If you happen to be studying Information Technology, Networking, Programming, Computer Science, Artificial Intelligence, Data Mining, Advanced Mathematics, or Law, and are interested in getting a good deal on some good used books, let me know. I will be placing sections of my library on sale at Amazon in the next few weeks.
Sorry, but most of what will be of interest to those who read this, are the sort of thing that would go in a Gnosis Institute library and will not be going on sale.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
The Duty to Excellence
I normally don't put much stock in beliefs, but I do believe something that I don't think I can back up with anything but conviction: that we have a duty to excellence. It isn't a dreary duty, but a joyful one. It is an honor to be able to pursue something beyond, something more. It is the fulfillment of our being.Carl Jung observed in his essay “The Spiritual Problem of Modern Man” that while we are the realization of more than all of the previous generations could have hoped for, we are also their greatest disappointment.
We have such riches available to us, riches of which countless ages before us could not even dream. Access to all forms of art, music, literature, and vast libraries of scholarship and primary works, are all so readily available to us. As Isaac Newton phrased it, we all stand on the shoulders of giants, or we can if we choose to do so. We can stand on their shoulders to try to reach that little bit more, or we can sit at their feet and listen, or take up a conversation with them. No human generation before us has been blessed with such abundance.
It is not enough to be exposed to it. The way some people behave you would think them like the film in a camera that needed only to be exposed to one thing and then another. Exposure may be a noble effort, but who is it that is being exposed? These treasures do not call out merely for our attention, they call out for us to rise to meet them. To become a person who listens to the music that reveals the arc of another's flight of soul. To become a person who can see through the surface of the painting that lets us see how the painter saw with much more than our eyes. To become a person who can collaborate in bringing something greater into ourselves, our lives, our world.
This is also true of more rational enterprises. We have access to so much more data than we can manage to make sense from. We have more powerful analytical tools than ever before. Yet reason and logic are often most foreign in the arenas that matter the most to us. Public debates are often simply attempts to repeat memorable phrases. To spread ideas like viruses, rather than like rational beings. To make converts, not conversations. As the challenges grow, we recoil from having to bear them. It is, after all, unfair that we should face such difficulties. But it is also unfair that we should have such abundance.
The retreat into a simpler world, an imaginary one, has been underway for a very long time. Some see it as something akin to a religious exodus into an imaginary promised land. While others see it as an exodus into progress: of society, of technology, or of humans, in some abstract way. And lastly, some yearn for the imaginary justification of destruction. There is a reason why these are the persistent dreams through the ages—we all yearn for this. And there is a reason we all yearn for this—we won't get it.
Real change is difficult. It doesn't come as expected. It doesn't demand that we give up the burden of ourselves as easy sacrifices, but that we live up to ourselves. It is the most difficult task we can engage in. The task of truly living our own lives. And when it comes to the end of our lives, that is what will matter, not the comforts or the things that were merely “good enough” but that excellence that we may achieve, that realization of our potential, that rising up to meet what is best and most important in life. Carl Jung called this process Individuation, the process of truly becoming an individual.
Perhaps it comes down to the question of how much of our lives will we really live? Or will we really live much of our own lives at all? How far will we rise to the challenge of our greatness? How many souls will we rise towards and allow to touch ours, and how deeply? How many minds? How many hearts? How much beauty will we be ready to perceive? How much truth? And when the time comes, did we try to bear the responsibility of being the wonder that each of us is? Did we rise up to truly meet life? I think that will be what matters when we may look back in final hours, before we turn to look ahead.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Comment Moderation
I have enabled comment moderation to avoid feeling forced to reply to ad hominem, or personal, attacks. These are not replies about content, but about me--they exist merely to disparage me as an individual.
My previous policy was to try to show these for what they are in an attempt to discourage their usage in general. Such attempts might seem unkind in a narrow context, one that doesn't consider the larger context, the intent, the predicament it places me in, and most importantly, the nature of that to which I was responding.
Such situations are never pleasant for me, it is not the level of conversation and interaction that I seek to have. I no longer want to feel forced into it, and frankly, of late I have felt like I have been a dupe of being baited into responding to a personal attack, only to have that response characterized as a personal attack.
Also, as I am in the process of making standards an expected part of our discussions and work, and taking this work to the next level, I find taking time to respond in any way to such attacks is counter-productive, even attempts to do so in an instructive manner. They end up being a denial-of-service attack on the discussion.
And so, personal attacks to which I would feel forced to respond are all I will be rejecting in the way of comments. Hopefully, stating this policy clearly will make future rejections unnecessary. So, if you must attack, at least put your attacks separately from your other comments, so I can still post those.
My previous policy was to try to show these for what they are in an attempt to discourage their usage in general. Such attempts might seem unkind in a narrow context, one that doesn't consider the larger context, the intent, the predicament it places me in, and most importantly, the nature of that to which I was responding.
Such situations are never pleasant for me, it is not the level of conversation and interaction that I seek to have. I no longer want to feel forced into it, and frankly, of late I have felt like I have been a dupe of being baited into responding to a personal attack, only to have that response characterized as a personal attack.
Also, as I am in the process of making standards an expected part of our discussions and work, and taking this work to the next level, I find taking time to respond in any way to such attacks is counter-productive, even attempts to do so in an instructive manner. They end up being a denial-of-service attack on the discussion.
And so, personal attacks to which I would feel forced to respond are all I will be rejecting in the way of comments. Hopefully, stating this policy clearly will make future rejections unnecessary. So, if you must attack, at least put your attacks separately from your other comments, so I can still post those.
The Story of Sophia & Apologists
“In the beginning was the deed.” -Goethe, Faust: Part OneSomething I had thought about including in my homily for the Assumption of the Holy Sophia, yet, as most often happens, forgot entirely while giving the homily, was a response to a odd characterization of Gnosticism in regards to Sophia.
On the radio program “Speaking of Faith,” New Testaments Scholar Luke Timothy Johnson (a person fated for such a profession from birth, it would seem) appeared to debunk the Da Vinci code. He did have some interesting perspectives, but was definitely an apologist.
In attempting to paint Gnostics as the opposite of viewing women as equals, he followed the usual tactic of picking out the apologist's favorite passage from the Gospel of Thomas. Looking on the bright side, it probably means that at least one apologist read the entire Gospel of Thomas, since the passage is the last one. (Was it my imagination, or did I really hear a collective squeal of glee from apologists when one of them found that passage?) Of course, we cannot assume that more than one has read it, for if those who hold it up as misogynistic had read the rest of Thomas, they would have either realized that their literalistic interpretation of the last passage was wrong, or they would be actively deceiving people.
However, the odd continuation of this otherwise unremarkable attempt at reversing the evidence, was Johnson's contrasting of attitudes towards women between those in Gnosticism and orthodox Christianity. He made the claim that the inferior role ascribed to women in orthodox Christianity was merely cultural, and therefore changeable. Whereas, he claims, the role of women in Gnosticism was both somehow not only inferior but also ontologically based and unchangeable due to the figure of Sophia. While I agree with the first point, the second, even if it made sense, has no basis and is pure polemics.
He uses a Selective Sample fallacy, limiting his argument to scriptural writings from New Testament times. He did this because he had to leave out the real basis for his argument, the ontological inferiority of women that is present in the story of Adam and Eve.
The only similarity in the stories is that in the story of Sophia, she is described as making an error. In attempting to move towards the light, she mistakes a reflection for the light. We can see a parallel in the notion of the Cloud of Unknowing, or the Dark Night of the Soul, in that the closer you are too the light, the darker it can seem; the closer you approach, the thicker the cloud. This does not make Sophia, or Wisdom, a fool as some have claimed. Nor is she somehow a dim point in the light for making an error in the story.
Gnostics have never held her in the poor regard that others hold Eve in for being deceived. In contrast, Sophia is praised. Perhaps not for the error, but praised in general. In what seems to be Johnson's ontological notion, she is the Most Holy Sophia. She is not regarded as somehow an example of the inferiority of women.
Perhaps the key to this understanding comes from Goethe's Faust, wherein Faust reconsiders the phrase “In the beginning was the word,” rewriting it as, “In the beginning was the deed.” In Gnostic mythology, the deed is the beginning, whether the story begins with Sophia or before, or is one in which Sophia does not play a role. The movement of the divine is towards expression, and also limitation; towards engagement which always means the giving up of the potential for the actual.
Perfection can only exist as an abstraction. Once form is given, perfection is not possible. Therefore everything done is imperfect. To act, to engage in a deed: includes a flaw, an error. That is the nature of action, of giving one form to the undifferentiated potential.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Living Philosophy Program at the Gnosis Institute
Philosophy (Philo-Sophia) is the love of Wisdom. In honor of the celebration of the Assumption of the Holy Sophia, here is some information on the Living Philosophy program. Philosophy is one of the pillars of the Institute, informing every area, and it is only fitting that the Institute take the lead in the development of a degree program in the practice of Philosophy.Jung observed that "philosophy is no longer a way of life as it was in antiquity; it has turned into an exclusively intellectual and academic affair." The Gnosis Institute will strive to reverse this course with a focus on Living Philosophy.
The Living Philosophy Program will be a different Philosophy program, one that is focused on using philosophy as a vital tool for living. The Philosophy Programs in Academia might more accurately be referred to as “philosophology,” or the study of philosophy, rather than the practice of philosophy. The American Philosophical Practitioners Association compares the difference to that of studying paintings and actually painting. While the study of paintings is an important part of an artist's education, it would be very strange to think that it was the whole of it.
The Gnosis Institute will not attempt to out-do large universities in the standard model of academic philosophy education, instead the Living Philosophy Program is focused on the practice of philosophy in our lives. Training professional Philosophy practitioners for such roles as: Philosophical Counseling, Philosophical Consulting, and Philosophical Analysis on many levels. Seeking guidance from a Philosophy practitioner as an individual, and as an organization is often a better fit than seeking guidance from the current standard sources.
The most important task of this program, however, is to train philosophers to engage in public discourse. In a world where a fallacy is most often given as an argument, and an insult as a conclusion, we need engaged public philosophers more than ever.
Team Identity versus Community
“Save us from the slavery of small aims and of the narrow life.”
--The service to the MH Sophia of the Ecclesia Gnostica
It is an oft repeated pattern that perhaps is inevitable that those who identify themselves as Gnostics will seek to come together across the vastness that most often separates us and feel the joy of making such contacts. However, the other thing that seems to be taken as an inevitability is that the primary concern is always with marketing a particular Gnostic church or identity group. If this had happened in only a few circumstances it might not be worth mentioning. But it is much more than that, it seems inexorably tied into the common understanding of the world.
A seemingly simply Gnostic project to serve the community gets branded. And those who find that surprising are considered reactionary. What seems like working together simply as Gnostics ends up being more like socializing outside of a private club most are unwelcome in. Attempts to aid on a personal level are taken for granted as being motivated by organizational goals or politics. And the lack of an organization becomes the un-brand brand. This seems much more like a fundamental part of our consumer oriented culture brought into a Gnostic context, than mere incidents.
What this leads to is a general consumer mentality applied to even what should be most resistant to such things. Making things like market share and popularity poor substitutes for more stringent standards. So that, even facts and conclusions become matters resting upon persuasion and popularity, without a foundation upon which they might be examined, questioned, and refined.
For some of us this current incarnation of an Internet Gnostic community is not the first one we have witnessed. Without some structure with broader standards in which to discuss things, discussion may cease as soon as it is inconvenient. Pronouncements go unquestioned, along with the methods and assumptions implicit and explicit. And work that seeks to be beyond marketing fades and is replaced by marketing.
Even under circumstance where there are foundations or structures: persuasion is an element, camps or schools of thought form, and marketing occurs. Anyone the least familiar with academia will be familiar with this. In the absence of foundation and structure, there is only persuasion, camps, and marketing. This is a way to market share or even market dominance, but it is not a way to liberation.
I have taken flak, and no doubt will take more, for not being satisfied with this state of affairs. Yet I yearn for more very deeply. Standards and structures by which we can come together to see and question what we think we know, and where we think we are, comprises an essential work required for there to be a future of Gnosticism in our culture.
