Are you pro-cosmic or anti-cosmic?

[ELoWolfe]

An article I read on contemporary Gnosticism articulated a difference between classical Gnosticism and contemporary is the cosmos. Specifically, classical Gnosticism was anti-cosmic compared to the rather pro-cosmic attitude of contemporary Gnosticism. The author articulates how definitions change, with classical describing the material (cosmic) as a part of the "system" while contemporary differentiates the material "system" compared to the injustice of the metaphysical system, including ideologies like politics and religion.

Contemporary Gnosticism seems closer to a Valentinian understanding, but taking an even softer approach than the Valentinians did. We know the Valentinians didn't necessarily feel the Demiurge was evil, just misguided. But even they would content (I believe) that the physical world is a lie. Meanwhile, contemporary Gnostics (at least those organized and known) agree the Demiurge isn't evil, but that the cosmic world isn't "evil" either. The world itself is good, and I wonder if some of those same Gnostics would believe if there could be an anarchic utopia, if things would be alright.

It is funny because I find that a lot of individuals I know would agree with the idea that there is something "better" out there, yet they won't dismiss the current material cosmos. And I don't blame them for it - it is something we're forced into and thus, it becomes the only thing we can know until we develop the cognitive skills necessary to even begin to see beyond it. Society only reinforces it and we have a hard time thinking about the world from an objective point of view.

Do you think the world is evil, or bad? Or is it neutral? Or would you even say it is good?

 

[nazz]

It's good, bad, and neutral

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Depends on my mood. I can get into some pretty extreme anti-cosmic ways of thinking but that's too depressing a mindset to stay in. Typically, I see this realm as akin to a gladiatorial arena where spiritual beings are engaged in external and internal struggle.

 

[BrightWhites]

In my opinion, me having an opinion on that would be more material than the cosmos could ever be due to the presence of ego. I cant even begin to make such claims on timeless concepts like the cosmos. Concepts like good and evil just contributes to dogmatic thinking and distracts from our understanding of our permanent underlying illusion and corruption.

Yeah.

 

[VargDrakon]

This is an old topic, but I thought I should chime in:
I'm profusely anti-cosmos. Sure there is good in the world, but it arises mainly from human actions that go against the natural order of things. There are naturally pleasurable things in the world, but pleasure is not the same as good (Nietzsche be damned).
To quote Schopenhauer: "This world could not have been the work of an all-loving being, but that of a devil, who had brought creatures into existence in order to delight in the sight of their sufferings" and "The pleasure in this world, it has been said, outweighs the pain; or, at any rate, there is an even balance between the two. If the reader wishes to see shortly whether this statement is true, let him compare the respective feelings of two animals, one of which is engaged in eating the other."

 

[nazz]

This is an old topic, but I thought I should chime in:
I'm profusely anti-cosmos. Sure there is good in the world, but it arises mainly from human actions that go against the natural order of things. There are naturally pleasurable things in the world, but pleasure is not the same as good (Nietzsche be damned).
To quote Schopenhauer: "This world could not have been the work of an all-loving being, but that of a devil, who had brought creatures into existence in order to delight in the sight of their sufferings" and "The pleasure in this world, it has been said, outweighs the pain; or, at any rate, there is an even balance between the two. If the reader wishes to see shortly whether this statement is true, let him compare the respective feelings of two animals, one of which is engaged in eating the other."

It seems that if the creator were truly a sadist he would not have allowed for pleasure in the world at all. And let's not forget all the suffering human beings inflict on other humans and animals as well.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It seems that if the creator were truly a sadist he would not have allowed for pleasure in the world at all. And let's not forget all the suffering human beings inflict on other humans and animals as well.

As a Gnostic who takes a primarily anti-cosmic stance, I would say that the good found in the world (aesthetic beauty, for example) is but a pale reflection of what may be found in the indescribable Higher Realms. Pleasure, for example, isn't inherently good. Pleasure can become a trap, such as with hedonism. It can be a distraction and a way to further ensnare the Spirit in its fleshly mire. A sort of "beard and circuses" deal, which is all too much the case for us today, especially in modern materialistic Western culture. Pleasure is okay, as long as the proper perspective is kept in mind. Sometimes we go to far to either extreme. When you go to far into obsessing over physical pleasures, you probably need a bit of suffering to slap you in the face and remind you of our dire situation. You go too far into suffering and you run the risk of losing sight of the good and the beautiful (for example, compassion, justice, love and the arts), which are the fruits of the Divine Spirit within. So a certain balance should be maintained.

