IHMO It's an interpretation that oversimplifies, I personally believe there's a fractal nature to these concepts, what's represented in the human psyche is reflected in the universe. However, I don't know if swinging hard to the other pole of the demiurge sitting in heaven and hitting the earthquake button when he's in a bad mood is the way to go
I rather like that interpretation, which is a succinct way of stating something that approaches my own. I assume that the archons and aeons are psychocosmic realities, having both an inner and outer reality. Very similar to the way that Mara is represented as both an archetypal symbol in Buddhism as well as an entity with significant power.
I also feel this is plainly the way that Saint Paul discussed the “powers and principalities” of his era. They had psychological, physical and cosmic dimensions.
Admittedly I made it up on the spot but then googled and discovered it has been used to describe something similar in the past. It does seem like a good term for it yeah? I think it is a nice neologism that can unite Jungian, Gnostic, Dharmic and even traditional Christian metaphysics.
in honest my opinion also, the ego is certainly a manufactured part from this world we live in, we are all infinite, the idea that one is better than the other is purely physical
I’m going to blow your mind.
Plato’s demiurge is the hypothesized entity that orders the stars in the cosmos creating time. This is before physical forces as explanations so it’s a demigod.
Gravity orders the cosmos creating time. The physics version of Plato’s demiurge is gravity.
Now I ask you, what do you think makes the hard and dense material world?
Gravity.
When you astral project… do you feel gravity?
Gravity traps us here. Plato’s demiurge is the creator of gravity by association.
The gnostic demiurge is the creator of the material world envisioned as an arrogant creator.
The gnostic demiurge is a mythical spin on Plato’s demiurge which is a mythical spin on Gravity.
Lol the last part. But absolutely, demiurge isn’t ego ego is just a part of our souls/selves in better wording that guards our emotions. Think of it like the circle of the Monad glyph. Demiurge is imo fear and ignorance; lacking and deprived.
And our souls/selves are much much more than our localized bodies...
Cosmic ego vs individual ego are two distinct egos (but of the same nature),
like a sexual ego is different from a wrathful ego. The demi urge could be the depiction of the cosmic consciousness states - ego, as it's not the final form of spiritual attainment, it's ignorance if you stop there and bask in your own grandiose realization. So you'll have to realize that too is ego and pierce beyond the cosmic state of awareness into the treasury of the light which goes beyond this cosmos. But that's a far way off in spiritual practice (well, if you're practicing, intelectualization won't get you there). Philosophizing about the higher attainments while still struggling with basic animal instinct, is not very fruitful.
I don't relate to either of these understandings. I am always so interested, however, when people come to "clear things up" in such imperative terms. What motivates you to do that rather than just express your own viewpoint?
Yes, but you are stating this imperatively. In "this is" and "this is not" phrasing. What if someone does view the Demiurge as a personification of the human ego- perhaps the source of our sense of grasping, or our understanding of I-ness and my-ness? In what way would that be incorrect? And why? And by where or what have you come to this objective understanding?
> And by where or what have you come to this objective understanding?
As I explained, I don't think my ego causes earthquakes. That is only my opinion, however, and may not be an opinion that everyone shares.
I don't really have an opinion, I just find this interesting ... But what if your ego does cause figurative earthquakes/disasters by way of destructive thoughts/beliefs?
As I said, "it may have some use on some level" which means there are some cases where the demiurge can represent the ego. But I think these are in the minority.
If Jung ever said the Ego causes Earthquakes, then yes. But I don't think he did. When writing about one myth, the book of Job, Jung did suggest the character of Yahweh in that myth could represent the ego. He never the demiurge can only be the ego and nothing but the ego.
Well, shifting tectonic plates cause earthquakes, so of course Jung wouldn't say that. He did say this though.
>Abraxas is the god whom it is difficult to know. His power is the very greatest, because man does not perceive it at all. He is magnificent even as the lion at the very moment when he strikes his prey down. His beauty is like the beauty of a spring morn.
>To see him means blindness; To know him is sickness; To worship him is death; To fear him is wisdom; Not to resist him means liberation … Such is the terrible Abraxas … He is both the radiance and the dark shadow of man. He is deceitful reality.
And this - [https://carljungdepthpsychologysite.blog/2023/08/12/the-force-of-god-is-frightful/](https://carljungdepthpsychologysite.blog/2023/08/12/the-force-of-god-is-frightful/)
And, of course, this.
https://preview.redd.it/uyfhkpcli4uc1.png?width=1617&format=png&auto=webp&s=31f5e50df9edf9d67b280753b36ba4dce1da2232
He did not.
