D.

–
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.

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! ;)

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 ;)

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/

Folks, my recent post, Gnosticism at the root of terrorist worldview, has become part of a conversation piece in various blogs ……

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….