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

Doug has just started reading this text. It looks like a good place to start for anyone who wants a quick introduction with some depth of understanding gnosis vis-à-vis orthodoxy, and how we got to be in such horrible circumstances as religion is today.

From page 4 of Gaffney's 'Introduction,' we offer essence of his own approach, "...we will arrive at conclusions that are utterly subversive to orthodox Christianity and which, I predict, will eventually stand tradition on its head. <...paragraph break here...> We are going to examine powerful evidence that the Gnostic element was present in Christianity from the beginning, and was, in fact, the very heart of the teachings of Jesus." Paperback, Inner Traditions, Vermont, 2004.

You may recall that Doug has conjectured for nearly two years that The Holy Grail is a hermaphroditic blood line emerging from Jesus and Magdalene (AKA John~Mary). Gaffney's text offers affirmation, perhaps only partial, as a portion of Gaffney's compiled Birdsall (Gaffney shows preference here...), MacMahon, and G.R.S. Mead's translations of Bishop Hippolytus' Refutation of All Heresies, Book 5 (which includes The Naassene Sermon (so-called by Richard Reitzenstein...), a subsequent to Irenæus' Adversus Heresies,

"Naassenes, then, according to the system advanced by them, magnify, as the originating cause of all things else: a Man, anthropos, and a Son of Man. And this Man is a hermaphrodite and is denominated among them: Adamas...of this man one part is rational [1], another psychical [2], another earthly [3]. And Naassenes suppose that the knowledge of him is the originating principle of the capacity for knowledge of God...The originating principle of perfection is the knowledge of Man, while the knowledge of God is absolute perfection."

Page 214, GSotN, Appendix I, Gaffney's quotations from Birdsall (emphasis), MacMahon and Mead's translations of Bishop Hippolytus' Refutations of All Heresies. Doug effaced several marks and punctuation.

Doug's brackets. Brackets show gnosis' topos which is usually, at least today, shown as pneuma [1 vis-à-vis 2], psychic [2 vis-à-vis 1], and hylic [3]. Doug shows vis-à-vis here on 1 and 2 due ambiguity of rational vis-à-vis spiritual and psychic vis-à-vis spiritual. Compare topos as most gnostics use it. As an almost pure dialectical term, 'rational' doesn't fit any gnosis of which Doug is aware. This Hippolytuæn 'topos' may somehow align, though, like this: pneuma-psychical, psychic-rational, and hylic-earthly. That, at least partially, makes some sense to Doug.

Doug likes to complementaroceive hermaphrodicty as a kind of genomic, "Waving of dialectic's either-or bricks from SOM's Wall." Two in one and one in two. Wæ aræ ihn Iht an(m)d Iht issi ihn uhs. Gaffney, brilliantly, uses this quantum complementarity in a host of other ways without referring it as 'quantum complementarity.' Examples are 'waters,' crossing jordan (biblically J), Elijah-Elisah included~middling of quanton(n¤nactuality,actuality) as sharing-swapping, one becoming two and two becoming one, etc. Latter agrees with Doug's memeo of "hermaphroditic s¤n of hermaphroditic man issi ihn hermaphroditic God an(m)d hermaphroditic God issi ihn hermaphroditic s¤n of hermaphroditic man." Notice hermaphrodicity used here by Doug as a quantum stochastic middle~included~straddling of enthymemes ~malæ an(m)d ~fæmalæ. Compare now enthymemeticity of quanton(fæmalæ,malæ) and classically 'unambiguous' ideal objective, formal and dyadic either-or analytic specificity of dichon(male, female).

This moves dogma and orthodoxy to a trash-heap of n¤ return, to put it mildly. Doug - 8Nov2007.

Doug also offers his own heuristics that John~Mary (Magdalene, Jesus' wife: See Kathleen McGowan's The Unexpected One), of Sang Ral, too is hermaphroditic and both of their children were. Doug's heuristics arise mostly from his one and yet only reading of Holy Blood Holy Grail by Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln. Doug senses that HBHG needs multiple passes in order to assess and only commence fathoming its depths.

Brief exposure by Doug - 4Nov2007 with subsequent markups undistinguished through 8Nov2007.

More...7Nov2007...

In Chapter 1, Gaffney makes some n¤væl inferences which we find first, and for Doug uniquely, here in his work. Key here is a notion of 'the waters.' An event happened with Elijah and Elisah where Jordan's waters parted. This is key to later Gaffney heuristics (Jesus' baptism in 'waters Jordan') in Chapter 2.

In Chapter 2, Gaffney makes, for us at least, a huge breakthrough! Allow us to quote paragraphs 2 and 3 of Chapter 2:

"Many parts of the Gospel of Thomas are nearly identical to passages in the gospels of the New Testament, but Thomas is n¤t derivative: Form critical analysis shows it to be an original 'sayings source' of Jesus. Further, the material in Thomas is not assembled in a historical narrative in the manner of the New Testament Gospels. The text's 114 sayings and parables are numbered and presented sequentially, but loosely so and in no apparent order.

"According to Helmut Koester, one of the scholars who helped translate and prepare the Nag Hammadi library for publication, recent studies of Thomas have failed to show any dependence on the New Testament. In fact, they show just the opposite: Koester writes, 'In many cases the sayings from Thomas are preserved in a form that is more original than any of its canonical parallels.' This suggests that the Gospel of Thomas predates the New Testament and may even have been one of the original sources for the canonical scriptures. Although the manuscript of Thomas found at Nag Hammadi was written in Coptic (the native language of Egypt in the first centuries C.E.), paleographic analysis confirms that the Coptic version was based on an older Greek original. Helmut Koester thinks the Gospel of Thomas dates to the earliest period of Christianity. If this dating is correct, it refutes the standard view of a sharp divide between early Christianity and Gnosticism. Until very recently, most scholars regarded Gnostic Christianity as a second-century C.E. aberration. The early dates associated with Thomas and his Gospel's thoroughly Gnostic tone challenge this view, and strongly suggest that a mystical Gnostic element was present in Christianity from the beginning. As we shall see, analysis of the Naassene Sermon, the primary source document for this book, also supports this conclusion." Chapter 2, pages 20-21. Doug's bold and some QELR. Doug effaced some important footnotes and leave it to you to dig into them. Also, it is well to study Naassene Sermon, see GSotN's appendices, so you can relate what Gaffney is saying-writing here.

From what Doug has studied so far re gnosis, "the standard view of a sharp divide between early Christianity and Gnosticism..." is wr¤ng, i.e., "the standard view" is wr¤ng. Doug isn't saying there isn't a "sharp divide." There are probably and plausibly many 'divides.' Let's show two, Gaffney's and Doug's:

1. Gaffney's 'standard divide' which is — one invented by Roman Catholics starting with Irenæus, Constantine, and about a century subsequently Hippolytus — that gnosis is heretical. Universal Irenæun, Constantinian, and Hippolytuæn social, institutional 'christianity' is anti heretical (i.e., anti gnostic). In other words common sense, 'socially positive,' agreement is 'true.' In other words vulgi opinio does 'not' err, in "the standard view." The standard view says, socially and institutionally, "God is separate from human beings." Fathom "the standard view," as a metaphor of SOM's Bases of Judgment.
2. Renselle's interpretations of Pagels, Perataean, Chaldean, and Valentinian gnosis (~gnoses) are that Essene Jesus' (n¤t radically Essene old testament legalists' like John the Baptist) view gnosis is about individuals finding God within themselves and thus implicitly avoiding institutional vulgate opinion. Essene Jesus' view is that, "God is in us, and we are in God."