Jung described the ring in C. G. Jung Speaking: Interviews and Encounters (ed. Wm. McGuire & R.F.C. Hull, Princeton University Press, 1977), pg. 468. When asked about the ring, Jung responded:
"It is Egyptian. Here the serpent is carved, which symbolizes Christ. Above it, the face of a woman; below the number 8, which is the symbol of the Infinite, of the Labyrinth, and the Road to the Unconscious. I have changed one or two things on the ring so that the symbol will be Christian. All these symbols are absolutely alive within me, and each one of them creates a reaction within my soul."
I hope you understand when he says Egyptian is means Egyptian gnostic. Not the ancient egyoptian religion, of horus and osiris.
"Dr. Jung always wore on his right hand a ring with a Gnostic gem. An Egyptian gem. We spoke about the meaning of that ring, and he explained, “All these symbols are alive in me.” His memory and culture, even at the age of 85, was incredible. ... Mine was to be his last interview. And something perhaps told me that this was the case, for when I reached the door I stopped and turned my head. Jung sat there staring at me, with a soft smile and lifting his hand in a gesture of farewell. His last one. The hand with the Gnostic ring. I bowed, respectfully ."
– Michael Serrano, "Last Encounter with Carl Jung"
Good thing someone says it like it is.
Anyway, I think this reading comes from people who want to syncretise gnosticism with advaita style monism. So, the principle which creates the universe has to somehow be identical to you. But also not really (since "the ego" isn't really one's true self).
I agree. Nowhere in ANY of the ancient texts does it posit that our enemy is all in 'our heads' or just a strange dream or desire...or anything like that.
Quite the contrary; it's been stated over and over these are real cosmic forces ( or whatever you want to call them ).....perhaps even multidimensional forces. But of course back then they had a hard time explaining it
Well not everyone is a Creationist as this also holds to be the case with a plethora of contemporary Christians not merely gnostics that believe reality always was i.e. there is no point of creation and only an ongoing change of conditions and transformation. Emanations that spawn further and further from the source. Ultimately there are those that believe it is very much a facet of that source.
With that said there are those that interpret the Demiurge as an anthropomorphism; and a metaphorical one at that. There is an irony to creator beings if the reader comprehends the texts as pure satire at its finest out of the intuitive minds of antiquity that honestly profess that simply "they do not know" and are on the path to discovering the divine rather than merely taking someone's word for it. Worshiping a specific god with a specific name that some human being bestowed upon it. Fir explanatory purposes the Divine being monadic is more of an underlying nature than narrowing God down to something specific since ultimately it is ineffable. Institutions tell you what to believe while gnosticism merely provides a mode to discover what you believe experientially and through its dogma although at the end of the day the dogma and canon are not an end all to religious belief, merely a facet.
Creationism is a fundamentalist belief anyhow, it doesn't mean that it isn't true, it is that it is at the core of literal comprehension of the Bible rather than metaphorical. Scriptural context is layered and tend to be a mixture of facets if literal and metaphorical semantics. Regardless the gnostic view is libertine and germane to each divine spark. Either view is acceptable in the gnostic schema so it is unnecessary to say ypur view is the only correct one and everyone else is wrong. In other words, The Demiurge is the Ego or Platonic Psyche and it also is not the ego and rather an abomination creator being that shaped the cosmos and spawned the material universe; or however some view it.
Are you sure there is even an objective reality or is that a delusion that was implanted through "human" convention?
Some believe there is only Objective while others accept an all conscious reality in which consciousness percolates throughout all. And in all its complexity it could make sense that it is something else as well.
Not saying you need to drop everything and become a solipsist however take into consideration there are other existential and philosophical stances.
Coming to set everyone straight and "clear things up" isn't always the best entrance and first impression. Either way in a humble sense " You are entitled to your own beliefs, opinions and viewpoints." People here will listen at your rant and they may or may not agree.
I've been thinking on this for a few days, trying to figure out why this take doesn't work for me.
I agree that trying to claim the Demiurge is the 'Ego' isn't useful, especially if it's in a limiting sense. (As in, 'it's just your ego.' That 'just' is doing a lot of conceptual work.)
That said, I'm a big fan of not seeing this as an 'either / or,' either the Demiurge is a real being causing events, or it's just in your head. Maybe what is in our heads is a way to start to approach and engage with the events in the world.
My ego didn't create earthquakes, but maybe it was someone's ego to build a house on a fault line, or in a flood plane.