For, ultimately, the most stringent standards we must face are not those of scholarship, logical argumentation, or scientific research. The standards we must, each of us, face are those of the cosmos itself. If we even risk setting ourselves up within a comfortable realm where we will not be truly challenged by others, the real challenge will only grow more difficult.
The Gnosis Institute will strive to be a place with a foundation, structure, and standards that will take us forward. I have learned from experience that there doesn't seem to be any way of even being a Gnostic community without them.
While there is much that could be found disappointing in this, we must simply learn and continue. If we do not expect more of each other, and give each other opportunities to move beyond the otherwise seemingly inevitable patterns, then our own failure of imagination is as apparent as any.
The Gnostic Seminary at the Gnosis Institute
As first publicly announced to the Internet Gnostic community last year, having been in the planning stages for more than six years prior to that, the Stephanus Seminary, or Ministry Preparation program, will be the lead academic program of the Gnosis Institute. It being proposed as the first educational program of the Institute for many reasons, the most important being the need for such a program.The program takes the view that students are serious about preparation for active engaged Gnostic ministry, and are not simply seeking the fastest track to ordination. Gnostic ministry is a difficult task in the best of circumstances, one that many set out to devote their lives to, and a very few succeed in actually living out. Rather than focus on ordination, we focus on serious preparation for ministry that is academic, both broad and deep, and practice oriented. With the limitations of distance, the lack of personal contact and experience central to Gnosis, being overcome to the extent possible via residential conferences. Temporary learning communities that will allow us to grow our vital Gnostic community beyond the limitations of where we reside.
This allows for the best of both worlds, professional level preparation through an academic institution, in conjunction with formation and specific training within an ecclesiastical context. Although some may try to make this into a false dilemma, turning it into an exclusive choice, no such dualism exists.
The model followed is that of an open academic not-denominational seminary, such as Harvard Divinity School or Union Theological Seminary, but Gnostic in focus and designed to prepare for active spiritual ministry. This may be considered in contrast to the model of a seminary as a church institution for formation to the priesthood within a single denomination, like a Roman Catholic or Lutheran seminary. The strictly denominational model of seminary has been on the decline for quite some time, with most seminaries representing more than a single denomination, or being open and used by more than one. The open academic not-denominational model only represents a small percentage of seminaries, these usually having grown from denominational ones.
While they vary to a great extent, every church has a formation program. A process of becoming and learning that leads to ordination. Due to the limitations of distance, and the immediacy and inexpressibility of Gnosis, Apostolic Gnostic churches in general do not have distance formation programs, with only recent years seeing some limited occurrences. Formation has been considered something that occurs in-person. It is in this and broader contexts that the Stephanus Seminary at the Gnosis Institute is designed to operate.
The vision of the program is that of an open professional seminary that will essentially serve in the areas of formation that are academic and general. This has the additional benefit of bringing together students from different churches and traditions to be able to have a sense of going through the process together. There are few enough of us, and in any given formation program there are fewer still. These ties will continue to connect the Gnostic community long after students graduate.
The benefit to church formation programs is that they no longer need to be in the business of being a school: either trying to do it all with few resources, or doing much less; but can instead focus on the more personal aspects of formation, and aspects of practice. Additionally, the program is modular, both to adapt to the individual ministry for which it is preparation, and to adapt to the different focuses of Gnostic churches and traditions—to be able to serve all those seeking serious preparation for Gnostic ministry.
The Stephanus Seminary at the Gnosis Institute is an open professional Gnostic seminary. This will allow those seeking preparation for ministry to do so, regardless of the form of that ministry. The Gnosis Institute will be open to all, with ordination between candidate and church, as always.
Students are advised that some churches require other academic programs, ones that are contained within their organization. Students who seek ordination are advised to consult with their ecclesiatical body if they seek to use this program as a part of their formation process. However, graduates of such denominational academic programs will still want to enter this program. Benefiting from its modular nature so as to focus more on the areas that were not previously covered.
Additionally, the Gnosis Institute will offer three other allied programs: Developing Psyche & Spirit, Gnostic Studies, and Living Philosophy. More information on the educational programs of the Institute will follow.
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Approaching the Da Vinci Code
It is with more than a little trepidation that I approach my upcoming seminar Illuminating the Da Vinci Code. My motives for doing so are suspected by many. Although, I truly hope it is far too late for anyone to try to jump on the coat-tails of the usual reactions and responses, and we can only pray that they will fade away sooner rather than later, the ability to imagine another approach seems largely absent.
There does seem to be some grand failure in imagination, a cultural short-circuit. Rather than using it as a tool to give form or to explore possibilities—most seem held captive by their imagination. They imagine only one thing, one perspective, one possibility: and then mistake that for reality. This is the world on spin-cycle, with imagination used as a filter for the world putting a spin on everything, so that imagination is used to reduce the possibilities we see—to tell only one story repeatedly.
Perhaps that is the mechanism of the modern dualism we see everywhere in our culture. The world and the people in it are complex, yet that is oddly missing from our public considerations. The ability to imagine the other as self fades, while the captivity to the imagination in a dualism of self vs other grows.
Yet, we are fish in the sea of our culture. We cannot see the currents directly, and often we forget there is water at all. But, at times, something large moves along the current, revealing not only the current, but reminding us again that we are in a particular sea.
The Da Vinci Code is something we are all probably tired of hearing about—but in a particular way. In the way that has become the standard way of approaching everything. In the way that ends conversation, turning it into a false debate where only one side is heard. We should all be tired of that. We shouldn't stand for it anymore.
I will be standing up against easy answers and modern dualism. And yes, I will be doing it in considering the Da Vinci Code phenomenon. Because in illuminating it we illuminate ourselves—we see something of the deeper currents and the nature of our particular sea. I hope you will be able to join me, either in person or in spirit.
There does seem to be some grand failure in imagination, a cultural short-circuit. Rather than using it as a tool to give form or to explore possibilities—most seem held captive by their imagination. They imagine only one thing, one perspective, one possibility: and then mistake that for reality. This is the world on spin-cycle, with imagination used as a filter for the world putting a spin on everything, so that imagination is used to reduce the possibilities we see—to tell only one story repeatedly.
Perhaps that is the mechanism of the modern dualism we see everywhere in our culture. The world and the people in it are complex, yet that is oddly missing from our public considerations. The ability to imagine the other as self fades, while the captivity to the imagination in a dualism of self vs other grows.
Yet, we are fish in the sea of our culture. We cannot see the currents directly, and often we forget there is water at all. But, at times, something large moves along the current, revealing not only the current, but reminding us again that we are in a particular sea.
The Da Vinci Code is something we are all probably tired of hearing about—but in a particular way. In the way that has become the standard way of approaching everything. In the way that ends conversation, turning it into a false debate where only one side is heard. We should all be tired of that. We shouldn't stand for it anymore.
I will be standing up against easy answers and modern dualism. And yes, I will be doing it in considering the Da Vinci Code phenomenon. Because in illuminating it we illuminate ourselves—we see something of the deeper currents and the nature of our particular sea. I hope you will be able to join me, either in person or in spirit.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Wish me Happy Birthday
I could use it right now.
And if anyone is feeling the least bit generous, I am in fairly dire straights and really need help with the expenses for GnosCast.
Please consider a voluntary subscription amount of $13 or $25 per year. Yes, that's a whopping $1 to $2 a month.
Don't think someone else will do it for you, I have only received one donation over the five months I've been doing this. Or, just consider it either a birthday present or a present for the anniversary of my ordination to the priesthood, so I can continue to do GnosCast.
Thank you.
The button is now working.
And if anyone is feeling the least bit generous, I am in fairly dire straights and really need help with the expenses for GnosCast.
Please consider a voluntary subscription amount of $13 or $25 per year. Yes, that's a whopping $1 to $2 a month.
Don't think someone else will do it for you, I have only received one donation over the five months I've been doing this. Or, just consider it either a birthday present or a present for the anniversary of my ordination to the priesthood, so I can continue to do GnosCast.
Thank you.
The button is now working.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Dark Times for Ken Wilber
Ken Wilber has been a seminal philosopher in areas that concern us all. Both directly and indirectly we have all benefited from his work.
On the 23rd of July, a household accident resulted in the loss of the use of both arms and reinjured his back, essentially leaving him a temporary quadriplegic.
It is at dark times like this when our support matters most.
Read more, including a personal account, here.
On the 23rd of July, a household accident resulted in the loss of the use of both arms and reinjured his back, essentially leaving him a temporary quadriplegic.
It is at dark times like this when our support matters most.
Read more, including a personal account, here.
Monday, July 31, 2006
The Threefold Mission of the Gnosis Institute
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Treasures in Heaven
I don't write or talk much about the service I do. I don't even think about it much. It is just something I do, like so many other people out there. But there is one thing that is fast becoming a pet peeve and that is being assured of “treasures in Heaven,” or some other kind of post-life reward for doing things here.
This is a common belief in Christianity, but I always saw it as either a persuasive rhetorical device, or in the worst case, selling someone less than a bill of goods. Pay now and find out what your going to get, and get it, so much later that you will be “the late” when it happens. In this case I don't object to buying on the disincarnation plan so much as the whole notion of buying anything. The idea of quid pro quo itself is deeply offensive.
This isn't the surface defensive ego offensiveness that we have come to almost exclusively associate with the term: what we might more clearly call being personally offended. No this is not just deeper but isn't personal, it isn't against the person but rather against the relationship.
Turning those wonderful opportunities to actually help someone into transactions of that far distant kind takes attention away from the value that lies in the relationship itself. Within the relationship is the transaction that matters, and it is a very human one. It isn't gratitude, it isn't recognition—it is what makes us truly human. It is an expression of love, but not personal love, not love of someone in particular. But rather the love that is the deep connection between all of us.
As human beings we are drawn out of the existential loneliness that is our condition, through this connection, to others. When we truly connect with one another, that bond is there. 'I' becomes 'we' for a time. A deep communion can happen.
The Epistle of John tells us that God is love, and that where love is, there is God. When we have the privilege to connect with those whose need makes them vulnerable, we can be vulnerable as well. And together, this temporary 'we' can accomplish a things for 'us.' In this, benefits for 'I' don't enter in.
This is why we serve. Not for an imaginary treasure in an imaginary heaven. But for the real treasure that lies in the heaven we touch together.
This is a common belief in Christianity, but I always saw it as either a persuasive rhetorical device, or in the worst case, selling someone less than a bill of goods. Pay now and find out what your going to get, and get it, so much later that you will be “the late” when it happens. In this case I don't object to buying on the disincarnation plan so much as the whole notion of buying anything. The idea of quid pro quo itself is deeply offensive.
This isn't the surface defensive ego offensiveness that we have come to almost exclusively associate with the term: what we might more clearly call being personally offended. No this is not just deeper but isn't personal, it isn't against the person but rather against the relationship.
Turning those wonderful opportunities to actually help someone into transactions of that far distant kind takes attention away from the value that lies in the relationship itself. Within the relationship is the transaction that matters, and it is a very human one. It isn't gratitude, it isn't recognition—it is what makes us truly human. It is an expression of love, but not personal love, not love of someone in particular. But rather the love that is the deep connection between all of us.
As human beings we are drawn out of the existential loneliness that is our condition, through this connection, to others. When we truly connect with one another, that bond is there. 'I' becomes 'we' for a time. A deep communion can happen.
The Epistle of John tells us that God is love, and that where love is, there is God. When we have the privilege to connect with those whose need makes them vulnerable, we can be vulnerable as well. And together, this temporary 'we' can accomplish a things for 'us.' In this, benefits for 'I' don't enter in.
This is why we serve. Not for an imaginary treasure in an imaginary heaven. But for the real treasure that lies in the heaven we touch together.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Illuminating the Da Vinci Code
September 12, 19, & 26 at 7 PM in the City Library in Salt Lake City
This will be a very different approach than everyone has used so far.
