If you're stuck in a browser frame - click here to view this same page in Quantonics!

Older                     Newer

Doug's Contemplation — Religion — Recommended Reading

See our 24Aug2007 aside and Judaic Timeline link. Our review of Gaffney's Gnostic Secrets of the Naassenes book has been moved to its own separate web page. Doug - 4Sep2008.

Recent update: 25-27,29,31Jan2009 - Add Tobias Churton's Gnostic Philosophy, a superb overview of gnosis and relevant topics and memes.
(Recent Doug update: 8Mar2009 see 'Jesus Christ as Anti Jesus.')

(18Jul2009 Doug update: Add 'Compare Gnostic Symbolism to Quantum' anchor under Churton-Crowley omniscussion just below. Add new links at that section too.)

(30Aug2009 rev - See 'Re Cancellation vav Negation' updated commentary.)

(6Oct2009 rev - Add three of Carlos Suares' textbooks as recommendations: Cipher of Genesis, Song of Songs, and Sepher Yetsira, AKA Qabala Trilogy.)

(2Apr2010 rev - Add commentary on Michael Baigent's narrative re James versus Jesus on gnosis versus 'christianity.')
See Doug's 15Sep2006 Partial Review
The Nag Hammadi Library's
The Gospel of Truth'

If you are just into "old time religion" and want a
great movie experience, we recommend

Babette's Feast

Philippa (Hanne Stensgaard) and Martina (Vibeke Hastrup) with Babette (Stéphane Audran) (1987)

Bethahavah found this and Doug is thankful for an opportunity to view it. Superb! Simply superb!


Timeline for the History of Judaism

In Doug's opinion, this is beyond excellent.

Find where Israel and Judah seceded. Recall Essene Gnostic Jesus is Beth David, tribe Judah.

Visit Bard's homepage for countless Judaic resources.

A huge issue for Doug: to what extent is Islam gnostic?

And, to what extent is Mohammed's Quran gnostic?

For assistance, please see:

World Spirituality

(search for <Islamic Gnosticism> there
Doug - 6Nov2006)

See Creedopedia for references to religious terms.

A quantum~pragmatic gn¤sticQ belief in G¤d says that "all is possible."

Compare that with antique 'catholicism' and 'protestantism' both of which adhere
Aquinas' Aristotelian dialectic which disables quantum~pragma.

Which do you believe? Is quantum~pragma better than its absence?

Doug - 29Apr2006.

QSee our Gnostic Update 2

William James in his Varieties of Religious Experience says this:

"...and this event [i.e., a spiritual epiphany] (as we shall abundantly see hereafter) is frequently sudden and automatic, and leaves on the Subject an impression that [s-]he has been wrought on by an external power.

"Whatever its ultimate significance may prove to be, this is certainly one fundamental form of human experience. Some say that the capacity or incapacity for it is what divides the religious [i.e., spiritual, pneumatic, elect,...] from the merely moralistic [i.e., "...the literal, the psychic, the called,..."] character. With those who undergo it in its fullness, no criticism avails to cast doubt on its reality. They know; for they have actually felt the higher powers, in giving up the tension of their personal will.

"A story which revivalist preachers often tell is that of a man who found himself at night slipping down the side of a precipice. At last he caught a branch which stopped his fall, and remained clinging to it in misery for hours. But finally his fingers had to loose their hold, and with a despairing farewell to life, he let himself drop. He fell just six inches. If he had given up the struggle earlier, his agony would have been spared. As the mother earth received him, so, the preachers tell us, will the everlasting arms receive us if we confide absolutely in them, and give up the hereditary habit of relying on our personal strength, with its precautions that cannot shelter and safeguards that never save.

"The mind-curers have given the widest scope to this sort of experience. They have demonstrated that a form of regeneration by relaxing, by letting go, psychologically indistinguishable from the Lutheran justification by faith and the Wesleyan acceptance of free grace, is within the reach of persons who have no conviction of sin and care nothing for the Lutheran theology. It is but giving your little private convulsive self a rest, and finding that a greater Self is there. The results, slow or sudden, or great or small, of the combined optimism and expectancy, the regenerative phenomena which ensue on the abandonment of effort, remain firm facts of human nature, no matter whether we adopt a theistic, a pantheistic-idealistic, or a medical-materialistic view of their ultimate causal explanation."1 Pages 110-111, 1st edition, June, 1902, VoRE.
Our brackets and color emphasis for quantum~gn¤sticism. James' parentheticals.

"1The theistic explanation is by divine grace, which creates a new nature within one the moment the old nature is sincerely given up. The pantheistic explanation (which is that of most mind-curers) is by the merging of the narrower private self into the wider or greater self [quantumly: "We are ihn It and It is ihn us."], the spirit of the universe (which is your own "subconscious" self), the moment the isolating barriers of mistrust and anxiety are removed. The medico-materialistic explanation is that simpler cerebral processes act more freely where they are left to act automatically by the shunting-out of physiologically (though in this instance not spiritually) "higher" ones which, seeking to regulate, only succeed in inhibiting results.-Whether this third explanation might, in a psycho-physical account of the universe, be combined with either of the others may be left an open question here."

James' footnote may be a most important of all footnotes in VoRE. It describes how societal affectors try to shunt out (SOM's blinders, SOM's wall) higher individual~intellectual~spiritual quantum processes. That folks, is Pirsig's MoQ: SQ attempting to turn off DQ by zeroing quantum h.

James, vividly, shows himself as a real quantum~Gn¤stic. Years ago Doug referred James as "Earth's founder of quantum psychology." Now we learn how he gathered qua to accomplish that: via his own individual quantum~gn¤sticism!

Yes, we agree, James' thelogos is abominable...

Doug - 6Aug2006.

Doug, on 13May2006 inserted, below, Elaine Pagels' The Gnostic Paul above NIV Bible. Why? Serious readers, having read Pagels carefully and quantumly
prior reading NIV Bible will vastly increase their interpretive and hermeneutic qua under Pagels' excellent (martus aritos) tutelage and exemplar.

Top Ten List of Suggested Quantum Religion Relevant Readings for Students of Quantonics

The Gnostic Paul - Doug has sought and sought another natural (physi, physei) quantum hermeneuticist (spiritually gn¤stic pneumatic) on Earth, and finally found her: Elaine H. Pagels! Amazing!

Latest updates, October, 2006 - Doug.

2. NIV Bible - Need to read entire New Testament. This was manufactured by Romans, especially Constantine and Irenaeus. It, in our view, perjures Jesus Christ, and Mohammed too.
3. Holy Blood Holy Grail - Concise evidence of Roman perjury against Jesus Christ.
4. Beyond Belief - by Elaine Pagels, see a few Doug excerpts with comments here, and here and here. Latest top ten recommendation by Doug - 4-5Jun2007.

If you care about what you believe, if you grasp depth and importance for you and your
self-image and -worth that you understand what you believe, n¤t just have 'faith' in what you believe,
we suggest you take some timings to be readings, initially, these three references, all by Elaine Pagels:

The Gnostic Paul, The Origin of Satan, and
The Gnostic Gospels.

In Pagels' The Gnostic Paul read Introduction and Chapter I, 'Romans,' first.
In Pagels' The Origin of Satan read first, Chapter VI titled 'The Enemy Within: Demonizing the Heretics,' then
in Pagels' The Gnostic Gospels read Chapter VI titled 'Self Knowledge as Knowledge of God,' plus her incredible 'Conclusion.'

If those readings do not put fire in your religious bellies you probably will not want to pursue, further, any of our other references.

See our quantum~novel, 2006 Recommended Readings below.

Doug - 5Feb2006, Top ten list and text above revised 13May2006 - PDR.

Voracious readers and students of Quantonics, allow us both beginnings via and endings...

From near end of David V. Barrett's Secret Societies - From the Ancient and Arcane to the Modern and Clandestine, 2000 reprint, Blandford, under his 'Coda,' on page 229:

" It seems appropriate to end this book with a quotation from a book by a leading Freemason of earlier this century, who in turn is quoting a myth from 'the East'. This, in allegorical form, is the starting point of the revelation at the heart of all secret societies with esoteric religious origins:

'From the wise lore of the East, Max Müller translated a parable which tells how the gods, having stolen from man his divinity, met in council to discuss where they should hide it. One suggested that it should be carried to the other side of the earth and buried; but it was pointed out that man is a great wanderer, and that he might find the lost treasure on the other side of the earth. Another proposed that it be dropped into the depths of the sea; but the same fear was expressed — that man, in his insatiable curiosity, might dive deep enough to find it even there. Finally, after a space of silence, the oldest and wisest of the gods said: 'Hide it in man himself, as that is the last place he will ever think to look for it!' And it was so agreed, all seeing at once the subtle and wise strategy. Man did wander over the earth, for ages, seeking in all places high and low, far and near, before he thought to look within himself for the divinity he sought. At last, slowly, dimly, he began to realise that what he thought was far off, hidden in 'the pathos of distance,' is nearer than the breath he breathes, even in his own heart.' " Latter quote from The Builders, by Joseph Fort Newton. Our bold.

Relevant quantons(n¤nfiction,fiction):

All Leonardo da Vinci biographies and art references

According to Kathleen McGowen, in her 2006 The Unexpected One, Da Vinci was a radical follower of John the Baptist. As such he hated Gn¤stic Jesus. All Baptists and countless others are, today, radical followers of John the Baptist. Please carefully omnistinguish Jesus' disciple John (whom we refer John~Mary) from John the Baptist. Latter saw Jesus as a heretic and sided with a similar Roman Catholic and subsequent Protestant anti-heretical and anti-gnostic view of that time which damned all of us with an invalid 'contemporary christianity.'

Prior reading McGowen, Doug viewed Da Vinci as potentially quantum~Gn¤stic. Isn't it strange what history does to one's own words and reputation? But Da Vinci didn't have www, did he? That time capsule is looking pretty valuable now, isn't it? Doug - 22Oct2007.

Breaking the Spell (BtS) - Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, by Daniel C. Dennett, 2006, Viking
Demons and Angels by Dan Brown, 2000, Illustrated Edition, Atria, 510 total pages
Rule of Four, by Caldwell & Thomason, Dial, 2004
The Da Vinci Code, by Dan Brown, 2004, Illustrated Edition, Doubleday, 467 total pages

See Doug's movie review of The Da Vinci Code.

In alphabetic, by title order with some brief precis in some cases (if we have done detail reviews links are shown):

Beyond Belief, by Elaine Pagels - Pagels is becoming one of Doug's sheroes. She sparkles. She is brilliant. Her perceptions are somehow innately quantum...what a blessing to have personal qua to omnistinguish gnostic topos' hierarchy and speak and write well at all three levels. Doug - 4Jun2007.

Chaldæan Oracles I & II, G. R. S. Mead translation and interpretation, Kessinger Photocopy, of an edition sometime after 1906...unsure...

Doug is gradually working his way through this. When one mixes this with a reasonably thorough self~teaching (autodidacticism) of quantum memes and memeos, one may not but commence fathoming and recognizing vast similarities in Chaldæan gnosis and what Doug now refers "Quantum Gn¤sis."

For us, personally, that is a credible benchmark for gnosis. What is gnosis? Simply, martus aritos wisdom. Hume's much desired archetectonic sapience. Evolution of individual pneumatic Chautauquas blending science, religion, philosophy, and metaphysics. Doug - 6Oct2007.

Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, by David Hume, our primary source here is 1948 Hafner Library copy with Introduction by Henry D. Aiken, multiple online public domain copies available (beware some original-text-altering privileges taken by some)

Fragments of a Faith Forgotten, G. R. S. Mead, Kessinger Photocopy, 1900, 1906, 1930 editions.

So far Doug is only sampling this. If you have little time we suggest you hook yourself on this one by reading its first ~50 pages and its last ~25 pages.

To Doug this shows a simple fact: at least 90% of all Christians' faith and belief have no support in religious and theosophic history! Most of us have been brain-washed with hogwash!

Another apparent fact: Gnosis is more 'Christian' than canontrived anti-Christian 'protestantism' and 'çatholiçism.' Irenæus acted in agency of dialectical evil. Doug - 6Oct2007.

Giordano Bruno - Mystic Martyr, by J. Lewis McIntyre, 1903, Kessinger photocopy reprint, 365 total pages including index

Giordano Bruno - And The Hermetic Tradition, by Frances A. Yates, 1964, 1979 reprint, 1991 paperback edition, UChicP, 466 total pages including Index

What is most important about this text Yates desnouers in her last chapter, XXI: Hermes Trismegistus is post Christian! Work was done by Isaac Casaubon between ~1590-1610. Casaubon's work, according to Yates, made it possible for dialectical (our word) 'progress' in science (The Enlightenment) and religion (ability to drive out magicists, alchemists, and metaphysicians) from then till now. Recall how Pope Clement VIII burned Giordano Bruno at stake in 1600. Doug -29May2006.

Gnostic Philosophy - From Ancient Persia to Modern Times, Tobias Churton, 2005.

If you want a broad, really broad brush, this is for you. Doug has been sampling this one off and on. Recently, Doug noticed that Churton's Gnostic Philosophy Chapter 11 is 'A new aeon, Aleister Crowley.'

This chapter is excellence beyond virtue: martus aritos.

Crowley is one of few whom Doug has read that fathomed depths fractally and recapitulatively. Crowley was able, had qua, to see Heinz Pagels' decoupled~value layers (Dreams of Reason) as confusers: one layer says this and next opposes, thence recapitulate. Fascinating. Fractal locks! Fractal gnostic keys! Esoteria. Gnostics get this. They dig this.

Churton is fabulous despite his own tendencies toward dialectic. If we take Crowley to a spiritual~intellectual limit, we find him pitching dialectic. Crowley says we need to dump classical reason and its attendant OSFA classical society and its vulgi opinio error. Crowley gets (grasps quintessentials of) quantum~uncertainty which is a rare thing CeodE 1904. Doug's use of "spiritual~intellectual limit" is comparable gn¤stic~topos' 'pneumatic~psychic limit.' Realize, though, how Doug's use of '~' is quantum REIMAR compared to semantically state-discordant '-' as a dialectically disjoint hyphen.

But Crowley, unless Churton made hermeneutic-transcription errors, blundered massively in his, "...identity of free will and determinism..." page 346 out of 463 total including index.

To make such an identity is inept unless one believes elemental identities can be antithetic one another. It's like Einstein claiming gravity and acceleration are identical. But gravity is a metameme of acceleration: acceleration is a 'symptom' of gravity, n¤t gravity itself. Similarly, free will is a metameme of determinism. Too, Churton has just shown us that Crowley had a key epiphany of real quantum~uncertainty. One may n¤t have strict dialectical determinism in a quantum~uncertain~reality. See p. 336. Too, Churton and Crowley appear to have similar semantic issues with 'providence.' See just below on same page. Fate and providence share massive n¤n metamemetic synonymity with strict determinism. Just above all this on p. 336 we hear Churton quoting Crowley's "....reason is a lie..." We would write it like this: "Dialectical reasoning is, in general, a classical deign to feign." You of gnostic qua grasp this as saying "Psychic-hylic thought is bogus." See our Topos Table under Elaine Pagels. It may be easier for you to grasp "...reason is a lie..." if you accept "...state is a lie..." Compare statement with more quantum~phasement. Doug.