Essene Gn¤stic Jesus claims that number one is Error, and number two is spiritual, pneumatic. From that, Doug makes a valid inference that Essene Gn¤stic Jesus claims, "Dialectic is Error." Number 1 IS dialectic's either-or. Number two is quantum~middle~inclusion: b¤th~ahll~while~an(m)d~mahny. So, you may choose (heretically AKA gn¤stically) to see how easy it is to compare "the standard view," and "the Essene Gn¤stic Jesus' view."

If you study gnosis well, you will find that two other classical dialectical vis-à-vis quantum omnistinguishings can be made:

1. Classical ("the standard view") - symbols are static and separable (recall Bergson's two classical delusions), and
2. Quantum - all significates must be hermeneuted and heuristed as animate processings which superpose.

Similarly, you may see how classicists like Irenæus, Constantine, Hippolytus, etc., comfortably used 'the.' But 'the' is a tell of classical adherence to monism. Doug's gnostic studies clearly omnisambiguate gn¤stics' view that "...monism is deceit..." since formal dialectic derives from monism. Gn¤stics are telling their flocks loudly and clearly, "One Size Does Not Fit All!" Enter pluralism! Attenuate monism!

Doug views all of this as more evidence that Jesus was~is gn¤stic and he taught gn¤sis. Jesus taught us to find God within ourselves. There is naught institutional n¤r 'social' in that. Çatholiçs tried to eliminate all gnosis and all gnostics so they could impose institutional 'religion' on humanity. They almost succeeded. Now it is time for us as individuals to efface 'çatholiçism.' As Doug sees it, we are already getting lots of help. Unfortunately Satan's home isn't USA, rather, it is Italy...Rome to be specific. People who founded USA adhere more gn¤stic individualism and despise 'çatholiç' OSFA fascist social-institutional totalitarianism. It is time for Muslims to grasp that essence, too. Islam's roots reside in similar ones as ancient Christians' roots. We can make this very, very simple. Religion and beliefs which find their bases in dialectic are anti-Christian and anti-gn¤sis. Those who are antign¤stic reside in Satan's lair. Those are bottom lines which may n¤t be ignored having read much of what our references on this web page describe.

Doug has this nagging sense that Gaffney confuses (perhaps conflates) John 'the Baptist' with Jesus' disciple John~Mary. John 'the Baptist' was a 'rule of law' dialectical hegemon of first magnitude, a student of James, Jesus' too-dialectical brother. John 'the baptist' was an anti-gnostic if there ever was one. John~Mary, it is clear now, was a Essene~Jesuit gnostic who practiced and taught gnosis. See Doug's Gnostic Updates.

Read our other references here. A good and fun one is McGowen's The Unexpected One. Our only fault with Ms. McGowen is that she apparently sees no major problem with Vatican as Satan's own den.

More as we progress...7-9Nov2007... Doug.

More...1Jan2008...

Chapter 2 agrees with Pagels that NT's opus is bent on making Christianity an institutional religion. Gnostic Jesus abhors this. Gnosis itself is "individual wisdom," blatantly n¤t 'social wisdom,' indeed, in gnosis society has n¤ wisdom. Both Gaffney's and Pagels' point is that institutionalization probably 'saved' Christianity. It's still an abomination, regardless. Its Thomist dialectic makes it even more of an abomination. Gnostic Jesus (Doug's heuristics), like Heraclitus implied that dialectic is a "social pattern of value," and to emphasize that, and mimicking Heraclitus, "Dialectic is war." Of course war too is a social pattern of value. Jesus referred it simply as "Error." So we modern gn¤stics and quantum~gn¤stics may refer "both war and dialectic" as Error! To make this a parable we can say, "Jesus is Light and to be In Logos' Light we must avoid Error." Error is darkness and Error cann¤t be ihn n¤r see Light. For great emphasis, c. 2008 Christianity is Irenæun Error. "In dialectic's darkness."

Again, we perceive real gn¤sis as quantum. It is vivid, lucid!

Gaffney also addresses Elijah (age of 7; 7 miracles; possibly "once beyond") and (plausibly reincarnated as) Elisha (age of 14, ba[rt] mitzvah; 14 miracles; "double spirit;" possibly "twice beyond" too) and Jesus as reincarnate Elisha. Gaffney interprets that as offering novel interpretation to Jesus' last words on his Roman death cross, "Eli, Eli why hast thou forsaken me?" I.e., "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani." Most scholars read that using Hebrew for "God" as "El." Compare Hebrew 'sel,' and Hebrew 'El.' 'Sel' is rock, stone, and cliff. Hebraic materialism and SOM's wall impose their own pro dialectical perpetual 'state' provocatives here. What is missing? If reality is quantons(waves,particles) and we use 'sel' as metaphoric 'particles,' what Hebrew phoneme replaces waves? "Ren! (actually, as 'rays')" Allow us to substitute reality is quantons(Ren,sel). J

You might imagine Doug's personal fears and horror at omniscovering that!

Gaffney uses Matthew 19:30 to affirm his Elijah-Elisha heuristics, "Many who are first will be last, and the last first." This is so incredibly quantum! It is almost a direct analogue of Hindu "Li-la." A divine dance. A quantum~reality apoptosis~resurrection loop. Those who are "becoming first" anabolically learn to push 'up' Jordan (metaphorically, "river water as waves") to highest realms of spiritual flux. Those who are "unbecoming last" catabolically fall into material-hylic stuckness. (Readers should study and fathom quantum~loop ontology of Sophia: her rise and fall...) We see water as subjective~flux and matter as objective-stux. Quanton(wave,particle)! Quanton(~,o)! Li-la as a divine "both adiabatic and free~energy" dance among quantum~isoenergy (1), ~energy (2), and ~mass (3)!

We must keep reminding ourselves here that anti-gnostic hylic-psychic dialecticians depend upon stux to thingk. By comparison gn¤stic~pneumatists use flux to think_q. Anti-gnostics, e.g., Irenæus in his Adversus Heresies, conceive revelation, redemption, initiation, and learning as perpetual social pattern of value 'state.' Gn¤stics (for example, "Pirsig's ancients") practice revelation, redemption, initiation, and learning as relentless~processings: perpetual individual pattern of Value flux. Gaffney quotes explicitly, from John 3:3, "Unless [one] is born [as soteriological process] from above, [s~he] cannot see the Kingdom of God." Gaffney's italics, Doug's brackets. Gaffney's quote is from a more Greek-pure individual pattern of Value New Jerusalem Bible. Compare other translations emphasizing "born again" as an institutional, social pattern of value. Individual version, as Gaffney makes clear, gnostically practices cowithin spirit as dynamic and adaptive transformative process. Social John 3:3 is stuck. Individual John 3:3 is free. See classical vis-à-vis quantum tells 1 and 2 above. If one is agnostic, anti-gnostic, one may n¤t see logos let alone be ihn logos' perpetual Light.

Chapter 3 commences a omnifficult process of describing and assessing etymology of "son of man" and why Jesus insisted upon being referred "son of man," while Peter and institutional 'Christianity' insist upon calling Jesus "Christ," and "Messiah." Latter, Essene Jesus abhorred! Tentatively and for about 2000 years institutional anti-gnostics won out, but now we see "son of man" making its rapid gnostic return. Gaffney traces "son of man" etymologically back to pre antiquity.

Let's quote Gaffney on page 33 in Chapter 3, "By making the river reverse its flow, Jesus achieves the absolute: supreme union with the Godhead — and he does this while still part of the world, which distinguishes him from Enoch, Noah, and Elijah, all of whom represent previous cases of heavenly ascent." Note that John the Baptist initially refused to baptize Jesus, but Jesus insisted. What resulted is quanton(Godhead,Jesus) which Doug refers a "quantum~straddle." Jesus complements Godhead and Godhead complements Jesus. Jesus, individually, is ihn Godhead and Godhead is ihn individual Jesus: quantum~gnosis! Society cannot encroach this gnosis, then, now, and never! Institutions may n¤t be redeemed. Institutions find n¤r offer salvation. Institutions which claim to state-ically represent God are anti-gnostic and expose their satanic, e.g., Thomist dialectical-monist infrastructures. We can summarize rather quickly and simply:

• Satan is 'state,' perpetual state made dead of institutional hylic-psychic-dialectic, monism,
• Gnosis is 'process,' perpetual flux made live of individual pneumatic~Sophism, pluralism.