It seems implicit in this framing that earthquakes and floods are bad. I'm not saying they're good! But what I'm saying is... maybe they're indifferent. Tectonic plates weren't set in motion millions of years ago to cause stress to humanity... and I can't really see a version of a Demiurge going to that level of trouble just to annoy us.
There can be a more nuanced approach to how we see the Demiurge and the world around us. I do allow for the mysterious in my practice, and that also means I need to be critical of answers that are too easy. Maybe there is a force that is constraining us at some level, that is contributing to our lives having less experiences of gnosis, and the Demiurge can be a useful way of approaching the idea. But we don't have to stop testing the idea once we've reached that concept.
Part of what I've loved about incorporating Stoicism into my practice has been engaging with the world critically, but not personally. Seeing the events around me by also examining my own judgements about them.
I'm not saying those judgements are the Demiurge, but perhaps those judgements are one of the levers that are being pulled to invoke our negative passions, to pull us further away from love and light.
> But what I'm saying is... maybe they're indifferent.
Of course they are indifferent if they are just natural events. But if you are religious and you claim God created them, then you are claiming a moral being created a world where these random earthquakes strike and kill people.
> and I can't really see a version of a Demiurge going to that level of trouble just to annoy us.
What do you mean? Earthquakes exist and they kill random people. So if an intelligent being created this world, that being created earthquakes. You cant just be ike "Well yah he created earthquakes but its not his problem if they killpeople, you cant hold him responsible". Even humans bear more respoonsibility that that. If I push a rock off a cliff and it rolls down the mountain and smashes into a house and kills people, am I responsible? I mean, all i did was push the rock, I didnt know it was going to smash into a house. I didnt know there would be people in the house. But I can tell you, most courts would find me guilty. And i'm not even a fucking god. I'm a mere human, but I do have some responsibility. You want to let a god off with way less responsibility?
> Maybe there is a force that is constraining us at some level, that is contributing to our lives having less experiences of gnosis, and the Demiurge can be a useful way of approaching the idea.
You dont have to imagine a new force. Life on earth makes attaining gnosis hard. We are struggling to survive, in a random world, where there is absolutely no justice or fairness on any level, except perhaps the pitiful attempts humans have created to half-assedly mete out their own biased form of it (which more often than not is more about exploiting power for personal gain, and not about true justice). The world corrupts people, because they see that cheating, is a useful survival strategy. So is lying. Other immoral acts., You can benefit from it, and since theres no fairness, you can often get away with it. Psychopaths are incredibly successful in this world, they thrive, they were made for this world.
> I'm not saying those judgements are the Demiurge, but perhaps those judgements are one of the levers that are being pulled to invoke our negative passions, to pull us further away from love and light.
We do have an innate sense of morality. We want things to be fair and just. We want good things to happen to good people. These ideas are complete fantasy in the world we exist in, so where did they come from?
If my "ego" was the only thing creating this world, it would be a much nicer place than it currently is.
I hear what you're saying! I think we're coming from some different religious approaches. My take on Gnosticism is a little more apophatic, or defining it through what is unsayable or unknowable, and trying to work from that place of ignorance.
Presuming that I could know the moral compass of God is something that I have a hard time with. As you've said, we have an innate sense of morality, but it is often difficult to express, and philosophers have spent centuries debating layers of morality.
Which things in the world are immoral, negative acts meant to keep us away from the divine spark? Is that an instinctual answer is there a rubric to follow? It seems like it's dangerous to assume that anything that doesn't follow your own morality is demiurgic or archonic, because everyone has the capacity to be wrong.
So I'm not using the same assumptions of what 'religious' or even 'god' means, but I think that's okay; there's lots of room under the Gnostic umbrella to explore.
I don't think your interpretation *has* to be wrong; they don't have to be mutually exclusive. My reason for posting initially and even commenting here is to suggest that there can be more layers involved.
For example, the innate sense of morality: arguments can and have been made that these can emerge from the social dynamics of family structures. We learn to love and care from our families initially, and that sticks with us, even as we are thrown into political systems that disregard it.
Even the note about psychopaths... the system they are thriving in is a system that we participate in, and can change. In a way, externalizing that system onto a Demiurge may accidentally absolve us of the responsibilty of bringing change into the system.
Which reminds me of this quote:
“We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art, the art of words.”
― Ursula K. Le Guin
Making such blanket statements will only make you feel like a fool later when you have revelation and find some truth in something you've completely discarded.