Another annoying aspect of Crowley is his apparent lack of understanding 'Christ,' and 'Christianity' vis-à-vis Essene Jesus' own anti-Christian quantum~gn¤sis. See Gaffney and our review of his recent opus. Read Elaine Pagels' Johannine Gospels in Gnostic Exegesis, Introduction. Compare how 'Christianity' claims 'god' is separate from (Hæ~r own creation...) human~kind. Yet gn¤sis and Crowley (correctly) assume "G¤d is in humans and humans are in G¤d." Crowley actually views himself in a very tight yet tenuous holographic web of agency with a quantum~middle~including G¤d. For both Doug and Crowley this blows antignostic 'Christianity' away; discards it as so much faulty detritus. Now that's a blessing. And if you enjoy conspiracy theories we can offer the mother of all conspiracy theories:

Start - Mother of all conspiracy theories:

Doug has been doing a lot of research on ineptnesses of global society and our recent global financial meltdown as a tell of said extant social incompetency. In that effort Doug happened upon a (potentially hoax) paper labeled 'top secret.' Its title is Silent Weapons for a Quiet War. Doug found this paper reproduced nearly in full at under 'esoteric principles.' What Doug realized comparing Earth Societies' quiet war against individuals and their individual free wills is that there is actually a quiet war of individuals (as gnostics) against catholic dialectical society. So that potentially hoax paper may be a carefully constructed ruse by whomever composed it, but its real fable version of gnosis against a faulty social 'Christianity' describes what is actually happening. Doug wouldn't have thought about it this way, except when he told Beth about it, she asked, "Do you believe it is really happening?' It immediately dawned on me what 'our notion of' hoax says isn't happening, rather its complement is what is happening! What an insight. Gnosis failed at first due its openness. It went to silent running and now it is winning. For Doug this metaphor is so incredible and so is an epiphany epiphany of epiphanies. Quantum~Gnosis is silent weapons of massive and ubiquitous individual thoughts dissolving social, especially catholically-contrived 'christian' incompetencies. Most social believers who had large paper fortunes have been damaged almost irrevocably. Many individuals, especially gnostics, who saw how gold is real money, dodged societies' bullets of ineptness on this one. Young man who publishes is a gnostic even though he doesn't use that word. He is very bright, naturally perceives reality individually, and fathoms much of what societies have failed to grasp as OSFA religious monists. Spend some timings there. We offer a link on our index page, near top left. Doug - 25Jan2009.

End - Mother of all conspiracy theories.

Churton is a pretty good writer and he has countless other talents. He broaches topics Doug hasn't seen prior. Churton's Gnostic Philosophy text attends well David Wood's Genisis.

His coverage of Crowley will sensitize your own individual assessments of classical societies' massive failures which, borne of CeodE Bu()sh() disadministration, are now pandemic and on a verge of bringing down USA permanently. Who needs terrorists to destroy our nation when we have Republican't "Rule of Law" concrete "stux sux" conformists? A New World Order is looking more and more like An Old World Catastrophe. It is Doug's opinion that Cheney, Bush, their administration and adherents should be tried and hung for treason and high crimes against USA and Earth. Too, those of you fundamental evangelical nut cases and 'catholics' should realize how your 'christianity' and Mohammed's Islam Venn one another massively, plus both share dialectic taken to its Platonically ideal objective and formal dialectical extreme: almost entire hate-filled obliteration of Value and Goodness.

Begin 27Jan2009 Aside - compare Crowley to Essene Gn¤stic Jesus:

Regular readers and students of Essene-Naassene Gnosis will readily grasp how Pagels, et al., uncloaked Jesus' problems with his disciples. Two of them, John~Mary and Thomas understood Jesus' pneuma. Ten others could only hear Jesus' words hylically and at best hylically-psychically.

This is at issue here since Crowley and Jesus omnisagree on a major point of real quantum~gn¤sis.

When ten of Jesus' disciples kept asking him, "Lord, what shall we do?" — this query horrified Jesus. Pagels made this clear for Doug. Why did it horrify Jesus? We is a social pronoun. Gn¤sis expects us to view reality more like this, "Lord, what shall I (as a gnostic individual) do?" Jesus' gnostic pneuma teaches us that social thing-king as we is Error! Of course, Jesus' fabulous response is "Do n¤t do what you hate." See Thomas Gospel number six. Refer Pagels below...

Now let's go to page 340 of Churton's Gnostic Philosophy and compare Jesus' mandate to Crowley's, "Do what thou wilt." Of course social organization is one of those potential outcomes if one adheres Crowley's edict. Thou clearly is ambiguous here: individual vis-à-vis society. Actually Crowley called it "The Law:" a social implicit. OSFA social Law: again, Error! Might just as well be a communal, social, totalitarian, The Law, universal, OSFA 'c a t h o l i c.' Argh! Neandertalibanic social-latrinized bat scat. Ugh! Victorian protestant-catholic socially-porcelainized coprolytics. Choke! New Testament psychic-hylic-ceramics.

Try some pneumatic~maneuverings. Study gnosis.

This shows Doug that Crowley got ever so close, but didn't quite arrive at being what Doug would refer, "a gn¤stic."

If you study Crowley more closely though, you will hear him saying, "God is in each of us, uniquely and individually, n¤ two of us is same, and we all have individual gnostic roles to play in our assisting spirit to create our world." Sort of like a huge guitar with a string to pluck for every individual: we, as gnostics, must pluck our own string to best of our individual qua. Imagine all guitar strings as holographic energy~wellings... You may choose to see how that is entirely antithetical any OSFA, 'c a t h o l i c' social order. However, it agrees with Mae-wan Ho's quanton(coherence,autonomy). Good~ole guitar and violin metaphors fabulize wonderfully.

End 27Jan2009 Aside - compare Crowley to Essene Gn¤stic Jesus.

Begin 31Jan2009-2Feb2009 Aside - Compare some Gn¤stic Symbolism to Quantum:

During Doug's perusal of Churton's descriptions of Aleister Crowley's opus, Doug found that what Crowley and his brand of gnostics thought of as fire and energy are strongly related to sexuality. A symbol used is called "shin,' which means fire, energy, and elixir.

If you study Quantonics' Symbols, you will see that:

quantum~energy issi nih. Usually shown as Nih. (Compare issi and Isis.)

If we add an 's' after 'h' we have nihs. ('S' can be taken as ophitic. It can open its mouth and eat its tail: hermaphroditic self~reference, recursion, and recapitulation. It can be taken as Tao's 'The Way,' and quantum's The Wayve.)

If we reverse nihs we have:

quantum~fire issi shin.

Quantumists may view quantum~fire as light (Essene Jesus' logos') pneumatic~pragma, spiritual~action, individual will as impetus for pragma to "do as you will." (An implicit here: "Do n¤t do society's will!") Brick-brained ruler-led society cannot contend with this massively heterogeneous individualism.

Churton writes this, "It is the unrestrained Apollonian total-control, total-order, total-law states that have generated the greatest evil. The worst murderers have been found to be cool, orderly, calm, often distinguished by the ice of intellect that has frozen out the Love under Will that is according to Aleister Crowley, the agent of the world's salvation." This kind of society as Churton describes it, is observably sociopathic. Deadly to itself. You may of late observe that USA under GW Bu()sh() was headed toward systemic sociopathy. We must excise all Apollonians. Individual will is our quiet war's silent weapon. Use it! Doug.

(For your consideration, Doug offers nihsshin. We have 'issi' with h-bars encapsulated in 'n.' Now reinterpret Isis and Genisis. OS. Osiris. Qua. Aqua. Arcadia.)

Doug would exalt stonic hermaphroditic grail like this:

quantum~grail issi hin.

We can show that as:

ophitic quantum~grail issi Yhin.

Doug assumes that I-Ching's Tao is adequate to show energy recursion and recapitulation quantumly as REIMAR.

You may, then, choose to grasp how gnosis lies at quantum~reality's very core of hermaphroditic isoflux becoming hermaphroditic flux becoming both hermaphroditic and aneuploidal~haploidal fermionic~bosonic biology.

End 31Jan2009-2Feb2009 Aside - Compare some Gn¤stic Symbolism to Quantum.

Thank you for reading. Doug - 25-27.29,31Jan2009.

Gnostic Secrets of the Naassenes, by Mark H. Gaffney, Inner Traditions, 2004.

Gnosticism, by Stephan A. Hoeller, Quest Books, 2002. Stephan has some great audio on his website, and if Doug recalls well, he has a gnostic church in USA's great North West...

Doug has been sampling this text.

A favorite topic which glues Doug's attention is Sophia. One of Hoeller's subtitles is 'What became of Sophia?' It is excellent reading since it makes so many nexi. A favorite nexus of Doug's is Sophia and Judaic Kabbalism. Hoeller comments on Gershom Scholem's Kabbalah calling Kabbalists "Jewish Gnostics." Too, for Doug, homo Sapiens has always held special meaning: especially sapien as 'oil,' and 'wisdom.' Hoeller suggests that Latin sapienta means Sophia. So, at least for Doug, we might refer homo Sapiens as homo Sophia. Try these also: homo Logos, homo Light, homo Jesus, homo Allah, homo Buddha, etc. Put that in a glimmer of quantum~wisdom as hermeneutic, heterogeneous, animate, and middle~included. It immerses those of us who grasp that, Ihn Quantum Lightings™!

Sadly, c a t h o l i c s have bastardized Sophia as 'mother Mary,' and individualist Essene Gnostic Jesus as an Roman social anti-Essene, anti-Gnostic 'c h r i s t i a n' messianic abomination. P r o t e s t a n t s pretty much (actually do n¤t protest much) follow suit. To Doug 'c a t h o l i c s' and 'p r o t e s t a n t s' worship an anti-christ. Doug favors Essene Gnostic Jesus, and refers as quantum~Jesus. Quantum~Jesus is about individualism, especially individual liberty, especially individual liberty from social hegemony. Roman Jesus is about political society. For Doug, individuals (who know and understand that they are individuals) are adept. For Doug, societies who diminish individuals below society are inept, profoundly inept. Individualism suggests MSFA. Socialism suggests OSFA. Doug's quantum~essence. Pirsig's MoQ essence. I is above we! N¤ society is sovereign any individual: J. S. Mill. Extraordinary sense is always above consensus: vulgi opinio Error! See our QELR of consensus.

"Today, as before, Sophia remains the great prototype of our exiled and alienated human condition. The term alien has taken on a new color in present-day culture. The pseudo mythology of the: television screen, based on science fiction, has defined alien for us as a usually menacing visitor from a distant planetary system. Even so, the image of the exile, or the alien, finds resonance in many minds and hearts. Not only is the phenomenon of exile prominently present in our world, but many who have never left the geography of their native land feel themselves as strangers not only in a strange land but in an alien world." Page 53 of Hoeller's Gnosticism, Sophia: Gnostic Archetype of Feminine Wisdom, Quest Books 2002 paperback.

Doug likes this quote of Hoeller. It reflects how Doug feels. Doug is an alien in his own society, his own country, his own world. USA has become anathema to nearly all Doug believes. Our society is incompetent. Bush and his administration are grossly incompetent. Congress in almost every sense of 'incompetence' is. Last (2006) November's election hints that Doug is n¤t alone. If you think that was something, watch out. In Doug's view a massive revolution is imminent... Doug believes USA folk have almost 'had it' with social incompetence, corruption, lying and confiscation of individual wealth for purposes of war, and imperial social hegemony. We, as quantum~ensemble gn¤stic individuals, have only one sovereign: gn¤stic pneuma, and that's it!

Doug 7-8Jun2007.

You may recall that Doug's first response to AH back in 2002 on Buddhism referred Edward Conze. Hoeller refers Conze too on page 180 of this text. We like this reference since Hoeller has gone to some effort to extract as many of Conze's comparisons of Buddhism and Gnosticism as he could find. Hoeller prepares this list for us which is scrumptious:

Hoeller's quote-paraphrasings of Edward Conze

Doug's analogues of Stephan Hoeller's paraphrasings
  • Salvation is achieved through gnosis (jñana). Insight into the dependent origination of manifest existence is what liberates.
  • Redemption is achieved through individual Essene Quantum Gn¤sis. Understanding quantum reality's animate EIMA incipient holographicity is what liberates.
  • Ignorance is the true root of evil; in Gnosticism it is called agnosis, and in Buddhism, avidya.
  • We mostly agree with this one. However there are more holographic spawn of Conze's words which bear omniscussion. For example if one is to deeply understand oneself well, one may simply n¤t be ignorant. So those of us who wish to individually enhance self understanding, according Gn¤sis, must pursue rhetorical sophism in order to middle~include Sophia. When we middle~include Sophia, she will help us in ways we knew naught prior. Doug's quantum analogue of Gn¤stic pursuit of Sophia, is Tapping Into Reserve Energy.

    It is well to observe how those (social organizations: nations, states, unions, academies, religious institutions, etc.) who want to control you and control what you think, absolutely despise any of your individual efforts to middle~include Sophia.

    What is problematic here, is that learning how to middle~include Sophia takes years of concentrated work, so you may want to just stay dumb and play your SaS-ERP role of a Dennettian-Humean "helpless, individually-irresponsible innocent."

    Doug - 14Jun2007.
  • Both Gnostic and Buddhist knowledge are arrived at not by ordinary means but as the result of interior revelation.
  • Quantum~gn¤stic individualism requires extraordinary qua from those who pursue it.
  • There are levels of spiritual attainment, ranging from the condition of a foolish materialist (hyletic) to that of an illumined saint (pneumatic).
  • Our analogue here is a ontological Gn¤stic topos of SOM (hylic), CR (psychic), MoQ (individual middle~inclusion of pneuma). See our SOM, CR, and MoQ Philosophical comparison table.
  • In both Gnosticism and Buddhism, the feminine principle of wisdom (Sophia and Prajña, respectively) plays an important role. Conze quotes the Hevajra Tantra: "Prajña is called Mother, because she gives birth to the world." There are other deities in Buddhism that may be cognate to Sophia, such as Tara and Kwan Yin.
  • In Quantonics a simple aspect of Sophia, of Gn¤sis is acceptance of Pirsig's DQ as actuality's quantum~complement. Doug says, "If you grasp that, you have bases of wisdom." In Pirsig's MoQ then we can show reality as quanton(DQ,SQ). Buddha would use gn¤sis to say then, "DQ is mother of SQ." Quantumly we can say a dual that, "N¤nactuality is mother of all actualities."
  • Both Gnosticism and Buddhism show a preference for myth over fact. Christ as well as Buddha are presented as archetypal beings rather than merely historical figures.
  • Myth over fact is a gn¤stic dual of Pirsig's Value over truth. Bergson claims quality above quantity, which is another dual. We can also say subjective reality is above and subsuming objective reality where latter is only an illusion borne on adiabatic quantum~fermionic~wobble.

    Christ as Jesus meaning "Light, Logos, Flux, etc.," then is pneuma itself. Pneuma may exhibit selfings holographically as phase~ihnterrelati¤nshipngs.

    We can make similar remarks re: Mohammed, Buddha, Bodhisattva, Sophia, Allah, God, etc.
  • A tendency to antinomianism (disregard for rules and commandments) is inherent in both systems. While at the lower rungs of the spiritual ladder, rules of behavior are considered important and even crucial, in exalted spiritual state the importance of such rules becomes relative.
  • Simply "rules is tules for fules," and "rools is tools for fools," since rules and rools are classically stopped, state-ic, and immutable. Any canon which cann¤t evolve is a extinct canon. Hylics and psychics like to use canon 'law' to control others who have been brainwashed into bourgeois 'çatholiç' tragedy of commons sense fascist social putatives.

