Thoughts On Gnosis
We Gnostics love tallking about just what this ‘gnosis‘ thing consists of, mainly because if you have it, you can’t describe it, nor will you typically admit it, and if you’re trying to figure out what it is, you’re likely wrong. On occasion it’s good to take what you originally thought about gnosis out of your back of tricks and see if it still sticks to the wall. It’s a trickly little devil, because it’s different for everybody. Is it a secret? Is it enlightenment? Is it understanding? What is it? It’s most certainly not book knowledge, or anything that somebody can tell somebody else. It’s something that needs to be experienced. Although it’s easy to get caught up in the whole myth cycle, Sophia, the Demiurge and all that crazy stuff, but the religion isn’t called “Demiurgism” or “Sophiolotry.” As Jesse likes to say, “Gnosis is truth! All else is conjecture.”
Due to the many similarities between Buddhism and Gnosticism, gnosis is often equated with enlightenment of the ‘whack-in-the-head’ variety of enlightenment. For very basic discussions, the two concepts probably are “good enough for government work,” as it were. But, when we really get into it, is the signified really one-to-one with the signifier? Is gnosis enlightenment in the “flash of insight” sense? Let’s divorce ourselves from the Buddhist idea of enlightenment for a moment and look at mentions of the experience from the Gnostic scriptures, and see what we can learn.
The Second Apocalypse of James describes gnosis as something someone is “rich” in, and goes on to call it “…a unique understanding, which was produced only from above.” “From above” indicates that gnosis is something that descends, like light from the Sun, it then enriches someone. We often find, within Gnostic literature, that “riches” symbolize living information or that inner part that processes it (vide “The Hymn of the Pearl” or The Gospel of Thomas, Saying 63). So this author understood gnosis as a singular comprehension unlike any other, a new way of interfacing with reality, produced “from above,” from the internal realms that correlate to the Pleromic levels of reality/cosmology. Gnosis, here, isn’t something that happens to someone one time; rather, it’s an enhanced state of being or awareness.
But, what happens to someone who acheives this state? Does he or she somehow evolve into a super-moral “higher being”? Interestingly, evidence exists in the Gnostic corpus that the experience of gnosis does not, in and of itself, grant one perfection. Rather, it’s the first step on a path. We find an example of this idea in the “Gospel of Philip” (emphasis mine):
He who has gnosis of the truth is a free man, but the free man does not sin, for “He who sins is the slave of sin” (Jn 8:34). Truth is the mother, gnosis the father. Those who think that sinning does not apply to them are called “free” by the world. Gnosis of the truth merely makes such people arrogant, which is what the words, “it makes them free” mean. It even gives them a sense of superiority over the whole world. But “Love builds up” (1 Co 8:1). In fact, he who is really free, through gnosis, is a slave, because of love for those who have not yet been able to attain to the freedom of gnosis. gnosis makes them capable of becoming free.
So, it is possible to attain gnosis and completely miss the point. Since gnosis “makes one free,” one is free to choose either compassion or egotism, either love or power. Real gnosis, however, according to this Gospel, makes one into a servant, into a compassionate person who cames very deeply for other people. The experience of gnosis doesn’t make one into a “holy person,” or into someone who is somehow “beyond good and evil.” It gives one the choice to build relationships or tear them down; it extends one’s awareness in such a capacity that one is more aware of the consequences of his or her actions, but is at a greater liberty to choose those consequences regardless.
Apparently, it is possible to achieve gnosis and still be an asshole.
Of course, the internal change granted by gnosis is the most radical. In the “Secret Book of James” we find the following admonition:
“Hearken to the word, understand gnosis, love life, and no one will persecute you, nor will anyone oppress you, other than you yourselves.”
This passage implies a deep and abiding inner peace in the person who has come to understand gnosis. Regardless of one’s station in life, or the hardships one faces, gnosis illustrates that the reaction to these difficulties within one’s life are one’s complete responsibility. This is a far cry from the sentimenalist garbage spewed out by the “You Create Your Own Reality” camp of “The Secret” pushers. Note that gnosis does not automatically grant one the ability to love one’s life; rather, gnosis compliments and enhances this ability. This is really a fairly radical idea; gnosis, as an experience, doesn’t make one happy, but along with happiness it grants one a great deal of control over the way one perceives one’s life. This also lends credence to the fact that, when experienced, gnosis results in a heightened sense of awareness. It increases one’s ability to interface with one’s surroundings.