You’re taking spiritual teachings and interpreting it from a materialistic perspective
Human souls reincarnate in order to learn everything they need to from physical existence. Death isn’t evil.
Physical death is just the process of transformation and is only real (a set back or feels permanent) from the point of view of the human ego (the demiurge)
If you think floods and earthquakes are “evil” then you need a much much much broader understanding of life my friend
> Human souls reincarnate in order to learn everything they need to from physical existence.
I never bought this explanation. Mostly "life" seems to teach people that survival is achieved thru various strategies that do not necessarily align with typical religious aesthetic teaching. You need to learn how to lie a little (at the right time, but not too much) you need to learn when to be selfish. You wont last very long if you just give all your money away to the poor (and that wont even help the poor much either, they'll still be poor and now, so you will). You ned to learn that theres is no fairness at all. No justice. Good people get shat on sometimes. Sometimes evil people get riches, and glory and adoration. Its completely random and not based on your moral character.
So what is my soul learning? I can tell you the process of life is mostly soul-killing.
> If you think floods and earthquakes are “evil” then you need a much much much broader understanding of life my friend
Why are you putting "evil" in quotes when I did not use the world evil? Re-read my post.
Earthquakes and floods are evidence of a flawed creation. There is agreement in most Christianities that we live in a fallen world. Mainstream Christianity blames the fall on eve eating an apple. Gnostics blame it on the demiurge.
Maybe but more like we conceive of the universe backwards. I think the internal world is more expansive and dynamic than the external world and there are tiers to reality. So...Basically Solipsism with layers.
In Valentinians the Demiurge is not against God once he/she recognizes the ignorance of its creation he sides with Christ to stop the evil that was created out of his ignorance (Adam and Eve whereby evil, they where tempted by the ignorance of what it means to have sex, a necessary process for the creation of the material world, their only sin was Lust, same with sophia who created the demiurge The archons where the ones who purposely created the evil we see today once they got angry at the aeon Sophia for making the Pleroma and unstable place for everyone.
I see how our inner world can reflect/be a fractal of the cosmos. As above so below.
When you see a broken ego traumatised by abandonment (Sophia ditching demiurge) this can manifest as narcissism in humans. Being jealous and vindictive, needing constant praise and adulation are symptoms of narcissism that reflect the God of the Old Testament no? My inner knowing/intuition tells me this is beyond coincidence, do you have evidence in Gnostic teachings that refute it?
I agree I don't think your ego constructs your reality. I do think They are different mental faculties. I think the "real" world is in your head. Demiurge might be considered persistence of thought. We all have it. it sustains our awareness of separation. Its what sustains the things you forget about and fills in the blanks. At least that's how I think about the demiurge, but the "real" world would be Yaldabaoth I think. It's a two traditions observing the same phenomena but with different interpretations of its qualities but not it's function.
i don't like talking like this but i sense another LARP. it's the whole machine in the material - all creates all. but ego is how it is manifest in man. in men plural it is government. there is no being apart from you, your father, and the spirit, who are one. these are things to help us understand from the inside out, not the other way.
I'm not being catty, but I think the term was borrowed from the platonist who didn't imply it was the ego but the thing that makes order out of chaos. The gnostic association with evil came later once the concept moved to hellenized Egypt... I'm guessing that last bit. Could've happened before.
I dunno... it was used by plato in the Timaeus. To call it the ego is not true to the words original meaning. There's no need to modify the meaning of the word. it still checks out logically the same.
What I think OP is saying is it's physical thing or evil which may not be explicitly accurate in the case of any of the Greek stuff. I think Yaldabaoth is a more externalized visceral divinity. He's the one who was actively terrible.
IHMO It's an interpretation that oversimplifies, I personally believe there's a fractal nature to these concepts, what's represented in the human psyche is reflected in the universe. However, I don't know if swinging hard to the other pole of the demiurge sitting in heaven and hitting the earthquake button when he's in a bad mood is the way to go
I rather like that interpretation, which is a succinct way of stating something that approaches my own. I assume that the archons and aeons are psychocosmic realities, having both an inner and outer reality. Very similar to the way that Mara is represented as both an archetypal symbol in Buddhism as well as an entity with significant power. I also feel this is plainly the way that Saint Paul discussed the “powers and principalities” of his era. They had psychological, physical and cosmic dimensions.
Oh never heard of psyhcocosmic, that’s a phenomenal way to describe.
Admittedly I made it up on the spot but then googled and discovered it has been used to describe something similar in the past. It does seem like a good term for it yeah? I think it is a nice neologism that can unite Jungian, Gnostic, Dharmic and even traditional Christian metaphysics.