Satan is ESQ. Gnosis is ADQ.

Gaffney lists four unprecedented gnostic feats which Jesus accomplished at his Jordan baptism:

1. spiritual initiation,
2. descent of dove,
3. reversal of flux' flow,
4. return to (complementation with) Godhead.

Without calling it "quantum" Gaffney calls Jesus' gnostic baptismal Jordan feats a "metaphor." He does it in words like this:

"Let us now explore the symbolism of the Jordan in the Naassene Sermon and the Testimony of Truth. In both, the river appears as a dual metaphor: On the one hand, it represents the downward creative expression [QCD's TBCS quarks...] of the divine will or, in other words, the manifestation of the world. The gravity-driven Jordan symbolizes a process of materialization [...QCD's UD quarks...] from subtle to gross through a series of intermediate veils, ages, or aeons. The various intermediate levels amount to a progression of increasingly dense layers, each one stepped down from a higher vibratory field [quantum~isoflux] above. The Gnostics believed that the world of planet Earth, the home of humanity, was located in time and physical space near the bottom rung of this overarching system — near but not at the bottom..."

That description matches quantum science's QCD and Balmer ladder descriptions of quantum~reality! Amazing!

Pirsig told us that the ancients (AKA 'sophists') were already practicing Quality, but Parmenides, Plato and Aristotle hated their (i.e., sophists') gnosis. Quality has been on hold. Now it is making an unstoppable comeback. SOM is 'c a t h o l i c a l l y' dead. MoQ is in its living, Ihn Quantum Lightings,™ ascension! Without Pirsig, Quantonics wouldn't even exist folks!

Chapter 4, Gaffney explains to us that Jesus has been referred as "'the Christ,' Christ, Messiah, and son of Man." When Jesus asked Peter "Who do you say I am?" Peter responds "You are the Christ." But Jesus rebukes Peter, "Get away from me, Satan."

Why?

Jesus' preferred answer to "Who am I?" is "You are the Son of Man." Peter seldom referred Jesus as "son of Man," and continued his Satanic referrals of Jesus as "the Christ, the annointed one."

As we understand it, "Jesus Christ," and "Jesus the Christ" are Pauline post Jesus' crucifixion referrals essentially invented (contrived) by Paul-Saul himself. Simply, "Christianity" didn't exist in Jesus' lifetime.

Gaffney appears to make a point that Paul's way is man's way, and not "God's way." So, institutional 'Christianity' is man's dialectically dead Christianity, n¤t God's Gn¤stic~Jesuit (living Son of Man, logos, Light, etc.) Christianity. Doug agrees with this and, for Doug, it somewhat justifies Doug's intentionally harsh comments re: post Roman, anti-Essene-Jesus, dead social conventions and contrivances. There is a lot to say here and Gaffney does. We offer following quote to assist your grasping essence of Gaffney's major point:

"Although we are not ready, just yet to delve more deeply into the image of the stormy sea, subsequent chapters will prepare the way for that discussion, which will be presented in chapter 13. Nevertheless, we can at least begin here to address the larger questions. The evidence we have examined thus far shows, that the name "Son of Man" is one of the keys to the spiritual mission of Jesus on earth. The problem, however, is that there is no way to extract the term's significance from the usual Christian sources. The orthodox canon is simply too restrictive; the narrowing of scripture in the interests of combating alleged heresy has made discovery next to impossible for the average Christian. A serious investigation of the significance of the name Son of Man would draw from pertinent pseudoepigraphic, apocryphal, and Gnostic source material in addition to other ancient texts — whatever documentary evidence may present itself. Indeed, the need to widen the investigation of the name is implicit in the name itself: By favoring a name that clearly predated Judaism by thousands of years, Jesus was very consciously placing himself in a context of human history so sweeping in scope that it recedes from us into the mists of the dawn of civilization. And the Naassene scribe's insistence on preserving these links with antiquity surely reflects the Naassenes' awareness of this." Chapter 4, page 46. Doug's bold.

We are unsure how Gaffney will ultimately depict Son of Man as ancients may have intended. It may be worth our while~ings here and now to review Chaldæan gnosis' quanton(1,quanton(2,quanton(3,dichon(living_4, dead_4)))) as quanton(Mother,quanton(son,quanton(mother,dichon(living_Father, dead_Father)))). Simply Mother,son,mother,living_Father (no demiurge) vis-à-vis Mother,son,mother, dead_Father (dead_Father as dialectical demiurge). If we view son as Gaffney's Son of Man, we can Chaldæan gnostically view Son of Man as a Sapien~lubricating membrane which straddles, perhaps middle~includes spirit and material actuality.

Near end of Chapter 4 Gaffney offers, at least for Doug, some novel narrative re: antiquities' Primal Man as a precursor of Son of Man:

"The Naassene Sermon mentions an important characteristic of Primal Man: his hermaphroditic nature (Refutation 5.7.14). This should not surprise us. As the blueprint for humanity, Primal Man would necessarily incorporate both male and female aspects. The Sermon refers to Adamas as the rock and tells us that rock and cornerstone are equivalent (Refutation 5.7.35). In both mythology and alchemy the stone is considered to be hermaphroditic. In fact, the root of hermaphrodite—herm—means "stone," which is also the root of the name of the Greek god Hermes, the androgynous messenger of the gods. As we know from Greek mythology, Hermes shared some of the qualities of the Son of Man, so it is perhaps not surprising that the Sermon mentions him in this context (Refutation 5.7.37). The equivalence of rock and stone also affirms the intimate connection between Primal Man and the Son of Man: The First Epistle of Peter (I Peter 2:4-8) identifies Jesus as "the living stone" and the corner stone. If Adamas (Primal Man) is the heavenly rock, then Jesus, as the Son of Man, must be his earthly double or representative." Ibid. Page 47-48. Doug's bold.

Readers should realize that,

Quantonics HotMeme™:
Quantum~Reality's own complementarity is a natural expression of EIMA BAWAMedness: holographic~hermaphrodicity!
Quantonics HotMeme™.

Added by Doug - 8Jan2007. See EIMA and BAWAM.

3Jan2008...continuing...

Chapter 5's beginning, Gaffney writes, "Christianity as we know it today bears little resemblance to what existed in the beginning, so it is not surprising that the Sermon's relevance has not yet been recognized." Gaffney shows us how Naassene Sermon offers its readers many challenges. Naassene gnosis was a minority of Jesus' following then. What Doug has read shows that Jesus was Essene, Tribe of Judah, Beth David, etc. Doug knows not interrelations of Naassenes and Essenes yet. Our large table below shows some comparisons...still it lacks explicit description of both Naassene and Essene compared side-by-side. Naassene Sermon's translations and interpretations have been many, by many, under a wide variety of circumstances. On top of that Gaffney makes no (state-) n¤ (phase~) mentions of gnostic topos. Too, he finds some criticism with Elaine Pagels' opus. So to read and understand 'the' Sermon, one must have a vast repertoire of many religions over huge spans of time. Mead, et al., have taken on this task and made some progress. Gaffney writes on page 52, "This multiplicity of voices and influences makes the Naassene Sermon extremely difficult to unravel."

Again, we have to remind our readers that Doug's major emphasis here is finding out how well ancients intuited what Doug calls c. 2008 "quantum~religion." Pirsig has written that many ancients were already practicing a nearly pagan sophism which, for us, is very quantum. We infer Pirsig might call it "an early metaphysics of Quality." Simply, he might call it "aretè." Excellence.