Along with this heightened sense of perception comes, quite naturally, an increased ability to reason and access to the Nous, or Mind. Another major difference between many mystical traditions and Gnosticism is that Gnosticism has never shied away from its intellectualist nature. Gnosis is something that can teach. The Gnostics were writers and artists, literate and intelligent. The Hermetics, our finest example of non-Christian Gnostics, were quite clear on this matter. Take, for example, the following passage from the “Asclepius”:
For the gnosis of the things which are ordained is truly the healing of the passions of the matter. Therefore, learning is something derived from gnosis.
“But if there is ignorance, and learning does not exist in the soul of man, (then) the incurable passions persist in it (the soul). And additional evil comes with them (the passions), in the form of an incurable sore. And the sore constantly gnaws at the soul, and through it the soul produces worms from the evil, and stinks. But God is not the cause of these things, since he sent to men gnosis and learning.
Of course, all of these practical results of gnosis should not, by any means, detract from the ultimately spiritual and mystical aspect. In the text “Allogenes,” a practical manual on a meditative practice, gnosis is achieved by the title character only after a kind of internal journey to the realms of the “Universals”:
When I was taken by the eternal Light out of the garment that was upon me, and taken up to a holy place whose likeness cannot be revealed in the world, then by means of a great blessedness I saw all those about whom I had heard. And I praised all of them and I stood upon my gnosis and I inclined to the gnosis of the Universals, the Aeon of Barbelo.
There is absolutely something spiritual and holy about gnosis. It would be silly to ignore how frequently it’s referred to as “awakening” or “sobering up.” Meditation, prayer and sacrament are still the best and most often employed ways to acheive gnosis, and it is still a very distinctly religious phenomenon.
So, though we can certainly equate gnosis with enlightenment, it would be more honest to call gnosis a state of enhanced awareness that allows one to more effectively interact with one’s surroundings. The “FLASH BANG” of enlightenment or epiphany can serve as a good metaphor for gnosis, but it would be more accurate to think of this epiphany as merely the starter gun that begins the race. Gnosis allows for greater control over one’s life, as well as greater satisfaction in whatever circumstances one finds one’s self. It’s more a slow, constant unfolding that needs continual vigilance to maintain than a small, infintessimal peek at the Light.
Now then, everything I’ve just written is completely wrong and incomplete. Your job is to go out and try to understand this thing for yourself!
Donald Donato said,
“Enhanced”, indeed. So we’re the strap-ons of the human spiritual world? Hehehe. Great post. And I know where it’s coming from :)
tim boucher said,
anything that somebody can tell somebody else
Oh, you can tell people about it all you want…
“He who sins is the slave of sin”
What they mean is when you do something wrong, don’t hold onto it forever. You’ll only make yourself hurt more needlessly. And let it go if someone else wrongs you. This is why Catholics invented Confession, to let go of feeling bad.
it is possible to attain gnosis and completely miss the point.
You’re saying it’s possible to know the Truth and not know the Truth. That’s not possible.
one is free to choose either compassion or egotism
Gnosis washes away the possibility even of egotism.
Real gnosis, however, according to this Gospel, makes one into a servant, into a compassionate person who cames very deeply for other people.
I think that’s Love, not gnosis.
It gives one the choice to build relationships or tear them down
It gives you the choice of how best to build relationships.
one is more aware of the consequences of his or her actions
This is just understanding cause-effect relationships. Supremely important, but not gnosis.
it is possible to achieve gnosis and still be an asshole.
It’s still possible to be perceived by other people as an asshole. There’s a line in the Tao Te Ching, I think: something about how a sage always tells the truth and never offends.
gnosis illustrates that the reaction to these difficulties within one’s life are one’s complete responsibility.
I think this is just Free Will. Not trying to split hairs, but I think these distinctions are important, simply because they can be made! This is something people can talk about it because it is a real experience and it changes your life forever and it lasts.
sentimenalist garbage
What’s wrong with being sentimental?
“You Create Your Own Reality” camp of “The Secret” pushers.
You do create your own reality, but not simply by thinking about it. Intention creates potential. Action manifests potential into reality. The trick is harmonizing all of these to flow smoothly one to the next, using cause-effect relationships.
gnosis, as an experience, doesn’t make one happy,
I don’t think gnosis is an “experience” so much as it is a state: a set of possible experiences which have been shifted to the on position.