    "Get on this train! We only want to take you for a (oven) ride."

    G. R. S. Mead, translator of The Chaldæan Oracles I & II, near end of Oracles I says, "Principle rules something not itself." Principle is essence of societal hegemony. Mead's "...other rules something not itself..." is his own personal recognition of SOM's hylic-psychic social walls as 'principles.' Recall Pirsig's warnings regarding social Value as a defense against biological Value. Gnosis has been telling us that individual Value, as grasping quantum Gn¤stic~Jesuit~Essene~ce of individual-pneuma, reigns social-psychic Value which reigns biological-hylic Value which reigns atomic Value. For MoQ detail of this elegant Pirsigean Value topos see our 2003-2004 Feuilleton first installment.

    ©Quantonics, Inc., 2007-2010
    pneumatic MoQ individual
    psychic CR social
    hylic SOM biological

    ©Quantonics, Inc., 2007-2010

    Doug - 20Aug2007.
  • Both systems are disdainful of easy popularity and aim their teachings to a spiritual elite. Hidden meanings and mysterious teachings are prevalent in both systems.
  • Agree. However, Doug senses that many formerly n¤n elite, want spiritual ascendance. Doug believes quantum tutelage can assist. Doug believes Millennium III is an Quantum Age of bourgeois ascendancy.

    So many people Beth and Doug are acquainted with, are seeking spiritual (not 'religious') change in their lives. For us, this is t¤ward bættær, t¤ward G¤¤d!
  • Both Gnosticism and Buddhism are metaphysically monistic, which means that they aspire to transcend the multiplicity of manifest things and achieve a condition of ultimate oneness.
  • O'gadons may recall that Pirsig said his MoQ's DQ is a monism. And that Bergson called his analogue of DQ a pluralism. Pirsig also said, "All schools are right." Quantum reality shows us that both of them are right. Quantum reality is a quanton(quanton(monism,pluralism),quanton(pluralism,monism)). If you grasp that, O'gadon, Doug would say that "You are Gn¤stically Enlightened, indeed, "You are Ihn Quantum Lihghtings™."

    Quantonics teaches us to aspire to quantum~straddle both n¤nactuality and actuality in our durational processings of livings. Said straddling is what Doug intends by, quanton(quanton(monism,pluralism),quanton(pluralism,monism)), which we may qualitatively depict as, quanton(quanton(Pirsig's_DQ,Pirsig's_SQ),quanton(Bergson's_Multiplicity,Bergson's_Spatial_Extensity)). See Doug's web page on Pirsig vav Bergson on Monism vav Pluralism. See our Bergsonian duration graphics.

    A great enabler, for gn¤stic~individuals, in n¤n objectively grasping semantics of h¤lism is quantum coherence. Quantum reality composes four memeos: isocoherence, coherence, decoherence, and mixtures of those. Hylics and psychics only fathom material notions of that reality: decoherence (fermions). Pneumatics develop qua to own all four as quantum~gn¤stic~Sophia. Also see cohera and entropa. (Recall gnostic topos: pneumatic (top, an individual elect), psychic (middle, socially called), hylic(bottom, social materialists).)

    Readers should be keenly aware that isoflux and its isocoherence are n¤t only immeasurable in any classical way (they are n¤n mechanical), they are insensible. We may only infer their reality via indirection of their animate affectings in actuality. This appears really inane at first blush. However, it is quintessentially quantum~elegant! It explains quantum~absence and quantum~partial~yet~unseen~presence of temperature (classically known as 'absolute zero'), and then by quantum~inference: absence of: space, time, mass, and gravity. Is that a "Wow?" See partiality.

    Doug - red text added and several typos corrected, 17Jun2007.

Similar to that table above, Hoeller offers another list which describes (he says, "defines") what it means to be a Gnostic. This list has 14 items in it, and we precede it with two of Hoeller's introductory paragraphs. We follow it with two more closure paragraphs. See pp. 187-190 of Hoeller's Gnosticism. Each of these paragraphs have remarks which need further commentary in light of Pirsig's MoQ and Doug's Quantum~Quantonics. See just after this table and subsequent two closure paragraphs for detail.

"The search for definitions is never easy, particularly in the social sciences. In these disciplines much attention must be given to the historical Context in which beliefs and actions unfold. Crucial differences and similarities in nuance, tone, and subtlety of mood are more important here than hard and fast definitions. The debate about Gnosticism, it would seem, turns on such fine points, and it may well be that not much can be resolved by a definition. Nevertheless, the present chaos surrounding definitions of Gnosticism warrants an attempt.

"To understand Gnosticism, writes Hans Jonas, one needs something much like a musical ear. This kind of inner sensitivity is indeed more important than any set of definitions could ever be. Still the nature of the ego-involved mind requires definitions and is uneasy without them. Real gnosis, of course, is not concerned with definitions. It is only when the impact of the Gnostic experience fades that one might even consider the task. The great translator G. R. S. Mead said it well when he wrote: "The illuminated soul that quits its prison house, to bathe in the light of infinitude, can only recollect flashes of the Vision Glorious once it returns again to earth" (Simon Magus, 49). The following itemized summary of gnostic recognitions should therefore be viewed as a compendium of such "flashes of the Vision Glorious" rather than as a statement of religious tenets in the conventional mode:"

Hoeller's 14 'Definitions' of Gnosticism

Doug's Quantum Descriptive Analogues of Stephan Hoeller's 'Definitions'
1. There is an original and transcendental spiritual unity from which emanated a vast manifestation of pluralities.

This agrees with Pirsig's quanton(DQ,SQ) as quanton(monism,pluralism). Observe how it omnisagrees with Bergson's quanton(vast_multiplicities,spatial_extensity) as quanton(pluralism,monism).

Further, ponder how Quantonics improves on all three (i.e., Gnosis, Pirsig, and Bergson) via a BAWAM of


Notice our quanton's comma~nospace. It represents quantum reality's included~middle.

If we look at Hoeller's first definition classically, we see a

dichon(spiritual_unity, manifested_pluralities).

In Quantonics this is problematic. That comma nospace represents an excluded-middle: SOM's Wall.

What that classicism imposes is an either-or on either spirit or manifest plurality. No straddling allowed!

Our quantum Quantonics view enables straddling, a both~and of spirit and material whose middles are inclusive and everywhere associative. Obtain: this both~and is close kin of Pirsig's version of quantum~complementarity, paraphrased, "...body is in mind, and mind is in body...without contradiction..." Compare it to Essene Jesus 'Farewell Discourse' (John~Mary) remarks to his disciples, "...I am in you and you are in me...I am in God and God is in me...therefore God is in you..." and following Pirsig, "...without contradiction, without dialectic..." From Old Testament we read of Adam. In Autiot Adam is literally A~dam, "Aleph in blood." Ditto, i.e., "God is in blood.". Doug - 20Nov2012.

More, our approach offers a both~and of quantum~coherence and local~individual~autonomy.

2. The manifest universe of matter and mind was created not by the original spiritual unity but by spiritual beings possessing inferior powers.

Doug must honestly disclaim his historical credentials here.

We can offer an omnisaffirmation using what we understand about quantum~reality, however. Actuality, in terms of quantum flux, is positive. Ideal classical notions of dialectical, mechanical negation are bogus. See Bergson's "Negation is subjective." See Doug's QELR of 'cancel.' 20Nov2012 - Doug.

But we can take Hoeller's use of 'inferior' as 'worse,' n¤t better.

Given those caveats, Doug simply does n¤t fathom whether this second 'definition' is better or worse. Our view is that quantum~n¤nactuality creatio vivo ex nihilo. Quantum sciences' QCD affirms this, at least for Doug. See our fuzzons to fermion onta.

3. One of the objectives of these creators is the perpetual separation of humans from the unity (God).

This is a clear phasement that dialectic predominates among spiritual leaders who would hegemonously 'lead.' But Gn¤stic Jesus said, paraphrased, "Those who would be lord must serve." Find a gram of hegemony in that.

Elaine Pagels shows us that Jesus put individual freedom above social hegemony. See a 2005 movie titled Sophie (Magdalena) Scholl - and the White Rose. Shows vividly how similar 1942-3 Nazi Germany and George W. Bu()sh()'s USA 2000-2008 are today.

Anyone who tries to make you into that which you are n¤t is your enemy. Naziism: "The people make the state." Mussolini: "The state makes the people."

No, dear readers and students, individuals make themselves, according their personal understandings of themselves. Those who allow society and culture and religion and science to make them are just and only SAS-ERPs!

Notice how catholics and protestants have said that social canon is above individual freedom. Bu()sh()! Doug - 20Jun2007.

4. The human being is a composite: the outer aspect is the handiwork of the inferior creators, while the inner aspect is a fallen spark of the ultimate divine unity.

Again, Doug's ignorance puts him at a disadvantage here. But usually what Hoeller describes we would show as dichon(inner, outer). We believe we can make that better via quanton(inner,outer). See Carl G. Jung's remarks in his Red Book on introversion, extr[ao]version, conscious, subconscious, and unconscious. Doug - 20Nov2012.

However, when we view outer as 'social, and material-hylic,' and we view inner as 'individual, and pneumatic~spiritual,' number 4 suddenly enlightens as a kind of Jesuit gn¤sticism, doesn't it? Doug - 23Jun2007.

5. The sparks of transcendental holiness slumber in their material and mental prison, their self-awareness stupefied by the forces of materiality and mind.

Doug sees this as affirmation of his response to number 4.

Now just do this: realize that "...their material and mental prison, their self-awareness stupefied by the forces of materiality and mind." is dialectic!

Doug - 20Jun2007.

6. The slumbering sparks have not been abandoned by the ultimate unity; rather, a constant effort directed toward their awakening and liberation comes forth from this unity. This is As Good As It Gets! This one describes quanton(DQ,SQ)! WowMom!
7. The awakening of the inmost divine essence in humans comes through salvific knowledge, called "gnosis."

Doug would only change one word to a phrase: self~salvific.

Classically, too, 'knowledge' is a state-ic know ledge. Quantum~wisdom issi animate, EIMA, and thus quantum~holographic c¤mplementary and coobsfective interrelationshipings.

8. Gnosis is not brought about by belief or by the performance of virtual deeds or by obedience to commandments; these at best serve to prepare one for liberating knowledge.

Doug wishes that this be expressed in its n¤n negative complementings.

What is quite evident in these words, though, is how their author achieves an enlightenment that most 'belief' is actually 'running on automatic,' blindly, somnambulantly, like hive-drone automata following canonic and dogmatic social doctrine. In Doug's view not just religionists do this, scientists do too. See Dennett on 'belief.' Dennett allows experts to do his thing-king for him so that he doesn't have to thingk and thus he can run on automatic. Dennett finds that admirable behavior. Doug - 23Jun2007.

9. Among those aiding the slumbering sparks, a particular position of honor and importance belongs to a feminine emanation of the unity, Sophia (Wisdom). She was involved in the creation of the world order and ever since has remained the guide of her orphaned human children.

Doug, personally, has been aware of this since he was a child. Humanity's masculine side is objectively corrupt and materialistically driven. Male method, almost always, is deceit.

Since Doug commenced a marginal grasp of Sophia, his personal life experiences improved dramatically. Doug's proto learning came from his readings and rereadings of Pirsig's ZMM and Lila. Jean Auel's Cave Bear Clan series helped a lot. Doug began to see how phony Parmenides, Plato and Aristotle really are. Their male dialectic is bunk, bat scat, snake scat.

To Doug's great fortune, he now lives with an 'old soul,' and to him she is a 'sacred feminine,' a vestige of Sophia. Best of all, Doug has learned that Sophia is a quantum~being.

Even better, Gn¤stic Jesus is quantum Light, the Logos. Qualogos! And this is really strange: all of those words carry an implicit semantic of Sophia. And Pirsig's Quality issi Sophia!

Sadly, nearly all of Earth's people, many more than six billion, do n¤t standunder what Doug just wrote!

10. From the earliest times of history, messengers of Light have been sent forth from the ultimate unity for the purpose of advancing gnosis in the souls of humans.

For Doug this is an near-term ultimate goal for humanity.

A requisite step for Doug is to take politics quantum...Contemporary 'religion' is just and simply lost in a detention center of dialectic. Doug - 21Jun2007.

11. The greatest of these messengers in our historical and geographical matrix was the descended Logos of God manifest in Jesus Christ.

Agree. However, Mohammed may too be a Gn¤stic. We need to fathom how that may be so. Surely, Mohammed was one of "these messengers." And Gandhi. Etc. Doug - 21Jun2007.

O'gadons should lucidly realise that Essene Jesus (quantum~gn¤stic Jesus) called people like Peter "Satan" for calling Jesus "the Christ." Jesuit Gnostics understand implicitly that 'Jesus Christ' is actually 'the anti-Christ' invented by Roman C a t h o l i c s' originally by Irenæus, Constantine and Hippolytus. The Christ means in Roman Catholic lingo, "The Manager," "The Social Manager." Essene Gn¤stic Jesus said, "Those who would be Lord shall (must) serve." That says any society isn't sovereign any individual, and to claim such sovereignty is to be an "Anti Essene Jesuit." It is interesting how most of us think of Christ as equal Jesus, but Essene Jesus disclaimed that classical notion. Now we are placed in a position of having to call "the Christ," realistically "the demiurge," AKA 'dead-Father.' We have a genuine dilemma emerging from Romans' 'christian' dialectification.' Roman Catholics, et al., need society as a means of controlling individuals. Much of chaos we see at Millennium III's beginning is about individuals' annihilation of classical OSFA-social society and replacement of it with a gnostic quantum~society. Essene Jesus would have called classical socialism, "Profound dialectical Error!" Dialectical socialism is sociopathic. It destroys self and society, both socially and individually. Thinkq about it! Socialism is an opiate of classical mind. (Recall both Lenin and Marx as 'socialists.' Dumbass socialists!) Doug - 8,31Mar2009. Add 'dumbass' link to acronyms.

12. Jesus exercised a twofold ministry: he was a teacher, imparting instruction concerning the way of gnosis; and he was a hierophant, imparting mysteries. Agree.
13. The mysteries imparted by Jesus (which are also known as sacraments) are mighty aids toward gnosis and have been entrusted by him to his apostles and their successors.

From Doug's view if 'apostles' as used here relates papal apostleship, this is bogus. Jesus, in Doug's view, never intended a patriarchal papacy, especially one immersed and drowning in Aquinian-Aristotelian dialectic. A pope as 'apostle' is male fraud, clear and simple Voltairean "first divine was first rogue who met first fool" male fraud. Pope as 'apostle' is pure and simple male-fraudulent dope-roping. Doug's opinions. N¤t the opinions.

We should throw away 'apostle,' and adopt disciple as a semantic for those 12 who originally followed Jesus. There have n¤t been any disciples since those 12 originals, in Doug's opinion!

Also, be keenly aware that 10 of those disciples were hylic at worst and psychic at best. Only two, John-Mary and Didymos Thomas (the twin) could understand Jesus' pneuma. Jesus chastised other 10 for their dialectical and detrite funda mentalisms. Other 10 were childishly jealous of John-Mary's and Didymos' pneumatic quantum stages.

14. Through the spiritual practice of the mysteries (sacraments) and a relentless and uncompromising striving for gnosis, humans can steadily advance toward liberation from all confinement, material and otherwise. The ultimate objective of this process of liberation is the achievement of salvific knowledge and with it, freedom from embodied existence and return to the ultimate unity.

Doug believes this and has partially experienced this. It is MoQ Goodness.