This seminar will look at the power and phenomena of the Da Vinci Code in our sub-cultures, in our culture, and in ourselves; to see where that leads us on many levels—including the deepest ones.
This will be a very different approach than everyone has used so far.
This seminar will look at the power and phenomena of the Da Vinci Code in our sub-cultures, in our culture, and in ourselves; to see where that leads us on many levels—including the deepest ones.
Please Help Publicize this Event!
Printable Flier
Printable Flier
Interesting Call for a Neo-Pagan Seminary
There are interesting parallels in the considerations in this article calling for a Neo-Pagan Seminary to the one's that have been bouncing around the Gnostic community. Not surprising, since there is over-lap, and a large portion of those coming to Gnosticism have had previous associations with the Neo-Pagan community.
I offer this for consideration, I like to look at similarities whenever possible, and such do not remove the differences. In this case the differences are quite deep, and I would place the proposed Neo-Pagan Seminary much closer to the mainstream ones than to the Seminary in the works at the Gnosis Institute. (So please, at least wear a hard-hat when jumping to conclusions.)
Neo-Pagan Seminary Proposal
I offer this for consideration, I like to look at similarities whenever possible, and such do not remove the differences. In this case the differences are quite deep, and I would place the proposed Neo-Pagan Seminary much closer to the mainstream ones than to the Seminary in the works at the Gnosis Institute. (So please, at least wear a hard-hat when jumping to conclusions.)
Neo-Pagan Seminary Proposal
Monday, July 17, 2006
Sunday, July 16, 2006
Seminary Program Outline Version 0.2
Modules: (3/6 to Graduate)
- Gnostic Studies – Understanding & Applying the Gnostic Tradition
History of Gnosticism – From Antecedents until Today
Engaged Gnosticism – Applying the Gnostic Approach - Liturgical Studies – Experience & Understanding of Sacraments
History & Symbolism – Comparative & Descriptive
Sacramental Theology – Historical & Creative - Pastoral Counseling – Spiritually Mindful, Psychologically Grounded Counseling
Transitional Counseling – Counseling those in Transitions & Crises
Psycho-Spiritual Development – Depth & Transpersonal Psychological Models - Pastoring & Leadership – Organizations & Relationships within Organizations
Formation Direction - Individual & Group Formation
Guidance, Leadership, & Administration - Spiritual Care – Understanding & Aiding Spiritual Development
Spiritual Direction – aka,. Spiritual Listening, and Soul Friendship
Spiritual Growth – Understanding & Respecting the Process - Stories & Symbolism – Understanding & Creatively Engaging in Mythology
Encountering Archetypes – Understanding & Experiencing Living Symbols
Transformation through Stories – Myths as Guides & Journeys
Friday, July 14, 2006
The Dimness of Crowds
Am I the only one who is hooked on ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) Podcasts? They have a regular radio show on philosophy, and the only more fun thing to listen to than a discussion of philosophy, is a discussion of philosophy in Australian accents. ;)
Of interest to many involved on-line, may be the latest episode of The Philosopher's Zone, as it examines, in particular, Wikipedia. It addresses the main issues, and in a fun way. Give it an ear, if you are so inclined.
Of interest to many involved on-line, may be the latest episode of The Philosopher's Zone, as it examines, in particular, Wikipedia. It addresses the main issues, and in a fun way. Give it an ear, if you are so inclined.
On Being an Intellectual Heretic
I may never live down the fact that I don't equate traditional theology with either critical thought or Gnosticism, or the fact that I don't give undue respect to the powers and authorities. So, I guess I'll just have to be a Gnostic. ;)
I wrote the following in a comment, but thought folks might miss it.
“In a real marketplace of ideas, it is the the ideas, the intellectual work, that matters. Everything should be open to honest serious scrutiny. Even the notion that all we are doing sometimes is playing a formalized game of make believe. Which also, by the way, is not saying that playing make believe has no value either. We conduct thought-experiments all the time, they are very valuable. We just distinguish between them and descriptions of reality.”
You may claim that the objections to my objection to traditional theology is of this sort. However, I do not think that they were. To be able to even approach the subject of the assumptions involved in the theological method, I had to try (in vain I might add) to get past the assumption that the norm and status quo for the studying of religious ideas that developed from the tradition that rejected Gnosticism represents the one true way to approach things Gnostic. It was a dismissal based upon the status quo in people's minds. Which lead to more assumptions than I care to think about.
At this point, I'm just going to join in and declare myself an intellectual heretic and get on with serious intellectual work that includes continuing to question assumptions, methods, and the status quo.
You're all welcome to become intellectual heretics as well. C'mon it's fun!
Seminary Program Outline Rough-Draft
Continuing on towards building a non/trans-denominational Gnostic Seminary program, I thought I'd share my current outline of a program rough-draft. (I'm going to assume that you know that a seminary doesn't ordain anyone, and that it isn't the whole of the process of formation as Gnostic Clergy. And if you didn't, I just told you.)
I don't want to construct a one-size-fits-all program. The idea of modules is appealing for that reason. One would graduate after completing a program of three out of the following modules in this rough-draft. I think that gives proper latitude for the different focuses both of individuals, and of the different Gnostic churches and organizations.
Modules: (3/5 to Graduate)
This is a very rough rough-draft. But, it does give us something to talk about. Help hammer this out.
I don't want to construct a one-size-fits-all program. The idea of modules is appealing for that reason. One would graduate after completing a program of three out of the following modules in this rough-draft. I think that gives proper latitude for the different focuses both of individuals, and of the different Gnostic churches and organizations.
Modules: (3/5 to Graduate)
- Counseling
Pastoral Counseling
Psycho-Spiritual Development - Gnostic Studies
Historical Gnosticism
Engaged Gnosticism - Liturgical Studies
History & Symbolism
Theology - Pastoring
Formation Direction
Parish/Organization Administration - Spiritual Care
Spiritual Direction
Spiritual Growth - Symbolism & Story
Archetypal Aspects
Transformational Aspects
[Edit: Added Module]
This is a very rough rough-draft. But, it does give us something to talk about. Help hammer this out.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Thinking Outside the Traditional Theology Box
One of the main reasons that I wrote the piece On the Limitations of Make Believe is to try to break open the traditional theological box. (Let's try “traditional theology” as the term for the discipline instead of simply thinking or reasoning about religious things, rather than my previous “non-trivial theology” and see if that helps with confusion.) Some may find this obstructionist. Yet, I've stated elsewhere that if someone wants to satisfy themselves that a traditional theological definition of Gnosticism is a logical impossibility, there is the wall and you know where your head is—start banging until you are satisfied.
There is an assumption that for someone to be able to use a definition in an academic setting, that it has to be a traditional theological definition. That is to say, a definition couched in the framework of the tradition of Christian theology. Yet, that would mean leaving Gnosis out of it, and frankly I've yet to see a theological term applied to Gnosticism that makes sense except as a poor analogy. Traditional theology did not grow out of a Gnostic milieu, to say the least. It's focus has always been upon doctrine, in a framework where the view is that doctrine determines beliefs.
One of the big fundamental issues is that almost (if not) all of traditional theology developed within a model of religion that grew out of the historical formation of Christian Orthodoxy. This focused on uniformity of doctrine, and beliefs. And really has a kind of “top-down” way of viewing things. You start with the assumption that the source of belief is doctrine, or with the assumption that these things you are considering exist and can be described in an authoritative way. This gives one the odd result of an “objective” religion, one without people.
Gnosticism by the very nature of Gnosis, has more of a “bottom-up” approach. Gnosis is individual, it cannot be removed from the subject having it. This leads to expressions of that Gnosis that include beliefs. It also leads to a very modified “top-down” model of someone learning about these beliefs and such, and then seeking Gnosis.
To seek a traditional theological definition, “Gnosticism,” one would need to enter into that framework, leaving the people (the subjective) behind, while forcing it into the mold of a doctrinal religion. Sure we can limit the doctrine to a small set, but that is what we will get—Gnosticism equals doctrine. Let's just say that a “Gnosticism” that doesn't involve Gnosis or Gnostics, is a bit of a problem.
Is this quest for a traditional theological definition the only approach? No. And I don't understand why this is assumed to be the case. It is far from the only form of human endeavor that can live up to “academic acceptability.” In fact, it doesn't exactly have a sterling reputation among the academic disciplines.
While an academically acceptable definition truly comes down to the academicians who accept it, we can look at it in broader terms. The goal of such a definition is to limit the scope of the study, and to give meaning to that scope.
The first comes down to scope: what is inside the scope and what is outside; what it is that is studied. This is always fuzzy on the level of details, but a general consensus is required. We must remember that the definition actually comes after the consensus. It is always an inadequate attempt to formalize what those involved recognize. We can, hopefully, recognize in this the issue of trying to put gnosis into the realm of episteme. The lack of awareness of this issue is a larger issue in academia, leading to lots of cracked skulls and dented walls. Apparently, the study of religion was struggling with a rather clumsy definition that involved “superhuman beings,” for example. This lead to some mental acrobatics to get Buddhism to fit the mold (or gnosis to fit episteme.) (Buddhism and the definition of religion.)
The second issue is one of the scope being meaningful to study. By which I mean, that the conclusions about the scope or concerning relationships within the scope are academically interesting and approachable. This would mean that even the study of a clearly defined thing, may be either of no interesting, or unapproachable by the methods of academia. The latter is an area of agnosia for most of academia, it doesn't recognize it exists. So, I think we can safely ignore it in our current considerations. This leaves us with the issue of being of academic interest.
One can clearly define any number of things that do not meet this criteria, they may serve as data point in some other interesting enterprise, but are not themselves interesting. The collection of lint in my dryer, for example, just isn't academically interesting, unless it is part of a larger study of dryers or textiles.
Applied to Gnosticism, we can see the first issue as: is this or that a part of Gnosticism? And, the second issue as: is “Gnosticism” a meaningful category? These are not unrelated, yet they are distinct approaches to the question: what is “Gnosticism”? What is its scope? And, what does it mean?
When approaching the formulation of a definition for academic use, we need to bear in mind that we can come up with a definition that isn't meaningful. I would argue that the traditional theological approach can only lead to that end.
Buddhist studies makes for the closest analogy, although still very different in history, the amount of material, and the number of continuous traditions. I found this review of the book Buddhist Theology interesting. It advocates a new and specifically Buddhist theological approach. Another approach is Engaged Buddhist Studies, however that seems to be a splitting off of practical from abstract issues.
There is an assumption that for someone to be able to use a definition in an academic setting, that it has to be a traditional theological definition. That is to say, a definition couched in the framework of the tradition of Christian theology. Yet, that would mean leaving Gnosis out of it, and frankly I've yet to see a theological term applied to Gnosticism that makes sense except as a poor analogy. Traditional theology did not grow out of a Gnostic milieu, to say the least. It's focus has always been upon doctrine, in a framework where the view is that doctrine determines beliefs.
One of the big fundamental issues is that almost (if not) all of traditional theology developed within a model of religion that grew out of the historical formation of Christian Orthodoxy. This focused on uniformity of doctrine, and beliefs. And really has a kind of “top-down” way of viewing things. You start with the assumption that the source of belief is doctrine, or with the assumption that these things you are considering exist and can be described in an authoritative way. This gives one the odd result of an “objective” religion, one without people.
Gnosticism by the very nature of Gnosis, has more of a “bottom-up” approach. Gnosis is individual, it cannot be removed from the subject having it. This leads to expressions of that Gnosis that include beliefs. It also leads to a very modified “top-down” model of someone learning about these beliefs and such, and then seeking Gnosis.
To seek a traditional theological definition, “Gnosticism,” one would need to enter into that framework, leaving the people (the subjective) behind, while forcing it into the mold of a doctrinal religion. Sure we can limit the doctrine to a small set, but that is what we will get—Gnosticism equals doctrine. Let's just say that a “Gnosticism” that doesn't involve Gnosis or Gnostics, is a bit of a problem.
Is this quest for a traditional theological definition the only approach? No. And I don't understand why this is assumed to be the case. It is far from the only form of human endeavor that can live up to “academic acceptability.” In fact, it doesn't exactly have a sterling reputation among the academic disciplines.