There’s also a big difference between happiness and Joy. One is how you feel, the other comes from God.
gnosis results in a heightened sense of awareness. It increases one’s ability to interface with one’s surroundings.
Probably splitting hairs again, but I see these as “awareness development” and “self-mastery”…
with this heightened sense of perception comes, quite naturally, an increased ability to reason
The mind becomes cleared, awakening the faculty of Reason.
the healing of the passions of the matter.
Overcoming desire.
should not, by any means, detract from the ultimately spiritual and mystical aspect.
Which is what, exactly?
There is absolutely something spiritual and holy about gnosis.
Tell us what it is!
It would be silly to ignore how frequently it’s referred to as “awakening” or “sobering up.”
What would be silly about it? Awakening and sobering - both of those sound like ordinary every-day words, as opposed to “spiritual” words.
Meditation, prayer and sacrament are still the best and most often employed ways to acheive gnosis, and it is still a very distinctly religious phenomenon.
Why are those methods the best if not everybody who uses them necessarily achieves gnosis? What makes something a “religious phenomenon”?
more honest to call gnosis a state of enhanced awareness that allows one to more effectively interact with one’s surroundings.
I think it’s more than that. I think that is having a highly developed awareness and self-mastery. I think there really is another element to it on top of that though: spiritual or religious, I don’t know. It is definitely mysterious though, but it also conforms completely to Reason.
everything I’ve just written is completely wrong and incomplete.
Wait, really? Dammit!
JP said,
(Tennis, anyone?)
Oh, you can tell people about it all you want…
Yeah, you can tell people about it, but you can’t tell it to people. It’s not something that I could whisper in your year and give you or write you in a letter. It’s something you’d need to experience for yourself.
What they mean is when you do something wrong, don’t hold onto it forever. You’ll only make yourself hurt more needlessly. And let it go if someone else wrongs you. This is why Catholics invented Confession, to let go of feeling bad.
Yep.
You’re saying it’s possible to know the Truth and not know the Truth. That’s not possible.
OK, how about if I word it this way: it’s possible to know the Truth and then decide it doesn’t apply to you.
Gnosis washes away the possibility even of egotism.
I disagree. I think it’s possible to acheive gnosis but then become an arrogant jerk.
I think that’s Love, not gnosis.
They’re all intertwined. Gnosis opens one up to the supremest kind of love, which one can then choose to accept or deny.
It gives you the choice of how best to build relationships.
Or tear them down….
This is just understanding cause-effect relationships. Supremely important, but not gnosis.
Again, I have to disagree. It’s more than understanding cause-effect relationships. It’s comprehending a more complete picture of the processes within which one is involved.
It’s still possible to be perceived by other people as an asshole. There’s a line in the Tao Te Ching, I think: something about how a sage always tells the truth and never offends.
You’re right, but that’s Taoist. I’m shooting for the Gnostic idea here, just for this post. But it’s possible to acheive gnosis and then turn around and do something that harms someone. It’s possible to achieve gnosis and then abuse it.
I think this is just Free Will. Not trying to split hairs, but I think these distinctions are important, simply because they can be made! This is something people can talk about it because it is a real experience and it changes your life forever and it lasts.
Yeah, okay, but part of my understanding of gnosis is that you don’t have perfect free will until you achieve it. Until you have gnosis, you’re still under the influence of the Archons. Now that’s what I’m talkin’ ’bout: gnosis grants you Free Will, and that Free Will can and sometimes does cause someone to abandon what he or she has learned from gnosis.
What’s wrong with being sentimental?
In day-to-day life, nothing. In our context, however, sentimentalism is overindulgence in one thing to the detriment of another (overindulgence in emotion to the detriment of reason).
You do create your own reality, but not simply by thinking about it. Intention creates potential. Action manifests potential into reality. The trick is harmonizing all of these to flow smoothly one to the next, using cause-effect relationships.
Fair enough.
I don’t think gnosis is an “experience” so much as it is a state: a set of possible experiences which have been shifted to the on position.
Aha, this is exactly what I’m trying to get at in this essay. I should reword that….
There’s also a big difference between happiness and Joy. One is how you feel, the other comes from God.
Okay….
Probably splitting hairs again, but I see these as “awareness development” and “self-mastery”…
Likely semantics, but I have a feeling we’re talking about the same thing.
[The spiritual and mystical aspect] is what, exactly?