So Doug is interested in history, but mostly from a desire to affirm a modicum of quantum~gn¤sticism in ancients' religious beliefs and practices.

Gaffney calls Naassenes "no ordinary gnostics." Doug, using Thomas Kuhn's phrasing might agree by calling them "extraordinary gnostics." For example, they (some of them; and most ancient of all...) believed in Docetism: Jesus' feet never touched earth since he was spiritual energy. That is about as actually quantum as one may be! Clearly Romans and most Jews were n¤t at that level of spiritual development and evolution. Gaffney says this stuff was like catnip for G.R.S. Mead. Unmiserably, we commiserate.

On a downside, Gaffney tells us that some Naassenes insist on sexual abstinence. For Doug that is absurd on its face as a belief since sex is earth-life's means of procreation. Religiously and scientifically, especially quantumly, physical sex is one of G¤d's greatest gifts and greatest miracles. Clearly too, sex is healthier, more pleasurable and better than other stimuli like drugs and alcohol. Sex is great exercise.

It isn't as simple as that, though, even in Pirsig's MoQ.

What do we mean by sex? Genetics? Human interrelationships?

Genetically, Gaffney's gnostic hermaphroditic "blueprint" shows us that sexuality is quantumly stochastic. Yep! That is what we observe! Anne Fausto Sterling has written much about "The Five Sexes." She calls them female, ferm, hermaphrodite, merm, and male. There aren't just five, though. Twixt male and female there are, quantum~stochastically, all possible shades and hues of individual genetic sexual instantiations. On top of that all living sexual and other genetics are evolving. We see aneuploidy (N-somia; bisomia is 'normal') on all chromosomes. We see isochromosomatism on some, and so on... Quantum possibilities here appear stochastically unlimited.

As Richard Dawkins has made so clear in his The Selfish Gene physical sex is a congenital biological 'drive.' It tends to violate some conventional human social mores across a variety of cultural norms and contexts. As you just read in Doug's remarks, opinions about sex may violate a wide variety of individual intellectual views too.

Pirsig's MoQ is sexually gnostic, implicitly, since it places society evolutionarily above biology, then it places locally-contextual individual gnosis above society.

Some have claimed that gnostics are "darkly pessimistic." Gaffney claims there is little-no evidence of this.

On page 55 Gaffney offers a 'The Great Hidden Truth of the Naassenes.' He writes, "If the Naassene beliefs were rooted in Judeo-Christianity, how then do we account for the presence of so much pagan material in the text?" He calls that a "good question." In essence: material reality is God's divine creation in actuality. Paraphrasing Pirsig, Herrigel, et al., God is in material reality and material reality is in God. Bluntly: reality is divinely quantum!

"The actual compiler of these lengthy portions of the text was the Naassene scribe, whose purpose was to inform his reader of a great truth: the most sublime secret of the universe. It is a deeply hidden mystery, yet it is profound that it is omnipresent, and, hence, discoverable at every hand. Few humans find it, however, for though the secret lies in plain view, the vast majority of humans are blind to it. Even when people touch this truth they stumble over it without recognizing it for what it is. This truth, however, is the Sermon's central message, and repeats throughout the document in a variety of ways, like a mantra." Page 56.

"The cup in question is the famous chalice used at the Last Supper (Refutation 5.8.11). This cup, then, is the grail, which, as we know, pertains to the immanence or indwelling of God. The Naassene scribe is telling us that Jesus himself is the source of the great truth!" Page 59.

To Doug, those two paragraphs imply that "immanent indwelling" is a quantum~everywhere~included~middle~associativity of God and creation. Doug calls it a quantum~straddle: coinsident cowithinitness of G¤d and creation.

"This presents great difficulties, of course, because, as we have already observed, Christian scripture says nothing about immanence. Or does it? Can it be that we have missed something? The Naassene Sermon suggests that we have! The scribe is clearly pointing to the Last Supper as the source of the great mystery. Indeed, the Sermon appears to confirm that event's historicity. Can it be that the great truth of the Naassenes originated in the person of Jesus? And was this secret teaching an original part of early Christianity that was somehow lost? In the following chapter [6], we investigate this profound idea more deeply." Page 59, last paragraph of chapter 5.

Doug does n¤t agree with Gaffney here. Grail to Doug is Jesus' hermaphroditic quantum~included~middlings bloodline. Clearly though, said cup may be Jesus' means of last~supping via said Grail: Jesus' own spiritual blood, symbolic and otherwise. All of us, in that sense, potentially are "cups." For Doug, that is immortal and soulful, holographic, everywhere~associative, middle~including "quantum~immanence." Truthings above all state-ic 'truths.' In a way, though, humanity is stupidly responsible for allowing this to happen. Timings are nigh to undo this 'religious' universal malice. Need guidance? Simply, "No other human is your sovereign! Period!" Similarly, "You are sovereign no other human." Gnostically your body is your temple and you are sovereign your individual body.

Be aware that early Roman Catholics engineered a social 'christianity.' As a result, they engineered-out Godly Immanence. If God is in all of us, how could Roman Bishops rule us and tell us what to believe, what to do, what to think, and 'whom' to wors(e)ship? Irenæus and Constantine, et al., created a n¤n immanent ungodly religion whose purpose is institutional coercion of a flock of "helpless innocents." A inquisitional catholic slaughter of godly immanence in all of us.

Now Gaffney moves on to chapter 6, 'The Teaching that Didn't Take.' Without having read chapter 6 yet, Doug wants to guess. Our surmise is this: enter gnostic topos. Hylics and psychics didn't "get it." They didn't "take it." Only a few pneumatics, "Took." We'll see...

Let's see what Gaffney's exegesis looks like.

Gaffney was raised 'catholic.'

You must read chapter 6 on your own. It's just too good for Doug to attempt improvement. Gaffney is at his best here. Doug isn't worthy to be interpreting and criticizing Gaffney's words here. Naught Doug can say to make this better. Like a great movie, I refuse to ruin chapter 6 by saying more about it.

We plan to continue here after we finish our February Chautauqua segment on David A. Granger's book comparing Pirsig and philosopher John Dewey. See December, 2007 TQS News for that Chautauqua's first segment and indices. Doug - 8Jan2008.

More 6Feb2008...

Chapter 7's title is 'Parting of Waters Revisited...'

To Naassene gnostics 'water parting' holds much spiritual energy, evidently. But why do we need to revisit it?

Gaffney starts off by describing how a farmer discovered Ra's Shamra cuneiform tablets in 1928 in a ancient city called Ugarit. Ugarit's tablets were written in many languages, including: Sumerian, Akkadian, Hurrian, Hittite, hieroglyphic Hittite, Egyptian, and Cypriot. In summary Ugarit texts explain meaning of "parting of waters."

Clearly that is important to Gaffney, here, but before we pursue parting water memes Gaffney says (writes) that we need to attempt to fathom "implications of Ra's Shamra tablets." We agree.

They represent one of archaeology's major finds, ever. A big implication is that Canaanite culture was homogeneous and wide spread. Canaans spread into Egypt and partially fused with their religion. When Hebrews settled Palestine, they adopted many Canaanite mores, and especially urban technologies. Surprising all researchers it became clear how Canaanites, et al., were mostly Semitic in that much larger region. Gaffney writes, "Hebrews adopted Canaanite religion." That's BIG news! Not many Jews will acknowledge that today, c. 2008. But apparently it is so. Much OT writing is stuff of Canaanites' religion and religious practices and beliefs.

"What was omniffering, Doug?" Gaffney tells us that Canaanites emphasized sea creatures and mythology where Hebraics did not.

A key phrase appears in those tablets: "...man of God." (This seems like a statement out of con(m)text, until you mix sea creatures, water, parting of water, man of God, etc.)