Thank you for reading our commentary on Hoeller's, et al's., 14 'definitions' of Gnosis.

Doug - 21Jun2007.

"Noted sociologist Max Weber wrote in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism that "the perfect conceptual definition cannot stand at the beginning, but must be left until the end of the inquiry." It is therefore fitting that we consider this definition toward the end of this Inquiry. Whether these points can aspire to anything like Weber's "perfect conceptual definition" is questionable. Still, they are in general historically accurate and terminologically definite, which is more than much of the current literature, academic or popular, offers. Distinctions like "orthodox gnosis" and "apostolic gnosis" have been avoided here, as well as categories like "false Gnostics" and "authentic Gnostics." Such judgments are made on the basis of orthodoxies that were never relevant to Gnostics or to Gnosticism.

"Certainly, the fourteen points offered here have all been part of the Gnostic tradition and have been espoused by Gnostics at one time or another. At least the first ten of the fourteen points may be considered wholly authoritative, even in a non-Christian Gnostic sense, and thus the absence of any of them from a person's worldview might disqualify him or her as Gnostic. Gnostics, when they stand up to identify themselves, would have to agree to the majority of these tenets, but whether the interpretation of them would be literal, psychological, philosophical, or other must be left to the individual."

Doug's detail remarks on Hoeller's four Gnostic 'Definition' paragraphs (see our bold color codes):

"The search for definitions is never easy, particularly in the social sciences. In these disciplines much attention must be given to the historical Context in which beliefs and actions unfold. Crucial differences and similarities in nuance, tone, and subtlety of mood are more important here than hard and fast definitions. The debate about Gnosticism, it would seem, turns on such fine points, and it may well be that not much can be resolved by a definition. Nevertheless, the present chaos surrounding definitions of Gnosticism warrants an attempt.

Doug reminds our readers and students of what happens to partials of reality when we attempt to 'define' them. When we 'define' any meme, we remove its Quality! It is that simple!

Why? Definition by classical dialectical canon puts that which is 'defined' in a intellectual straight-jacket, a mental prison, a detention center of classical mind. Classical definitions are Ockhamistically minimized, severing all qualitative nuance from that which is defined. Classicists thingk this makes understanding simpler. They are wr¤ng!

Quantum simplification, to make partials of reality easier to understand require more nexi, n¤t fewer. "Doug! That doesn't make sense!"

Then you are a classicist! You are in a rote tote manufactured process of making yourself — and all your companions who agree with you — extinct!

"But, but, but,..., Doug, how am I making myself extinct?"

You view self and all else as objective. Quantum~reality says you are h¤l¤graphic, n¤nobjective! Holograms clarify and simplify selves by making more nexi with all they have qua to make nexi with. All those nexi can be qualitatively described. None of them can be dialectically, objectively, mechanically, formally, quantitatively, scalarbatively 'defined.' Doug - 20Jun2007.

"To understand Gnosticism, writes Hans Jonas, one needs something much like a musical ear. This kind of inner sensitivity is indeed more important than any set of definitions could ever be. Still the nature of the ego-involved [classical, formal, scalarbative, mechanical, dialectical] mind requires definitions and is uneasy without them. Real gnosis, of course, is not concerned with definitions. It is only when the impact of the Gnostic experience fades that one might even consider the task. The great translator G. R. S. Mead said it well when he wrote: "The illuminated soul that quits its prison house, to bathe in the light of infinitude, can only recollect flashes of the Vision Glorious once it returns again to earth" (Simon Magus, 49). The following itemized summary of gnostic recognitions should therefore be viewed as a compendium of such "flashes of the Vision Glorious" rather than as a statement of religious tenets in the conventional mode:" (Doug's brackets, bold and color.)

Doug's main concern with that prior paragraph is highlighted in bold red:

Again, we return to Pirsig. Listen to Doug speak a two minute segment of audio from his presentation at Loyola.

Hoeller's red bold highlighted text and his quote of G. R. S. Mead express how classicists, antignostics-agnostics turn animate quantum~Quality into classical quantity and dialectically refer it as 'definition.' They move quantum~flux's Light into a dark 'prison house' of chain-bound 'state-icity,' and concrete stuckness.

What Doug wants you to grasp here is that classicists turn DQ into SQ and then commence believing SQ is reality. They divorce SQ from DQ and call it reality. They excommunicate Quality from reality. Doug - 20Jun2007.

<Hoeller's list of 14 Gnostic 'definitions' table appears just above>

"Noted sociologist Max Weber wrote in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism that "the perfect conceptual definition cannot stand at the beginning, but must be left until the end of the inquiry." It is therefore fitting that we consider this definition toward the end of this Inquiry. Whether these points can aspire to anything like Weber's "perfect conceptual definition" is questionable. Still, they are in general historically accurate and terminologically definite, which is more than much of the current literature, academic or popular, offers. Distinctions like "orthodox gnosis" and "apostolic gnosis" have been avoided here, as well as categories like "false Gnostics" and "authentic Gnostics." Such judgments are made on the basis of orthodoxies that were never relevant to Gnostics or to Gnosticism.

Hoeller does a marvelous job here, especially his last sentence which Doug highlights in green bold.

His quote-marked dyads are all simply oxymora borne on shallow and tiny, naïve and local minds of dialectical SOMwits.

"Certainly, the fourteen points offered here have all been part of the Gnostic tradition and have been espoused by Gnostics at one time or another. At least the first ten of the fourteen points may be considered wholly authoritative, even in a non-Christian Gnostic sense, and thus the absence of any of them from a person's worldview might disqualify him or her as Gnostic. Gnostics, when they stand up to identify themselves, would have to agree to the majority of these tenets, but whether the interpretation of them would be literal, psychological, philosophical, or other must be left to the individual."

Doug would only add here that all quantumists, all quantum~gn¤stics should be able to read, speak, and write at all three levels of Gn¤sis' topos: pneumatic, psychic, and hylic.

Doug - 20Jun2007.

Hope you find this helpful.

Thank you for reading, listening, and studying.

Doug 14-19Jun2007.

Holy Blood Holy Grail, (HBHG,) by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln, J. Cape, Ltd 1982, Delta, 2004.

Just superb! Need to read it several times though and take ample notes.

Catholics beware!!! Anti Gnostics beware! Anti hereticists beware! (Flock ignorance AKA "ex cathedra prescribed 'faith'" is hell and we won't tolerate it anymore, period! Flock detention and 'orthodox' dogmatic intellectual and pedophilic abuse and rape is hell and we won't tolerate it anymore, period!)

Quantum Individualists are on an epochal rise, so beware all 'orthodox' hegemons, dogmatists, provincialists, parochialists, dialectical polemicists,...

Hypnerotomachia Poliphili - Fully Illustrated, by Francesco Colonna, Tr. Joscelyn Godwin, 1999, Thames & Hudson, 475 total pages including four appendices.

Johnny Depp mention in The Ninth Gate video; Depp said, naming protagonist - not title, "Hypnerotomachia Poliphilo," fascinating!

Kabbalah, by Gershom Scholem, 1974, Keter Publishing House Jerusalem Ltd., Dorset Edition, 495 total pages including Index and About Author.

Lost Scriptures - Books that did not make it into the New Testament, by Bart D. Ehrman, 2003 UOxfdP, 342 total pages.

Mary Magdelen - bride in exile, by Margaret Starbird, 2005, Bear&Co, 182 total pages including Index.

Mysteries of the Templar Treasure and the Holy Grail - Secrets of Rennes Le Château, by Lionel & Patricia Fanthorpe, 2004, Weiser, 239 total pages including index.

Qabala[h] Trilogy:

By Carlos Suares, 1967+, Shambala, paperback edition 1976, 549 pages.

All three are available as his trilogy and individually.

These are n¤n trivial reads. You will need some foundation in Hebrew, and as in Doug's case, some previous reading in similar works like Gershom Scholem's Kabbalah. Autiot is introduced by Suares. Autiot merges recursive nexi among Hebrew alphabet, their linguistic recursionings, Gematria which is recursive valuation of Hebrew consonants, and variational and topos~like semantics of them. See also Sefirot. Doug has always wondered how quantum theory came up with what appeared as countless innovative semantics and hermeneutics. Clearly, now, much of it comes from ancient gnosis of Qabalah, Kabbalah, and their interpretations of reality. Many of you are aware of other nexi like Murray Gel-Man's use of quark from James Joyce's Finnigan's Wake. All of this jibes with Doug's intuitions that when our language cannot express n¤vel inexpressibilities, we must invent n¤vel language to do so. Enter Quantonics.

What Doug finds most intellectually and spiritually exciting is how these works describe duals of what Doug's Quantonics means by "quantum." Read first few pages of Song of Songs to get an idea. A basic mandate to "embrace uncertainty" emerges almost immediately. We find that Tav (last Hebrew alphabet letter) is analogous Doug's comma-nospace. Tav is Autiot's nexus twixt material and energy which is an analogy of Quantonics' quanton(nonactuality,actuality)! This is simply startling to fathom one's first exposure to it.

More, here, as Doug pursues each of these texts in greater depth...

Doug - 6Oct2009.

The Cambridge History of English Literature (e.g., Orm's Ormulus, etc.), edited by Waller and Ward, 1917, "cheap edition," 1933, Macmillan & Co., Ferris Printing Co., 468 total pages, no index.

The Gnostic Bible, Editors Barnstone and Meyer, Shambala. (Again, thanks to Bethahava for finding this for Doug...)

Philip Gospel here is amazing!

In Philip Gospel intro. editors say it is an anthology including, "...sayings of Jesus which have the quality of gnostic poetry."

Yes! Yes! Yes! So quantum! So real! So pneumatic!

See Elaine Pagels' The Gnostic Paul for comparisons of:

'psychic,' and

(classical intellect, EEMD, state-ic, either-or thingking: e.g., SOMites)


(quantum instinctive~intuition, EIMA, dynamic, c¤mplementary thinking: e.g., MoQites)

Here is their intro. example:

"Winter is the world, summer the other realm.

"It is wrong to pray in winter."

Quanton(summer,winter)? Dichon(summer, winter)? Pneumatics think former. Psychics thingk latter.

"Wrong" is intentionally, gn¤stically subjective negation. QELRed, "wr¤ng." Included~middle of summer and winter: summer is in winter, winter is in summer. Quantum memeotic c¤mplementarity.

Quanton(DQ,SQ)! Quanton(n¤nactuality,actuality)! Quanton(¤thær_realm,world)!

Message? 'The called,' 'the psychics' are incapable of praying in winter; they do n¤t even understand that summer (other_realm, n¤nactuality, DQ, etc.) is real. Why? They take 'winter' literally. Psychic is dichon(SQ, winter). See dichon, quanton. 'Called' is a thing-king diode. 'The elect,' 'the pneumatics' can (have qua to, are capable of) praying individually and ubiquitously (i.e., both while autonomously and coherently).

(Re: Mae-wan Ho's quanton(quantum_ubiquitous_coherence,quantum_individual_islandic_autonomy.))

Pneumatic issi quanton(DQ,summer_winter) which we can also show like this, quanton(DQ,quanton(summer,winter)). Elected issi think-king quantumly: gn¤stically. Authority? Gn¤stic~Jesus, gn¤stic~Paul, et al.!

What would Pirsig's MoQ say about this?

SOMites can only see winter! Winter is all there is to 'psychic' SOMites. "If that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing...we'll break out the booze and have a ball, if that's all..."

Winter to a SOMite is ESQ. ESQ? Concrete! Immutable! Unchanging Utopia! That's all. Period. Pirsig calls it "evil." How is it, SOMite, that concrete thingks? Can concrete thingk? Truepers believe concrete thingks.

To a MoQite, winter is summer's c¤mplement, and summer is unlimited potentia. Too, summer is winter's vital impetus.

SOMites 'believe in' winter while they are blinded and blindered to summer! To SOMites summer doesn't 'exist.' Period. SOMites live in ESQ!

For more of Doug's Gargantuan (Rabelaisean) enfant terrible coquecigrues efforts at interpreting gn¤stic gospels, see our Gnostic Update 2.

The Gnostic Gospels, by Elaine H. Pagels, Random House 1979, Vintage 1989.

The Gnostic Papers, by John V. Panella, Zark Mountain Publishing, 2002.

The Gnostic Paul - 'Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters,' by Elaine H. Pagels, Trinity? 1975. (Again, thanks to Bethahava for finding this for Doug...)

Keep in mind that Pagels was writing this prior 1975.

"Texts now becoming available from Nag Hammadi offer extraordinary new evidence for gnostic Pauline and gnostic Johannine tradition." Page 2.

She tells us that J Ménard writes that "the reciprocal relationship of God and the elect -- 'is typically Pauline doctrine;' he finds its presentation here unparalleled in contemporary Hellenistic literature."

Doug interprets Ménard's use of reciprocal here as real quantum~complementarity.

And Paul shows us his awareness and belief in a quantum~included~middle, "The fourth treatise from the same codex (Tripartite Tractate), besides containing many allusions to the Pauline letters, concludes (according to the analysis of Quispel) with the 'Prayer of the apostle Paul,' in which the apostle, as one of the elect, prays to be redeemed, to receive the pleromic [i.e., from a Gnostic spiritual, pneumatic universe which is God's home] revelation, and to be united with the 'beloved elect.'14" Page 2, TGP. Our bold, and brackets.

14Tractatus Tripartitus, 1, ed. R. Kasser, M. Malinine, H. Ch. Puech, G. Quispel, J. Zandee (Berne: Francke Verlag, 1973).

Compare Paul's quantum~included~middle with Catholicism's Aristotelian-Thomist excluded-middle.

Begin 31Jul2008 aside:

Doug's initial studies of gnosis didn't commence until, at earliest, mid-2005 CeodE. Prior to that Doug was almost wholly ignorant of gnosis and what gnosis means. So Doug is an infant when it comes to gnosis. However, to Doug's enormous advantage he has an autodidactic PhD. in quantum~metaphysics and quantum~philosophy. That gives Doug some powerful comparatives and benchmarks for quanton(gnosis,quantum). What Doug has found is that gnosis and quantum~wisdom significantly covalidate one another.

When Doug did this Gnostic Paul precis, he was unaware of a vaster list of comparatives: downside dialectics of some gnosis and upside quantum~rhetoric of some gnosis.

Doug's precis above is inadequate now in retrospect. Pagels appears to be shining gnostic light on Paul. Other authors below omnisagree. We are beginning to see their concerns.

Two big concerns are apparent almost immediately:

  • Paul named Jesus' teachings "Christianity."
  • Paul wanted to be united with the beloved elect.

"Doug what is wrong with those two items?"

First, Essene Jesus called those who referred him "Christ," Jesus called them "Satan." Peter, ("the rock"...another concern) is one of our best exemplars documented well under our Gaffney review above.

Second, any gnostic intrinsically believes from any getgo that God is in self and self is in God. Paul's desire to "be united with the 'beloved elect," narratively illustrates his own, his self-assessed, anti-gnosis.

Doug has to say at this juncture, it is Doug's own personal assessment that Paul was a gnostic pretender. This agrees significantly with remarks by others quoted elsewhere below.

If you read New Testament (NT), Doug's is NIV, you will find that Paul always had a thorn in his side. An unending ache, unending misery, and in his prior life as a King he was a murderer of profound proportions. Doug always wondered, "Why the thorn?" And why does it take up such a predominate theme in NT?