Well that’s something you need to run out and find for yourself! For me, it’s the inbreaking of the Pleroma into the imperfection of the World of Forms through the medium of the Christos and Sophia, the awakening of the Kingdom of Heaven here on Earth and the granting of the passkey to the turnstile on the border between the realm of the Demiurge and the Region of Barbelo.
What would be silly about it? Awakening and sobering - both of those sound like ordinary every-day words, as opposed to “spiritual” words.
It would be silly ’cause they’re found all over the place– they’re prevalent enough in this context to be significant.
Why are [Meditation, prayer and sacrament] the best if not everybody who uses them necessarily achieves gnosis? What makes something a “religious phenomenon”?
They’re the best because they’ve been proven to work again and again. You could use a rock to pound a nail into wood, and not everybody who uses a hammer can successfully nail two things together, but if I’m building a birdhouse for my soul, I’m gonna go with the hammer anyhow….
It’s a religious phenomenon in its own context. It’s something people do and then share with one another. (I also think that eating meals and dancing can be religious phenomena.)
I think it’s more than that. I think that is having a highly developed awareness and self-mastery. I think there really is another element to it on top of that though: spiritual or religious, I don’t know. It is definitely mysterious though, but it also conforms completely to Reason.
Yeah, definitely. There’s more too it than all of this stuff. It’s a learning process, too, somehow. This explains my next statement:
everything I’ve just written is completely wrong and incomplete.
Wait, really? Dammit!
tim boucher said,
I guess I don’t understand what the point of saying something like, “You can still be a jerk even if you achieve gnosis” really is. Where does that leave us? So you achieve gnosis and you still have all the same problems as before - then what’s the point? How is that salvific and how does that call us to be more than we are as plain old jerky humans?
tim boucher said,
Phrased more simply: it seems like you’re saying that gnosis is distinct from moral perfection. Is that correct?
Yeah, okay, but part of my understanding of gnosis is that you don’t have perfect free will until you achieve it. Until you have gnosis, you’re still under the influence of the Archons.
So you don’t have Free Will until you *have it*?
If you don’t have Free Will until afterwards, then one’s “struggle against the Archons” doesn’t seem all that meaningful to me. If this is what gnostic sects believed, then I can begin to see why Early Church Fathers labeled them as heretics: if you don’t have Free Will from the start - from God - then why would you suddenly get it?
JP said,
I guess I don’t understand what the point of saying something like, “You can still be a jerk even if you achieve gnosis” really is. Where does that leave us? So you achieve gnosis and you still have all the same problems as before - then what’s the point? How is that salvific and how does that call us to be more than we are as plain old jerky humans?
But is it supposed to call us to be more than plain old jerky humans? Or is it intended to help us realize just how awesome it is to be a plain old jerky human? I don’t think it’s a matter of “evolution” into something “more than we are,” I think it’s more like just… being who we are to the fullest! The Pistis Sophia (for example) is full of instructions on how people who had been initiated into the Mysteries should be forgiven and welcomed back if they fall away from those mysteries.
Phrased more simply: it seems like you’re saying that gnosis is distinct from moral perfection. Is that correct?
Yes, exactly, definitely. Moral perfection is impossible while you’re trapped in the World of Forms, even if you’ve achieved perfect enlightenment/gnosis/etc. I’d venture to say even Jesus and the Buddha’s moral perfection was maybe a degree or two less than expressed in myth. Just my opinion, ‘course.
If you don’t have Free Will until afterwards, then one’s “struggle against the Archons” doesn’t seem all that meaningful to me. If this is what gnostic sects believed, then I can begin to see why Early Church Fathers labeled them as heretics: if you don’t have Free Will from the start - from God - then why would you suddenly get it?
Oh, you have “free will,” but not *perfect* Free Will. Plus there’s the whole Grace of God, and the Christos and Sophia stuff to take into account. The Archons were equated with time and the stars and Fate and the mechanistic aspects of the body and political forces and such, so being under the influence of the Archons means acting in a deterministic universe. But, that universe is imperfect, so it’s possible for God and the Pleroma and the Christos and Sophia to break in and knock you out of this total determinism, allowing you to gradually build a space in which you are more and more aware and in control, eventually leading to the state of gnosis, often preceded by epiphany.
Gnosis is the result of something, but also results in something. It’s a state where, if you’ve acheieved it, you still have a lot of work to do.
Even if my answers are lame, these questions are awesome and are helping me clarify my own thoughts a lot– keep ‘em coming!
