Share this comment
Um, yes. You as usual, don't know what you are talking about.
Fist of all, dude, Gnosticism isn't a series of beliefs codified by Philip k. Dick. Nobody sat down and created a Septuagint for Gnosis. Your proto-Gnostic term is both misleading and absurd. For the record, Gnosticism remains a significant development that directly participate…
Um, yes. You as usual, don't know what you are talking about.
Fist of all, dude, Gnosticism isn't a series of beliefs codified by Philip k. Dick. Nobody sat down and created a Septuagint for Gnosis. Your proto-Gnostic term is both misleading and absurd. For the record, Gnosticism remains a significant development that directly participates in the logic, language, and mystical experience that forms the western mystical tradition. You obviously have no comprehension of this, no understanding of Emanation, and absolutely zero respect for those who do.
The Cathari were exterminated by this same, exact blockheaded ignorance that purports a series of irrational beliefs to be above any examination other than fawning obedience. If you want to celebrate this genocide as a highpoint of abrahamic culture, prepare, for you can offer no worthwhile argument to spare you and yours when the next group of murderous psychopaths paints a target on you.
Truth is, dude that the abrahamic complex can be quite easily explained throughout history, and traced through a series of societal and political developments. There is, for example, nothing in Christianity that is uniquely Christian, and that includes the self congradulatory praise the abrahamics heap upon themselves regarding monotheism..
> Gnosticism isn't a series of beliefs codified by Philip k. Dick.
The key elements of Gnosticism, i.e., the ones that lead to problems are:
1) The belief that the creator of the material world and the material world itself are evil.
2) Antinomianism, the rejection of "traditional laws" as creations of the demiurge, and ultimately the rejecting of any laws as binding on people, or at least as binding on those with access to the secret Gnosis. Instead the only command is "do what thou wilt", or in less archaic English "do whatever you want".
and not quite as bad, but still a problem:
3) The existence of secret teachings or Gnosis accessible only to the elect.
For what it's worth I very much agree with the criticism of gnosis on regard to point #1 and point #2.
I do not have an issue with #3. As a matter of empirical fact there are just some teachings that some minds cannot comprehend and attempting to teach it to them at best is a waste of time. I think #3 is the only real overlap between Platonism and Gnosticism. Platonism explicitly rejects #1 and #2.
I don't have a leg in this Cathar fight so I'm not going to comment. My studies have focused on the ancient world much more than the medieval.
> I do not have an issue with #3.
There's a reason I called #3 less important.
> As a matter of empirical fact there are just some teachings that some minds cannot comprehend and attempting to teach it to them at best is a waste of time.
This is true, I'm not sure it justifies keeping the teachings secret. The problem is that secrecy inevitable becomes abused to cover up various nefarious activities, or at the very least makes doctrines that could never survive the light of day appear impressive.
> I think #3 is the only real overlap between Platonism and Gnosticism.
Given that we've been on the receiving end of various "noble lies" over the past couple of years from our self-declared "betters", I hope you can appreciate the problem with even Plato's version of that doctrine.
Fair enough! You make a good point.
So, is Engineering a secret teaching only available to the elect since only those with the money and opportunity to attend advanced studies have access? If no, then why not?
Modern scientists and engineers make their knowledge as accessible as possible given practical constrains, or at least they're supposed to, see e.g., open courseware, the open source, and open science/open data movements. Those who don't, e.g., the "scientists" claiming you should just trust them, have my full condemnation.
Dude, you didn't answer the question.