Amazingly, Israel, name of northern province of Jews (Judaeah is south; home of King David, Tribe of Judaeah (Judah), home of Essene Jesus) is (appears to be) Canaanite too. Isra~el. You recognize 'el' as God, right? Canaanite for 'isra' is very roughly "to struggle with.' Doug likes that if we use quantum~gn¤sis to offer its exegesis: i.e., "...to quantum~gn¤stically middle~include G¤d and recursively immanate His immanence." Of course that assumes Essene~Jesus' proclamation, "G¤d issi ihn uhs, an(m)d wæ aræ ihn G¤d." All of us who do our best grasp how isra might be hermeneutically viewed as "a struggle," even "the struggle." Which struggle? An easy example might be "God's water and man's water as miscible, etc." Sea as God. Man's body as a bag of water. Middle~inclusion of waterings...

And here is a meme which is powerful, potent. A little background. Those of you Quantonics' adepts grasp how and why Doug rants relentlessly re quantum over classical: Pirsig's DQ over Pirsig's SQ, change over state. Take that and put it in comtext of Hebraic tribes and Canaanite culture: absolute change of Hebraic nomads vis-à-vis cultural statism of Canaanites. Nomads resisted terra firma's ground 'state' via their nomadic roaming 'change.' Canaanites adopted coastal ground 'state' but close to sea 'change.' Nomads loved nomadic change above their land-locked state. Canaanites preferred 'advantages' of state since they lived on and near a sea of 'change.' Yet 'sea' is change, water. Now compare Hebrew tribes on land as 'state' and nomadism as change. A powerful and potent set of comparative memes. Yet what middle includes all of that? Pirsig's DQ: sea vis-à-vis nomadism. Yet both are middle~including 'state' and change as their local reality. Both are quantons(DQ,SQ) with omniffering patterns of emerscenture and emerqings. Fascinating!

Does living near sea quiet us? Does living on land induce roaming? Seems reasonable. Doug is never happier than when he is resident on Oregon's mid-coast. Some people never leave NYC's boisterous and boiling midtown.

Does that sound familiar to you now, c. 2008? What is happening in USA? Most of us are simply fed up with social stuckness called "state." It is apparently 'dead.' At very least, 'State' is slowly committing suicide. Evidence is ostensibly apparent. Leading Democrat Barack Obama is an agent of change. Losing Democrat says, "Change is just a word." Now we have to ask, "Which change is that? Only di-fferent 'state,' possibly less 'state?'"

Why? Why is change winning over 'state?' This answer is easy, at least in Doug's view. Evolution is driving SQ closer and closer to DQ. Evolution is widening humankind's sensory bandwidth while moving humankind's sensory center frequency higher, and higher, and higher. A tell? "No mo yo of status quo!" Evolution is more and more middle~including both SQ and DQ. Pirsig's MoQ anticipates just that. SQ is dead: dead-father, demiurge, AKA Satan. DQ is alive: living~Father.

Our exegesis is anthropocentric, and therefore radically incomplete. Look at our cosmos! Those of us who can, see relentless and radically stochastic change at all levels of visible reality. Ideal classical 'state' is a Bergsonian "illusion," and in many cases just plain self-delusion. Humans see 20 years as a 'long' time, yet it is only a flame~flicker, a brief cosmic moment to reality. We can say similarly re 1000 years and 10,000 years and a million years...just flame-flickers from any cosmic perspective. Now go back to human level and grasp how much change, which matters to us, is almost coherent in such epochs of 'time.' And yet, and still, to each of us a few seconds are precious and memorable. Most of those, though, have little to do with cosmic change. It's easy to say, "Humans simply do not matter much." Doug would say, "Mu!" If reality is change and humans love 'state,' then Doug would agree that 'static' humans simply do not matter at all. However, if reality is change and humans love 'change' and are learning to love it and respect it more and more as they mature as a natural species, then humans matter immensely to our cosmos. Why? Doug believes that we are in our cosmos and our cosmos is in us. Somehow, and quantumly, our cosmos is aware of our awareness of its radical changings. Somehow it rewards those who become change agents. To Doug, it's that simple. Young folk, today c. 2008, intuit that more than most. They hate stuckness. They are learning that 'state' is what most politics, religion, and classical science are all about. They intuit what a bad world 'state' makes. They not only want to...they shall vote for change. Why? Because it is real. State is phony! State is stuck. Stux sux. It's unnatural dialectical bogosity. Our young folk are figuring that out. Doug - 8Feb2008.

Now recall Pirsig describing how ancient societies somehow chose dialectism ('state' AKA demiurge) over sophism (change AKA living~Father). Recall how Pirsig described that choice of dialectical 'state' over quantum~rhetorical~sophist change as such a huge loss. Recall Gaffney's words re: "Our loss."

Gaffney summarizes a b.c.e. exemplar of religious choice of 'state' over change: slightly paraphrased to bring grammar to now, "...a notion of centralized unnatural-anticosmic kingships required centralized static authority of religion--hence the manufactured endorsement of dialectically static scripture." Page 79, chapter 7. This is a description of religion's intentional move to state over change. Subsequently, Parmenides, Plato, and Aristotle vetted this anti sophist~rhetorical~change antimeme as standard 'dialectical state' and made sophists into straw-man-intellectual demiurges. Romans turned gn¤stic~real and dynamic Essene Jesus into a static anti-christ. We live with those awful static consequences "our previously unrecognized great loss" today, but we are learning that and change is underway to benude and efface state's long reign.

Gaffney writes that much of OT is contrived to invent a new religious 'state.' We agree.

So now we have an anti Essene Jesus NT engineered by Roman liars, and preceding that, a tampered OT laying a bogus groundwork of 'state'ic lies. Worse, we have a world of several hundreds of millions of 'christians' who are worse-shiping an antichrist! Change is apropos, folks! Timings are nowings to commence a departure from static lies borne of 'divine' charlatans who engineered an antichrist. "Doug, why do you say 'antichrist?'" Recall? how Essene Jesus told Peter, "Get away from me Satan." Peter believed in institutional static authority, and had answered Jesus' "Who am I?" query institutionally authorized as "You are the son of God." Essene Jesus was preaching individual "son of man" self authority in a dynamic and recursive process of finding God within oneself. (N¤ static institutions can survive when all of us are in change processings of an Essene Jesuit nature.) Jesus told Peter that his institutionally condoned beliefs are wr¤ng. Recall how Jesus did similarly with his disciples. Ten of them asked him "What shall we do?" Jesus had been preaching to them that they should individually find God within themselves. Two disciples, John~Mary and Didymos Thomas understood that. Other ten, via their 'we' query showed how they were 'thing-king' statically, socially. To Essene Jesus that wr¤ng-headed thing-king represented Status-Quo-Satanic notions transparently. Simply: Error! Dialectical Error! After that ten disciples were jealous of two disciples for whom Jesus showed favor via clotured and separate discussions with only them. See Pagels: The Gnostic Gospels, (last) Chapter 6 - 'Gnosis: Self Knowledge as Knowledge of God.' If you do nothing else in your life, I urge you to read that Pagels' chapter. See pages 120, 123, and 131-135. 'Conclusion' starts on page 142. Our paperback copy has 182 pages including index. It may {Doug believes it will...} change your life! Doug - 11Feb2008.

How do institutions survive and maintain their existence today? By training all of us hive drones to believe in institutions, static institutions. Now we know how it got started, and we have an opportunity to undo this static evil. If you want another ~historical perspective of how this happened read Edward Rutherford's derivative Sarum. Excellent! Excellence! Gaffney very highly recommends Finkelstein and Silberman's The Bible Unearthed. A Bible Desnoured? Doug - 8Feb2008.

