Demiurge or no Demiurge?

[nazz]

The notion of the Demiurge seems to be a consistent feature of ancient Gnosticism, together with a mythology of how it arose. But is there good reason to believe such a being really exists?

I think it possible to explain the existence of this universe (as well as any others) without resorting to such a notion. It could be this universe is simply a part of the original emanation process of the Monad. I like to think of that as akin to dropping a pebble into a pool of water and the formation of successive ripples extending out from the point of impact. Each successive ripple is a little more removed from the source with a little less of the original energy.

However recent scientific investigations may point to this universe being artificial in nature, a deliberate creation. If this is the case that would be good evidence something like the Demiurge really exists. It would also help explain many anomalies in our world which are difficult to explain via naturalistic means. But it could very well be the intention to make it appear completely natural.

What do others think about all this?

 

[ELoWolfe]

Could you reference the source of the claim that there may be a design at work? Not that I don't believe you; I would just like to be able to read it.

As per your question, I want to answer yes but not in a literal sense.

For example, I don't think I believe in a being who took control of the material "plane" and crafted it with or without help. Instead, I think that when the One/Good/Unknown contemplated on itself, it made what was and what was not. Through the ripples you describe, we eventually come to the material with a "living" shadow interwoven. The universe, in this material, came to be as it had for the billions of years until, at least for our narrative, Earth was made and then life on it.

As life, connected to the shadow of the Light, evolved to the level of spiritual recognition, the shadow evolved from the constant interaction between the material vessels of Light and itself. Eventually, it grew into a unique identity in of itself, able to influence life through those that could have the greatest connection to it. The prophets and the seers.

Through error, this new entity thought that it was the highest power when it was a mere shadow. Through fear, it came to dominate humanity despite the fact that it grew with and was evolved from. Essentially, if we call this being the Demiurge, we created it as much as it created us. (This is not going to argue about the idea of life in other places of the universe and the impact it has with the shadow. I don't know that. I don't know the possibility of that. I can't speak for that.)

One shadow developed stronger than any others, taking the place as "head" of the pantheons of shadows. This is the Demiurge. But despite using the words shadow, which would have a negative connotation, I think that this head shadow (now called the Demiurge) had been influenced enough by humanity to be the Justice every human seems intrinsically to want. The more it interacted with us, the more it became a universal Law. Other shadows existed which represented other things based on our collective desires and wishes, but Justice is the one which prevailed.

So the Demiurge, believing in error it is the sole leader, empowered by humanities pleas for Justice, became what he is. And as we asked questions, it created its own answers. Yet despite all the power we gave it, it has trouble with the light inside of us and in its fear, keeps us on the material level. This is when we needed the Christ as the (to me) ultimate revealer.

Does this equate to the Demiurge as traditionally written? Perhaps. It isn't a literal creator, but was the original idea understood as a literal creator or was the creation story allegorical? I don't know how, offhand, the Gnostics of the first few centuries looked at the creation myths.

To me it isn't literal. But the Demiurge is needed. Just not as an individual being who shaped everything we see.

 

[nazz]

Could you reference the source of the claim that there may be a design at work? Not that I don't believe you; I would just like to be able to read it.

Here are a few links:

Physicists May Have Evidence Universe Is A Computer Simulation

Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation

Physicist Discovers Computer Code Embedded Within the Equations of String Theory - disinformation

As per your question, I want to answer yes but not in a literal sense.

For example, I don't think I believe in a being who took control of the material "plane" and crafted it with or without help. Instead, I think that when the One/Good/Unknown contemplated on itself, it made what was and what was not. Through the ripples you describe, we eventually come to the material with a "living" shadow interwoven. The universe, in this material, came to be as it had for the billions of years until, at least for our narrative, Earth was made and then life on it.

As life, connected to the shadow of the Light, evolved to the level of spiritual recognition, the shadow evolved from the constant interaction between the material vessels of Light and itself. Eventually, it grew into a unique identity in of itself, able to influence life through those that could have the greatest connection to it. The prophets and the seers.

Through error, this new entity thought that it was the highest power when it was a mere shadow. Through fear, it came to dominate humanity despite the fact that it grew with and was evolved from. Essentially, if we call this being the Demiurge, we created it as much as it created us. (This is not going to argue about the idea of life in other places of the universe and the impact it has with the shadow. I don't know that. I don't know the possibility of that. I can't speak for that.)