Doug now believes that Paul was anti-gnostic and pretending to be gnostic (claimed to have been taught by James, who was almost a pure dialectician and thus in n¤ way could be gnostic), for political purposes of establishing a wider audience for his newly invented 'Christianity.' That's only Doug's view, not the view.

End 31Jul2008 aside. (minor rev's 3Aug2008 - PDR)

Pagels shows us how a huge dialectical argument arose, whether Paul's opus be interpreted literally or gnostically. Let's show sidis of this argument:

Christian Literalists
(classical dialecticians)
Ostensibly Either-OR Orthodoxy

Pessimistic Gnostics
(gnostic monists, ideal-dualists, classical dialecticians)
Ostensibly Mperdeuwodoxy

(confusionodoxy; we coined its Greekness)

Optimistic Gnostics
Optimistic Gnosis
(gnostic pluralists, quasi quantum sophists)
Included~Middle Heterodoxy

Quantum Gnostics
Quantum Gnosis
(gnostic sophists, hearers of Logos)
Apparently Both-All-While-And-Many
(the materialists;
colloquially, "hoi polloi,"
"blockheads," DIQheads,"
"idiots," "helpless innocents."
"hive drones," "followers,"
"the people," "vulgates,"
"sheep," etc.)
(the called)

(the elect)

Irenaeus1 (an anti gnostic anti heresy heresiologist)

Pagels quotes Irenaeus' Adversus Haereses thus,

"They [Valentinians, Essenes] turn and accuse these same scriptures as if they were not accurate nor authoritative, and claim that they are ambiguous, and that truth cannot be derived from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For they allege that truth was not transmitted by means of written documents, but in living speech; and that for this reason Paul declares, 'we speak wisdom among the perfect (telioi) but not the wisdom of this cosmos' (1 Cor 2:6)." 14

She goes on,

"Irenaeus and Tertullian consider the Valentinian [gnostic, anti dialectic, anti literalist] view an insult to Paul. Characterizing their own [pro dialectic] struggle against the gnostics as that of true exegesis against false, they insist that the gnostic method totally distorts the apostle's meaning. Irenaeus says that he recounts their exegesis only 'to demonstrate the method which they [Valentinians, Essenes] use to deceive themselves, abusing the scriptures, trying to support from them their own invention (plasma),' from AH 1.9.1. Tertullian agrees with Irenaeus that the gnostics practice false exegesis, yet he acknowledges that they defend themselves with Paul's own injunction to 'test all things' (1 Thes 5:21)." Our brackets and bold color. Our italicization of Paul's, Pagels' and Irenaeus' (Paul's and Irenaeus' translated to English and thus only apparent) thelogos.

To exemplify Irenaeus and Tertullian in their naïve roles as simple-minded polemic 'catholic' literalists, we use Knight and Lomas' words, in a section titled 'Truth Within the Heresies,' which they write, after quoting second century a.d. Clement of Alexandria, "This [quoted Clement material] suggests that there was a secret tradition and that it is, at least in part, present within the Bible [and in Qumran and Nag Hammadi Gnostic texts], written in such a manner that the uninitiated would accept the parable on a literal level while the informed would discern something far more important and meaningful." See their The Hiram Key, p. 70, 2005 Fair Winds paperback.

Naassenes1 (AKA Nasorean; Pessimistic gnosticism. Hebrew male above female patriarchal hierarchy. Closer to Jewish orthodoxy.) Doug may have placed Naassenes in wrong column. We may need to move them at least one column to right. See Pagels' Naassene Gnostic Exegesis. Doug - 19Sep2007.

Essenes (heterodoxy of individualism - over-simply a dualism, an anti quantum, eventic-state-ic single alpha - radically final omega classical eschatology, of heaven and earth; Jesus' Tribe of Judah, Beth David; sects peripheral to orthodox Judaism — from whence any optimism in that? Jesus! Jesus diverged quite quantumly from orthodox Essene beliefs while retaining that which he admired.)

Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas say it like this, "In spirit the Essenes were ultra-conservative Jews, but in some ways they were progressive and creative beyond measure." See their The Hiram Key, p. 55, 2005 Fair Winds paperback. We have to be a tad careful with Knight and Lomas, though, since they appear to interpret religious conspectives dialectically, and appear to attribute, in our view inappropriately, dialectic to Jesus. Their 'nots' are dichons(actuality, actuality): EOOO dialectism!

Cabalists (Jewish optimists, very quantum intuitions; Kabbalah...)

Paul (apostle of Jesus; full qua in both pneumatic thunder and psychic messages)

Not all authors agree with our preliminary quantum assessment of Paul above. A great example is six paragraphs from Knight and Lomas' The Hiram Key, pages 244-245, 2005 Fair Winds paperback,

"The killing of 'the king of the Jews' by a Roman Procurator created a lot of publicity, throughout Israel and beyond, people became interested in the messianic movement. One such person was a Roman citizen by the name of Saul who came from an area that is now southern Turkey. His parents had become Diaspora Jews and he was a young man who was brought up as a Jew but without the culture and attitudes of such pure followers of Yahweh as the Qumran Community. The idea that his job was to persecute Christians is an obvious nonsense as there was no such cult at that time. The Nasoreans, now led by James, were the most Jewish Jews it is possible to imagine and Saul's task was simply to put down any remaining independence movement on behalf of the Romans. The Mandaeans of southern Iraq, as we have discussed, are Nasoreans who were driven out of Judah whose migration can be accurately dated to AD 37; it therefore seems almost certain that the man that persecuted them was Saul (alias Paul) himself.

"Saul must have been the scourge of the Jewish freedom movement for the best part of seventeen years as it was the year AD 60 when he was struck blind on the road to Damascus. It is now believed that Saul would not have had the authority to arrest activists in Damascus even if there were any there, which seems very doubtful, and his destination is considered by most scholars to have been Qumran, which was often referred to as 'Damascus.' His blindness and regaining of sight was symbolic of his conversion to one part of the Nasorean cause. The fact that Saul's destination was indeed Qumran is borne out by Acts 22:14 where he is told he will be introduced to the 'Just One,' an obvious reference to James.

"'And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see the Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth.'

"Paul heard the story of the Nasoreans directly from the lips of James, but being a foreign Jew and a Roman citizen he failed to understand the message that he was given and immediately developed a Hellenistic fascination for the story of Jesus' death and his role of a 'sacrificial lamb.' It is certain that Paul was not admitted into the secrets of Qumran, because he spent only a short time there; as we know, it required three years of training and examination to become a brother. The relationship between the newcomer and James quickly became very strained.

"Paul had seventeen years of hunting down potentially rebellious Jews and he was never converted to the cause of John the Baptist, Jesus and James. Instead he invented a new cult to which he gave the Greek name 'Christians,' as a translation of the Hebrew word messiah. He called Jesus, a man he never knew, 'Christ,' and started to build a following around himself. Because Paul had no understanding of the terminology of the Nasoreans, he was the first person to apply literalism to the allegory in Jesus' teachings and a miracle-working god/man was created out of a Jewish patriot. He claimed that he had the support of Simon Peter, but this was just one of a whole framework of lies. Simon Peter issued a warning against any other authority but the Nasorean leadership:

"'Wherefore observe the greatest caution, that you believe no teacher, unless he brings from Jerusalem the testimonial of James, the Lord's brother. '"

We effaced footnotes and changed some English punctuation to Chicago style. All capitalizations, paren's., and italics are theirs.

Knight and Lomas make Paul a phony!

Are they correct? We need to study more...essentially, we may never know, but it's a fun Chautauqua to try to understand. For Doug, it is a process of self-discovery...

One big clue is this:

"'Wherefore observe the greatest caution, that you believe no teacher, unless he brings from Jerusalem the testimonial of James, the Lord's brother. '"

Gn¤stic Jesus would never have said anything like that. Gn¤stic Jesus said that we find G¤d in our selves. Gn¤stic Jesus would, we believe, disavow any classical notions that one size 'social anything' fits all. If it did, individualism would lose its Quality. Doug.

Michael Baigent, in his The Jesus Papers, 2006, makes this much clearer for Doug, i.e., it fits Doug's quantum~complementarospective of whatings were happenings:

"Paul's letters in the New Testament are very different from the Gospels. For one thing, Paul does not provide any Jesus stories. Paul provides only Paul stories. Paul did not know Jesus personally — so far as we know — and his teaching was aimed at those potential pagan converts, the Gentiles. It is significant that the Jewish Christian leadership in Jerusalem under the guidance of James, the brother of Jesus, managed to get Paul out of Israel, sending him away, up the coast to Antioch and elsewhere. They must have known that he was not on their side. James and the others were very concerned about the maintenance of Jewish law, while Paul suggested that the law had little relevance at that point — that Gentiles could become Christians without buying into the totality of the law. This idea was anathema to James, as his letter says: 'For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.' (James 2:10)" Quotation from page 77 of Baigent's TJP.

Doug has made this point elsewhere, and it is crucial to understanding what happened to Jesus' Autiot Gnosis (i.e., Quantum~Gn¤sis) when others mutated it into a so-called 'christianity:' bad guys are dialecticians and good guys are Jesuit Autiot Gnostics. Simply, Jesus called dialectic "Error." Jesus had told James that what James was teaching, like Peter, is Error.

What clues have we in our quote of Baigent? Israeli Jewish Law is a monism: it adheres a concrete dialectical idea that there is only one hermeneutic of God: theirs: Israeli dialectical Jews. James was such.

Another clue is James' formal logic fault of claiming that a single contradiction annihilates a whole religion. Again, pure dialectical bogosity, hylic-psychic intellectual garbage.

James hates gnosis, and Jesus — an Essene Gnostic — was his brother. Cain and Abel (Qayin and Havel) all over again. Like Peter, James is "Sah-Tahn." And Romans turned Jesus' Essene Gnosis into 'christianity:' Sah-Tahn's own den of evil: a haven for Rope a Dope Popes.

Gnostic Jesus called this belief "Error." Why? It is pure dialectic, and dialectic itself Jesus called "Error."

Key features of Jesus' Judaæn Davidiæn Essene Gn¤sis, include:

  • Monism is deceit,
  • Aleph is in the blood,
  • G¤d issi ihn us, and wæ aræ ihn G¤d,
  • Redemption is quantum~pr¤cæss,
  • Dialectic is Error,
  • Individualism is above socialism,
  • A 'christ' is a social manager and society enslaves individuals,
  • etc.

But James and his pals, like Peter, taught dialectic! Romans adored and today adore dialectic. Doug believes that dialectic is intellectual rape of any human mind which adheres it.

James, Peter, Romans, et al., wanted total social control and power over all individuals, and that is quintessence of social 'christianity.' It is pure deceit by those who want to rule others. It is endemic in our world today and part and parcel of why, just like The Temple, fiat financial institutions are crashing all over Earth today.

Dialectical society is being disassembled...

Call it what you like.

Doug - 2Apr2010.

Of course that is why orthodox social Jews turned him over to Romans and too that is why Romans wanted to crucify him! Jesus implied, we believe, "All individual humans are above all OSFA societies." N¤ society is sovereign any individual, unless said individual intentionally tries to deny any other individual their individual rights. Huge implication: There are 'social' rights! All rights are individual! Clearly this gn¤stic morality is recursive, provisional, heterogeneous, EIMA, and always in flux. It offers n¤ 'state.' N¤ 'rules.' N¤ 'laws.' What's missing? At least respect. If we do n¤t respect our neighbors' sovereign rights to their individual values, property and their family, then we are denying them their individual sovereign rights.

Simon Peter's inane edict proffers classical societal OSFA sovereignty! Hierarchical top-down rule. Patriarchal rule. Men are corrupt. Never allow men to rule! Instead, individuals of all sexes must rule their individual locales.

As soon as any individual accepts society as sovereign, that individual abdicates all individual rights. Our Earth suffers that social metastate now. And all its evil consequences.

Keep in mind that social dialecticians view quantum individual hermeneuticists as "phonies." Why? Quantum individuals, just as Jesus did, subsume classical societal hegemony, relentlessly. Doug.

Elaine Pagels wrote a whole book on The Gnostic Paul, so we know there is much more to this story, i.e., whether Paul was a phony.

What we want you to read above, and memes we resonate with and quantum~cohere, is how orthodox 'Christianity' was created by Romans. Gnostic Jesus' quantum gnosis was put to political use and advantage by, in our view, 'phony' anti gnostic Roman social-dialectical 'catholics.'

Roman catholic 'Christianity' was put together, by design, as a religious political order, not unlike how Islam is today: religion and politics all rolled into one. Trouble is, Islam itself is a tribal dialectical heterogeneity!

Too, notice how 'catholic Christianity' has "disassembled" massively, back into a dialectical heterogeneity.

What does that tell us? Individualism is doing its best to escape any notions of social hegemony. It's natural behavior, to be expected. "Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it,...Let's do it..."

Humans do n¤t well-abide and -endure social monisms. Doug.

Even 'catholics:' Minorites, Franciscans, Benedictines, Jesuits, etc.

Orthodoxy sux! Dogma sux! Doctrine sux! Patriarchy sux!

If you have read New Testament's three synoptic gospels (MML) and John's gnostic gospel, plus 17 books: Acts thru Revelations, you will find that Paul plays an enormous (Roman?) role. As Saul, he was a killer, as Paul he was one of God's special ones; however, Paul always had God's thorn in his side...always suffering...always miserable.

So, even in NT, we find a both~and quanton(Paul,Saul). Knight and Lomas offer another, without expressing it our way: quanton(gn¤stic,literal). If Paul were only literal, as they suggest, he would not have been as successful as he was speaking to both 'called,' and 'elect.' Doug's opinion. (We're just now reading Pagels' The Gnostic Paul, so we think she may accur.)

Also ponder how Romans were 'only literal.' That is how we ended up with one size fits all social dialectical 'catholicism.'

Clearly Jesuit~Gn¤stics were not just 'literal' and that is why catholics tried their best to silence and berate them. Indeed, that was Saul's job: Romans correctly assessed Jesuit gn¤sticism as independent, individualist thinking and belief. Jesus (word: logos of quantum lightings, qua logos, qualogos) was Earth's most supreme pneumatic gn¤stic of all. And Jesus could shine logos' light both 'literally' and 'gnostically.' Jesus_Logos quanton(pneuma_gnostic,psychic_literal).

Doug - 18Jun2006.



Herakleon (Heracleon) is a dualist disciple of Valentinos (Valentinus); see The Gnostic Bible, Chapter 17, pp. 307-8., by Barnestone and Meyer. Herakleon tells us that 'catholics' of New Testament manufacture are, quoting John 8:44, paraphrased, "...children of the devil." Essentially, Herakleon approaches correctness when we accept a fact that Irenaeus and Constantine re engineered Christ in their own dialectical, psychic [Doug should have used "hylic" here instead of psychic. 17Sep2006.] image.

You will find it very interesting to read 8:43 which sets Jesus' own Father's Logos comtext gnostically:

"43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say [as quantum gnosis, quantum logos: qualogos]."

Thence 8:44, "44 You belong to your father [literally: not Abraham; rather, gnostically: demiurge], the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He [demiurge] was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the [anti gnostic] father of [dialectical, biblical creator, manufacturer of 'the' New Testament bible-babel-god] lies."

Jesus shows us 'father' as 'devil,' and Father as Jesus' Gnostic God.