Of course, nearly all institutional 'anythings' are historically patriarchal static monisms. Our as possessive sways large here. Our way, n¤t Yah Weh. Objective property possession obsession. Accumulation of property declension obsession. Massive material Social Patterns of Value infrastructures, Vatican, churches, organs, parking lots... And an obsession with absolute hegemony via induction of fear, uncertainty, and doubt: FUD. Stuffings of Satan's antichrist.

But gn¤stics say brilliantly, "Monism is deceit." and Doug intuits, "Love of substance is self-deceit." Parmenides, Plato, and Aristotle loved substance and its static forms.

Gn¤stics intuit quantum~reality as radically stochastic pr¤cæss~flux and middle~inclusion as, gravitationally metaphoric, "We are phasically in It and It is phasically in us."

Given that, how does water carry such a huge Value in ancients' spiritual thinking? Water is in us and we are in water. That is a spiritual metaphor of quantum~reality! We are like food coloring dropped into a large clear glass bowl of water. Our color copermeates and spreads cowithin and coinsident water. That folks, is a splendid m¤dal of human quantum flux interpenetrating quantum isoflux. Ancients, millennia ago, picked their best possible Earth-based analogy of change, flow and flux: water.

Gaffney finishes Chapter 7 with this:

"As demonstrated by the repetitive theme of the waters, the development of Judeo-Christianity has been a dynamic process. In the hands of the Deuteronomist the waters— the dragon of old — have become the medium for a new message. Traces of the archaic elements present in Exodus and Joshua are still detectable in the Deuteronomists account. But it is also obvious that they have become vestigial. Mythology has been reshaped for some new purpose, as evidenced by the scribe's conscious rejection of the old storm-god language. And what is that new purpose? Perhaps the Deuteronomist did not understand it himself. His inspired and unerring use of the ancient language of symbolism linking water and the Spirit suggests that master over the river is the key to the mystery. Even so, within the framework of Judaism, it is a work in progress and will remain unfinished for centuries, until, as we have seen, Gnostic Christianity took the final steps." Last paragraph in Chapter 7.

If you read Doug's text commentary above, and if you read it well, we can now answer Gaffney's key query, "And what is that new purpose?" Easy answer, "State over change!" Hegemonist patriarchs wanted to control all of us. To do so, they had to invoke institutional 'state' as principle, as ruling — and above — individual change. Hegemonists created an anti Jesus, an anti gnosis to have their material ways with Earth and humanity. Science did it too. Science and religion are both complicit here! Politics did it too! Politics, science, and religion are all complicit! Timings for revolutionings? Nowings! Doug.

To Doug, "Gnostic Christianity" is becoming an oxymoron. Post Jesus' death Paul invented Christianity. Jesus never referred to himself "Christ," and called those who did refer him that way "Satan." More apropos might be, "Naassene and Essene Jesuit Gn¤sis." Doug - 14Feb2008.

We'll do another segment here early in March...

More 21-22Feb2008...

Chapter 8's title is 'Demiurge and Wisdom Dialogue...'

Gaffney writes about some early, pre 'Christian' creation scenarios. Several: pagan, Judaic, Greek, etc.

Doug is greatly affected by Gaffney's descriptions, especially when Doug attempts to put them in modern quantum~comtextings. Creation scenarios then, like now, were simply heuristic. All pre 'Christian' creation heuristics were mythologically anthropogenic, period. Most were EITHER monotheistic OR polytheistic. Greeks allowed lower polytheism under an overriding monotheism. Jews (Hebrews) claimed a monotheism headed by Yahweh.

However, most seem to believe in only one creation, one reality. Gaffney appears to buy into this in his, "At some point the Cosmic clock begins to tick." One clock! And his, "The purpose of [mythological] philosophy was to delve deeper—and the true foundation was obviously monotheism." Doug's brackets and italics to show Gaffney's uses of 'the' as monistic: "one clock," "one purpose," and "one truth." Any other polytheisms could only be derivative. See Doug's coined 'thelogos."

Doug needs to reiterate his earlier caveats, in brief summary:

• "Monism — is deceit," (Chaldæan gnostics. See our QELR of 'whole.')
• Any notions derived from static monism and its attendant dialectical and thus exclusive notions of analytic material independence — are deceit. (Doug's hermeneutics mimicking Chaldæans and modern quantum~empiritheory borne of Zeno of Elea, Heraclitus, Bergson, James, Bohr, Schrödinger, Hoffmann, Heisenberg, Bohm, Pirsig, Mae-wan Ho, et al.)
• Any notions which claim actuality is notionally objective and that negation, both 'logical' and 'physical,' is objective — are deceit.
• Etc.

Those bullets are incredibly useful, especially in efforts we apply in Gaffney's work to understand any descriptions of a 'Demiurge and Wisdom Dialogue.'

How? Any descriptions which are monistic, static, dialectical, material, substantial, objective are simply bogus.

Wisdom: Chaldæans didn't use our more modern language, but today c. 2008 Doug surmises Chaldæans would say, "Creation is dynamic, evolutionary, and holographic."

Demiurge: By descriptive comparison monisms are stable, do 'not' evolve, and their synthetics are independent. (And their negations, e.g., 'not,' are canonically objective.)

We just anticipated what Gaffney might write in balance of Chapter 8. We'll see...

Doug has mentioned that he has n¤t done enough work comparing Naassenes and other gnostic sects. Gaffney offers a notable distinction which Doug has n¤t seen prior, "Naassenes, unlike other gnostic sects, did n¤t reject the Old Testament, OT." Page 94. And nearby, "Judaism insisted on a single entity: Yahweh." So, Jews are canonically, monists.

[This is wholly out of context to refer here, but noteworthy: "Islam insists on a single entity: Allah." So, gnostically, both Judaism and Islam, apparently are monisms. We answer a valued query, "Why do Muslim terrorists and people like Mahmoud Ahmadi Nejad hate Israel?" Two monisms are 'not' a monism. And for sure, two monisms are 'not' the monism! Indeed Islam and Judaism, existing together, are dialectic! However, and this is most important of all, they are dialectically 'not' and will dialectically 'never' be syncretic! Each can (may) call other "Satan" with intra-Islam, intra-Judaism locally (i.e., either Quran or OT) 'logical' correctness; each is ideally coopposite other: dialectically a two-valued either/or pair! Is it apparent to you why Doug claims dialectic is for mindless drones? Chaldæan gnosis paraphrased, "Dialectic rules something 'not' itself!" Yet dialectic is taught in all USA schools today as the method of standard thinking! Dialectic is for idiots, troglodytes, hive drones. Are you an idiot? If you use dialectic to thingk, yes, you are an idiot! You and your ilks' time is nigh! BOAKYSAG... Doug - 21Feb2008.]

What do Chaldæan gnostics mean by wisdom and demiurge? Answer to that question unwraps a mystery, a genuine enigma, as to why Doug views Chaldæan gn¤sis as quantum.

To Chaldæan, Essene (Jesus' own brand of gnosis), and Naassene gnostics wisdom is Sophia. Wisdom is feminine, and ideally: truly hermaphroditic, a middle~includings quantum~straddle of a whole male and a whole female. Example? Adam, Adamas was a true hermaphrodite! Sophia's think_qing is ancients' wisdom, is quantum~rhetorical~dynamic~evolute~holographic~networking~self~other~referent~recursive~sophism Sophia fell to Earth due demiurge's evil, and through her wisdom struggle (Canaanite-Hebrew isra, and in Arabic, jihad; literally "struggle with G¤d") is learning how to straddle both Heaven and Earth in a kind of ultimate Quantonic Interrelationshipings' dynamic quantum~fluxings. Sophia is gradually helping quantum~gn¤stics begin their own quantum~straddlings' Chautauquas.