One shadow developed stronger than any others, taking the place as "head" of the pantheons of shadows. This is the Demiurge. But despite using the words shadow, which would have a negative connotation, I think that this head shadow (now called the Demiurge) had been influenced enough by humanity to be the Justice every human seems intrinsically to want. The more it interacted with us, the more it became a universal Law. Other shadows existed which represented other things based on our collective desires and wishes, but Justice is the one which prevailed.

So the Demiurge, believing in error it is the sole leader, empowered by humanities pleas for Justice, became what he is. And as we asked questions, it created its own answers. Yet despite all the power we gave it, it has trouble with the light inside of us and in its fear, keeps us on the material level. This is when we needed the Christ as the (to me) ultimate revealer.

Very interesting theory

Does this equate to the Demiurge as traditionally written? Perhaps.

I don't think the term "demiurge" would be the correct appellation. The demiurge is a concept that came into Gnosticism from Platonic philosophy and definitely refers to a creator deity (from the Greek demiourgos, literally "artisan of the people" or "skilled craftsman"). I like the term "Great Archon" for what you described above.

It isn't a literal creator, but was the original idea understood as a literal creator or was the creation story allegorical? I don't know how, offhand, the Gnostics of the first few centuries looked at the creation myths.

I think the former as far as classical Gnosticism is concerned.

 

[ELoWolfe]

Well from what I gathered, there is debate on whether the creation myths were seen literal or allegorical. I haven't been able to see either one conclusively. Perhaps someone could direct me somewhere.

I don't believe in a literal, "I created this with my own 'hands'" Demiurge. To use your Great Archon title, I think this Great Archon claims to be the Demiurge and have applied the title as it claimed. The words would be interchangeable, but that is with my own understanding/belief. When I read the myths, I don't think of the literal understanding of Demiurge, but of the Great Archon and the term being used as a (mistaken, self-applied) title. He is "Samael," after all.

Then to answer your question, I don't think a literal Demiurge figure is necessary, so much as what he represents (a "jailer" for lack of better words).

I do have to ponder on the Christ though, and his relationship to the mythical understanding I described earlier. In John, it says "Through him all things were made," not "by him." I think I read this from a commentary by Heracleon, but may be mistaken on the author. It could be the Christ, though indirectly, "influenced" the universe to be able to create vessels of the lost Light that would eventually be released back to the Monad/Pleroma. He wouldn't be a demiurge though, since it was only "through" and not "by."

And thank you for the links!

 

[ELoWolfe]

From the first link:

"Like a prisoner in a pitch-black cell, we may never be able to see the 'walls' of our prison"

... Hello Gnosticism.

 

[Bunny]

I take the characters of Gnostic mythology literally. (Just personal preference.) So, yes, I do believe there's a Demiurge and that he and his archons are real beings who created...something. Maybe it's the whole known Universe, maybe it's only our planet, or maybe it's just the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Milky Way galaxy, as Adams put it.

But, ultimately, I also think that we, the Demiurge, the archons, and everything else are all just passing thoughts in the minds of the Unknown God. Because He is outside of space-time, everything is happening in the blink of an eye for Him, which is why He doesn't really intervene. I think at least some of His Aeons are subject to time, though, which is how they're able to help us to some degree. Maybe they voluntarily chose to do so?

Please note, this is all just speculation that I've cobbled together myself and not at all indicative of anything about Gnostic thought in general. It just means I have too much time on my hands.

 

[nazz]

Well from what I gathered, there is debate on whether the creation myths were seen literal or allegorical. I haven't been able to see either one conclusively. Perhaps someone could direct me somewhere.

I don't know there will ever be a way to know for sure but I see no reason to think they did not embrace a literal view. Certainly the Platonists did and since the Gnostics appropriated the term from them, and never made a distinction in their writings that they only meant it metaphorically, it seems most likely they thought the demiurge was a literal being.

I don't believe in a literal, "I created this with my own 'hands'" Demiurge. To use your Great Archon title, I think this Great Archon claims to be the Demiurge and have applied the title as it claimed. The words would be interchangeable, but that is with my own understanding/belief. When I read the myths, I don't think of the literal understanding of Demiurge, but of the Great Archon and the term being used as a (mistaken, self-applied) title. He is "Samael," after all.