While an academically acceptable definition truly comes down to the academicians who accept it, we can look at it in broader terms. The goal of such a definition is to limit the scope of the study, and to give meaning to that scope.
The first comes down to scope: what is inside the scope and what is outside; what it is that is studied. This is always fuzzy on the level of details, but a general consensus is required. We must remember that the definition actually comes after the consensus. It is always an inadequate attempt to formalize what those involved recognize. We can, hopefully, recognize in this the issue of trying to put gnosis into the realm of episteme. The lack of awareness of this issue is a larger issue in academia, leading to lots of cracked skulls and dented walls. Apparently, the study of religion was struggling with a rather clumsy definition that involved “superhuman beings,” for example. This lead to some mental acrobatics to get Buddhism to fit the mold (or gnosis to fit episteme.) (Buddhism and the definition of religion.)
The second issue is one of the scope being meaningful to study. By which I mean, that the conclusions about the scope or concerning relationships within the scope are academically interesting and approachable. This would mean that even the study of a clearly defined thing, may be either of no interesting, or unapproachable by the methods of academia. The latter is an area of agnosia for most of academia, it doesn't recognize it exists. So, I think we can safely ignore it in our current considerations. This leaves us with the issue of being of academic interest.
One can clearly define any number of things that do not meet this criteria, they may serve as data point in some other interesting enterprise, but are not themselves interesting. The collection of lint in my dryer, for example, just isn't academically interesting, unless it is part of a larger study of dryers or textiles.
Applied to Gnosticism, we can see the first issue as: is this or that a part of Gnosticism? And, the second issue as: is “Gnosticism” a meaningful category? These are not unrelated, yet they are distinct approaches to the question: what is “Gnosticism”? What is its scope? And, what does it mean?
When approaching the formulation of a definition for academic use, we need to bear in mind that we can come up with a definition that isn't meaningful. I would argue that the traditional theological approach can only lead to that end.
Buddhist studies makes for the closest analogy, although still very different in history, the amount of material, and the number of continuous traditions. I found this review of the book Buddhist Theology interesting. It advocates a new and specifically Buddhist theological approach. Another approach is Engaged Buddhist Studies, however that seems to be a splitting off of practical from abstract issues.
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Gimme That Old Time Dualism
[Edit: Due to some confusion, I'll state explicitly that the "dualism" here is a tongue-in-cheek way of describing a real issue.]
It's one of those charges made against Gnostics that gets some folks riled up, Dualism. Is Dualism a bad thing? The people run in horror from the idea are largely heresiologists, but lest we dismiss it, there are some modern Gnostics among them. Personally, if all someone means by a “dualist” is someone who can't see a way to reconcile or erase the distinction between spirit and matter, that is as good a description of the way I understand things as any other.
However, there is a distinction between simply being a dualist in that sense and being a “Radical Dualist.” Radical Dualism includes assumptions about the ultimate nature of the two things, that they are two different metaphysical “substances” or have two distinct origins in some ultimate abstract philosophical sense. As someone much more in line with the Pragmatic school of Philosophy than the Scholastic one, I have a hard time even caring what this entails as an assumption in an abstract game. People at least assume that Radical Dualism implies an exclusive-or for all relevant choices between the two things. An exclusive-or is just short hand for “either this or that, but not both this and that.” In this rather narrow understanding, one could not value spirit, and also value matter, for example. If that isn't scary in and of itself, think of how embarrassing it would be to have radical dualistic ontological assumptions kicked in your face by a Thomist on the beach.
Any limited form of dualism is incomparably better than the Radical Universal Dualism most people practice. That kind is horrifying, if you you are someone who likes to think, read, write, and discuss. And it should be embarrassing, yet there doesn't seem to be any even when people are caught doing it time and time again.
What is Radical Universal Dualism? It is being a Radical Dualist about well, everything. The turning into a universal law the fallacy “you're either for it or against it.” This is black-and-white thinking, wherein the exclusive-or is the only relationship. Any criticism is taken as an outright rejection, taken to mean that you are against the larger whatever in it's entirety. This is the Modern Dualism that has me longing of the old fashioned kind. (Gimme that old time dualism. Gimme that old time dualism. Gimme that old time dualism ...that made hereseologists wee.)
Is it possible to be critical with these Modern Dualists about? This is a good question. Let's look at the nature of this for a moment. If someone makes a specific criticism, how far can someone else legitimately take it?
If someone is critical of a particular brick, can they be taken as being critical of the wall, bricks in general, or of masonry, or of building, or of civilization? I would say that it is unclear whether they are being critical of the wall but you couldn't assume that is the case, the rest is ludicrous. Yet if we look at modern discourse, the rest is the norm. If someone merely stops at the assumption that they want to tear down that one wall, they are being unusually generous.
To take a recent example: how far can one take a criticism of assumptions made by Theology? Can it legitimately be taken as being critical of critical thinking, the analytical method, or of religion? No, it cannot. Can a statement about the impossibility of a theological definition of Gnosticism be taken as a statement against any definition of Gnosticism? No. This part of Modern Dualism is “expanding the scope.” The statement or criticism is widened in scope by others.
When scope-expansion is combined with the exclusive-or we get what seems to be the model for all of this, modern political speech. Perfect for sound bites, and for convincing the already convinced. However, it does not exist to constructively engage in anything. It turns discourse into a rhetorical game. Conversation into a series of misunderstandings. It is a way to get ratings and win elections, nothing more.
How can we avoid this? Try to not expand the scope on someone else's behalf. You can say that a statement implies a larger scope, or take a look at the argument from a larger scope for some reason, that is being aware of, and being clear about, what you are doing. And, don't think every relationship between two things is an exclusive-or, very few truly are, although it is a favorite rhetorical device to pretend otherwise.
It's one of those charges made against Gnostics that gets some folks riled up, Dualism. Is Dualism a bad thing? The people run in horror from the idea are largely heresiologists, but lest we dismiss it, there are some modern Gnostics among them. Personally, if all someone means by a “dualist” is someone who can't see a way to reconcile or erase the distinction between spirit and matter, that is as good a description of the way I understand things as any other.
However, there is a distinction between simply being a dualist in that sense and being a “Radical Dualist.” Radical Dualism includes assumptions about the ultimate nature of the two things, that they are two different metaphysical “substances” or have two distinct origins in some ultimate abstract philosophical sense. As someone much more in line with the Pragmatic school of Philosophy than the Scholastic one, I have a hard time even caring what this entails as an assumption in an abstract game. People at least assume that Radical Dualism implies an exclusive-or for all relevant choices between the two things. An exclusive-or is just short hand for “either this or that, but not both this and that.” In this rather narrow understanding, one could not value spirit, and also value matter, for example. If that isn't scary in and of itself, think of how embarrassing it would be to have radical dualistic ontological assumptions kicked in your face by a Thomist on the beach.
Any limited form of dualism is incomparably better than the Radical Universal Dualism most people practice. That kind is horrifying, if you you are someone who likes to think, read, write, and discuss. And it should be embarrassing, yet there doesn't seem to be any even when people are caught doing it time and time again.
What is Radical Universal Dualism? It is being a Radical Dualist about well, everything. The turning into a universal law the fallacy “you're either for it or against it.” This is black-and-white thinking, wherein the exclusive-or is the only relationship. Any criticism is taken as an outright rejection, taken to mean that you are against the larger whatever in it's entirety. This is the Modern Dualism that has me longing of the old fashioned kind. (Gimme that old time dualism. Gimme that old time dualism. Gimme that old time dualism ...that made hereseologists wee.)
Is it possible to be critical with these Modern Dualists about? This is a good question. Let's look at the nature of this for a moment. If someone makes a specific criticism, how far can someone else legitimately take it?
If someone is critical of a particular brick, can they be taken as being critical of the wall, bricks in general, or of masonry, or of building, or of civilization? I would say that it is unclear whether they are being critical of the wall but you couldn't assume that is the case, the rest is ludicrous. Yet if we look at modern discourse, the rest is the norm. If someone merely stops at the assumption that they want to tear down that one wall, they are being unusually generous.
To take a recent example: how far can one take a criticism of assumptions made by Theology? Can it legitimately be taken as being critical of critical thinking, the analytical method, or of religion? No, it cannot. Can a statement about the impossibility of a theological definition of Gnosticism be taken as a statement against any definition of Gnosticism? No. This part of Modern Dualism is “expanding the scope.” The statement or criticism is widened in scope by others.
When scope-expansion is combined with the exclusive-or we get what seems to be the model for all of this, modern political speech. Perfect for sound bites, and for convincing the already convinced. However, it does not exist to constructively engage in anything. It turns discourse into a rhetorical game. Conversation into a series of misunderstandings. It is a way to get ratings and win elections, nothing more.
How can we avoid this? Try to not expand the scope on someone else's behalf. You can say that a statement implies a larger scope, or take a look at the argument from a larger scope for some reason, that is being aware of, and being clear about, what you are doing. And, don't think every relationship between two things is an exclusive-or, very few truly are, although it is a favorite rhetorical device to pretend otherwise.
Gnostics can be Clergy and "Independents"
I strongly object to the simplistic anti-ecclesiasticism that has been on the rise, because it is based on false assumptions. One false dichotomy that has arisen is between being an "Independent" or participating in an ecclesiastical form. Assumptions and prejudices arising from one's interactions with religion in other venues brought to bear in a new arena, are simply an indication of assumptions, not reality. This comes from ignoring or dismissing the “Gnostic” part of “Gnostic Church.”
The other danger in considering “churches” is that a “church” in this sense is generally not understood to be a grouping of individuals. Yet aside from the abstract realm, there are only individuals. Where we like to see abstract groups and not individuals is when we are attacking them. That is the way shadow projections work, they can't lay still on a complex reality, so it is the abstract that is covered with the perceiver's darkness, and both layers then block their view.
There is also the inductive fallacy that comes into play. The "one X did this, all Xs do that" assumption that is simply a way of finding one or more data points to back up an assumption or prejudice. If this isn't obvious I can point you to some hate sites that use this as a justification. It simply isn't an argument, it is simply specific cases of a prejudice finding data that may support it. It is not the only explanation for the data, nor even the one that makes the most sense. That is simply how prejudices work, they are gross generalizations whose explanatory power has been disproved countless times.
Now, is someone who is a prisoner to their own prejudices, and can't see what is in front of their face because of shadow projections, truly independent? I would argue that they are certainly not thinking or seeing for themselves, these things limit both. I would further argue that these things have a collective nature, they have mass appeal, which would indicate that.
This lets us see the nature of the Shadow that is being projected. One's own desire to loose oneself in a collective, to simply surrender to a mass movement, becomes succumbed to in this Shadow way. One joins in the collective group-psychology of rejecting something as the totem of collective group-psychology. This then becomes a very powerful trap, because we would then need to recognize this aspect of ourselves, own it as being ourselves and not a “them,” to escape from the collective—to stop doing what we hate, to quote Thomas.
It isn't an issue with people doing what they want to do, it is an issue in them being trapped by themselves in such a way that they feel they need to reject or tear-down something very removed, to free themselves of their internal issues. Sadly, this is the norm. And it is also the norm to call this “freedom” or “independence.”
When someone says that I, personally, can't work or think outside of a church structure--it is an insult, pure and simple. The on-line community has been heading that way for a few months now. Some of it comes from the neophytes making general claims about "Gnostic Churches" or "Gnostic Clergy" based solely upon their assumptions. Yet they only seem to be the leaders of the charge. These claims almost always include ones that directly contradict the facts of my life and all I have worked to do. Claims of exclusivity, which can be traced to the rejection (exclusiveness) of the person making such claims, flies in the face of all that we do. Claims of collectivity, which can be traced to the collectivity (group-psychology) of the person making such claims, flies in the face of all that we seek.
I don't see an issue in referring people to other organizations or churches, Gnostic or otherwise. There also isn't an issue with working with individuals, who are individuals, in fact the reverse is the case. I also try not to give undue credit, or make assumptions than seem inappropriate, in regards to others, because I serve in an ecclesiastical form.