24Aug2007 aside:

Chaldæan gnosis shows their version of a spiritual reality hierarchy like this:

  • Mother (top - the source of all)
  • son (straddle - included~middle; son here issi metaphorically mapped quantum~gluonic, bosonic, coherent integer spin flux...go imagine prodigiosus...)
  • mother (Sophia ihn actuality; shæ has fallen and rearisen...)
  • Father (bottom - demiurge, the dialectic)

Gnostically Jesus refers 'father' as 'the living Father,' and 'Father' as the demiurge. This does not jibe what Doug wrote above.

To know which 'father' gnostics refer is mostly an topos issue of con(m)text. Making lingual hermeneutics even more troublesome, 'Living [Ff]ather' isn't pure, linguistically, either. Why? Father 'in the flesh' is the demiurge, the devil, dialectic, Satan. To grasp which '[Ff]ather' gnostic Jesus refers requires a full gnostic topos~hermeneutic grasp of lingual con(m)text in which Jesus is(was) speaking.

Over simply, if Jesus speaks from a spiritual, pneumatic, n¤nactual comtext then '[Ff]ather' ihn that comtext issi quanton(Mother,Father) as a quantum hermaphrodite. When Jesus speaks from a intellectual, material psychic-hylic, dialectical context then '[Ff]ather' in that context is gnostic actuality's dialectical, actual, material, in-flesh's Error, dichon(mother, [Ff]ather). In that case '[Ff]ather' is the dialectical demiurge. (Doug currently infers mother as Sophia middle~includes Mother via quantum~straddling son, et al....indeed Doug experiences this routinely.)

Doug views 'living Father' as the demiurge in actual flesh AKA gnostically Error. Doug complementaroceives 'living Father' as Mother's pneumatic~spiritual hermaphroditic quantum~complement.

It all depends upon con(m)text(ings).

End 24Aug2007 aside - Doug.

Christian Literalists worseship 'father,' el Papa. El Papa uses 'psychic and hylic' dialectic to "tell lies."

Jesus' Gnostics bettership 'Father,' as quanton(Mother,Father). Compare demiurge as material actuality's dialectical dichon(mother, Father).

Allow us to offer also, 8:45-7:

"45 Yet because I tell the truth you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? 47 He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."

"Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?" please refer Bergson's "We shall never affirm a thing is not."
Quantum reality is positive.
In a real sense, there is no sin in quantum reality.
Doug - 17Sep2006.

See our QELRs of:

Also see how what classicists refer as 'negation' is really just quantum~cancellation.
Doug - 30Aug2009.

We offer too, Doug's distillation of those remarks by Jesus:

'The called, the psychics, the dialectical Literalists,' the hylics and psychics, do not hear the Logos.

'The pneumatic, the elect, the gnostic Sophists,' hear the Logos.

Here is Heracleon's hierarchy:

  • material, hylic, earthly; worseship the demiurge
  • psychical, psychic, soul; worseship the demiurge and god as Jesus in the flesh
  • spiritual, pneuma, spirit; bettership transcendence, see p. 309 of 860 total in The Gnostic Bible.

Jesus sounds, here, like Heraclitus does he not?

Ponder 'Opus dei'd.'

Ponder 'Opus 'died.'

Ponder Opus DeiieD.

Even Christian Gnostics who can't hear 'the' Logos view Jesus' Word as "confusion."

What is Coptic for 'the?' Does Coptic have 'definite' articles?

Hebrew 'the' is a "definite article." But, but, but,..., quantum~gn¤stic qualogos is uncertain! N¤ 'definite articles' allowed. Is this part of what Jesus meant when he said "the father is a liar?" Confusing, isn't it?

A 'father of the,' "tells lies." Unless Gn¤stic reality is hermeneutic, then one human's lies are another's truths, and indeed that is what we see: reality is massive included~middle sophisms, n¤t ubiquitous ideally excluded-middle truths.

Greek 'the' is omicron 'o' for masculine, eta 'h' for feminine, and tau-omicron 'to' for neuter.

Also see Pagels' on Heracleon in her Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis, p. 13. Heracleon says literalists simply, "do not get it." Jesus agrees!

Doug - 10Jun2006.

Subsequent our writings above we have found that Jesus appears to adhere Chaldean gnosis, two ways as a "fourfold gnosis:" 1(2,3), 4 and 1(2,3),4. Former is dialectical on 4. Latter is sophist on 4. Let's show those using words:

Mother(son,mother), dead_[Ff]ather, and


When Jesus uses 'father' in lower case, he refers 'the demiurge,' 'the devil.'

When Jesus refers directly "the living Father," he speaks of a loving spiritual Father who attempts to "show mortals," "the way."

Now, again, ponder:

Opus devil, and

Opus lived.


Opus evil, and

Opus live.

Quintessence here is that "living reality evolves," vis-à-vis "dead reality is evil: it refuses to evolve." At issue: dead as perpetual state vis-à-vis live as perpetual change and evolution.

Ponder Opus LiveddeviL, and

Ponder Opus LiveeviL.

Compare 'devil,' and 'evil' to J. C. Maxwell's second 'law' of thermodynamics. See C. P. Snow.

Compare lived and live to quantum~reality's negative~ and zero~entropa.

Here we may choose to interpret Jesus' memes of "living father," (which Jesus shows as "Father," and "living Father") and "dead Father" (which Jesus shows as lower case "father") metabolically as live-living (anabolic) and evil-dead-dying (catabolic).

Pneumatically 'the devil' is dead hylic-psychic dialectic: literal interpretation of a stopped, material reality.

Pneumatically "living" is pneumatic sophism for "the way:" spiritual hermeneutics of an evolving "flux is crux" reality.

Doug - 30Dec2007.

Theudas (a disciple of Paul)

John (Johannine Gospel; full Logos qua - qualogos)

See Herakleon, two columns left re: John 8:43-7.


Students must realise that Hippolytus was a protégé of Irenæus. Irenæus' scholarship is questionable at best, and we allege he tampered with biblical texts to achieve a 'catholic' social and political advantage over 'the' church's flock of "helpless innocents."

We distill Gaffney's Chapter 10 comments on Hippolytus from Gaffney's text, Gnostic Secrets of the Naassenes:

  • alleged liar,
  • alleged plagiarist,
  • inept, re understanding of Gnostic symbols of Spirit,
  • ignorant of issues of 'flow reversal' of Spiritual flux,
  • ignorant of Gnosis (i.e., Gnosis' semantic) of mother Sophia as "flow of Spiritual flux,"
  • interestingly Hippolytus libeled Gnostics as "plagiarists" (when, rather, Hippolytus and his mentor, Irenæus are alleged 'catholic' plagiarists of some Gnostic texts and symbols; in some cases hermeneutic-hermetic-distortion of those texts and symbols),
  • etc.

One may easily surmise Hippolytus knew little of Gnosis' topos. If he had, he might have self re cognised his own narrow hyleticism, his own dialectical incompetence.

Doug - 21Jun2008.

James the Just (Jesus' brother)

Valentinus (hearer of Theudas)

"The Valentinians also develop exegetical techniques that enable them to surpass the mere literal reading of 'scripture'..." TJGiGE, p. 23.

"The endeavor of the Valentinian exegete must be to recognize where such secrets lie hidden, and to disclose the mystical meaning of the discourse." Barth, Interpretation of Valentinian Gnosis, p. 52. From TJGiGE note on p. 24.


Ptolemy (a gnostic disciple of Valentinus)

Ptolemy's astrology and astronomy are embedded in Arabic Picatrix (woman who paints tar). Rosebush's Oracle helped Doug with this as follows:

Doug asked, "What is Picatrix and why is it sometimes spelled Picatris?"

Rosebush's Oracle responded:

"Well, the Latin word Picator means 'one who paints with Tar' - for example, a tradesman who waterproofs boats - and Picatrix is the female form of that - a woman who paints with Tar.

"This odd word is the title usually given in the West to a translation of an Arabic compilation of magical and astrological texts, called in Arabic 'the Target (or Aim) of the Sage', and dating from about AD1000. Some of the actual sources will be considerably older, as this is largely a compilation, not an original work.

"It has been a very influential text on magic for a thousand years, widely circulated in the West, and extensively translated into various languages.

"What is really peculiar is that it had never been printed before the beginning of the twentieth century; in other words, it had a wide circulation for a thousand years, but never appeared in print, only manuscript. During the last century, various translations were printed, and it finally appeared in English only in 2002 - and we suspect that that is why people in the English-speaking world suddenly began to hear more about it, as the media gradually discovered it- there's actually a Comic called Picatrix nowadays.

"Possibly because so few people had actually read it, as it was only extant in manuscript form, and therefore 'hidden' from most people, it is referred to in the most lurid terms in sensational books. For centuries it has been 'the' wicked book that corrupts the hero, or where the villain gets his wicked spells, or that various magicians and witches use for their enchantments and sabbaths. Actually, it is no more terrible than many other magical compendiums of the period, (all forbidden books by the Roman Catholic Church) although it certainly influenced an enormously large number of other writers on magic, and we still see its influence on astrological books today.

"One of the famous authors who refers to it indirectly is François Rabelais, who in his enormous book 'Gargantua and Pantagruel' has a demonic character called Father Picatris. No native French words contain an X, incidentally, but only a few scientific terms largely derived from the Greek, so perhaps the translation that Rabelais knew was entitled Picatris, but anyway, the word is certainly seen with an s sometimes, though much more commonly with an x.

"We hope that these notes are helpful. Do ask again, if you need more information.

"with best wishes,

"The Oracle."

There is much more to this story...

Doug's copy of Rabelais' Gargantua and his Sonne Pantagruel has 'Picarris.' Like this:

"At the time when I was a Student in the University of Tolouse, that same Reverend Father in the Devil, Picarris, Rector of the Diabological Faculty, was wont to tell us, that the Devils did naturally fear the bright glancing of Swords, as much as the Splendour and Light of the Sun." Page 332, G&P, Rarity Press Hardbound ed. with Sacred Feminine jacket imprint, and Heath Robinson's fabulous plates,1932

Rabelais' Greek dedication is to:

"Both intelligence and thought [make] one pragmatic"

(pragmatic here is heresy as an individual (i.e., one) having qua to do and act based upon one's individual gnostic thinking capabilities — see Valentinus just above).

Doug's rude and infantile translation. Forgive our personal lack of multi lingual qua.

Rabelais keenly describes a classical version of a gnostic, Sophial quantum reality.

Of course, Rabelais' Gargantua and his Sonne Pantagruel is loaded with anti-catholic's humour is gn¤stically raucous to underphase. Yates describes use of 'Picatrix' as a Rabelaean "shaft." Rabelais uses tarring and feathering among countless other means of Catholic harassment, terrors, tortures, and killings. Is it any wonder Islam radicals believe and behave as they do? Catholics were doing similarly to them for centuries, if not millennia! Doug.

Picatrix used by Frances Yates in her Giordano Bruno was manuscript. She says, "The manuscript of the Latin [translation of] Picatrix I have used is Slone...a seventeenth century manuscript..." See page 50 of Yates' Giordano Bruno, paperback, UCP Midway reprint, 1991.

Mary Magdelen (AKA 'hermaphroditically John,' per Leonardo's 'Last Supper,' called by Jesus, attributively, as alike both himself and Elijah: Elijah, most famous prophet of Old Testament, prophesied 'the Messiah,' c. 875 b.c. Question: Was Elijah Gnostic?)
Didymos Judas Thomas (Gospel of Thomas)

Jesus ("son of God, son of Man")

At least two versions of Jesus:

  • gnostic - anti gnosis viewed by Essene Jesuits as "heresy"
    • Jesus as logos
    • understanding via hermeneutic metaphor
    • essence of Sophism; Sophia as esoteric wisdom
    • pluralism; both~all~while~and~many; especially divine hermaphrodicity
    • truth as hermetic and hermeneutic (still trying to assess if any gnostics viewed truth in agency of its own change...our while above hints at it...)
    • essence of gnostic texts including Nag Hammadi
    • pneumatism; Jesus' elect; top of gnostic hierarchy
    • John (Mary) and Didymos Judas Thomas could understand Jesus' gnosis; other disciples apparently could not due their spiritually shallow psychism and hylicism
  • anti gnostic - gnosis viewed by Roman inane Irenaeus as "heresy" (Greek heresy means choice. Thus anti gnostic is anti "choice.")
    • Jesus as God
    • understanding via dialectic
    • essence of Roman catholicism; essence of protestant derivatives of catholicism
    • absolute, ideal monism and monasticism; especially either fraternity or maternity with patriarch above and sovereign matriarch (gnostic Jesus abhorred this conspective)
    • truth as concrete, immutable, absolute
    • essence of New Testament texts, especially synoptic gospels
    • psychism; Jesus' called; middle of gnostic hierarchy
    • hylicism; material reality; bottom of gnostic hierarchy; "the devil"

Doug - 21Sep2006.

el Papa (Gnostically: 'father,' the devil) God (Gnostically: 'Father,' pure pneumatic spirit)


AH is Pagels' acronym for Adversus Haereses, by Irenaeus.

1 We want to quote Elaine Pagels' The Gnostic Paul, 'Conclusion,' p. 157, TPI paperback, 1992, our brackets, on Irenaeus' hatred of gnostics:

"Irenaeus expresses outrage that they [Gnostics] claim Paul's own authority for their violations and contradictions of church doctrine and proceed to defend the views through arguments from scripture! {Embed footnote 4 - AH 4.41.3-4; for example, that Paul authorizes the doctrine of aions [aka aeons, roughly, perpetual spiritual beings], 1.3.1; 4; doctrine of Logos/Stauros, 1.3.5; of Sophia, 1.8.2-3; 3.2.1; 3.3.1; the tripartite anthropology, 1.8.3; 2.22.2; doctrine of apolytrosis [roughly, gnostic redemption], 1.21.1-2; Exc 22.1-6; cf. also Tertullian, DP 4-6, 33, 38. Hippolytus testifies that the Valentinians cite Paul's words as 'scripture,' Ref. 6.34. For discussion see: H. Langerbeck, Aufsätze zur Gnosis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1967), H. F. von Campenhausen, Die Entstehung der Christlichen Bibel (Tübingen: Mohr. 1968), 171-172; T. Zahn,

"Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, (Erlangen/Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1889. I). 755-56.

"Wie von Johannes, so auch von Paulus haben sie nicht die leitenden Gedanken. Die religiösen Anschauungen, so gut es eben ging, sich anzueignen bemüht, sondern Worte und Wortverbindungen haben sie den apostolischen Schriften entlehnt . . . Dabei ist der Ton, in welchem sie die paulinschen Briefe zitieren, ein ebenso ehrerbietiger wie die, welchen wir bei den Kirchenlehrern . . . antreffen. 'Der Apostel spricht.' 'Paulus zeigt': das steht überall ebenbürtig neben dem 'der Heiland lehrt.'"}


1We must go to our Gnostic Bible to explain Naassene:

"The story of Baruch is a tale of the love of Elohim and Edem, heaven and earth, love that is expressed and is lost, with the author, Justin, employing themes from Genesis to tell his gnostic story of the fate of humanity and the emergence of evil in the world. Elohim, the heavenly father god and the creator of the world, is the lover of Edem, the earthly mother goddess. From their impassioned sexual union come twenty-four angelic children, and the angels in turn create humankind and paradise. These twenty-four angels seem to anticipate the more developed portrayals of the realm of the divine fullness, or pleroma, in Sethian and Valentinian gnostic systems. Elohim breathes spirit (Greek pneuma) into Adam, and Edem breathes soul (Greek psyche). Baruch (Hebrew for 'blessed') is the good tree of life and the chief paternal angel, and Naas (from nahash, Hebrew for 'serpent') [Footnote 4 ­ See the use of Naas among the Naassenes in this volume.] is the evil tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the chief maternal angel." Page 108, The Gnostic Bible, Barnstone and Meyer, Shambhala, 2003, 860 pages including Index.

