My opinion of the Gnostic Demiurge

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by ChungTsuU

 

Ok.....

Im sorry for failing to write up operational definitions. It must have caused immense amounts of confusion

Now as for that post you quoted of mine. Where was the hypocricy or contradiction?? Do i need to write up a whole new set of operational definitions before i discuss any topic?? Is that really necessary?

First thank you!

Actually, yes you do. For anything to move further, each and every person that has posted, and will post needs to know. In other words, this is also known as transparency.

Regards and Nameste,

-Chung

reply to post by dontreally


You wrote:

["Too much existentialism and Nihilism for me, thankyou very much."]

That's your subjective preference, correctly described as an 'opinion' in the thread title. But you don't stay on the acknowledged subjective grounds, you want to slip into objectivity without explanations.

Quote: ["You beat everything to death, dont you?"]

Somewhat proportional in intensity to the extent of self-proclaimed 'truths' incessantly coming from theist directions.

Quote: ["How can you believe in anything??"]

a/ OUGHT I believe in anything?

b/ But actually I privately 'believe' in many things. I believe the sun will (probably) rise tomorrow, I believe Debussy is better than rap-music, I believe in beauty and humour.....But that's my personal bubble, suited to me.

c/ In a public context I 'believe' in axiomatic starting-points, in pragmatism, in the value of objective procedure, of scientific procedure, of egalitarian principles in society, in intellectual honesty, in the value of empathy (without a doctrinal pricetag).

Quote: [" And yes. Because Hebrew is as it is, at the archetypal level, and i cannot for the life of me explain how this language or the Torah, was compiled as it was. I will assume, and have faith (as you do with your own beliefs) because i consider faith to be the basis of all things."]

I have no objections whatsoever concerning peoples' individual, subjective faiths. The problems start, when some people try to promote their faith-systems to 'truth', universal absolutes, whatever on a one-size-fits-all in academic or social contexts.

Quote: [" The Torah is teaching man, that it is not 'bread' that sustains you, but rather belief. And the ultimate, most intuitively logical truth,"]

An authoritatively based system....centering on 'belief' is the ultimate, intuitive, logical truth. You are rewriting philosophy here, and epistemology has been hijacked to fit your predetermined answer.

Quote: ["the world around us, the power to believe, doesnt exist on its own, but rather "on every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord". God is the reason for everything, no matter how much you try to dissect and make believe differently. God is God, man is man."]

Just an elaborate assumption. Nothing more.

Quote: ["And where does Gnosticism come in? Gnosticism is the negation of all this."]

The negation of your assumptions. That's true, so you claim this (again building up 'a case')...

Quote: ["It is Existentialism/Nihilism,......"]

Which more correctly should have been existialist nihilism, which only was a minor part of the original gnosticism. So you ASSUME an opponent (a non-existing collective category of gnosticism) as the basis for promoting your own assumptions.

Quote continued: ["....in a mythological wrapper."]

including a disregard of the real methodology of direct experience in gnosticism (which I already have mentioned a couple of times here).

Quote: ["It hates the world, and hates anything that doesnt immideately benefit it."]

These two claims are not synomymous and must be considered separately; not together in this convenient little semantic box.

Quote: ["And the demiurge idea is nothing but a means to achieve an end; liberation from Gods yoke."]

This 'idea' is a legitimate perspective on observable flaws concerning the position of biological life in cosmos. Hence is an opposition to 'god's yoke' (be it a 'real god', an academic text-evaluation or on the social impact) equally legitimate and can't be brushed off on your doctrinal grounds. You are not dictating the premises for the overall perspective.

Quote: ["Liberation from conscience, morality, responsibility, humility."]

This inclusive category is not homogenous....conscience etc has nothing to do with humility. And in any case....as it stands, it's just a propaganda-slogan without evidence.

Quote: ["Thats all i think it is. I look with complete and utter suspicion towards gnostic claims about "experience", as if their hate for God, conscience, and the strain it puts on their own selves, and what they feel they need, isnt their main motivation."]

Your inclusion of a psychological 'profile' of gnosticism's motives is your own fabrication, with no substance.

Quote: ["Thats what i think it is."]

Nobody can be in doubt about, that this is what "you think". That was obvious from the start. However that is not the issue, the issue is if you want to claim what "you think" to be objective.

Quote: ["Ive seen the beauty and good within Judaism, or any belief system which bases itself on morality, and goodness."]

Just to make it clear (as in the example above on your constructed categories): Goodness and morality are NOT synonymous.

Besides you still haven't demonstrated why such concepts function better based on 'authority' than based on liberal principles. You are here, once more, repeating a propagandistic slogan without any evidence.

Quote: ["I think the world could be a much better, and more decent place if we all just humbled ourselves."]

Without drawing more parallels than just "humbling ourselves", I'm sure Hitler, Stalin and Mao would have agreed with you. Authority is very much in favour for authority.

reply to post by Openeye


Much of what you wrote (in post 29th 06:48 PM) I agree with.

I would like to take the opportunity to hang on by personally going further in that direction and emphasizing, that uncle Alistair (Crowley) and Ayn Rand AREN'T typical exponents of neither liberalism in general nor more specifically gnosticism.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

Some people try to put all existence in a diagram with circles and arrows, others are sceptical to such an approach, as they say: The map is not the territory.

I'm so sorry you didn't get or grok fully that which I was trying to convey, but instead chose to negate it.

With 'others' in my initial comment, I didn't refer to you (you don't give the impression of being a 'diagram-person').