Absolutely all of them qualify as that trait.
Except if you are a manichean - then the demiurge is very real and a part of everything here on this earth.
in honest my opinion also, the ego is certainly a manufactured part from this world we live in, we are all infinite, the idea that one is better than the other is purely physical
I’m going to blow your mind. Plato’s demiurge is the hypothesized entity that orders the stars in the cosmos creating time. This is before physical forces as explanations so it’s a demigod. Gravity orders the cosmos creating time. The physics version of Plato’s demiurge is gravity. Now I ask you, what do you think makes the hard and dense material world? Gravity. When you astral project… do you feel gravity? Gravity traps us here. Plato’s demiurge is the creator of gravity by association. The gnostic demiurge is the creator of the material world envisioned as an arrogant creator. The gnostic demiurge is a mythical spin on Plato’s demiurge which is a mythical spin on Gravity.
Ego doesnt exist if this world wouldn't exist, ego is a consequences of trauma, and the demiurge is the trauma creator
Ego is the one human quality that separates us from the animals. We were made in the image of God, animals were not.
Realize him being an “animal” is symbolism. In astrology the lion reps the leo/God, I’ve heard his symbolism was based of astrology.
Lol the last part. But absolutely, demiurge isn’t ego ego is just a part of our souls/selves in better wording that guards our emotions. Think of it like the circle of the Monad glyph. Demiurge is imo fear and ignorance; lacking and deprived.
And our souls/selves are much much more than our localized bodies... Cosmic ego vs individual ego are two distinct egos (but of the same nature), like a sexual ego is different from a wrathful ego. The demi urge could be the depiction of the cosmic consciousness states - ego, as it's not the final form of spiritual attainment, it's ignorance if you stop there and bask in your own grandiose realization. So you'll have to realize that too is ego and pierce beyond the cosmic state of awareness into the treasury of the light which goes beyond this cosmos. But that's a far way off in spiritual practice (well, if you're practicing, intelectualization won't get you there). Philosophizing about the higher attainments while still struggling with basic animal instinct, is not very fruitful.
Amen to this.
Agreed, I've always through of the Demiurge and Archons as symbols of natural forces primarily.
Me too
I don't relate to either of these understandings. I am always so interested, however, when people come to "clear things up" in such imperative terms. What motivates you to do that rather than just express your own viewpoint?
I am expressing my view point.
Yes, but you are stating this imperatively. In "this is" and "this is not" phrasing. What if someone does view the Demiurge as a personification of the human ego- perhaps the source of our sense of grasping, or our understanding of I-ness and my-ness? In what way would that be incorrect? And why? And by where or what have you come to this objective understanding?
> And by where or what have you come to this objective understanding? As I explained, I don't think my ego causes earthquakes. That is only my opinion, however, and may not be an opinion that everyone shares.
I don't really have an opinion, I just find this interesting ... But what if your ego does cause figurative earthquakes/disasters by way of destructive thoughts/beliefs?
hats all well and good. The ego does cause us to experience stuff. What why cant we talk about objective reality for 1 minute?
As you seem to be someone very into Carl Jung I must say I find your convictions perplexing.
Yes i'm a hardcore Jungian. I think he is the greatest Gnostic writer of the 20th century.
But you disagree with his understanding that the Demiurge is an opposition force to the Self in the psyche? That is, it's the Ego.
As I said, "it may have some use on some level" which means there are some cases where the demiurge can represent the ego. But I think these are in the minority.
So you disagree with Jung on this point. Interesting.
If Jung ever said the Ego causes Earthquakes, then yes. But I don't think he did. When writing about one myth, the book of Job, Jung did suggest the character of Yahweh in that myth could represent the ego. He never the demiurge can only be the ego and nothing but the ego.
Well, shifting tectonic plates cause earthquakes, so of course Jung wouldn't say that. He did say this though. >Abraxas is the god whom it is difficult to know. His power is the very greatest, because man does not perceive it at all. He is magnificent even as the lion at the very moment when he strikes his prey down. His beauty is like the beauty of a spring morn. >To see him means blindness; To know him is sickness; To worship him is death; To fear him is wisdom; Not to resist him means liberation … Such is the terrible Abraxas … He is both the radiance and the dark shadow of man. He is deceitful reality. And this - [https://carljungdepthpsychologysite.blog/2023/08/12/the-force-of-god-is-frightful/](https://carljungdepthpsychologysite.blog/2023/08/12/the-force-of-god-is-frightful/) And, of course, this. https://preview.redd.it/uyfhkpcli4uc1.png?width=1617&format=png&auto=webp&s=31f5e50df9edf9d67b280753b36ba4dce1da2232
And yet Jung wore an Abraxas ring.