Our brackets to embed a footnote. Our bold to emphasize Naassene.

We see here a Jewish dialectical inversion of Values which probably was inherited by Parmenides, Aristotle, et al.: man (good, blessed, spirit, pneuma) above woman (evil, snake, soul, psyche). Gnostics inverted this Jewish patriarchal abomination like this: woman (sacred feminine) above man (instigator of corruption and terrorism). This Gnostic inversion of Jewish patriarchy roughly corresponds Pirsig's:

  • Intellect (Gnostic Sophia), above
  • Society, above
  • Biological, above
  • Inorganic

vis-à-vis Aristotle's:

  • Object (as Inorganic over Biological) above
  • Subject (as Society above Intellect).

Also notice how Jewish ancients partially agreed with I Ching's Yang and Yin.: female as open dark struction (to be) which gives novel nuance to broad, and male as closed bright action (to do) almost begging narrow minded. If we dig deeper though we find shades of gnosticism in I Ching too. I Ching offers boundless quantum hues, except an absence of an explicit included~middle and I Ching's bias toward an upward spiral of rebirth. Tao may be perceived as an included~middle when quantumized. See above link.

No wonder some Jews appear complicit in, perhaps only had an interest in, handing Jesus over to the Roman terrorist-murderers. Jesus' Essene Gnosticism ran against a healthy portion of Jewish tradition. And we must keep in mind that Jesus' crucifixion was part of his own strategy to 'prove' his and our (son of God, son of man, and Paul's gnostic included~middle) oneness with God. Romans and Jews declared man 'separate,' and excluded-middle from God.

Quantumly, Gn¤stically: "Wæ aræ ihn G¤d amd G¤d issi ihn us."

See our recent relevant pages:

Perfect Sacred Feminine Mind, and
Quantum Gnostic Venus, and
Quantum Genetic Hermaphroditism.

Doug - 9Jun2006.

Pagels writes, " Puech and Quispel note: '...Paul was really par excellence, and in full truth, the Apostle.'" Page 2, TGP.

Pagels paraphrases Wilson on Paul as Gnostic from Philip Gospel, "The writer [Philip] encourages all 'members of the body,' the 'lesser' with the 'greater,' to share and to love each other in the harmonious union constituted in Christ." Page 3, TGP. Our brackets. Another quantum fluxio superpositional aliteral metaphor.

From any 'catholic' conspective, most damning of all, as heresy, is a gnostic position that "Gnosis itself, and not scripture, remains [Valentinians'] primary hermeneutical supposition." Page 3, ibid. Effaced footnote 18.

We'll stop with this, "Brox, Jonas, and Henrici concur that gnosis itself serves the gnostics as the hermeneutical principle." Page 3, ibid. Effaced footnote 21.

Doug - 11Jun2006.

The Gospel of Philip, by Jean-Yves Leloup, 2003 with translations by Inner Traditions International 2004.

The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis, TJGiGE, by Elaine Pagels, Society of Biblical Literature - Monograph Series, 1989, 128 total pages.

This work is profound in its disclosure of Valentinus' and Heracleon's quantum hermeneutic freedom of pneumatic expression. As quantum reality has many hermeneutic 'interpretations,' all of which are valid in expressing "a view of quantum reality," some gnostics' hermeneutics of Jesuit Ancient Gnostic Essene animate and heterogeneous interpretations each expresses "a valid view of Gnostic Christianity." All those views pneumatically dissonant with catholic anti gnostic, anti heretical and dogmatic OSFA social and literal dogmatic mono-interpretation.

Doug is reading this text, TJGiGE, side-by-side with TNHL gospels and gnostic texts.


Doug - 17Sep2006.

See Doug's Draft Review of this text's Introduction. Doug - 22Aug2007.

See Doug's Draft Review of this text's Jn 1.1-4 Valentinian Exegeses. Doug - 31Aug2007.

The Knights Templar - The History and Myths of the Legendary Military Order, by Sean Martin, 2004, Thunder's Mouth Press, 160 total pages including appendices and end notes.

The Magdalen Legacy - The Jesus and Mary Bloodline Conspiracy, by Laurence Gardener, 2005, Barnes&Noble, 395 total pages including Index.

The Majus of the North - Johann Georg Hamann and the Origins of Modern Irrationalism, by Isaiah Berlin, John Murray publishers, London, 1993, 144 pages including Index. We have to thank Clifford Geertz for pointing us, indirectly via Isaiah Berlin, this way in Geertz' Available Light.

The Nag Hammadi Library, TNHL, general editor James M. Robinson, 1990 paperback, Harper San Francisco.

Doug's partial review and quantum hermeneutics of TNHL's 'The Gospel of Truth:'

We are gradually mining this aggregation of (modern translations of) ancient texts. Our second work product issue, in doing that mining, is similar a classical vis-à-vis quantum philosophy issue: classical reality as absolute state vis-à-vis quantum reality as absolute flux. Our first issue, which we have now covered well is whether to believe in anti-heretical pro-orthodox Post Roman Irenaeus' Christianity (PRIC; from about 200 c.e. forward), then alternatively individual-free-will heterodox Jesus' Ancient Gnostic Essene (JAGE) nostrums (from about 40 b.c.e. forward) which distill to:

  • PRIC - "In the beginning was..." 'the word' as psychically immutable, belief as absolute social-communal canon-creed-structured 'state,' with masculine God as excluded-middle separate from us while we are excluded-middle separate from masculine God, then quantum~complementarily
  • JAGE - logos as pneumatically variable and varying from individual to individual, with hermaphroditic God included~middle in each of us and each of us included~middle in hermaphroditic God. Jesus pneumatically issi Light and Light issi absolute flux, from any c¤mplementarospective. (See Pagels' The Gnostic Gospels and The Gnostic Paul. See Quantonics' quantum~paraphrasing of Heraclitus.) Too, from Doug's own quantum sensibilities, Jesus issi Light begs Essene Gnosticism as quantum gn¤sticism.

Now we can rather easily juxtapose metaphorically classical dialectical science as aligning PRIC and quantum rhetorical pragma as resonant JAGE. PRIC is stux. JAGE issi flux. That juxtaposition is nearly whole impetus for Doug's research obsessions: classical vis-à-vis quantum, social vis-à-vis individual, dialectic vis-à-vis sophist~rhetoric, Irenaeun vis-à-vis gnostic, classical gnostic vis-à-vis quantum~gn¤stic, Jesuit~gnostic vis-à-vis gn¤stic, quintessentially then: stux vis-à-vis flux.

A current foray (September, 2006) took us from Pagels' Gnostic Paul into TNHL's The Gospel of Truth (TGoT), a 'Christian gnostic gospel.' This text is tutorial of issues involved in our list of vis-à-vises just above. Allow us to review a first page of that text here:

Text shown here is contiguous, but fragmented for review memetic hermeticism.

Doug's Review Comments
in this column.

For Doug's very opinionated views, bold green in TGoT text is more quantum while bold red is more classical. Truth as quantum must be perceived QELRed as truthings. Substitute to your personal liking: classical (truth) and quantum (truthings). Authors of this text probably were classical PRICs, so their intent may have been Roman dialectical inanity. However, we have n¤ way of know~ing and must depend upon our own individual understandings.

Doug capitalized and bolded all TGoT occurrences of 'error' as Error.
Read TNHL's TGoT Introduction to see why.

"The gospel of truth is joy | for those who have received from | the Father of truth the grace of knowing him, | through the power of the Word that came forth from 35 the pleroma, the one who is in the thought | and the mind of the Father, that is, | the one who is addressed as | the Savior, (that) being the name of the work he is | to perform for the redemption of those who were 17 ignorant of the Father, while in the name [of] | the gospel is the proclamation | of hope, being discovery | for those who search for him.

Our hugest issue here, among many, is "What did authors of the Christian version of 'The Gospel of Truth' mean by 'truth?'

If they meant 'truth' is state-ic, immutable, Platonically tautologous forever, then we can conclude they were consummate dialecticians and that this entire text may be interpreted literally.

However, if they meant that 'truth' is as Essene Gnostic Jesus implied (according to Thomas' (Judas Didymos) Gospel, et al., hermeneutically individual and possibly dynamic, then we can comclude they were more quantum and very much less dialectical in their language, semantics, and grammar.

"When 5 the totality went about searching for the one | from whom they had come forth and the totality was | inside of him, the | incomprehensible, inconceivable one | who is superior to every thought 10 ignorance of the Father brought about anguish | and terror; and the anguish | grew solid like a fog, | so that no one was able to see. |

What do authors intend in their use of 'totality?'

A society of mental clones? Religion as social hive drone OSFA consensus? I.e., vulgi opinio error?

An ensemble of individuals with individual interpretations and understandings?

Observe how closely "...Father brought about anguish | and terror; and the anguish | grew solid like a fog, | so that no one was able to see. " corresponds what we directly experience on Earth now at Millennium III's commencement.

Doug views "no one was able to see" as SOM's blinders borne of and on classical social dialectic and its notional objective spawn.

"For this reason Error 15 became powerful; it worked on its own matter | foolishly, | not having known the truth. It set about with a creation, | preparing with power and 20 beauty the substitute for the truth. | This was not, then, a humiliation for him, | the incomprehensible, inconceivable one, | for they were nothing, the anguish and the oblivion and the creature 25 of deceit, while the established | truth is immutable, | imperturbable, perfect in beauty.'

This bundle of sentences describes what Roman Irenaeun inanity did to Essene Gnostic Christianity! It made Error powerful. Thomas Aquinas made Error, catholicly, even more powerful, more Aristotelian, more ortho logically hoi polloi "tragedy of commons sense" and thus vulgar 'scientific.'

Simply, Error, described here, is Dialectic!

Doug's view...Heraclitus called dialectic "war," essene-tially Error. For a profound Irenæus' and Constantine contrived Roman inane New Testament exemplar see Matthew's anti-gnostic Jesus: read Matthew 10, 34. Why did Doug call Matthew "anti gnostic?" If you recall Thomas Gospel, it (gospel number 13, especially) shows us how of Jesus' 12 disciples Jesus felt that only two of them ascended to his gnostic topos' top level of pneumatic: John-Mary and Didymos. Others, including Matthew, were at best psychic and possibly only hylic. Others, including Matthew were jealous of Jesus' special and elevated regard for both John-Mary and Didymos. What Matthew wrote about Jesus subsequently was probably only literal, psychically only 'lite ral,' unroyal, 'lite real!' Plausibly Error! Doug - 16Feb2007.

Compare Doug's view to Elaine Pagels' view:

"Yet even the fifty-two writings discovered at Nag Hammadi offer only a glimpse of the complexity of the early Christian movement. We now begin to see that what we call Christianity and what we identify as Christian tradition actually represents only a small selection of specific sources, chosen from among dozens of others. Who made that selection, and for what reasons? Why were these other writings excluded and banned as 'heresy'? What made them so dangerous? Now, for the first time, we have the opportunity to find out about the earliest Christian heresy; for the first time, the heretics can speak for themselves.

"Gnostic Christians undoubtedly expressed ideas that the orthodox abhorred. For example, some of these gnostic texts question whether all suffering, labor, and death derive from human sin, which, in the orthodox version, marred an originally perfect creation. Others speak of the feminine element in the divine, celebrating God as Father and Mother. Still others suggest that Christ's resurrection is to be understood symbolically. A few radical texts even denounce catholic Christians themselves as heretics, who, although they 'do not understand mystery. . . boast that the mystery of truth belongs to them alone.'75" Page xxxv, Introduction of Pagels' The Gnostic Gospels.

75"Apocalypse of Peter 76.27-30, in NHL 342. In quotations from this text, I am following the translations of J. Brashier. The Coptic Apocalypse of Peter: A Genre Analysis and Interpretation (Claremont, 1977)."

Include Quantonics among "A few radicals..." Catholic orthodoxy is, in our view, a pile of dialectical Error prone anti individual, anti freedom of thought, anti quantum, bogus and hegemonous bilge.

"Now Doug, don't hold back..."

"For this reason, despise | Error. Yes, despise Dialectic and all its sufferers.
"Thus 30 it had no root; it fell into | a fog regarding the Father, while it was involved in | preparing works and | oblivions and terrors, in order that | by means of these it might entice those 35 of the middle and capture | them."

Dialectic fell into a morass, an abyss of concrete catholic Roman inane stayssyss.

Roman inanes re engineered and re manufactured Gnostic Christianity into Dialectical Christianity: the anti Christ.

Roman inanes' "oblivions and terrors" were their anti Muslim Crusades, anti Greek Crusades, anti Jewish Crusades, their murders of Cathars and as many anti hereticals as they could expose, their excommunications of all who disagree with their corrupt and inept ordained orthodoxy.

To catholics, "There is no middle ground," "There is no neutrality." That is as anti quantum as one may become.

Doug - 15Sep2006.

Text taken from The Nag Hammadi Library.
What you see is about first page of entire The Gospel of Truth text.
We found this reference in Elaine Pagels' The Gnostic Paul.
Contiguous quotes are from p. 40 of TNHL.

Translator - editor conventions:

unbold numbers are line numbers

bold numbers are page numbers

[] Manuscript lacuna
<> Correction of (apparent) scribal omission
| Original text line divisions
() Material added by translator or editor

Those annotations are from translators of The Nag Hammadi Library.

The NIV Study Bible, Red Letter Edition, 1985, Zondervan.

Doug read this first time April-May, 1993 in hot, humid, 1984 and Clockwork Orangesque Plano, Texas. In Doug's view Texas is a great place to keep Bushters. It is still a pre civil war confederacy. Lots of hate. Lots of white dialectic.

Doug refers this text often as he reads other recommendations on this web page. For starters, Matthew 10:34 is an eye opener akin Quran's "Infidels and apostates: strike their necks." Compare Nag Hammadi Gospels to NIV synoptics Matthew, Mark and Luke. John, for many reasons is unique. Almost makes one wonder how it got past Constantine and Irenaeus. John is much closer to Gnosticism than NIV's synoptics. Elsewhere (HBHG) authors depict John as cover for a key, holy blood, female, perhaps a holy grail quantum hermaphrodite.

Romans designed 'the bible' as a political means of controlling 'the flock.' Romans saw 'the flock' as idiots — Dennett calls them "helpless innocents" — who were incapable of reading, let alone interpreting, gospels. Romans tried to and nearly accomplished burning all non 'certified' gospels and texts.

Nag Hammadi Gospels are part of what is left. Many of those are Gnostic, Essene. Roman Catholicism (bishops and popes) literally killed all Gnostics they could find and perjure. It took them over 40 years to wipe out France's Cathars, including women and children. Romaninanity. Inquisition. Inane catholicism. All born of religious dialectical hate: Doug's opinion. Beware catholics. Beware dialectical 'Christians.'

Let's be blunt: if you are a catholic, Doug respects your right to be catholic, but he wholly disrespects what you believe. Call that, "Doug's Protestment, Doug's witnessing for quantum~Jesus, martus aretê Jesus, Gn¤stic Jesus, Essene Jesus, Nazirean Jesus, Beth David [Dah veed], Tribe of Judah Jesus."

Per Beth~ahavah, "And there you have it."