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by ChungTsuU

 

Ok.....

Im sorry for failing to write up operational definitions. It must have caused immense amounts of confusion

Now as for that post you quoted of mine. Where was the hypocricy or contradiction?? Do i need to write up a whole new set of operational definitions before i discuss any topic?? Is that really necessary?

Concerning the over-ornamentated statement: "It must have caused immense amounts of confusion"

Nope, it just takes time to cut through the irrelevant parts. And it takes time to persuade you to use a consequent systematic methodology.

["Do i need to write up a whole new set of operational definitions before i discuss any topic?? Is that really necessary?"]

Most of the optional methods for truth/reality-seeking are already outlined and well-defined. You just need to refer to one of them and stick to it; and if any personal additions need to be made, that shouldn't be such a problem either.

Originally posted by ChungTsuU
reply to post by dontreally

 

But theists often have problems with understanding the concept of 'freedom with responsibility'. Apparently the authority-dependency in monotheism DEFINES this concept away as impossible.

edit on 28-8-2011 by bogomil because: syntax

I think this statement is absolutely true.

reply to post by ChungTsuU


Please, ChangTsu. Look at the name of the thread.

This thread isnt discussing gnosis, but a gnostic idea: the demiurge.

reply to post by bogomil

Just to make it clear (as in the example above on your constructed categories): Goodness and morality are NOT synonymous.

Thankyou Nietzsche

Lets just agree to disagree.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by bogomil

 

Just to make it clear (as in the example above on your constructed categories): Goodness and morality are NOT synonymous.

Thankyou Nietzsche

Lets just agree to disagree.

And you could have started and ended this thread by simply stating: "For no other reasons than my personal preferences I insist on authority and deny mankind's ability to handle individual freedom".

But this attitude/opinion apparently had to be ornamented like a christmas-tree.

reply to post by bogomil

I do not agree with this gnostic/existentialist/nihilistic neediness to be ones own god, or to have complete power over ones own personal destiny..

I find it completely vain; that is, egotistical and superfluous. The amount of thinking you people do is so laughable!

Read the book of ecclesiastes. Solomon goes to the root of mans existential condition, and this is what he concludes:

First. All is vanity
Last. "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man"

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by bogomil

 

I do not agree with this gnostic/existentialist/nihilistic neediness to be ones own god, or to have complete power over ones own personal destiny..

I find it completely vain; that is, egotistical and superfluous. The amount of thinking you people do is so laughable!

Read the book of ecclesiastes. Solomon goes to the root of mans existential condition, and this is what he concludes:

First. All is vanity
Last. "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man"

I guess, that many, if not most of us following and contributing to this thread still are asking:

"When will a systematic methodology manifest and the propagandistic assumptions end?"

If you want a round two, it's not going to be identical with round one. This time it will be step by step, if necessary from an epistemological basis.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by bogomil

 

First. All is vanity
Last. "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man"

We are to fear God? I can assure you, you will not find god outside of you. I've been at a high level and there was NO judgment. Only complete and total acceptance and an all-encompassing love. It's fear that blocks us from becoming what we truly are. This is all I will say on the matter. Everyone moves at their own pace.

reply to post by bogomil
[more

Im stubborn. But im not so stubborn as to waste time and energy trying to convince you of my beliefs.

You know why? Im almost positive that you will oppose me, regardless of how i present my argument.

My methodology will never be good enough, im afraid.

Thats ok. This thread is as good as finished.

You might aswell go into your MYATS, and press the "X" on this thread.

Thats what im going to do!

reply to post by Onboard2

Only complete and total acceptance and an all-encompassing love

Ever heard of the middle way???

The middle way is neither left, nor right, nor Love, nor fear. It is a combination of both.

In the kabbalistic scheme, chesded - kindness, the first sephirah to emanate from Binah, is the basis of Gevurah - strength. So, the 'right' is more internal than the left.

So, yes, our love for God, and for all his creation, should be the basis, and prime motivator in all that we do. But to prevent the arrogant self from becoming overly assertive, we must also fear, show respect and honor, for Gods laws.

Would you jump off a cliff? If God is only a God of love, why not jump off? Maybe his love will save you from splattering on the ground.

If you fear the consequences of jumping off a cliff, then in truth, you fear God. You fear the law of gravity which HE ESTABLISHED.

Really. Fearing God is for mans own benefit. If we care for ourselves, we'll walk carefully, and thoughtfully, and take deep consideration of the consquences of our actions. Doing evil, for instance, is bad. Not just because it harms another; but more importantly, it harms yourself!

Thats why we desist from negativity. Fear of God is respect for God; and indeed, God established a creation in which fearing him is a necessary component, whether you realize it or not.

reply to post by dontreally


You wrote:

["Im stubborn. But im not so stubborn as to waste time and energy trying to convince you of my beliefs."]

Personally I would settle for real communication from a common communication-platform instead of unvalidated slogans. I.e. a systematic methodology. 'Convincing' isn't part of it, the reader is the ultimate referee for him/herself concerning internet debate. (That hideous individualism again. People should be told what to believe).

Quote: ["You know why? Im almost positive that you will oppose me, regardless of how i present my argument."]

We haven't seen any 'regardless' sofar, only repetitions of claims and postulates, so in the present circumstances you are probably right.

Quote: ["You might aswell go into your MYATS, and press the "X" on this thread."]

I'm practically an imbecile, when it comes to internet navigation, so this is beyond me.