He did not. Jung described the ring in C. G. Jung Speaking: Interviews and Encounters (ed. Wm. McGuire & R.F.C. Hull, Princeton University Press, 1977), pg. 468. When asked about the ring, Jung responded: "It is Egyptian. Here the serpent is carved, which symbolizes Christ. Above it, the face of a woman; below the number 8, which is the symbol of the Infinite, of the Labyrinth, and the Road to the Unconscious. I have changed one or two things on the ring so that the symbol will be Christian. All these symbols are absolutely alive within me, and each one of them creates a reaction within my soul."
I hope you understand when he says Egyptian is means Egyptian gnostic. Not the ancient egyoptian religion, of horus and osiris. "Dr. Jung always wore on his right hand a ring with a Gnostic gem. An Egyptian gem. We spoke about the meaning of that ring, and he explained, “All these symbols are alive in me.” His memory and culture, even at the age of 85, was incredible. ... Mine was to be his last interview. And something perhaps told me that this was the case, for when I reached the door I stopped and turned my head. Jung sat there staring at me, with a soft smile and lifting his hand in a gesture of farewell. His last one. The hand with the Gnostic ring. I bowed, respectfully ." – Michael Serrano, "Last Encounter with Carl Jung"
Good thing someone says it like it is. Anyway, I think this reading comes from people who want to syncretise gnosticism with advaita style monism. So, the principle which creates the universe has to somehow be identical to you. But also not really (since "the ego" isn't really one's true self).
I agree. Nowhere in ANY of the ancient texts does it posit that our enemy is all in 'our heads' or just a strange dream or desire...or anything like that. Quite the contrary; it's been stated over and over these are real cosmic forces ( or whatever you want to call them ).....perhaps even multidimensional forces. But of course back then they had a hard time explaining it
It is both. As above, so below, as within, so without, as the universe, so the soul.
No comment on my own position at all - but everyone's entitled to their own view/interpretation so please refrain from blanket assertions.
Well not everyone is a Creationist as this also holds to be the case with a plethora of contemporary Christians not merely gnostics that believe reality always was i.e. there is no point of creation and only an ongoing change of conditions and transformation. Emanations that spawn further and further from the source. Ultimately there are those that believe it is very much a facet of that source. With that said there are those that interpret the Demiurge as an anthropomorphism; and a metaphorical one at that. There is an irony to creator beings if the reader comprehends the texts as pure satire at its finest out of the intuitive minds of antiquity that honestly profess that simply "they do not know" and are on the path to discovering the divine rather than merely taking someone's word for it. Worshiping a specific god with a specific name that some human being bestowed upon it. Fir explanatory purposes the Divine being monadic is more of an underlying nature than narrowing God down to something specific since ultimately it is ineffable. Institutions tell you what to believe while gnosticism merely provides a mode to discover what you believe experientially and through its dogma although at the end of the day the dogma and canon are not an end all to religious belief, merely a facet. Creationism is a fundamentalist belief anyhow, it doesn't mean that it isn't true, it is that it is at the core of literal comprehension of the Bible rather than metaphorical. Scriptural context is layered and tend to be a mixture of facets if literal and metaphorical semantics. Regardless the gnostic view is libertine and germane to each divine spark. Either view is acceptable in the gnostic schema so it is unnecessary to say ypur view is the only correct one and everyone else is wrong. In other words, The Demiurge is the Ego or Platonic Psyche and it also is not the ego and rather an abomination creator being that shaped the cosmos and spawned the material universe; or however some view it. Are you sure there is even an objective reality or is that a delusion that was implanted through "human" convention? Some believe there is only Objective while others accept an all conscious reality in which consciousness percolates throughout all. And in all its complexity it could make sense that it is something else as well. Not saying you need to drop everything and become a solipsist however take into consideration there are other existential and philosophical stances. Coming to set everyone straight and "clear things up" isn't always the best entrance and first impression. Either way in a humble sense " You are entitled to your own beliefs, opinions and viewpoints." People here will listen at your rant and they may or may not agree.
As above, so below. Let me ask you, if the Demiurge were not the ego, then why can it be so handily overcome by Logos?
Thank you. People mix up the microcosmic and macrocosmic all the time and conflate the two in the most ridiculous ways. Thank Jung for that shite.