Some object to having their work on the Internet dismissed or categorized. Imagine what it is like to have your decade-long ministry, with all the work and sacrifice that entails, dismissed and categorized, because part of it has an outward form some associate with bad things in unrelated contexts. Just think about it.
Is being "Independent" about avoiding organizations, starting one's own organization, or is it about working toward independence? There are real issues with organizations, but that is because there are real issues with individuals. Ultimately, our organizations fall into the category of Make Believe, they exist because we act as though they do. These assumptions aren't about organizations, organizations are individuals working with a form in a structure. And when the scope of the structure is as limited as it is in the Gnostic Ecclesia, it largely comes down to form.
Being one thing means that you are not everything, obviously. Having a form means that you don't have every form. Some find this to be a difficulty because they want the “form” to be themselves. They either think desires or dislikes guiding form is more useful than being guided by form, or, more commonly, they don't understand form. This leads to not simply a rejection of form, but a militant radical rejection of form. Rather than “that form isn't for me,” or even, “form isn't for me,” to “that form isn't for anyone,” or even, “form isn't for anyone.”
We can think of ourselves as being in a labyrinthine prison that we must each find our own way out of. A form isn't a map showing your particular way out. No such map is possible. The best we can hope for are useful practices and tools, as well as, information about the dangers. A form might be something akin to a standard set of practices employed to help overcome the maze. You can just wander. You can wander and mark some intersections and not others, or change your system of marking every now and then. Or you can heed some advice left by those who have gone through this before, and adopt a standard set of practices that makes sense and works for you. Simply accepting someone else's standard set of practices may only get you lost further still, they may not work for you, you may not be doing what is required to make them work, or you may not understand them well enough to really try. There is also the possibility that they weren't intended to help someone out of the maze. For all of these reasons, discernment is a personal responsibility no one can avoid.
The reality is simply this: we all have a form, and we are all independents. The form may be silly putty or stone, it may be large or small, but it is there—whether you want to see it as such or not. We also are all on our own paths, responsibility lies upon each of us to find our liberation. This is not something to take lightly, nor something one can give to someone else. We can help each other, we cannot be each other.
The other danger in considering “churches” is that a “church” in this sense is generally not understood to be a grouping of individuals. Yet aside from the abstract realm, there are only individuals. Where we like to see abstract groups and not individuals is when we are attacking them. That is the way shadow projections work, they can't lay still on a complex reality, so it is the abstract that is covered with the perceiver's darkness, and both layers then block their view.
There is also the inductive fallacy that comes into play. The "one X did this, all Xs do that" assumption that is simply a way of finding one or more data points to back up an assumption or prejudice. If this isn't obvious I can point you to some hate sites that use this as a justification. It simply isn't an argument, it is simply specific cases of a prejudice finding data that may support it. It is not the only explanation for the data, nor even the one that makes the most sense. That is simply how prejudices work, they are gross generalizations whose explanatory power has been disproved countless times.
Now, is someone who is a prisoner to their own prejudices, and can't see what is in front of their face because of shadow projections, truly independent? I would argue that they are certainly not thinking or seeing for themselves, these things limit both. I would further argue that these things have a collective nature, they have mass appeal, which would indicate that.
This lets us see the nature of the Shadow that is being projected. One's own desire to loose oneself in a collective, to simply surrender to a mass movement, becomes succumbed to in this Shadow way. One joins in the collective group-psychology of rejecting something as the totem of collective group-psychology. This then becomes a very powerful trap, because we would then need to recognize this aspect of ourselves, own it as being ourselves and not a “them,” to escape from the collective—to stop doing what we hate, to quote Thomas.
It isn't an issue with people doing what they want to do, it is an issue in them being trapped by themselves in such a way that they feel they need to reject or tear-down something very removed, to free themselves of their internal issues. Sadly, this is the norm. And it is also the norm to call this “freedom” or “independence.”
When someone says that I, personally, can't work or think outside of a church structure--it is an insult, pure and simple. The on-line community has been heading that way for a few months now. Some of it comes from the neophytes making general claims about "Gnostic Churches" or "Gnostic Clergy" based solely upon their assumptions. Yet they only seem to be the leaders of the charge. These claims almost always include ones that directly contradict the facts of my life and all I have worked to do. Claims of exclusivity, which can be traced to the rejection (exclusiveness) of the person making such claims, flies in the face of all that we do. Claims of collectivity, which can be traced to the collectivity (group-psychology) of the person making such claims, flies in the face of all that we seek.
I don't see an issue in referring people to other organizations or churches, Gnostic or otherwise. There also isn't an issue with working with individuals, who are individuals, in fact the reverse is the case. I also try not to give undue credit, or make assumptions than seem inappropriate, in regards to others, because I serve in an ecclesiastical form.
Some object to having their work on the Internet dismissed or categorized. Imagine what it is like to have your decade-long ministry, with all the work and sacrifice that entails, dismissed and categorized, because part of it has an outward form some associate with bad things in unrelated contexts. Just think about it.
Is being "Independent" about avoiding organizations, starting one's own organization, or is it about working toward independence? There are real issues with organizations, but that is because there are real issues with individuals. Ultimately, our organizations fall into the category of Make Believe, they exist because we act as though they do. These assumptions aren't about organizations, organizations are individuals working with a form in a structure. And when the scope of the structure is as limited as it is in the Gnostic Ecclesia, it largely comes down to form.
Being one thing means that you are not everything, obviously. Having a form means that you don't have every form. Some find this to be a difficulty because they want the “form” to be themselves. They either think desires or dislikes guiding form is more useful than being guided by form, or, more commonly, they don't understand form. This leads to not simply a rejection of form, but a militant radical rejection of form. Rather than “that form isn't for me,” or even, “form isn't for me,” to “that form isn't for anyone,” or even, “form isn't for anyone.”
We can think of ourselves as being in a labyrinthine prison that we must each find our own way out of. A form isn't a map showing your particular way out. No such map is possible. The best we can hope for are useful practices and tools, as well as, information about the dangers. A form might be something akin to a standard set of practices employed to help overcome the maze. You can just wander. You can wander and mark some intersections and not others, or change your system of marking every now and then. Or you can heed some advice left by those who have gone through this before, and adopt a standard set of practices that makes sense and works for you. Simply accepting someone else's standard set of practices may only get you lost further still, they may not work for you, you may not be doing what is required to make them work, or you may not understand them well enough to really try. There is also the possibility that they weren't intended to help someone out of the maze. For all of these reasons, discernment is a personal responsibility no one can avoid.
The reality is simply this: we all have a form, and we are all independents. The form may be silly putty or stone, it may be large or small, but it is there—whether you want to see it as such or not. We also are all on our own paths, responsibility lies upon each of us to find our liberation. This is not something to take lightly, nor something one can give to someone else. We can help each other, we cannot be each other.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
The Last Week: A Good Addition to Holy Week
| Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan have jointly authored a book going through the account of the last week of Jesus in Mark. The idea was to go through the story and see what the story tells us. This framework, following the Gospel of Mark's timeline, is very useful. Even information that I have encountered in other contexts yielded more insight in this framework. They purposefully cut through centuries of looking at these events through a later Christian framework, and in doing so present a more vibrant story. I didn't get it in time for this past Holy Week. In fact I didn't even hear about it until a couple of weeks ago. Yet even afterwards it is deepening my appreciation by deepening my understanding. I'd suggest getting a copy. |
Sunday, July 09, 2006
The Limitations of Playing Make Believe
Theology: Playing Make Believe with Religious Things
I guess it's time to throw down the gauntlet on the whole Theology issue. After biting the tongue for some time to listen to folks who seem to value such things, and after having what seems fairly common sense questioned about the potential utility of theology, I've been asked to demonstrate why theology isn't a good tool for Gnostics to engage in (except perhaps in private between consenting adults). Although the following was very rushed, I think it covers the basics.
The reverse of this question has a lot more merit: why should Gnostics even try to use theology? Is there any actual reason? We can assume that it is the thing to do because this is religion, and theology and religion are found together. (I'm hoping that fallacy is obvious.) We can assert that we need to talk the language of people who use theology. Yet this comes up against the issue of talking about computers in Nahuatl—why do it when you can't say what is important to the conversation in that language? When is just perpetuates their misunderstanding and creates more of your own?
Let's cover old territory for a moment. Theology (from theos 'god' + logos 'word, speech, reason') once upon a time simply meant reasoning or discoursing about the gods or religious matters. It is still sometimes used in that sense, and that is what I have previously called the trivial definition and said that it should be a non-issue because reasoning about religious matters should be ubiquitous. In the intervening centuries, however, Theology has come to mean something in particular. Let's just call it: playing make believe with religious things.
Playing make believe? Yes, that's what I said. Theology (which I will use in the non-trivial sense) starts out with many assumptions and is essentially literalism-lite.
Literalism takes what the sacred stories describe as being actual literal documentary film-like history of events. To take one example: Noah physically built a big boat. The world was actually under water. There really were 2 of every kind of animal on that boat for forty days, since the evolution of new species couldn't have happened. All of these things are taken as established historical fact that a film crew could have documented if they had cameras, and weren't under water. Why? Because it is in the story. Given these basic assumptions one can reason about these things without any serious difficulties.
Literalism has all kinds of problems which I'm not going to go into for a Gnostic audience. Let's just say accepting these assumptions for someone who doesn't accept the assumption that everything in some stories is historically factual, isn't going to happen. While the defense of that kind of silliness may not fit one's notion of Theology, they can be quite well reasoned. We would just look at them as being well reasoned make believe. Given this make believe situation from a story and so on, and so forth as characteristics of this make believe game, one can arrive at a reasonable means of explanation.
While more mainstream theology isn't involved in such things, agreeing with the assessment of Camelot in Monty Python and the Holy Grail: let's not go there it's too silly; the game is played in the same way with different assumptions. Instead of the literal assumptions, there are others, yet it is still playing make believe.
Another characteristic of playing make believe is that although it is primarily a reflection of the person doing it, to them it can seem objective. It has been projected into an abstract idea realm. Like Plato's only yours, and not so idealized. Like the example above, someone can spend a great deal of time rationally examining and overcoming objections to the Noah story being literal, and think that they are describing something objective because they are talking about things.
The issue with any sort of make believe is that whether there are rules of reason involved or not, it is still make believe. Someone can think that they are talking about something real when they speak of Incarnational Trinitarianism, or an Emanational Cosmogeny—and that is precisely the problem. These things are abstract constellations of the glass beads on the game board of make believe. Things so far removed from anything any of us actually have experienced as to make the idea of experiencing them absurd.
When we play make believe in a rational way using the elements and characters from Gnostic stories. We are being literalists, just at a slightly less embarrassing level. There are many ways to look at these things, and putting on a literalist-lite cap to look at them is certainly a standard one. If you don't take what you do too seriously, mistake your ideas for what is really “out there somewhere,” then it is another useful tool. We can speak of Sophia as a character in Gnostic mythology, as an abstract notion of “Wisdom,” or as a part of our experience. If any but the last gets stuck in our understanding as being “it” we have missed the path to Gnosis, and followed the path to cloud coo-coo land. It is so easy to fool ourselves, to not notice the “hairs breadth of difference” that splits considerations involving the real from simply playing make believe.
People have been playing the Theology game for centuries, there has never been the level of understanding involved that it isn't about real things. The distinction is simply whether you believe or not. And so it may be described as playing make believe with the objects of belief. If you don't see a problem here for Gnostics, I'll spell it out. Gnosticism isn't about beliefs. Even if we all believe something, why assume that it is the case at all, let alone the case in the way in which we believe it? That assumption jump is just too much—if you take it for yourself and are aware of the assumptions you may gain some understanding, if you try to take it in some objective way, say as a group, you say bye bye to Gnosis.
