have to convert to Buddhism, or the Gnostic Church to partake in the idea that man can be overcome. This is the horse I am referring to, not the name of the stable. I’m not arguing that Marx and Nietzsche were members of the Gnostic church. What I’m saying is that they shared with the Gnostics the idea that the ground of being can be altered through man’s efforts. Of course, these modern Gnostic intellectual and political mass movements ended in disaster; as Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas and many others claimed it inevitably would, regardless of possible good intentions behind the attempt.
I think your attempt to limit Gnosticism to those who read the Nag Hammadi text and attend Gnostic religious services is rather shortsighted. It’s like saying only people who live in our stable actually ride horses. I also do not understand all this upheaval over what “true” Gnosticism is. Why not simply stand on what you believe? Why is there such a problem with acknowledging that there are fundamental differences between Gnosticism and classical Occidentalism?
I know what Gnosticism is, not simply by what I have read in books. I have been a practitioner of two well established schools of Gnostic teachings, first hand. Voegelin simply articulates aspects that I found on my own; I don’t need Voegelin to tell me what Gnosticism is. I’m rather surprised that Gnostics would spend so much time trying to claim they are not what they are. It’s everyone else in the world that is deceived and confused I guess.
Having actually studied the Gnostic texts, and after many years of personal practice in Gnostic schools, I must be much more ignorant than I ever thought, if I am so far off the mark as to what Gnosticism is.
This being the case, it would be in my best interest to stop making statements about Gnosticism and start asking questions so I can understand. These three come to mind:
Do Gnostics, as you define them, think that humanity can come to a point in time where things like starvation and war will be no more? If so, how will this come to pass?
Do Gnostics, as you define them, think that an individual can come to a point in their spiritual development where they can become free of all attachments and illusions of reality? If so, how can one achieve this? What should be done with the ego?
Would Gnostics, as you define them, consider it unfair and disingenuous to take note of other schools of thought, belief systems, and political philosophies that might answer these same questions in a similar manner, thus tending to show a common theme that runs through all despite other differences? What name should be given to this common theme, should it actually exist?
May the peace and blessings of the One be upon us all. Madcap
http://thoughtsongod.wordpress.com/2007/07/05/nietzsche-the-gnostic/
madcap said,
JP and Jordan,
Thank you for your responses. Rather than trying to convince each other, why don’t we pursue the matter as a joint quest for truth. Most Christians would consider me a heretic just as much as they would you. I have a response to your comments here.
http://thoughtsongod.wordpress.com/2007/07/05/nietzsche-the-gnostic/
Vivificat! said,
Gnosticism continuing conundrum…
Folks, my recent post, Gnosticism at the root of terrorist worldview, has become part of a conversation piece in various blogs ……
JP said,
I have been a practitioner of two well established schools of Gnostic teachings, first hand.
Let me guess: Stormfront and the DNC? :)
Seriously, though, Gnostics “as I define them” don’t have any use for fruitless polemics or rhetorical wanking. We could sit here and answer one another’s questions back and forth all day and night, and we’d have tons of self-congratulatory material, each of us “proving” our point. I don’t see any possible way we could end up seeing eye-to-eye on this, considering you’re talking politics and we’re talking religion.
When you make statements like “I’m rather surprised that Gnostics would spend so much time trying to claim they are not what they are. It’s everyone else in the world that is deceived and confused I guess.” and Having actually studied the Gnostic texts, and after many years of personal practice in Gnostic schools, I must be much more ignorant than I ever thought, if I am so far off the mark as to what Gnosticism is., you’re illustrating that you’ve already made up your mind.
I also find this quote exceptionally curious: I think your attempt to limit Gnosticism to those who read the Nag Hammadi text and attend Gnostic religious services is rather shortsighted. It’s like saying only people who live in our stable actually ride horses.
It seems that Gnosticism is the only religious tradition that isn’t allowed to define itself for itself. I can only conclude, from this line of reasoning, that one can be “Muslim” without having read the Koran or prayed in a mosque, or one can be “Christian” without having read the Bible or ever setting foot in a church. Meanwhile anyone who has an opinion on what Gnosticism is can apply the label to anyone and anything, and if actual practicing Gnostics disagree, we get to be the bad guys who are shortsided for claiming that political philosophers didn’t practice our religion.