Donald Donato said,
It might be useful to flesh-out an incrementalist view of the experience and development with gnosis - not just based on scriptures, but by analyzing data that you might be able to collect from PTG. Sort of like a survey. I know that sounds crude, but if people can honestly answer some basic questions I think that we would have a better idea of trends, etc. A lot of the disagreement here stems from this concept of *bang* “I’ve got gnosis.” JP, you mentioned this in your post, but maybe we need to focus on gnosis as a process and not a set point in space/time. I personally think that gnosis is often confused for epiphany. Then agon sets in and people (myself included) can actually react worse than before they began their Gnostic journey. I think that’s where, to paraphrase Fr. Scott+, the “messianic complex” can kick in. I hope that’s not offensive or trite. :)
Donald Donato said,
One other thought: I mentioned this idea of a “survey” for a purpose. I think that it’s perfectly obvious that the entire process - but espcially the beginning- of a Gnostic experience can be earthshatteringly difficult. We see flare-ups all the time. I know that I struggle with it too. So if we try to understand the trends, maybe we can develop a practical set of suggestions and practices that can ease the pain a bit - not to mention make life a little more peaceful in the Garden…and in the world.
tim boucher said,
But is it supposed to call us to be more than plain old jerky humans? Or is it intended to help us realize just how awesome it is to be a plain old jerky human?
You’re asking this in a leading way to point towards the second interpretation as being the more accurate. It’s not though. We *are* supposed to become more.
being who we are to the fullest!
We must be fully expressed as people, yes. But once you’re fully expressed, the idea of who you are changes and falls away in favor of full service to others in all things. You cannot be a “jerky human” and be a servant of your fellow man. The two are incompatible.
Moral perfection is impossible while you’re trapped in the World of Forms
So then it’s impossible and we shouldn’t strive for it? May as well give in to temptation and all manner of evil then if its just simply not possible to be good.
I’d venture to say even Jesus and the Buddha’s moral perfection was maybe a degree or two less than expressed in myth. Just my opinion, ‘course.
Of course it’s just your opinion! They’re mythological figures who act as examples of what mankind *can and should* be. As such, I fully accept that Jesus was without sin. What they mean by that is that he achieved moral perfection and that it literally is possible.
Oh, you have “free will,” but not *perfect* Free Will.
And the distinction between the two is?
Plus there’s the whole Grace of God, and the Christos and Sophia stuff to take into account.
Okay, let’s take it into account. How does it fit?
But, that universe is imperfect
I refuse to worship a God who is so weak and ineffectual that he cannot create perfection in everything that he does.
it’s possible for God and the Pleroma and the Christos and Sophia to break in and knock you out of this total determinism
How do they do it then, if it’s possible?
It’s a state where, if you’ve acheieved it, you still have a lot of work to do.
You have as much work to do as you want, as you are willing, as you recognize, and as you take upon yourself. No less and no more.
helping me clarify my own thoughts a lot
I’m glad you see that this is my purpose in doing so!
It might be useful to flesh-out an incrementalist view of the experience and development with gnosis
What is an “incrementalist view” and what would make such a thing useful?
but by analyzing data that you might be able to collect from PTG
The assumption there would be, of course, that you could collect meaningful data - which would require participants in this survey to have “achieved gnosis”, correct?
A lot of the disagreement here stems from this concept of *bang* “I’ve got gnosis.”
Are you saying here in this post, or on this website in general? I am personally not looking at this interchange as a “disagreement”.
maybe we need to focus on gnosis as a process and not a set point in space/time.
Why?
JP said,
You’re asking this in a leading way to point towards the second interpretation as being the more accurate. It’s not though. We *are* supposed to become more.
Sorry, let me turn off this little rhetorical device here….
Now then. What is this thing we’re supposed to become? Are we supposed to become Nietzchian Ubermench? Or perfected humans? Or Adam Kadmon? Or are we supposed to learn that the Kingdom of Heaven is an internal state which will transform the World of Forms externally if we learn to apply it in our daily lives? Are we supposed to become Jesus, or are we supposed to become a more “Ideal” version (in the Platonic sense) of Jeremy or Tim or whoever? I’m asking you– this isn’t rhetorical.