Playing the same old religion games with different pieces isn't Gnosticism. Substituting belief in the salvific power of Gnosis for belief in the salvific power of belief in Christ, isn't liberation, it's redecorating. Throwing Sophia into the mix as a character to go with the Logos character, makes nothing Gnostic. And no matter how refined we are about it, playing theological make believe with things associated with Gnosticism isn't Gnosticism, it is still make believe.
If you say, “but there really is this or that, it's not make believe,” you are not seeing what is in front of your face, but rather are seeing from the perspective of the land of make believe. Experiences are not abstract, they cannot be removed from the subject experiencing them. Sophia is a character, an idea, and an experience. Guess which two of the three you cannot play abstract games with the experience, and so you must be playing make believe.
If you say, “but the ancient Gnostics saw it in a literal fashion,” you are again making enormous assumptions, placing limitations on the perspectives of others for our own convenience. Buying into the literalism of heresiologists isn't exactly a large stride forward for our understanding of Gnosticism.
If theology is playing make believe is it worthless? Of course not. In a tradition where creativity and looking at things from multiple perspectives are the order of the day, it can be very useful—for an individual to use to look at things from different perspectives. Where we go into literalism and make assumptions that take us into cloud coo-coo land is when we mistake any of this for anything but playing make believe.
I guess it's time to throw down the gauntlet on the whole Theology issue. After biting the tongue for some time to listen to folks who seem to value such things, and after having what seems fairly common sense questioned about the potential utility of theology, I've been asked to demonstrate why theology isn't a good tool for Gnostics to engage in (except perhaps in private between consenting adults). Although the following was very rushed, I think it covers the basics.
The reverse of this question has a lot more merit: why should Gnostics even try to use theology? Is there any actual reason? We can assume that it is the thing to do because this is religion, and theology and religion are found together. (I'm hoping that fallacy is obvious.) We can assert that we need to talk the language of people who use theology. Yet this comes up against the issue of talking about computers in Nahuatl—why do it when you can't say what is important to the conversation in that language? When is just perpetuates their misunderstanding and creates more of your own?
Let's cover old territory for a moment. Theology (from theos 'god' + logos 'word, speech, reason') once upon a time simply meant reasoning or discoursing about the gods or religious matters. It is still sometimes used in that sense, and that is what I have previously called the trivial definition and said that it should be a non-issue because reasoning about religious matters should be ubiquitous. In the intervening centuries, however, Theology has come to mean something in particular. Let's just call it: playing make believe with religious things.
Playing make believe? Yes, that's what I said. Theology (which I will use in the non-trivial sense) starts out with many assumptions and is essentially literalism-lite.
Literalism takes what the sacred stories describe as being actual literal documentary film-like history of events. To take one example: Noah physically built a big boat. The world was actually under water. There really were 2 of every kind of animal on that boat for forty days, since the evolution of new species couldn't have happened. All of these things are taken as established historical fact that a film crew could have documented if they had cameras, and weren't under water. Why? Because it is in the story. Given these basic assumptions one can reason about these things without any serious difficulties.
Literalism has all kinds of problems which I'm not going to go into for a Gnostic audience. Let's just say accepting these assumptions for someone who doesn't accept the assumption that everything in some stories is historically factual, isn't going to happen. While the defense of that kind of silliness may not fit one's notion of Theology, they can be quite well reasoned. We would just look at them as being well reasoned make believe. Given this make believe situation from a story and so on, and so forth as characteristics of this make believe game, one can arrive at a reasonable means of explanation.
While more mainstream theology isn't involved in such things, agreeing with the assessment of Camelot in Monty Python and the Holy Grail: let's not go there it's too silly; the game is played in the same way with different assumptions. Instead of the literal assumptions, there are others, yet it is still playing make believe.
Another characteristic of playing make believe is that although it is primarily a reflection of the person doing it, to them it can seem objective. It has been projected into an abstract idea realm. Like Plato's only yours, and not so idealized. Like the example above, someone can spend a great deal of time rationally examining and overcoming objections to the Noah story being literal, and think that they are describing something objective because they are talking about things.
The issue with any sort of make believe is that whether there are rules of reason involved or not, it is still make believe. Someone can think that they are talking about something real when they speak of Incarnational Trinitarianism, or an Emanational Cosmogeny—and that is precisely the problem. These things are abstract constellations of the glass beads on the game board of make believe. Things so far removed from anything any of us actually have experienced as to make the idea of experiencing them absurd.
When we play make believe in a rational way using the elements and characters from Gnostic stories. We are being literalists, just at a slightly less embarrassing level. There are many ways to look at these things, and putting on a literalist-lite cap to look at them is certainly a standard one. If you don't take what you do too seriously, mistake your ideas for what is really “out there somewhere,” then it is another useful tool. We can speak of Sophia as a character in Gnostic mythology, as an abstract notion of “Wisdom,” or as a part of our experience. If any but the last gets stuck in our understanding as being “it” we have missed the path to Gnosis, and followed the path to cloud coo-coo land. It is so easy to fool ourselves, to not notice the “hairs breadth of difference” that splits considerations involving the real from simply playing make believe.
People have been playing the Theology game for centuries, there has never been the level of understanding involved that it isn't about real things. The distinction is simply whether you believe or not. And so it may be described as playing make believe with the objects of belief. If you don't see a problem here for Gnostics, I'll spell it out. Gnosticism isn't about beliefs. Even if we all believe something, why assume that it is the case at all, let alone the case in the way in which we believe it? That assumption jump is just too much—if you take it for yourself and are aware of the assumptions you may gain some understanding, if you try to take it in some objective way, say as a group, you say bye bye to Gnosis.
Playing the same old religion games with different pieces isn't Gnosticism. Substituting belief in the salvific power of Gnosis for belief in the salvific power of belief in Christ, isn't liberation, it's redecorating. Throwing Sophia into the mix as a character to go with the Logos character, makes nothing Gnostic. And no matter how refined we are about it, playing theological make believe with things associated with Gnosticism isn't Gnosticism, it is still make believe.
If you say, “but there really is this or that, it's not make believe,” you are not seeing what is in front of your face, but rather are seeing from the perspective of the land of make believe. Experiences are not abstract, they cannot be removed from the subject experiencing them. Sophia is a character, an idea, and an experience. Guess which two of the three you cannot play abstract games with the experience, and so you must be playing make believe.
If you say, “but the ancient Gnostics saw it in a literal fashion,” you are again making enormous assumptions, placing limitations on the perspectives of others for our own convenience. Buying into the literalism of heresiologists isn't exactly a large stride forward for our understanding of Gnosticism.
If theology is playing make believe is it worthless? Of course not. In a tradition where creativity and looking at things from multiple perspectives are the order of the day, it can be very useful—for an individual to use to look at things from different perspectives. Where we go into literalism and make assumptions that take us into cloud coo-coo land is when we mistake any of this for anything but playing make believe.
Saturday, July 08, 2006
Premature Enlightenment
| Halfway Up the Mountain: The Error of Premature Claims to Enlightenment by Mariana Caplan This is not a hard science or scholarly book. But it is the only one that covers some main and important areas. It is also a fast enjoyable read with lots of quotes and white-space. Food for thought. |
Friday, July 07, 2006
Plant Metaphors for Gnosis & Episteme
Here is a graphic to go along with the third GnosCast podcast. It shows some of the different combinations possible of Gnosis and Episteme, using plant metaphors.
- The one on the left shows what we aim for, rooted in Gnosis, growing into Episteme and flowering into our lives.
- The next is where we so often are, having episteme and seeking Gnosis.
- The third is the situation where you have Gnosis, but it hasn't developed into an understanding and expression yet.
- The last is rigid belief planted where Gnosis should grow.
Monday, July 03, 2006
Education, Formation, Preparation, & Ordination
I tried to talk about a seminary directly, but we need to step back and look at the entire issue before we can approach that subject with any hope of communication. So, lets begin with the process of analysis, reducing the large issue into its elements.
First, let's look at what is beyond our scope: being clergy. One's legal Status as a member of the clergy, is determined by the relevant laws. One's Ecclesiastical Status as member of the clergy, is determined by the Ecclesiastical body. So, to recap, things to do with whether one is or is not clergy, in any sense, are matters of Church and Law. In the US the Universal Life Church combines these into a one stop ordination shop, so it isn't exactly a difficult status to obtain if that is all one wants.
Seminaries exist to train and prepare people to practice ministry, and provide related education. They do not grant the status of being clergy. Law Schools exist to train and prepare people to practice Law, and provide related education. They do not grant the status of being a member of the bar. Sure, most of those attending Law School intend to become practicing lawyers, but only a percentage of them will. Most of those entering seminaries intend to become clergy, but only a percentage of them will. And there are those who don't want any change of status, they just want to learn and grow.
Not all denominations that use seminaries, require them. If there are cases where graduating ensures ordination and the status of clergy, I am unaware of them. So, we really need to disentangle these two concepts: preparation and ecclesiastical/legal status.
As far as preparation for ministry is concerned, it is not a simple one-dimensional thing. We can discern different elements, broadly speaking: education, formation, and personal development/preparation.
In terms of education, does it matter greatly who is involved in the education and how? If a bishop does not grade all of the papers involved in a candidates education, has she lost the ability to discern whether the candidate is properly prepared? Does a member of one's particular denomination have to give out reading assignments for the reading to be valuable? I get the impression that this isn't much further down the path of some notions, and we should acknowledge them as being ridiculous.
In fact, the opposite is more likely, one is more likely to get an adequate preparation in terms of education from an institution set up for that purpose. And unless one is afraid of being “contaminated” by ideas from beyond one's denomination, the only issue becomes the quality and adequacy of such an educational program. The Gnostic bottom line: does it work?
Education is a part of formation as clergy, and an educational program involves aspects of formation. However, formation as clergy is of a much larger scope, as it involves the granting of that status as we have seen.
Not all aspects of preparation for ministry can be addressed through education. In fact, only education can. However, since educational programs do not confer any status upon anyone in regards to being clergy, why be afraid of education?
Sunday, July 02, 2006
What is a Seminary? The Basics
Sorry, forgot to start with enough of the basics to stop the conclusion jumpers from getting the tops of their heads bruised. ;)
So, does a seminary ordain (set apart for ministry in the Church) anyone? If you answered yes, you are assigned remedial reading on the nature of seminaries and clergy formation before continuing. If you answered no, you can continue to the next part.
Priesthood is a Holy Order. A Seminary provides an education. An education is a part of formation as clergy. Like the bowl of cereal in the ads surounded by food is a "part of a complete breakfast." What does grant or convey Holy Orders is an Ecclesia (aka. Church).
Ecumenical does literally mean “world-wide” (at least in the sense of the world-wide Roman Empire). Pan and universal can also mean “world-wide,” however its use in English is generally restricted to the religious meaning. It has come to mean movements toward unity, or to indicate that which has such a spirit. It does not imply governance.
Those interested in something other than jumping can also avail themselves of the Gnosis Institue Higher Education FAQ.
You are then cleared to read or re-read the article Towards a Gnostic Seminary.
A seminary is a specialized and usually live-in university-like institution for the purpose of instructing students (seminarians) in philosophy, theology, spirituality and the religious life, usually in order to prepare them to become members of the clergy.
From the Seminary entry on Wikipedia.
The word "holy" simply means "set apart for some purpose." The word ordo (order, in Latin) designated an established civil body or corporation with a hierarchy, and ordinatio meant legal incorporation into an ordo. In context, therefore, a Holy Order is simply a group with a hierarchy that is set apart for ministry in the Church.
From the Holy Orders entry on Wikipedia.
So, does a seminary ordain (set apart for ministry in the Church) anyone? If you answered yes, you are assigned remedial reading on the nature of seminaries and clergy formation before continuing. If you answered no, you can continue to the next part.
Priesthood is a Holy Order. A Seminary provides an education. An education is a part of formation as clergy. Like the bowl of cereal in the ads surounded by food is a "part of a complete breakfast." What does grant or convey Holy Orders is an Ecclesia (aka. Church).
Ecumenical does literally mean “world-wide” (at least in the sense of the world-wide Roman Empire). Pan and universal can also mean “world-wide,” however its use in English is generally restricted to the religious meaning. It has come to mean movements toward unity, or to indicate that which has such a spirit. It does not imply governance.