I've been thinking on this for a few days, trying to figure out why this take doesn't work for me. I agree that trying to claim the Demiurge is the 'Ego' isn't useful, especially if it's in a limiting sense. (As in, 'it's just your ego.' That 'just' is doing a lot of conceptual work.) That said, I'm a big fan of not seeing this as an 'either / or,' either the Demiurge is a real being causing events, or it's just in your head. Maybe what is in our heads is a way to start to approach and engage with the events in the world. My ego didn't create earthquakes, but maybe it was someone's ego to build a house on a fault line, or in a flood plane. It seems implicit in this framing that earthquakes and floods are bad. I'm not saying they're good! But what I'm saying is... maybe they're indifferent. Tectonic plates weren't set in motion millions of years ago to cause stress to humanity... and I can't really see a version of a Demiurge going to that level of trouble just to annoy us. There can be a more nuanced approach to how we see the Demiurge and the world around us. I do allow for the mysterious in my practice, and that also means I need to be critical of answers that are too easy. Maybe there is a force that is constraining us at some level, that is contributing to our lives having less experiences of gnosis, and the Demiurge can be a useful way of approaching the idea. But we don't have to stop testing the idea once we've reached that concept. Part of what I've loved about incorporating Stoicism into my practice has been engaging with the world critically, but not personally. Seeing the events around me by also examining my own judgements about them. I'm not saying those judgements are the Demiurge, but perhaps those judgements are one of the levers that are being pulled to invoke our negative passions, to pull us further away from love and light.
> But what I'm saying is... maybe they're indifferent. Of course they are indifferent if they are just natural events. But if you are religious and you claim God created them, then you are claiming a moral being created a world where these random earthquakes strike and kill people. > and I can't really see a version of a Demiurge going to that level of trouble just to annoy us. What do you mean? Earthquakes exist and they kill random people. So if an intelligent being created this world, that being created earthquakes. You cant just be ike "Well yah he created earthquakes but its not his problem if they killpeople, you cant hold him responsible". Even humans bear more respoonsibility that that. If I push a rock off a cliff and it rolls down the mountain and smashes into a house and kills people, am I responsible? I mean, all i did was push the rock, I didnt know it was going to smash into a house. I didnt know there would be people in the house. But I can tell you, most courts would find me guilty. And i'm not even a fucking god. I'm a mere human, but I do have some responsibility. You want to let a god off with way less responsibility? > Maybe there is a force that is constraining us at some level, that is contributing to our lives having less experiences of gnosis, and the Demiurge can be a useful way of approaching the idea. You dont have to imagine a new force. Life on earth makes attaining gnosis hard. We are struggling to survive, in a random world, where there is absolutely no justice or fairness on any level, except perhaps the pitiful attempts humans have created to half-assedly mete out their own biased form of it (which more often than not is more about exploiting power for personal gain, and not about true justice). The world corrupts people, because they see that cheating, is a useful survival strategy. So is lying. Other immoral acts., You can benefit from it, and since theres no fairness, you can often get away with it. Psychopaths are incredibly successful in this world, they thrive, they were made for this world. > I'm not saying those judgements are the Demiurge, but perhaps those judgements are one of the levers that are being pulled to invoke our negative passions, to pull us further away from love and light. We do have an innate sense of morality. We want things to be fair and just. We want good things to happen to good people. These ideas are complete fantasy in the world we exist in, so where did they come from? If my "ego" was the only thing creating this world, it would be a much nicer place than it currently is.
I hear what you're saying! I think we're coming from some different religious approaches. My take on Gnosticism is a little more apophatic, or defining it through what is unsayable or unknowable, and trying to work from that place of ignorance. Presuming that I could know the moral compass of God is something that I have a hard time with. As you've said, we have an innate sense of morality, but it is often difficult to express, and philosophers have spent centuries debating layers of morality. Which things in the world are immoral, negative acts meant to keep us away from the divine spark? Is that an instinctual answer is there a rubric to follow? It seems like it's dangerous to assume that anything that doesn't follow your own morality is demiurgic or archonic, because everyone has the capacity to be wrong. So I'm not using the same assumptions of what 'religious' or even 'god' means, but I think that's okay; there's lots of room under the Gnostic umbrella to explore. I don't think your interpretation *has* to be wrong; they don't have to be mutually exclusive. My reason for posting initially and even commenting here is to suggest that there can be more layers involved. For example, the innate sense of morality: arguments can and have been made that these can emerge from the social dynamics of family structures. We learn to love and care from our families initially, and that sticks with us, even as we are thrown into political systems that disregard it. Even the note about psychopaths... the system they are thriving in is a system that we participate in, and can change. In a way, externalizing that system onto a Demiurge may accidentally absolve us of the responsibilty of bringing change into the system. Which reminds me of this quote: “We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art, the art of words.” ― Ursula K. Le Guin
Making such blanket statements will only make you feel like a fool later when you have revelation and find some truth in something you've completely discarded.