To Chaldæan and Naassene gnostics demiurge is a failed Earth-God who uses dialectical thing-king to create a super-logical (hylic-psychic) Hell on Earth. (A great c. 2001-2008 demiurge analogy is GW Bush.) Demiurge is masculine, androgenous, paternal, a 'christ,' authoritative, dogmatic, formal, mechanical, stubborn, decisive, unilateral, and so on...

More of Chapter 8 - 22Mar2008...

On pages 103-104 Gaffney writes, "Thus we find her—Sophia, Wisdom—described in the eighth Proverb, where we are told her presence is as old as creation." See Proverbs 8:22-24, 27, 29-31. Gaffney asks us to read about Sophia in Job, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiasticus 24:3-30. Sophia is a late addition to Judaic literature post 300 bce. Gaffney describes how OT texts suffered much retro revision. Demiurge just seems to have been unable to "get it right." We have suffered similar 'çatholiç' Irenæun and Constantinian anti-gnostic machinations with NT, especially Paul's post-Essene~Jesuit insistence re Jesus as a 'Christ,' (Essene Jesus referred those who called him a christ, "Satan," most notably Peter.) and arguably jihad-isra conflicted synoptics, especially Matthew. J

If you read entirety of NT you will notice how Paul always has a thorn of some sort in his backside. It is ever there, ever wearing, ever nagging... Why? Gnosticism explains. Paul is a demiurge. A demiaugur. He took Essene Jesus and turned him into a demiaugured demiurge 'christ,' that which Essene Jesus hated and called "Satan." Paul's thorn was his own evil, in Doug's retro view. Otherwise, why the thorn? Why make Paul suffer relentlessly, his entire life? Paul as King Saul was a murderer. He killed many. Çatholiçs love dialectic and war. They love coliseums. Many males spend entire weekends watching blood sport on television. They would rather be in the coliseum seeing it in real and direct visual effect. Many of them hate blacks! Ask any black. (Doug knows this from direct experience. Spend some time in South Bend. Doug has countless stories to tell about his personal experiences with priesthood and lay alike.) They want eternal conflict. NT was written by 'çatholiçs' with an emphasis on dialectical war and conflict. N¤t much omniffering Islam. We see that in US society now, profoundly. It is evil itself ruining our nation and our world. Redeem USA! Redeem thine ownself...timings are nigh...

Those OT references describe an always presence, just a Sophial partial presence, which each of us may choose to tap—some more, some less, most n¤t at all—as a resource. Take great care with semantics surrounding 'partial presence.' Doug does n¤t intend presence as 'state,' rather presence as quantum~gn¤stic~pr¤cæssings: spiritual redeeming processings. Evolving pr¤cæssæs beg their own implicit, even tacit, evolutionarily~incomplete~partialness. Quantumly Sophia sounds like coherent, integer spin energy. As a hermaphrodite we might sense he~r as partially role~playing son. Why? Bosons middle~include both n¤nactuality and actuality, and they are key to understanding creation from any quantum perspective. So quantum~gn¤stically Sophia and son are apparently, in greater Light, quanton(son,Sophia). It is a challenge to describe this since we must also claim Sophia middle~includes actuality's gn¤stic mother and also living~Father (n¤t dead-Father). Doug says that if you believe in Sophia middle~including son,mother,living~Father it is easier to understand what is so omnifficult to describe. Doug intuits this from his own personal spiritual Chautauquas. If we use Chaldean gn¤sis and show it with quantonic script, you may see why Doug says this is a challenge:

quanton(Mother,quanton(son,mother),living~Father).

We can show that as an wave~counted ogdoad of four pairs, and we focus on fourth pair here: 1(2,3),±4 with 1 as Mother, 2 as son, 3 as mother, and
±4 we perceive as gn¤stic individual choice, literal heresy, of both bettership is living~Father and worship is dead-ESQ-Father AKA demiurge, Satan, etc.

All Christians worship.

Most Gn¤stics bettership.

To keep it simple Doug lumps Sophia as mother.

OPx quanton(Mother,mother) as quanton(Mother,Sophia) xMN

Quantum Gn¤sis!

You need Hoefler Text Ornaments font to see our quantum~symb¤l¤gy.

Read Doug's review of Elaine Pagels' The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis, especially Chapter 1 on John 1:1-4. Doug offers more detail there re Gnosis' Essene Jesus Gospels and Judaic Kabbalah's tetrads and ogdoad.

Really, though, Sophia quantum~partially middle~includes all, while she is only a subset of Mother. If you wish, if you choose to grasp this, Doug think_qs it is well for humans to view ourselves that way, as lesser Sophias. If you need affirmation here ponder your own genetic code in Sophia's Light!

Doug likes to think of ideal quantum~gn¤stic reality like this: quanton(Mother,mother) corresponding quanton(n¤nactuality,actuality). Students of Quantonics fathom how that also aligns Pirsig's MoQ as quanton(DQ,SQ). That is, according Kabbalah, a Mother tetrad and a mother tetrad, except 'Mother tetrad' defines DQ which gn¤stics would decry as an invalid intellectual (psychic-hylic) act. Fathom this: quanton(Iht,y¤u)! When we take that approach we omniscover how powerful quantum~hermaphrodicity is. There is maleness ihn both Mother and mother. Mother's maleness is son AKA Light AKA Jesus. Comparatively, mother's maleness is a heretical dichon(living~Father, dead-Father). Gnostics' goal in making material reality a better place to practice our actuality skills is to diminish dead-Father AKA Satan as much as possible.

What is beautiful about this way of being gn¤stically spiritual is that it offers almost pristine duality with quantum~science!

Now, that turns Doug almost all d' way ON. JKL

Also, Doug wants to offer a quantum comjecture for all of you who want to be quantum~gn¤stic. Some of you, especially dialecticians, and hylic-psychics, will reject this out-of-hand...but what are you doing here, anyway?

If you call Sophia to you, she will quantum~middle~include your spirit. You will recognize he~r presence ihn you as your own increased qua to partially compenetrate n¤nactuality's depths. Practice. Quantum~recursively your qua will grow. For Doug that is adequate as a tell of Sophia's always presence and he~r presence increasing one's bandwidth and center frequency. It works for Doug. If you believe in it, it may work for you.

"But Doug when do I call Sophia to me?" That was most omnifficult part for Doug. If you are aware of levels of consciousness vav sleep 'states,' Doug's experience is that you can call Sophia during transitions from and to sleep. Try that.

"How do I know Sophia is with me?" During day time, you will feel an extra energy presence coinsiding your being, yet n¤t wholly within your being. It is a extra presence. A tingling. A light which surrounds you, yet isn't there conceptually.

Gives magnificent semantic head to Gaffney's, et al's., "Sophia is wisdom." Better, "Sophia is quantum~gn¤stic wisdom."

If you want to think about this less subjectively, try "quantum~gn¤stic Jesus is Light." Now compare Heraclitus' "Logos is Light. But dialecticians cannot understand the Logos." Compare dead-Father as the consummate dialectician.

Again, Doug wants to emphasize, personally, that he is n¤t 'religious.' Rather, Doug is individually spiritual. Doug wants and tries to be quantum~gn¤stic.

As such, Doug denies society any role in his own personal spirituality.

Any of you who try to make this a social phenomenon, to Doug, you are Satan.

What Doug just wrote is about you (and Doug) as an individual, n¤t we as a society. Classical society is inept. Our original Light, gn¤stic Jesus, denied classical (dialectical) society and all its mechanisms and material machinations as "Satan." "Demiurge." "Dead Father."

More of Chapter 8...19Apr2008...

Gaffney writes about Essene~Naassene Jesus' ratification of feminine wisdom, "The ratification of Wisdom by Jesus is also evidenced by his respectful treatment of women. The text of the Naassene Sermon confirms that this new awareness of the Divine Mother was absorbed into [Gn¤sis]." Page 106. Doug's sic since Doug now views 'Gnostic Christianity' as an oxymoron since Essene Jesus refers all who call him [a] Christ, "Satan."