Christian ecumenism is the promotion of unity or cooperation between distinct religious groups or denominations of the Christian religion.Therefore, Gnostic ecumenism would be the promotion of unity or cooperation between distinct religious groups or denominations of the Gnostic religion. (To keep it simple.)
From the EcumenicalWikipedia article.
Those interested in something other than jumping can also avail themselves of the Gnosis Institue Higher Education FAQ.
You are then cleared to read or re-read the article Towards a Gnostic Seminary.
GnosCast The Gnostic Podcast #3
Episode 3 - Dancin' the Gnostic Two-Step:
Sections:
- (On a) High Horse:
The Gnostic Two-Step. - Everybody Knows:
Discerning Combinations of Knowing. - Building a(n Understanding of) Religion:
How the Needs of Orthodoxy Shaped our Religious Views. - Real Spirituality:
That 'I' can blind you.
Towards a Gnostic Seminary
The large issues will of course stem from what such a program would consist of in terms of content. There are, oddly enough, advocates for programs that consist largely of studying mainstream theology, as if modeling our content on protestant seminaries were the way to go when such programs do not prepare their own ministers for ministry. If one does a bit of research, one will find that that is precisely what many mainstream protestant ministers complain of as a shortcoming of such programs. If it is a failure for the largely intellectually oriented protestant churches, why would Gnostics seriously consider it? It would seem that is because that is all that we know of publicly to model programs on.
We must always keep in mind that such programs are formative: they are a part of a formation program, and as such help shape the form of the student's ministry. If we re-create protestant programs we will be adding a formative element that will lead those ministries towards protestant forms. After all, if I study theology for years to become ordained, isn't it extremely important if not what it is all about? This does not need to be conscious, it is merely the pragmatic valuing of one thing by making it central or very important.
For my part, I think some courses in theology would be useful. Not many, just enough to be able to understand what people using that language are talking about. Now some may disagree, but I would guess that such people equate theology with critical or philosophical thinking about issues related to religion, rather than the unique endeavor with a long history and particular perspective. However, I see critical and philosophical thinking as being a part of every aspect of such a program. And, I also see theology, like the philosophy of religion, as being concerned with truly anachronistic issues. Issues which have no bearing on the life of the soul, or on the ministries of individuals who are actually working with others directly. I may be wrong, it may be a matter of semantics, or it may simply be the glass-bead game I have always found it to be.
It comes down to what seems to be an issue of whether we really want to grow up as a Gnostic community, or merely dress-up like the “grown ups” around us. Building an ecumenical Gnostic Seminary is a large undertaking. But there are many who have had years and decades of experience both in Gnostic ministry and in running Gnostic formation programs. If we want to tap into a reserve of knowledge and wisdom, it is there. The big question is: is anyone seriously interested? This is a call for participants: those interested in building, and those interested in availing themselves of, such a program.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
The Cheat Code Beats the DaVinci Code
Questionable Content Comic strip #319
With a nod to Rev. Scott for a link to another strip in this series.
With a nod to Rev. Scott for a link to another strip in this series.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
GnosCast the Gnostic Podcast #2
GnosCast on iTunes
GnosCast via RSS
The second episode of GnosCast: The Gnostic Podcast is available. (Don't worry, there won't be one a week.)
Episode 2 - Holy Smoke without a Filter:
Sections:
- (On a) High Horse:
Our Religious Assumptions & Framework. - Everybody Knows:
Being Agnostic to be a Gnostic. - Building a(n Understanding of) Religion:
How the Needs of Orthodoxy Shaped our Religious Views. - Real Spirituality:
What is I?
Friday, June 16, 2006
The Gnosis Institute: Proposed Projects
Philosophy:
Ethics
Epistemology
Gnosology
Psychology:
Psychological Maturity & Spiritual Development
Pastoral Care
Ministry Research
Thanatology
Educational Resources Development:
Resources for individual use
Resources for group use
Curriculum/Program Development
Distance Learning
Scholarly Research:
Contemporary Gnosticism
Anti-Gnostic Polemics
Religion
Memes & Memeplexes
Historical Gnostic Studies
Comparative Spirituality
Outreach:
Individual:
Information Resources
Educational Resources
Spiritual Formation Resources
Community Participation
Organizations/Communities:
Sharing Resources
Building Relationships
Common Projects
Promotion of Gnostic Studies
Practice
Spiritual Formation
Clergy/Ministry Formation
Resources for individual spiritual growth
Resources to aid those engaged in Gnostic ministry
Conferences
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Solipsis-"Gnosis"
The countless incarnations of the New Prophet preaches: "tear down your Gnostic church for they don't revere me... um... I mean they don't guarantee Gnosis like I don't.... wait... they oppress you by not being me... ah... they're wrong, because I'm right."
Unfortunately, all of their arguments and preachments come down to the above, which is simply ego-inflation, not wanting anyone to step on the hose inflating their ego. There are dangers in hierarchies and organizations, however these are of a different nature to those of do-it-yourself religion. Any time you try to do something with more than one person, you have to organize things, give it a form and a structure. The dangers in organizations is whether the form exists to do something, to accomplish the goal, or to preserve the structure; and whether there is a clear limit on the extent of the structure's power.
For example, having a job where your boss also tries to control your personal life, is a structure that doesn't follow it's clear limits. The same is the case if you study at a university, and in addition to studies, they dictate your social life to you. These and so many other examples happen, blatantly, every day, in spite of the limits being respected in the vast majority of cases. And we are facing only the beginning of the use of the structure of the government of the USA and other countries to enforce agendas despite any attempts to limit government structure and power.
The New Prophet usually doesn't try to tear down the structure of the economy, nor rail against the education system. And, as I pointed out earlier, they show no understanding of the structures involved: why structures and forms exist, what is required to provide a form, and the real dangers that are involved. No, they preach against any religious form that is not their own—showing their true concern. The New Prophet is the founder of The First Church of the Ego: The One & Only One True Church. And being simply involved in a "me" vs "everyone else" dynamic, they have no real understanding of any of the real dynamics or dangers. And having no such understanding they will merely ape religious forms and recreate the worst possible religious scenarios.
The quote from Thomas Merton about the most dangerous man being the contemplative who is guided by no man, is true. I do not think that many of those who end up becoming leaders of manipulative and abusive organizations, colloquially called cults, set out to do so. They just follow their own impulses and those will lead them to repeat age old patterns. There is nothing original about “being me” in the sense of allowing your ego to rule unchecked. Those who are in the sway of ego-inflation are the least themselves and not at all free—they are under the control of larger patterns, patterns endlessly repeated and to which they are merely footnotes.
They think they are in charge, that this is the route to freedom, but when has freedom existed without limits, without structure? If someone is free to end my freedom, how is that freedom? Likewise, an individual who acknowledges no structure or limits on themselves will end up impinging upon the freedom of others. When they do this in society, they may end up loosing their freedom and having limits imposes upon them. When they do this in the realm of psychology, we usually call them abusers. When they do this in the realm of religion, we usually call them cult leaders.
Forms, structures, and the limits they impose provide for some degree of freedom and safety. In the cases where people are abused, it is not within the forms and limits of the organizations: it is when the individuals place themselves above such things, ignoring them and getting those they harm to ignore them.
The First Church of the Ego: The One & Only One True Church, is definitely not a Gnostic church, nor a means to Gnosis. Furthermore, it not only doesn't provide any aid, it provides an arena for the simple repetition of old and dangerous/harmful patterns. The New Prophet is not guided by others, but rather guided by the age old patterns that they are doomed to repeat.
Unfortunately, all of their arguments and preachments come down to the above, which is simply ego-inflation, not wanting anyone to step on the hose inflating their ego. There are dangers in hierarchies and organizations, however these are of a different nature to those of do-it-yourself religion. Any time you try to do something with more than one person, you have to organize things, give it a form and a structure. The dangers in organizations is whether the form exists to do something, to accomplish the goal, or to preserve the structure; and whether there is a clear limit on the extent of the structure's power.
For example, having a job where your boss also tries to control your personal life, is a structure that doesn't follow it's clear limits. The same is the case if you study at a university, and in addition to studies, they dictate your social life to you. These and so many other examples happen, blatantly, every day, in spite of the limits being respected in the vast majority of cases. And we are facing only the beginning of the use of the structure of the government of the USA and other countries to enforce agendas despite any attempts to limit government structure and power.
The New Prophet usually doesn't try to tear down the structure of the economy, nor rail against the education system. And, as I pointed out earlier, they show no understanding of the structures involved: why structures and forms exist, what is required to provide a form, and the real dangers that are involved. No, they preach against any religious form that is not their own—showing their true concern. The New Prophet is the founder of The First Church of the Ego: The One & Only One True Church. And being simply involved in a "me" vs "everyone else" dynamic, they have no real understanding of any of the real dynamics or dangers. And having no such understanding they will merely ape religious forms and recreate the worst possible religious scenarios.
The quote from Thomas Merton about the most dangerous man being the contemplative who is guided by no man, is true. I do not think that many of those who end up becoming leaders of manipulative and abusive organizations, colloquially called cults, set out to do so. They just follow their own impulses and those will lead them to repeat age old patterns. There is nothing original about “being me” in the sense of allowing your ego to rule unchecked. Those who are in the sway of ego-inflation are the least themselves and not at all free—they are under the control of larger patterns, patterns endlessly repeated and to which they are merely footnotes.
They think they are in charge, that this is the route to freedom, but when has freedom existed without limits, without structure? If someone is free to end my freedom, how is that freedom? Likewise, an individual who acknowledges no structure or limits on themselves will end up impinging upon the freedom of others. When they do this in society, they may end up loosing their freedom and having limits imposes upon them. When they do this in the realm of psychology, we usually call them abusers. When they do this in the realm of religion, we usually call them cult leaders.
Forms, structures, and the limits they impose provide for some degree of freedom and safety. In the cases where people are abused, it is not within the forms and limits of the organizations: it is when the individuals place themselves above such things, ignoring them and getting those they harm to ignore them.
The First Church of the Ego: The One & Only One True Church, is definitely not a Gnostic church, nor a means to Gnosis. Furthermore, it not only doesn't provide any aid, it provides an arena for the simple repetition of old and dangerous/harmful patterns. The New Prophet is not guided by others, but rather guided by the age old patterns that they are doomed to repeat.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
GnosCast: The Gnostic Podcast - # 1
GnosCast on iTunes
GnosCast via RSS
Well, finally, the first episode of GnosCast: The Gnostic Podcast is available. I take comfort from the truism that your first episode is your worst episode, and you probably will as well.
This will be the main content podcast, and will include longer addresses on various topics related to Gnosticism, philosophy, and spirituality. In the future, it will include actual lectures to audiences, instead of just me trying to figure out what to say to a microphone. In addition, more conversational elements will be included.
Producing a podcast of this length as part of a larger project was a lot more work than I anticipated. And there are odd issues, such as a lower sound quality. But, doing something and going forward are necessary for anything to happen. I hope it is of some value.
By way of advertising: I trace the origins of modern relativism, look at the history of equating beliefs with religion, and give anyone who wants it plenty of ammunition to use against me. All for free! How can you loose (more than an hour of your time you can spend commuting, or doing household chores anyway)?
Sections:
- (On a) High Horse:
Rev. Troy briefly introduces himself. (yawn) - Everybody Knows:
Being a Gnostic entails not-knowing - Building a(n Understanding of) Religion:
Religion and Sanity. - Real Spirituality:
Where you are on your path.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
The Gnosis Institute Higher Education FAQ
While this will not be the primary focus of the Institute, it is the one that is asked about most often, and so I will outline here the current plans and direction for higher education within the Institute.
What is the relationship of the Gnosis Institute to Gnostic organizations?
The Institute is not something that organizations participate in, it is something that individuals participate in. Likewise, it is not something that exists to serve the needs of organizations directly, but to serve the needs individuals regardless of whether that is through an organization or not.