The Templar Revelation - The Secret Code of Leonardo da Vinci Revealed, by Lynn Picknett & Clive Prince, 1997, Touchstone, 432 total pages including index

The Templars' Secret Island - The Knights the Priest and the Treasure (re: more Catholic suppression of knowledge), by Erling Haagensen & Henry Lincoln, 2002, Cassell&Co

The Woman with the Alabaster Jar (which allegedly held Jesus' foreskin; see Plantard Crest foreskin moat surrounding hermaphroditic Fleur de Lis) - Mary Magdalen and the Holy Grail, by Margaret Starbird, 1993, Bear&Co

Varieties of Religious Experience, by William James, First Edition June, 1902, Longmans Green and Company, 534 total pages including Index, The Riverside Press, HO Houghton & Co.

Read and enjoy - experience a n¤vel and better Quantonics way of thinking about organized religion and its individual, gnostic alternatives, quantum religion as an alternative, etc.

Doug Renselle
Ihn Quantonics
Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass
Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730

Doug also wants to use this page as a temporary holder for his own religious views, and beliefs, and his own personal Chautauqua's learning via reading above listed texts.

Doug's view of some 'Christians' as hypocrites:

"Many 'Christians' whom Doug has met, in Doug's opinions are hypocrites.

What does Doug mean when he says some 'Christians' are hypocrites?

To Doug, a 'Christian' (or anyone, scientists, Muslims, teachers, popes, etc.) is a hypocrite whenever said 'Christian' reserves he-r right to judge you while denying you your right to judge them.

That is what Roman catholicism does! It does hypocrisy! But so does Islam. So does Protestant Christianity! So does Judaism! So does all dialectical religion...and 'science' too!

Doug has yet to meet a non-judgmental Christian. For an example of Christian judgmental hypocrisy, look on WWW for Christian attempted demonization of Ron Howard's 2006 movie, The Da Vinci Code. Pure hypocrisy! Pure fear! Christians are afraid of any threats, real or perceived, to their bogus (i.e., 1800 year old Roman inane Irenaeun and Constantinian contrived and manufactured) dialectical dogma and orthodoxy.

Thomas Aquinas called those who do 'not' believe in and adhere Christian dogma, "infidels." Muslim terrorists adhere similar doctrine. But call Aquinas "a liar" [he was] and Christians call you "an infidel" for emitting 'blasphemy." Muslim terrorists kill those ["strike their necks"] who do not believe ["infidel apostates"] their way. Roman catholics did same for centuries from about 300 a.d. to about 1600 a.d. Bush declares war on those, who dialectically do 'not' believe his way and, who refuse to be placed imperialistically-hegemonously under any flag of democracy. Mel Gibson agrees as you shall read below. Now that is blasphemy! A lamb calling a pig "pink."

An age old bogus sovereignty: objective society above and controlling all subjective individuals. Garbage! Bilge! Dialectic! Romaninanity!

Can you n¤t see all that as religious fundamental hypocrisy?

It is time for Christianity to be judged. It is time for catholicism to be blasphemed, quantumly! Why? Catholicism's bases are dialectical, and physial reality shows us that dialectical anything is a clear and present perjuring of nature. Catholicism, Roman inanity, perjures nature, perjures Gn¤stic Christ. Read above texts to find it so... Doug.

Are Christians aware that their Roman manufactured beliefs perjure nature?

Whatever you do, do n¤t believe anything mentioned catholic church says. It has been lying and burning books and covering up so long it believes its own lies. It belies itself! What a just sentence, 'tis!

One of our texts above says most Christians are 'not' aware of what we are saying, and quantum~subjectively, we agree. Allow us to excerpt some of Daniel C. Dennett's remarks from his article titled, 'Common-Sense Religion,' in The Chronicle Review's January 20, 2006 issue. Dennett says what we want to say better than we ever could say it, and he does so nicely, n¤t in Doug's street savvy Goodwill Hunting pugilinguistic manner:

First, Dennett asks a cogent question, "Should we leave them [those who believe in fraudulent religion; note that Dennett is a self-declared atheist] to their comforting illusions or blow the whistle?" Our bold and brackets. We want to reuse Dennett's them as emboldened.

Doug loves that question. You will see why in just a few paragraphs...

Dennett sees them as "helpless innocents," which he explains in subsequent paragraphs... Again Doug agrees, as you shall grasp momentarily...

Dennett refers Marjoe, a 1972 documentary about an evangelical phony named Gortner, who wove a web of religious deceit which entrapped many "helpless innocents."

Quote Dennett article:

"What if Gortner were to con a cadre of sincere evangelical preachers into doing his dirty work? Would their innocence change the equation and give genuine meaning to the lives of those [them] whose sacrifices they encouraged and collected? Or are all evangelical preachers just as false as Gortner? Certainly Muslims think so, even though they are generally too discreet to say it. And Roman Catholics think that Jews are just as deluded, and Protestants think that Catholics are wasting their time and energy on a largely false religion, and so forth. All Muslims? All Catholics? All Protestants? All Jews? Of course not. There are vocal minorities in every faith who blurt it out, like the Catholic movie star Mel Gibson, who was interviewed by Peter J. Boyer in a 2003 profile in The New Yorker. Boyer asked him if Protestants are denied eternal salvation.

"'There is no salvation for those outside the Church,' Gibson replied. 'I believe it.' He explained: 'Put it this way. My wife is a saint. She's a much better person than I am. Honestly. She's, like, Episcopalian, Church of England. She prays, she believes in God, she knows Jesus [that is a patent lie - Doug], she believes in that stuff. And it's not fair if she doesn't make it, she's better than I am. But that is a pronouncement from the chair. I go with it.' [the chair is fallible: Doug]


"It is equally unknown how many Muslims truly believe that all infidels deserve death, which is what the Koran undeniably says. Most Muslims I would guess, are sincere in their insistence that the injunction that apostates be killed be disregarded... [A conclusion? The Quran, like the Bible is classically, dialectically imperfect...apocryphal...quantum real. Doug.]


"In the adult world of religion, people are dying and killing, with the moderates cowed into silence by the intransigence of the radicals in their own faiths, and many adherents afraid to acknowledge what they actually believe for fear of breaking Granny's heart, or offending their neighbors to the point of getting run out of town, or worse.

"If that is the precious meaning our lives are vouchsafed thanks to our allegiance to one religion or another, it is not such a bargain. Is that the best we can do? Is it not tragic that so many people around the world find themselves enlisted against their will in a conspiracy of silence? [Bravo! Dennett! Here, we believe, Dennett is in a process of "destroying a fear." Individual excellence, aretê! Quantum individual quintessence of Josphine Baker, and Rosa Parks. Doug.]


"That's why those who have an unquestioning faith in the correctness of the moral teachings of their religion are a problem: If they haven't conscientiously considered, on their own, whether their pastors or priests or rabbis or imams are worthy of such delegated authority over their lives, then they are taking a personally immoral stand. [An indelicate way of putting this is "...they are witnessing Satan..." Doug. Although Dennett's language and logic are dialectical, we hermeneut its quantumness and agree!]


"It is time for the reasonable adherents of all faiths to find the courage and stamina to reverse the tradition that honors helpless love of God—in any tradition. Far from being honorable, it is not even excusable. It is shameful. Here is what we should say to people who follow such a tradition: There is only one way to respect the substance of any purported God-given moral edict. Consider it conscientiously in the full light of reason, using all the evidence at our command. No God pleased by displays of unreasoning love is worthy of worship." [Here we disagree vigorously with Dennett's use of 'reason.' Classical 'scientific reason' is wholly dialectical, and thus systemically flawed, as Pirsig says, "genetically flawed." Dialectic cann¤t offer, in any way, "full light," and Dennett — in our view — needs to apply his own comments and recommendations to his own immoral "faith in dialectical reason." Doug - 8Feb2005.]

End quotes of Dennett article. Our brackets, links, ellipses, and bold.

All Dennett quotes taken from The Chronicle Review, January 20, 2006, an Daniel C. Dennett article titled, 'Common-Sense Religion.'

Readers please be aware that, where Dennett is an atheist, Doug in fullest of his personal qua believes in an ineffable quantum G¤d while disavowing n¤n individual dialectically-organized social, catholic, common-sense religion — especially dialectical religion — as bogus bilge much as how Dennett describes it above. While disrespecting what we view as "bogus bilge," we respect anyone's rights to believe in "bogus bilge." Further Doug issi k~now~ings whatings heings issings believings and can back it up, responsibly, if n¤t wholly respectfully.

A bottom line, here: Faith like truth is quantum~con(m)tingent; quantum reality makes it so. Faith is an agent of its own change. To claim that Faith is and can be concrete is a catholic dialectical deign to feign. Gn¤stics, quantum optimistic Gn¤stics, especially Jesus, were teaching such millennia ago. That's why catholics tried their best to wipe them and their texts out. We refer Pirsig's "ancients." See Nag Hammadi Gospels. Doug - 7-8Feb2006.

Doug intentionally uses lower case 'catholic' where you might expect him to use upper case.

To contact Quantonics write to or call:

Doug Renselle
Quantonics, Inc.
Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass
Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730

©Quantonics, Inc., 2006-2028 — Rev. 29Jan2015  PDR — Created 5Feb2006  PDR
(7-8Feb2006 rev - Add pink update on 'Christians as Hypocrites.' Start page top ten list of links. Add 'A Breaking the Spell tease' anchor to our Dennett review.)
(12-13,15,25Feb2006 rev - Finish BtS Ch. 1 review. Add Greek language comment on Greek virtue vav excellence. Move BtS to standard format.)
(2-3,12Mar2006 rev - Connect intra page links to separate Dennett BtS review pages. Add links to Chs. 4-5 of BtS.)
(4,11,29Apr2006 rev - Add anchor to Joseph Fort Newton quote of The Builders. Clean up page top, move Dennett BtS to single link
: BtS has its own web page now. Add gold on black text near page top. Add TMotN.)
(4,7,9,13,24May2006 rev - Add The Gnostic Paul. Add Hume's DCNR. Add The Gnostic Bible and TGB commentary. Add The Gnostic Bible anchor. Fix typo. Top ten list and text. Add link to Hume's DCNR review.)
(29May2006 rev - Add brief Casaubon remarks under Yates' Giordano Bruno.)
(8-11,17-18,21Jun2006 rev - Add comments and table under Pagels' The Gnostic Paul. Extend comments table. Repair some punctuation lapses.)
(3,6,28Aug2006 rev - Minor typo. Add William James' gnostic comments near page top. Repair missing parenthetical. Reset legacy red text and pink cells.)
(14-15,17Sep2006 rev - Add Doug's Review of first page of TNHL's TGoT. Update hylics, Psychics, Pneumatics table. Recommend Babettes Feast near page top. Add Pagels' TJGiGE reference.)
(20-21,24Sep2006 rev - Repair hy[c]lic to 'hylic.' Update 'Jesus' in our sidis table. Update Ptolemy and Valentinus.)
(22,24Oct2006 rev - Add Saul-Paul anchor under The Gnostic Paul. Change date for recent updates.)
(2Nov2006 rev - Add 'Martus Aritos' link to our review of Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.)
(5Dec2006 rev - Add Picatrix link under Valentinus in table above.)
(17-18Jan2007 rev - Reset legacy red text. Add red text 'quantum gnosis' as apropos. Add 'Elaine Pagels Opus' anchor.)
(16Feb2007 rev - Add some minor red text updates under TGoT.)
(7May2007 rev - Typos.)
(4-5,7-8,14,17,19-21Jun2007 rev - Add some recommended reading references. Extend comments under Hoeller's Gnosticism. Fix typos in Hoeller-Conze table. Add 14 'definitions' table and commentary.)
(23,26,29,31Jun2007 rev - Under our commentary of Hoeller's Gnostic Definition 1, change 'nospace' to 'space.' Add some links to Gnostic Definition commentary. Typos. Add Creedopedia link. Grammar fix on Gno. def 2 comments.)
(9,20Aug2007 rev - Repair picatrix link. Add Mead Oracles I page 91 update to our Hoeller quotes above.)
(22,24,31Aug2007 rev - Add link to Doug's review of TJGiGE Introduction. Add 24Aug2007 aside. Add Judaic Timeline link. Add Jn 1.1-4 Exegeses.)
(19Sep2007 rev - Add link to Pagels' Naassene Gnostic Exegesis.)
(6Oct2007 rev - Add Mead's Chaldean Oracles and his Fragments of a Faith Forgotten. Add 'Hoeller's Lists' anchor.)
(9,22Oct2007 rev - Repair page top Jesus' beth and tribe. Update our Da Vinci reference near page top.)
(4,7-9Nov2007 rev - Add comments to Gaffney's Gnostic Secrets of the Nassenes.)
(30Dec2007 rev - Add 'Opus Devil' commentary.)
(11Jan2008 rev - Add 'for example, "Pirsig's ancients"' parenthetical under Gaffney.)
(22Mar2008 rev - More of Chapter 8 plus some Doug martus aritos.)
(19Apr2008 rev - Continue Gaffney's chapter 8 review.)
(1-12,18,23May-1-8Jun2008 rev - Start Gaffney's chapter 9 review. Add Jean-Yves Leloup site link. Reformat Hoeller's Lists.)
(13-15Jun2008 rev - Start review of Gaffney, Chapter 10.)
(21Jun2008 rev - Reset some legacy red text in large table. Add Gaffney detail under Hippolytus in large table.)
(19,26,28,31Jul2008 rev - Correct typo in Gaffney book title. Under Gaffney, add link to 'A Doug Comment on Rationalism.' Start review of Gaffney, GSotN, Ch. 11. Add QCD table.)
(1-3,8-9,17,22,29-31Aug2008 rev - Update QCD Table under Gaffney review. Minor edits to recent updates. Many Johns update. Pagels many Johns update. Add 'Good vav Not Good/ segment. List of what we lost. Wrap ch. 11.)
(4Sep2008 rev - Reset legacy red text. Move our review of Gaffney's Gnostic Secrets of the Naassenes to its own separate web page. It literally out grew available space on this page.)
(26Oct2008 rev - Add 'Hylics Psychics Pneumatics Table' anchor. Convert all Wingdings and symbol fonts to gifs.)
(25Nov2008 rev - Repair typo. Adjust some texts' colors. Reset legacy markups.)
(25-27,29,31Jan2009 rev - Add Gnostic Philosophy by Tobias Churton. Add Chapter 11, Aleister Crowley comments from Churton's text. Typos. Add symbology aside.)
(2,18,24Feb2009 rev - Repair minor typos and missing italicization. Add 'What is Gnosis?' link. Add link to recent QELR of 'aware.')
(8,31Mar2009 rev - Add 'Jesus Christ as Anti Jesus' anchor and commentary under Stephan Hoeller review.
Add 'dumbass' link to acronyms.)
(23Apr2009 rev - Add 'What is Gnosis?' link under Chaldaean Oracles I&II.)
(30Aug2009 rev - Add 'Re Cancellation vav Negation' anchor.)
(6Oct2009 rev - Add Suares' Qabala Trilogy.)
(8Nov2009 rev - Correct typo of Gaffney. Make page current. Reset legacy markups.)
(2Apr2010 rev - Add 'Baigent on Paul' segment.)
(12Jul2010 rev - Repair a scanning error in Doug's review of DCDennett's Chronical article.)
(20Nov2012 rev - Update Hoeller's 14 Definitions' Doug Commentary with new text and links.)
(10Dec2012 rev - Add 'serpent' link under notes.)
(29Jan2015 rev - Update Gospel of Thomas link.)