And, I think you can be a flawed, imperfect human and be a servant of your fellow man. Don’t do what you hate, is all. You can be an alcoholic, a drug addict, a thief, a liar, any of these things and still be of service to people. If only nice and perfect people were capable of service, we’d be in quite a bit of trouble, imho. And, as a correlative, you can be an alcoholic, a drug addict, a thief, a liar, any of these things and still achieve gnosis (vide Philip K. Dick, for instance). It’s what you *do* with your gnosis that’s important. When you really look at some of the gnostic texts, they’re not really about how to get gnosis, they’re about what happens when you’ve got it.
So then it’s impossible and we shouldn’t strive for it? May as well give in to temptation and all manner of evil then if its just simply not possible to be good.
Never! As Jacques Ellul says, true hope is only possible in hopeless situations. The most moral act is the act of striving for perfect morality even when one realizes that this is impossible. Of course, some people will always think that striving for evil is better because it seems easier to be evil than to be good (which actually isn’t the case– good is always easier to accomplish than evil once you’ve started trying on an individual level).
Of course, just what we mean by morality or immorality is also questionable. Is eating animals moral or immoral? Again, I’m asking you seriously, not rhetorically. What’s immoral and what’s moral?
Of course it’s just your opinion! They’re mythological figures who act as examples of what mankind *can and should* be. As such, I fully accept that Jesus was without sin. What they mean by that is that he achieved moral perfection and that it literally is possible.
I disagree. As mythical archetypes, they have far greater value to me as imperfect humans than as ideals. I don’t think Jesus was without sin, but I do think he wasn’t a slave to it, in the same sense you mentioned previously. I think they illustrate all different stages of perfection, and can be identified as imperfect or perfect as needed depending on where you are in life. Right now, I think it’s awesome to think that these guys were, y’know, schmucks on occasion.
And the distinction between [”free will” and *perfect* Free Will] is?
I thought I explained, but here’s an elaboration: free will = the ability to choose from among the limited choices one has while restricted in the World of Forms. *Perfect* Free Will = The ability to make any choice whatsoever, in spite of the restrictions of the World of Forms. I have the “free will” to choose to come to work tomorrow. However, I don’t have the Free Will to choose to fly if I fall from a building. That damnable law of gravity keeps it from working for me. I have the free will to choose to walk down the stairs or take the elevator. I don’t have the Free Will to (say) rob a bank without any legal consequence.
The kind of Free Will granted by gnosis while still living is the Free Will to choose how your limitations effect your interior life, and transforming those expanded potentialities into the external world. How exactly you do that depends on your own life and your own experiences.
Okay, let’s take it into account. How does it fit?
I think it fits because there are forces that are greater than we who are helping us. We’re not alone. External? Internal? Who cares? We can ask for help and if we’re sincere about it, we’ll get it.
I refuse to worship a God who is so weak and ineffectual that he cannot create perfection in everything that he does.
So don’t!
Heh. Actually, the one you’re thinking of is the Demiurge. But, to me, the True God can and does create perfection in everything that he does. The imperfection of this World of Forms is part and parcel of that ultimate perfection. We’re not involved in stasis; this is a process of redemption. Maybe the True God is, after all, learning about itself by dividing itself and refining itself. Each time someone achieves gnosis (or whatever), the perfection of the True God becomes stronger and stronger. What we experience in our lifetimes, is, of course, the tiniest blink of God’s eye.
How do they do it then, if it’s possible?
I dunno. Ask them!
You have as much work to do as you want, as you are willing, as you recognize, and as you take upon yourself. No less and no more.
Jesus says “Come to me, for my yoke is gentle and my lordship is mild. And you will find repose for yourselves.”
I am personally not looking at this interchange as a “disagreement”.
Neither am I! I’m looking at it as an exploration.
tim boucher said,
What is this thing we’re supposed to become?
Now we’re getting to the right questions, I think.
I’m asking you– this isn’t rhetorical.
Unfortunately, I don’t have the answers either. My knowledge is limited to my own experience, and those things which follow logically from it. Phrased another way, I must perfect my ability to experience and to reason. Maybe that is all we are supposed to become…
I think you can be a flawed, imperfect human and be a servant of your fellow man.
I think you’re right. I guess the point I was making, in a very flawed and imperfect way, is that you must become a servant of your fellow man. That is probably the other thing we are supposed to become. But I also don’t think that being of service is enough to make up for flaws and imperfections: you must master yourself still, and when you do, real service begins in ways which are unimaginable before that because of the conflicted strivings and disharmony which mar most lives.
It’s what you *do* with your gnosis that’s important.
No, it’s what you *do* that is important. Gnosis does not factor into that equation at all.
