Literally for thousands of years, Gnosis and Gnosticism remains a mystery to those who attempt to reduce it to a mere religion, or a technological point of view. Gnosticism is neither.
I published this conversation with a number of thoughts, having watched the entire conversation. Not the least amongst these is the glaringly obvious fact that there is not even a mention of the Savior, nor is there the slightest admission that Gnosticism was and is today a direct mystical path, not a religion, and certainly not a justification for technocratic fantasies.
So, since I didn't agree with the bulk of the conclusions provided herein, why did I link to this conversation?
I hope through presenting such, I can illustrate that the prejudices and misinterpretations of Gnosticism appear as reasoned thought, arrive as analysis of what is portrayed as firm systems of belief. The modern mind is trained to examine features, and to treat such features as fleshed out and defined paradigms. This can be useful, as in tracing some of the history of Transhumanism, as is done in this conversation. Unfortunately, such a perspective cannot embrace the role of myth or mythic thought as such operates on multiple levels simultaneously.
The directive role of myth operates continually upon the Gnostic path. It is the flow of blood through the organs. It is the direct experiential carrier of meaning, revealing itself through itself as the mystic applies their spiritual intelligence to the epic struggle of becoming.
However, this conversation is eminently useful as a primer for how the modern mind approaches Gnosticism. It should just be kept in mind that the understanding is at best incomplete.
I published this conversation with a number of thoughts, having watched the entire conversation. Not the least amongst these is the glaringly obvious fact that there is not even a mention of the Savior, nor is there the slightest admission that Gnosticism was and is today a direct mystical path, not a religion, and certainly not a justification for technocratic fantasies.
So, since I didn't agree with the bulk of the conclusions provided herein, why did I link to this conversation?
I hope through presenting such, I can illustrate that the prejudices and misinterpretations of Gnosticism appear as reasoned thought, arrive as analysis of what is portrayed as firm systems of belief. The modern mind is trained to examine features, and to treat such features as fleshed out and defined paradigms. This can be useful, as in tracing some of the history of Transhumanism, as is done in this conversation. Unfortunately, such a perspective cannot embrace the role of myth or mythic thought as such operates on multiple levels simultaneously.
The directive role of myth operates continually upon the Gnostic path. It is the flow of blood through the organs. It is the direct experiential carrier of meaning, revealing itself through itself as the mystic applies their spiritual intelligence to the epic struggle of becoming.
However, this conversation is eminently useful as a primer for how the modern mind approaches Gnosticism. It should just be kept in mind that the understanding is at best incomplete.