What this means practically, is that the curricula of the Institute will not grow out of requirements presented by organizations, but rather will be designed to meet the requirements for individual education and preparation. Organizations determine how they will consider such work.
Will ordination be offered through these programs?
No more than through any other institution of higher education. MDiv programs do not grant ordination, they are a preparation for ordination. Formation as clergy within a particular ecclesiastical body is entirely at the discretion of that body. The Gnosis Institute will provide a part of the preparation for Gnostic clergy; being Gnostics, however, education is seen as necessary but by no means sufficent preparation.
What Programs will be offered?
Eventually, curricula will be developed for the following programs: Gnostic Studies, Gnostic Ministry, and Spiritual Development. The goal is to provide graduate level courses, and work towards offering graduate level degrees. However, a diploma option will be available for those who have not completed an undergraduate degree, and it is most likely that those programs will be developed first.
The Gnostic Studies Program will provide a Gnostic approach to the study of Gnosticism, combining rigorous scholarship within a Gnostic world-view. Studies will include the necessary foundations in philosophy and psychology that Comparative Religion Studies programs lack.
The Gnostic Ministry Program will focus on preparing individuals to serve others in a Gnostic setting or capacity. This will be the Gnostic equivalent of a Divinity program, that in stark contrast to most such programs will prepare an individual for active service, rather than theological debate. This program will have a strong praxis, and practicum element, and will probably include a minimal formation program.
The Spiritual Development Program will consist of the study of spiritual growth and development from a pragmatic perspective. This program will probably offer a diploma in Personal Spiritual Development for those most interested in the personal applications. The graduate level work will have two areas: a practical element of aiding individual's in their spiritual development, and a research element to increase our knowledge.
How can all of this be done with any academic rigour?
A strong foundation in critical thinking will be required of all students beginning with a required course on critical thinking in religious/spiritual contexts. Unlike creedal religions, Gnosticism has nothing to fear either from critical examination, or from honest research. Gnosis is what matters, everything else is at best a good description or approximation.
Why not start offering degrees now?
The reason that education will not be the main focus of the Gnosis Institute is that the resources required do not currently exist—the Institute must develop them. Until the serious work of the Institute is well underway, developing advanced courses is pre-mature. The purpose of the Institute is not to propagate ideas or beliefs about Gnosticism, but to develop and grow real Gnosticism in our modern world—to build a real center and foundation for the future of Gnosticism. The work of the Institute is also not merely intended to be of service to Gnostics, we are in a position to lead in the real study of spirituality and religion, for the benefit of all.
Friday, June 09, 2006
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Security is Mostly a Superstition
Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure or nothing. To keep our faces toward change and behave like free spirits in the presence of fate is strength undefeatable.
-Helen Keller
Let Us Have Faith (1940)
Listen to GnosCast? Anyone? Anyone at all?
I am almost done producing a more standard format podcast, and there has been an absence of feed-back either directly to myself, or in the form of reviews at the various podcast directories, for the two podcasts that have been available for months now. I'd assume no one is listening, but people are at least downloading the mp3s, so it does at least seem possible.
Whether you think they are a waste of bandwidth or not, they are all that is out there in podcast land next to various idiosemantic versions of Gnostics. Reviews make a big difference in how high they show up in listings, and whether they show up or not.
They are also offered as a service, and if they are not serving, I can accomplish other things with that time and effort. I really don't like the sound of my own voice all that much. Let me know, or let the directories know. If only one, the latter; if possible, both.
Where Have All the Candles Gone?
The Gnovena candles that I produced for a time are no longer available. When your income is at a below-survival level, you just can't afford to work hard and loose money. I have had to cut my losses. If you ordered candles at the $6.00 rate without additional shipping in large quantity, then I may have come close to breaking even on your orders. If you ordered only one or two, the candles were essentially a gift. I tried adding additional shipping costs to try to help cover the extraordinary cost of shipping the candles, but even then the cost of packaging them to prevent breakage, or replacing breakage, means that I have been paying to do this.
Even if I were breaking even or making a few dollars for the chapel fund, it is a great deal of work for very little return. The design, manufacture, packaging, and shipping are performed by myself, and if all went well, it would have meant about $2.00 per candle for the chapel fund. This is not only working multiple times for the same dollar, but does not factor in lost opportunity costs—not doing things that may be of service and support this ministry at the same time.
I will be taking a break from producing products until the 2007 Gnostic Wall Calendar is available. And then, will focus on products that don't involve shipping heavy or breakable items. One of the things I hope to offer is a new edition of The Mystery and Magic of the Eucharist by Stephan Hoeller, and other small publications that are very difficult to find.
Even if I were breaking even or making a few dollars for the chapel fund, it is a great deal of work for very little return. The design, manufacture, packaging, and shipping are performed by myself, and if all went well, it would have meant about $2.00 per candle for the chapel fund. This is not only working multiple times for the same dollar, but does not factor in lost opportunity costs—not doing things that may be of service and support this ministry at the same time.
I will be taking a break from producing products until the 2007 Gnostic Wall Calendar is available. And then, will focus on products that don't involve shipping heavy or breakable items. One of the things I hope to offer is a new edition of The Mystery and Magic of the Eucharist by Stephan Hoeller, and other small publications that are very difficult to find.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Happy Beast Day!
And Happy Birthday to all the Boys and Girls with a cool birth date! Honorary Beast-Boys and Beast-Girls all.
Yes, Hank McCoy is the Beast. I have to confess he was my favorite of the original X-men, although my exposure to them was through cheap second-hand yard sale comics (when you could still get such things.) It was a mix of his acrobatics, with his eloquent & erudite wise-cracks. When he was morphed into the blue furry version most folks are more familiar with, especially with the recent movie, he stopped being as eloquent and erudite in his dialog. (Or, the writers just didn't do as good of a job.)
Sunday, June 04, 2006
Welcome to the Logosphere, Rev. Gil
The Rev. Deacon Gilberto Morales, known to all as Gil, has begun a blog. His first post is an insight into our nature as Gnostics/immigrants.
Friday, June 02, 2006
Calling them on the Emptiness of their Rhetoric
A very very few are not only recognizing that the anti-Gnostic polemics surrounding the Da Vinci Code phenomena are ridiculous, but also that the way Dan Brown uses Gnostic texts in a literal fashion is also deeply flawed.
Pam has written very well on the issue at God is a Joke:
Christians and Dan Brown Misunderstand the Gnostic Gospels
Pam has written very well on the issue at God is a Joke:
Christians and Dan Brown Misunderstand the Gnostic Gospels
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Meet the New Prophet
...the same as the old Prophet.
What, were you expecting me to name just one? Oh, they are everywhere. And although what they have to say sounds to us like the far-from-profound insights of a hard night's drinking, they consider them to be worthy of deep consideration, if not outright reverence. And, also like someone after a hard night's drinking, they demand to be heard. Combine Ego Inflation with a Shadow Projection, place it in the human arena most prone to insanity, religion, and you get the New Prophet.
What does the New Prophet preach? “You don't need to listen to religion to tell you the answers. You don't need to follow it to get the good stuff. Listen to me! I have the answers! Follow me to the good stuff!” Is it any wonder that the few who stick it out and somehow succeed as a New Prophet end up following the same old patterns? In attacking “religion” they may delude themselves into thinking they are different, but it is only a shadow projection, and they end up becoming all that they attack—because they always were.Asking, “who hasn't been hurt in religion?” is like asking “who hasn't been hurt in love?” You are either too young, or it is a blatantly rhetorical question. So, the real question is: now what? The common answer is to paint it all “evil.” Not love, by the way, not usually for long at least. No, many people have traded the old red horned model of devil in for a new one that they call “organized religion,” and often it seems only the names have been changed to protect the ignorant.
I have a friend who has been hurt in religion badly enough that he has an actual phobia. He went to my ordination, but just couldn't walk through the doors of the chapel. Phobias are a way for the more primitive parts of our brains to keep the more “intelligent” parts from doing things that have had disastrous results in the past, or are ingrained in our biology. The physical anxiety that arises when confronted with something associated with great harm, is meant to keep you from imminent danger. When I think of him, I can only cringe with embarrassment at my past shadow projections on religion, and see the New Prophets for what they are.
If you publicly engage in ministry through a recognizable form, you will get your share of New Prophets. They may come speaking sweetly at first, but they will expect you to acknowledge their superior insights or understanding, even if it is on the order of teaching you the ABC's, or lecturing you on the land of make-believe. If you don't show proper respect and reverence, the knives will come out. Or they just charge with blades drawn from the get-go. Your terrible crime, worthy of such a response? “Oppressing them” by not recognizing their great importance, or simply by not capitulating to them.
The amazingly funny thing is--they all think they are the only ones. Tiggers without the bouncy. You want to say to them, “yes, you are the only one, exactly like every other ego on the planet—but you are so much more, like every other divine spark in the cosmos.” However, they come to preach and be praised, not to learn.
Being a New Prophet can often be just a phase; the contradictions become too many and too blatant, the passion fades. Few have the stamina to be a complete fool on their own, they usually require assistance. However, the prejudices usually remain—not the phobias, or real defenses—the devil with a collar instead of horns is no less cartoon-like.
We will take a look at the particular doctrines and dogmas of the current string of successful New Prophets in the near future—how they hide the old doctrines and dogmas in 'new' forms.
What, were you expecting me to name just one? Oh, they are everywhere. And although what they have to say sounds to us like the far-from-profound insights of a hard night's drinking, they consider them to be worthy of deep consideration, if not outright reverence. And, also like someone after a hard night's drinking, they demand to be heard. Combine Ego Inflation with a Shadow Projection, place it in the human arena most prone to insanity, religion, and you get the New Prophet.
What does the New Prophet preach? “You don't need to listen to religion to tell you the answers. You don't need to follow it to get the good stuff. Listen to me! I have the answers! Follow me to the good stuff!” Is it any wonder that the few who stick it out and somehow succeed as a New Prophet end up following the same old patterns? In attacking “religion” they may delude themselves into thinking they are different, but it is only a shadow projection, and they end up becoming all that they attack—because they always were.Asking, “who hasn't been hurt in religion?” is like asking “who hasn't been hurt in love?” You are either too young, or it is a blatantly rhetorical question. So, the real question is: now what? The common answer is to paint it all “evil.” Not love, by the way, not usually for long at least. No, many people have traded the old red horned model of devil in for a new one that they call “organized religion,” and often it seems only the names have been changed to protect the ignorant.
I have a friend who has been hurt in religion badly enough that he has an actual phobia. He went to my ordination, but just couldn't walk through the doors of the chapel. Phobias are a way for the more primitive parts of our brains to keep the more “intelligent” parts from doing things that have had disastrous results in the past, or are ingrained in our biology. The physical anxiety that arises when confronted with something associated with great harm, is meant to keep you from imminent danger. When I think of him, I can only cringe with embarrassment at my past shadow projections on religion, and see the New Prophets for what they are.
If you publicly engage in ministry through a recognizable form, you will get your share of New Prophets. They may come speaking sweetly at first, but they will expect you to acknowledge their superior insights or understanding, even if it is on the order of teaching you the ABC's, or lecturing you on the land of make-believe. If you don't show proper respect and reverence, the knives will come out. Or they just charge with blades drawn from the get-go. Your terrible crime, worthy of such a response? “Oppressing them” by not recognizing their great importance, or simply by not capitulating to them.
The amazingly funny thing is--they all think they are the only ones. Tiggers without the bouncy. You want to say to them, “yes, you are the only one, exactly like every other ego on the planet—but you are so much more, like every other divine spark in the cosmos.” However, they come to preach and be praised, not to learn.
Being a New Prophet can often be just a phase; the contradictions become too many and too blatant, the passion fades. Few have the stamina to be a complete fool on their own, they usually require assistance. However, the prejudices usually remain—not the phobias, or real defenses—the devil with a collar instead of horns is no less cartoon-like.
We will take a look at the particular doctrines and dogmas of the current string of successful New Prophets in the near future—how they hide the old doctrines and dogmas in 'new' forms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)