Is eating animals moral or immoral?
Eating animals is moral because animals eat one another. Animals engage in many other behaviors though, which we need not copy because we have the ability to Reason, Free Will, and Compassion. Morality, obviously, is a complex question which causes us to look at what makes for a good life, and how best to share that with others. I don’t pretend to be able to answer fully what morality is in the span of a blog comment. I wish that I were that gifted as a communicator and that I were that in touch with the Truth though.
As mythical archetypes, they have far greater value to me as imperfect humans than as ideals.
An archetype, by definition, is an ideal.
Right now, I think it’s awesome to think that these guys were, y’know, schmucks on occasion.
Why do you think that’s awesome, and why “right now”?
free will = the ability to choose from among the limited choices one has while restricted in the World of Forms. *Perfect* Free Will = The ability to make any choice whatsoever, in spite of the restrictions of the World of Forms.
You’re talking about super-powers when you say “Perfect Free Will” then.
I have the “free will” to choose to come to work tomorrow.
That is an instance of choice, not Free Will.
However, I don’t have the Free Will to choose to fly if I fall from a building.
You’re talking about cause-effects relationships, not Free Will.
I have the free will to choose to walk down the stairs or take the elevator.
Choice.
I don’t have the Free Will to (say) rob a bank without any legal consequence.
Cause and effect.
You do, however, have the Free Will to rob a bank. Would that moral or immoral (rhetorical, in this case)?
there are forces that are greater than we who are helping us.
Where are they? Let’s have them over for drinks!
Actually, the one you’re thinking of is the Demiurge. But, to me, the True God can and does create perfection in everything that he does.
Um, except for the Demiurge then?
What if Free Will is simply the ability to choose to do something you know is wrong? Can you do something you know to be wrong without sinning?
JP said,
Unfortunately, I don’t have the answers either. My knowledge is limited to my own experience, and those things which follow logically from it. Phrased another way, I must perfect my ability to experience and to reason. Maybe that is all we are supposed to become…
I’m gonna guess there’s something in there about compassion, too.
I think you’re right. I guess the point I was making, in a very flawed and imperfect way, is that you must become a servant of your fellow man. That is probably the other thing we are supposed to become. But I also don’t think that being of service is enough to make up for flaws and imperfections: you must master yourself still, and when you do, real service begins in ways which are unimaginable before that because of the conflicted strivings and disharmony which mar most lives.
So now we’re getting somewhere. We’re supposed to become servants of our fellow humans and masters of our selves in spite of our flaws and the strivings and disharmony that usually make this difficult.
So how does gnosis fit in? In terms of Gnostic myth, we’re supposed to become “perfected” (perfect in self-knowledge and self-mastery) which will allow us to overcome our flaws (the Archons) in spite of the strivings and disharmony (the World of Forms) that usually make this difficult. So how? What do you think?
No, it’s what you *do* that is important. Gnosis does not factor into that equation at all.
It certainly does when you’re talking about gnosis, which I am here. But yeah, it’s what you do with anything that’s important.
Eating animals is moral because animals eat one another. Animals engage in many other behaviors though, which we need not copy because we have the ability to Reason, Free Will, and Compassion. Morality, obviously, is a complex question which causes us to look at what makes for a good life, and how best to share that with others. I don’t pretend to be able to answer fully what morality is in the span of a blog comment. I wish that I were that gifted as a communicator and that I were that in touch with the Truth though.
But cows don’t eat other cows, nor chickens other chickens. If eating animals was moral based on the fact that animals eat animals, shouldn’t we limit our diet to carnivorous animals? I’m thinking that the best way to do this in the modern world would be by becoming pescatarian. Rhetorical again, but yeah, morality is too complex for me right now, too. Suffice to say (to get back on topic) that I think that gnosis does increase one’s moral aptitude, though it also gives one more freedom over how one views this aptitude.
An archetype, by definition, is an ideal.
Not so! An archetype is an original model. The archetype of something can be flawed. An ideal is something that has no flaws.
Why do you think that’s awesome, and why “right now”?
“Right now” b/c at this point in my life, I personally relate better to, and learn more from normal humans than I do to/from highly advanced spiritual beings. Why is it important to you that they’re sin-free and “ideal” humans?
You’re talking about super-powers when you say “Perfect Free Will” then.
Undoubtedly! I totally think that it’s possible for us to become super heros, the goal of which is to save the
wor(l)d. Of course, there are some super powers that we all already have.