And yes, it’s a religion. I’ll repeat: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SECULAR GNOSTICISM. It’s an impossibility. Gnosticism without God, without its myths and without Sophia and the Logos and the Christos and Barbelo, and (*ESPECIALLY*) without gnosis and sacrament and prayer, is not Gnosticism. Period. End. Of. Argument.
But hey, I guess that’s me being short-sighted and defensive. I’ll answer your questions for fun, but I think that’ll likely be my final word on this subject. And that’s part of the point, too: they’re *my* final word. You might find that other Gnostics disagree entirely.
Do Gnostics, as you define them, think that humanity can come to a point in time where things like starvation and war will be no more? If so, how will this come to pass?
Maybe, who knows? We’re not terribly into eschatology. We’re more into being nice to one another while we’re stuck here. If it does happen, it will come about through the inbreaking of the Pleroma (divinity) via the medium of the Logos and Sophia and individual sacraments. To answer your unasked question, it has nothing to do with humanity somehow evolving into super-humans. It’s a cooperative effort between individuals and the Limitless Light. The Gospel of Thomas tells us that The Kingdom of Heaven is already spread out over the Earth, but we just can’t see it. Why would we need to bother with eschatology when there’s so much else to do? We already dwell in a perfect world, we just need help removing the blinders. Once we have, we realize that every single human being, including (some may say especially) those with whom we vehemently disagree, are deserving of compassion and diginity and regard and love.
As Jordan so succinctly put it, what you’re missing is that Gnostics are concerned with the inner world, not the outer. We leave politics to the politicians, and have no interest in creating perfect societies or overthrowing anything.
Do Gnostics, as you define them, think that an individual can come to a point in their spiritual development where they can become free of all attachments and illusions of reality? If so, how can one achieve this? What should be done with the ego?
Perhaps for a moment, in that flash of gnosis, but as long as we’re here in this universe we’ll always be susceptible to attachment and illusion. There’s no getting around it. Again, it can be achieved via the sacrament of gnosis, of which others have written far better than I.
As for the ego? According to one interpretation, mythologically, the Demiurge represents the ego. As the Demiurge is, in our myth cycle, redeemed and forgiven and made perfect, so is the ego during the experience of gnosis. This is one of the major points on which we differ from Buddhists: we’re not interested in eliminating the ego. I also think the question is a bit out of order. Figure out “what to do with the ego” for yourself and you’ll know the answer for yourself.
Would Gnostics, as you define them, consider it unfair and disingenuous to take note of other schools of thought, belief systems, and political philosophies that might answer these same questions in a similar manner, thus tending to show a common theme that runs through all despite other differences? What name should be given to this common theme, should it actually exist?
I don’t think any Gnostic would ever claim that taking note of other schools of thought would be a bad thing. We’re sycretic; our forebears were Jewish/Christian/Pagan, and in my opinion, modern Gnosticism is undergoing a syncretism with Buddhism. I think, however, that we’d consider it disingenous to claim that other schools of thought, belief systems, and political philosophies are “Gnosticism.” Just because a lot of Gnostics find value in Buddhism, doesn’t mean we should go around claiming that the Buddha was a Gnostic. He wasn’t a Gnostic. He wasn’t even a Buddhist.
Anyhow, I’ve gone on probably overly long. I’m sure others will want to chime in, but I’m ’bout done with this subject for now. It’s been fun, but I have things to do….
Voegelin and Gnosticism « The Necromancer said,
[…] and Gnosticism July 6th, 2007 There’s been some banter on a few sites — like here and here — about Nietzsche and Gnosticism. Since most of this interpretation of Nietzchean […]
madcap said,
The Gnostic implosion and collapse of second reality!
http://thoughtsongod.wordpress.com/2007/07/07/the-gnostic-implosion-and-collapse-of-second-reality/