So I would say that the fact that pleasure does exist in this world isn't too much of an argument against the claim that the Demiurge is a sadist. We wouldn't be very good slaves if we weren't allowed to feel good at times, and so learn to love our slavery and be blinded to it. That's just being practical, imo.

 

[nazz]

As a Gnostic who takes a primarily anti-cosmic stance, I would say that the good found in the world (aesthetic beauty, for example) is but a pale reflection of what may be found in the indescribable Higher Realms. Pleasure, for example, isn't inherently good. Pleasure can become a trap, such as with hedonism. It can be a distraction and a way to further ensnare the Spirit in its fleshly mire. A sort of "beard and circuses" deal, which is all too much the case for us today, especially in modern materialistic Western culture. Pleasure is okay, as long as the proper perspective is kept in mind. Sometimes we go to far to either extreme. When you go to far into obsessing over physical pleasures, you probably need a bit of suffering to slap you in the face and remind you of our dire situation. You go too far into suffering and you run the risk of losing sight of the good and the beautiful (for example, compassion, justice, love and the arts), which are the fruits of the Divine Spirit within. So a certain balance should be maintained.

So I would say that the fact that pleasure does exist in this world isn't too much of an argument against the claim that the Demiurge is a sadist. We wouldn't be very good slaves if we weren't allowed to feel good at times, and so learn to love our slavery and be blinded to it. That's just being practical, imo.

Makes sense if loving our slavery is a necessary component in keeping us entrapped here.

 

[Ralphg]

God Himself (not the Demiurge) created the Planet Earth in it's physical form. God also provided a ''string" or "line" for 'souls' to go back and forth towards Earth and 'Him'. Everything alive is given a soul by means of that unique string. The Demiurge (misguided as he is) tries to create the same combination of these 2 things (a 'Home' > earth and a 'String' > 'souls'). He has succesfully created lots of 'Homes' > stars and planets but is still unable to create souls.
Therefore the Planet is 'Good' the rest of the Univers is 'Neutral'. Humans (or 'souls') can choose to be either 'Good' or 'Bad' (because they have 'free will').

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Anti-cosmic in the sense of working for its ultimate destruction, pro-cosmic in the sense of living in the material world and working 'with it' (and re-working it) to liberate the spirit(s) trapped within.

 

[TheInfiniteLight]

An article I read on contemporary Gnosticism articulated a difference between classical Gnosticism and contemporary is the cosmos. Specifically, classical Gnosticism was anti-cosmic compared to the rather pro-cosmic attitude of contemporary Gnosticism. The author articulates how definitions change, with classical describing the material (cosmic) as a part of the "system" while contemporary differentiates the material "system" compared to the injustice of the metaphysical system, including ideologies like politics and religion.

Contemporary Gnosticism seems closer to a Valentinian understanding, but taking an even softer approach than the Valentinians did. We know the Valentinians didn't necessarily feel the Demiurge was evil, just misguided. But even they would content (I believe) that the physical world is a lie. Meanwhile, contemporary Gnostics (at least those organized and known) agree the Demiurge isn't evil, but that the cosmic world isn't "evil" either. The world itself is good, and I wonder if some of those same Gnostics would believe if there could be an anarchic utopia, if things would be alright.

It is funny because I find that a lot of individuals I know would agree with the idea that there is something "better" out there, yet they won't dismiss the current material cosmos. And I don't blame them for it - it is something we're forced into and thus, it becomes the only thing we can know until we develop the cognitive skills necessary to even begin to see beyond it. Society only reinforces it and we have a hard time thinking about the world from an objective point of view.

Do you think the world is evil, or bad? Or is it neutral? Or would you even say it is good?

I would say that it is good to participate within this imperfect world; for the sake of wisdom. This world is wise rather than righteous.

Like scripture says, as is your enemy, so is your glory. We need a strong enemy in order to be glorified in our bodies. This world is the perfect enemy, if only we could speak of the infinitesimal light--in order that we may return to the light in our glory.

 

[Tomas Kindahl]

Do you think the world is evil, or bad? Or is it neutral? Or would you even say it is good?

Not evil in the Christian sense, which is: intent on torturing and exterminating living beings. Evil in the mesoplatonic sense, that is corrupted, entropic, decaying. Bad in comparison to the Pleroma. Neutral in the sense that it is not sinful, and has no intention to neither kill us, nor nurture us. It is good only temporarily, in the rare occasions when we are perfectly well and successful, and only for a few individuals at a time. It is beautiful though, but not as beautiful as Pleroma.