That is an instance of choice, not Free Will.
Right, that’s why I put “free will” in quotes.
You’re talking about cause-effects relationships, not Free Will.
I’m talking about the catalyst for cause and effect relationships. The c/e relationships might be part of the equation, but I’m talking about the *decision* to cause an effect. Do you have the freedom to make that decision? Is it an informed decision? Etc.
Where are they? Let’s have them over for drinks!
I have– it’s a blast! I think some of them were at your keg party the other night, too.
Um, except for the Demiurge then?
I think the Demiurge contains a kind of perfection, or is part of a perfect process. “Overcoming the demiurge” is a perfect way for a segment of the universe to know itself.
What if Free Will is simply the ability to choose to do something you know is wrong? Can you do something you know to be wrong without sinning?
Good question! I have no idea.
tim boucher said,
So now we’re getting somewhere. We’re supposed to become servants of our fellow humans and masters of our selves in spite of our flaws and the strivings and disharmony that usually make this difficult.
Getting somewhere indeed! Let me try to re-phrase and simplify.
Our strivings introduce disharmony into our lives, based on the assumption that we have flaws. To overcome this, we must first master ourselves and render service to our fellows.
How we do this is the key, of course.
So how does gnosis fit in?
I guess part of my reaction to all this is that I am no longer certain that this word or concept is necessary or particularly useful for me.
Yeah, the cows/archetype thing I could take or leave as a sub-topic. I was more just busting your balls.
Why is it important to you that they’re sin-free and “ideal” humans?
Because I see that it really is possible to live this way: that the cessation of sin and suffering are not just ideals, but are completely livable. Having seen this even just as a glimpsed possibility, I owe it to myself and to others to dedicate my life towards it.
Of course, there are some super powers that we all already have.
Such as? {See also: What If Everyone Had Super Powers?}
What Is Free Will? - Pop Occulture said,
[…] to plug an excellent and thoughtful conversation Jeremy Puma and I have been having over on his site on the subjects of gnosis, Free Will and a […]
p said,
If you don’t have Free Will until afterwards, then one’s “struggle against the Archons” doesn’t seem all that meaningful to me. If this is what gnostic sects believed, then I can begin to see why Early Church Fathers labeled them as heretics: if you don’t have Free Will from the start - from God - then why would you suddenly get it?
It seems illogical to me to speak of anything on Earth as “free” without keeping in mind what it might be free in relation to. All lifeforms are not free of physical death (presumably), they are not free to choose whether or not to attract the rest of the masses in the universe with their own mass, etc.
In mathematics, variables are often spoken of as ‘free’, this means the mathematician has latitude in imagining options for their values to take on. In the lambda calculus, variables can be free at one scope (or level of ‘zoom’) but not free (i.e. ‘bound’) at a higher level. If you fix one end of a rod to something, you can swivel it around so that the far end is ‘free’ in space, but the fixed end is not.
People who have spent a lot of time introspecting will have found that they often attribute their own agency to various phenomena, but upon closer inspection may decide that external or internal influences are really the causal principle at work. The opposite is also true, we may sometimes feel restricted and trapped in a situation, but in retrospect realize that we had more choice in the matter than we wanted to think.
So to question whether people ‘have free will’ in an absolute sense seems to entail a lot of assumptions we may not really feel comfortable with if we think about them.
In traditional metaphysics, the Absolute is considered the source of all other (apparent?) freedoms, since everything else is not ‘free’ with respect to it, and it is ‘free’ with respect to everything else. (Thus it is named both “death” and “life”.) Then, in an absolute sense, speaking as strictly as possible, I am only free with respect to the rest of the world insofar as I act in accordance with That. To the extent I attempt to oppose the absolute freedom, I am bound.
At this point, the question of whether the “I” exists becomes urgent, can I reasonably speak of “acting in accordance” with the absolute necessity? This may be another instance of misattributing actions to “myself”.
But I do not know myself, and cannot with great confidence make any statement. In fact, the longer I live, the less faith I have that the individual “I” is at all a coherent concept. Whatever I may tell myself, life teaches me “I” do not speak, “I” do not know, “I” do not act, “I” do not love.
The difference between that seemingly unshakable point of view and reality is an abyss. The truth is: I speak, I know, I act, I love.
“Not knowing what is and is not knowing: I KNEW NOT.” - Hassan i Sabbah’s razor (possibly apocryphal, since it’s from WSB.)