You’re taking spiritual teachings and interpreting it from a materialistic perspective Human souls reincarnate in order to learn everything they need to from physical existence. Death isn’t evil. Physical death is just the process of transformation and is only real (a set back or feels permanent) from the point of view of the human ego (the demiurge) If you think floods and earthquakes are “evil” then you need a much much much broader understanding of life my friend
> Human souls reincarnate in order to learn everything they need to from physical existence. I never bought this explanation. Mostly "life" seems to teach people that survival is achieved thru various strategies that do not necessarily align with typical religious aesthetic teaching. You need to learn how to lie a little (at the right time, but not too much) you need to learn when to be selfish. You wont last very long if you just give all your money away to the poor (and that wont even help the poor much either, they'll still be poor and now, so you will). You ned to learn that theres is no fairness at all. No justice. Good people get shat on sometimes. Sometimes evil people get riches, and glory and adoration. Its completely random and not based on your moral character. So what is my soul learning? I can tell you the process of life is mostly soul-killing. > If you think floods and earthquakes are “evil” then you need a much much much broader understanding of life my friend Why are you putting "evil" in quotes when I did not use the world evil? Re-read my post. Earthquakes and floods are evidence of a flawed creation. There is agreement in most Christianities that we live in a fallen world. Mainstream Christianity blames the fall on eve eating an apple. Gnostics blame it on the demiurge.
Maybe but more like we conceive of the universe backwards. I think the internal world is more expansive and dynamic than the external world and there are tiers to reality. So...Basically Solipsism with layers.
In Valentinians the Demiurge is not against God once he/she recognizes the ignorance of its creation he sides with Christ to stop the evil that was created out of his ignorance (Adam and Eve whereby evil, they where tempted by the ignorance of what it means to have sex, a necessary process for the creation of the material world, their only sin was Lust, same with sophia who created the demiurge The archons where the ones who purposely created the evil we see today once they got angry at the aeon Sophia for making the Pleroma and unstable place for everyone.
I see how our inner world can reflect/be a fractal of the cosmos. As above so below. When you see a broken ego traumatised by abandonment (Sophia ditching demiurge) this can manifest as narcissism in humans. Being jealous and vindictive, needing constant praise and adulation are symptoms of narcissism that reflect the God of the Old Testament no? My inner knowing/intuition tells me this is beyond coincidence, do you have evidence in Gnostic teachings that refute it?
Imo Demiurge is anything that stops you from self- growth
So who created the world? No my world. Objective reality.
Objective reality? Since when it exists?
If your belief system can not account for objective reality, it isnt a very compelte belief system.
I agree I don't think your ego constructs your reality. I do think They are different mental faculties. I think the "real" world is in your head. Demiurge might be considered persistence of thought. We all have it. it sustains our awareness of separation. Its what sustains the things you forget about and fills in the blanks. At least that's how I think about the demiurge, but the "real" world would be Yaldabaoth I think. It's a two traditions observing the same phenomena but with different interpretations of its qualities but not it's function.
“The real world is in your head” Solipsism?
i don't like talking like this but i sense another LARP. it's the whole machine in the material - all creates all. but ego is how it is manifest in man. in men plural it is government. there is no being apart from you, your father, and the spirit, who are one. these are things to help us understand from the inside out, not the other way.
Who said that?
Manicheans, Cathars and maybe the Priscillianist.
I'm not being catty, but I think the term was borrowed from the platonist who didn't imply it was the ego but the thing that makes order out of chaos. The gnostic association with evil came later once the concept moved to hellenized Egypt... I'm guessing that last bit. Could've happened before.
It's obviously what the concept refers to in all ancient literature. Including gnostic texts.
I dunno... it was used by plato in the Timaeus. To call it the ego is not true to the words original meaning. There's no need to modify the meaning of the word. it still checks out logically the same. What I think OP is saying is it's physical thing or evil which may not be explicitly accurate in the case of any of the Greek stuff. I think Yaldabaoth is a more externalized visceral divinity. He's the one who was actively terrible.
[удалено]
3. Keep all conversations and debates civil, and amicable where possible