It is certainly possible such a being could simply claim to be a creator.

Then to answer your question, I don't think a literal Demiurge figure is necessary, so much as what he represents (a "jailer" for lack of better words).

I do have to ponder on the Christ though, and his relationship to the mythical understanding I described earlier. In John, it says "Through him all things were made," not "by him." I think I read this from a commentary by Heracleon, but may be mistaken on the author. It could be the Christ, though indirectly, "influenced" the universe to be able to create vessels of the lost Light that would eventually be released back to the Monad/Pleroma. He wouldn't be a demiurge though, since it was only "through" and not "by."

Yes, there is that. But that is theology. To my knowledge, Christ himself never made such a claim (that we know of) so I'm not sure how to evaluate it.

And thank you for the links!

You're welcome!

 

[nazz]

From the first link:

"Like a prisoner in a pitch-black cell, we may never be able to see the 'walls' of our prison"

... Hello Gnosticism.

Indeed

 

[nazz]

You know just to shed a little more light on what the ancient Gnostics believed we know that they viewed this material world as inferior and even evil. Thus they could not see it as being the creation of a wholly good God. They had to pin it on someone and the demiurge of Platonic thought was a natural choice. Then they constructed a myth to explain how the demiurge came to be.

 

[ELoWolfe]

I certainly believe in a Demiurge as a literal entity. I just don't believe it is the creator of what I feel is a natural phenomenon from the separation of the Monad.

My question of literal interpretation wasn't whether or not there was an entity known as the Demiurge, but whether the world was literally created in six days, that the Demiurge literally created Adam from his own "hands," etc. Augustine, for one, didn't seem to believe it. "To suppose that God formed man from the dust with bodily hands is very childish. ...God neither formed man with bodily hands nor did he breathe upon him with throat and lips." (History of evolutionary thought - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) I know Augustine isn't a Gnostic, but he was taught in a Manichean frame before adopting Christianity. Considering there were still influential Christians who claimed scriptural proof for a flat Earth (despite the Greeks knowing it wasn't flat since the 6th century BCE), I question the idea that the Gnostics would have been so naive to see a literal formation of Adam, Eve, etc.

But in regard to whether they believed in the entity of Demiurge? Yes, I firmly believe they did. There is no disagreement there.

 

[nazz]

I certainly believe in a Demiurge as a literal entity. I just don't believe it is the creator of what I feel is a natural phenomenon from the separation of the Monad.

My question of literal interpretation wasn't whether or not there was an entity known as the Demiurge, but whether the world was literally created in six days, that the Demiurge literally created Adam from his own "hands," etc. Augustine, for one, didn't seem to believe it. "To suppose that God formed man from the dust with bodily hands is very childish. ...God neither formed man with bodily hands nor did he breathe upon him with throat and lips." (History of evolutionary thought - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) I know Augustine isn't a Gnostic, but he was taught in a Manichean frame before adopting Christianity. Considering there were still influential Christians who claimed scriptural proof for a flat Earth (despite the Greeks knowing it wasn't flat since the 6th century BCE), I question the idea that the Gnostics would have been so naive to see a literal formation of Adam, Eve, etc.

But in regard to whether they believed in the entity of Demiurge? Yes, I firmly believe they did. There is no disagreement there.

Ah, sorry for the misunderstanding then

 

[ELoWolfe]

Oh, no, that is fine. Don't worry about it. My fault for not clarifying.

 

[theosis]

I believe that the demiurge is nothing more than a mistaken concept and simplistic (theistic) conception of God that keeps us "chained" to organized orthodox religion.

The idea that some kind of divine entity specially created the Earth and humanity really needs to go if we are to grow theologically or attain gnosis (in my view). The demiurge keeps us chained to the world because he (or rather, the idea of him, as I don't believe he actually exists) is seen as creating the Earth for humanity.

I'm not really a Christian but I'll quote 2 Corinthians 4:4 :

In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Only once we cease to believe in the Zeus-like demiurge of the Bible can we begin to contemplate the Monad. The Monad is (probably?) ultimately unknowable so this is far less satisfying than believing in a comforting, intervening and human-like God.