You have heard Doug's praise of Thomas' Gospel. Mitch urged me to first read it, roughly 2005, and it is profound and it is better even though inept çatholiçs refer it "heresy." Gaffney uses Thomas: 101 to evidence Divine Hermaphroditic Mother as ultimate fount of Wisdom:

"[Jesus said,] Whoever does not hate {hermaphroditically, both} his father and his mother as I do cannot become a disciple to Me. And whoever does [not] love his father and his mother as I do cannot become a [disciple] to Me. For my mother [gave me a falsehood] , but [my] true [Mother] gave me {spiritual} life." From Robinson, NHL. Doug's braces based upon Gaffney's remarks. NHL's brackets. We see Jesus' own quantum~both~all~while~and~many of quanton(love,hate) as redeeming quantum~durational~process c¤mplæmænts of one another. Topos' psychic-hylics can't understand that. Topos' pneumatics quantum~understand implicitly.

Gaffney writes, "The idea that the Spirit (spiritual life) flows from the Divine Mother was unprecedented in Judaism, and thus was a momentous development in the West. But the idea had long been understood in the East. [especially Hinduism]" Page 107.

	Mother vis-à-vis Father	mother vis-à-vis father
son's Love complements son's Hate:
son's Hate complements son's Love:

We ask our reader's to revel in Jesus' description in Thomas: 101 of a quantum coupling of two Quantonics' Poisson~Bracketings.

Treat it as an exercise.

Doug - 19Apr2008.

Gaffney uses "Gnostic Christianity" relentlessly now. Doug believes that we should, instead, use "Essene Gnosis," "Naassene Gnosis," and possibly "Jesuit Gnosis." Why? Again, Jesus equated Roman-Pauline "Christianity" as Satanic. That normative is emphasized even in 'approved' NT gospels. Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln, we surmise, would agree.

You may infer how Doug now views 'Catholic Christianity' as Satan, its demiurge self.

In place of Gaffney's uses of 'Gnostic Christianity,' Doug will substitute "Essene Gnosis."

Ultimately Jews lost to Romans and Yahweh failed his flock. Many Jews wondered whether they should have followed Jesus' Essene Gnosis. In retrospect, it would have been better to do that. Romans might have been disabled from their own 'intelligent redesign' of Jesus as 'christ.' Romans subsequently, unfortunately, turned Essene living~Jesuit Gnosis into a Roman dead-Jesuit Satan. We live with that today, and most of what we refer as a "christian flock" are unaware they are actually worshiping Satan. Sad, sad, sad,...

How did Romans turn Jesus into a 'christ,' a demiurge, a Satan? Gaffney recounts Irenæus' Against Heresies [~200 a.d.] which railed against Essene Jesuit Gnosis. Irenæus' efforts following Paul's footsteps invented a patriarchal (dead-Father) satanic caricature of Jesus from his (living~Father) Essene Gnosis. Recall Doug's quantonic script showing (1,(2,3),±4) as quantons(Mother(son,mother~Sophia),dichon(living_Father, dead_Father)). That script pedagogically and autodidactically attends well Thomas: 101. It also attends well Chaldean and Peratæan Gnosis. Study tetrad, ogdoad, and ogdoa[dt]ics. Note that Doug's use of a dichon begs Ockhamistically-simple, 'pure,' literal-material-objective-hylic standard Victorian interpretation vis-à-vis pneumatic quantum~spiritual~hermeneutics required for understanding quantons(1,2,3).

Bottom line here: Çatholiçism is Error, n¤t Essene Gn¤sis! Gaffney writes that, more gently, like this, "Notwithstanding the views of men like Irenæus, the Gnostic repudiation of Yahweh was not apostasy." Page 109.

Gaffney continues, "Notwithstanding the [Roman, pro dialectical, pro patriarchal, extremely hylic] views of men like Irenaeus, the Gnostic repudiation of Yahweh was not apostasy. Indeed, to many Christians it must have seemed like an advance. Certainly the demotion of Yahweh was not the end of God or heaven. The Godhead, after all, had not changed. What had changed was the concept of God, which simply reconstituted itself in human understanding. Indeed, the sloughing off of the less desirable elements in Yahweh's character surely helped many to clarify the nature of the Godhead, and thus was a positive development. Yahweh was rechristened Saklas, "the fool," and Samael, "the blind." Behind Yahweh, unseen by him, stood Wisdom (the Divine Mother, Sophia, Achamoth, the Ogdoad [or 'eight,' roughly 'two' times 1,(2,3),4], Barbelo, and so forth), now recognized as the true boss. Yahweh was simply the hired man. Above [Dialectical-literal-]Wisdom — indeed, over all — presided the incomprehensible [Essene, living-]Father about whom Jesus spoke in such loving terms. It is interesting to note that although [Dialectical-literal-]Wisdom was often [psychically-hylically-]ranked below the [dead-]Father, their relationship was intimate: [Pneumatic-]Wisdom was an integral part of the Godhead." Page 109. Doug's brackets.

This part of Chapter 8 is beyond superb. Doug is leaving a huge amount of learning out. Please acquire this text and study it. Attend its readings, though Gaffney might omnisagree, with Pagels' opus re: Johannine and Pauline gnosis.

In light of how we and Essene Jesus omnistinguish "living~Father," and 'dead-father,' what is that whole quoted paragraph's most 'deadly-sentence?' Which sentence would Pirsig pounce upon immediately as wholly antithetic his Metaphysics of Quality? Can you see it? Are you going to figure it out prior Doug's telling~showing you? Which sentence would Obama and reverend White both declare as white, Victorian insanity, and be correct in doing so? Have you figured it out? Please try. Please do not quit easily in your attempt.

Would Bergson, Pirsig, and Obama say, "State AKA stoppability is above change?" From another perspective, would they say, "Change is above state?" Would they say, "Change is perpetual?" Would they say, "State is perpetual?" Are those good hints to help you? If they are...

You may recognize, "The Godhead, after all, had not changed." That quote is that paragraph's most deadly sentence. It kills God! It stops quantum~evolutionary change by zeroing h-bar! Rather, as Essene~Gn¤stic~Jesus, Bergson, Pirsig, Obama, and Doug all agree: "The Godhead is change, perpetual change." If you want to be like G¤d, perpetually change self, individually, to become better. What have we just shown you? Social religion loves concrete: perpetual 'state.' Avoid social, anti-gnostic, static religion! What are two examples: Christianity and Islam. How do we know that? They both want to eliminate and kill other. They practice concrete religious dialectic to 'reason.' Just like Yahweh and Rome, Yahweh and Arabs, Arabs and Rome, and so on... Dialectic and its perpetual concrete is war! No dialectician can understand Essene Jesus' ancient logos. "Dialecticians are blind to the logos." Logos is Light, and Light is flux, and flux is necessary to see Change! QED! Reality is quantum~flux. Reality is n¤t 'state' canonized perpetual concrete, period!

Again, with Doug's brackets, in that whole quoted paragraph, we can commence pneumatic fathoming of quantum~BAWAMings.

Doug recommendation: make Sophia your quantum~source of pneumatic Wisdom. Compare what (Doug believes) impure UChic means by 'wisdom,' i.e., 'rational' dialectical 'reason.' Bogus! Satan's dialectical wisdom is Error! Search for UChic efforts on 'Defining Wisdom.' See our 'define' problematic. Also see our 'discovery' problematic.

I'll try to do a bit on this each day... Doug - 19Apr2008.

...

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., 2007-2008 pneumatic MoQ individual psychic CR social hylic SOM biological ©Quantonics, Inc., 2007-2008 Doug - 20Aug2007.