Draft version: 16-22Aug2007 - PDR
Minor red text rev's. through 5Oct2007 - PDR
Minor typo fixes, red text markup reset, and reformating 20Mar2008 - PDR
Replace wingdings and symbol fonts with gifs, reset legacy markups, and reformating 6Nov2008 - PDR
Add lots of links. Add a QELR of 'pleroma.' 4Jul2009 - PDR
Add Doug's latest innovative gnostic hermaphroditic grail symbols...with exegeses. 15Jul2009 - PDR
Add Doug's comments re: "movement and rest" as relevant hermaphroditic grail symbols. 16Jul2009 - PDR
Add "Gnostic Jesus' Version of The Postulate" anchor to 4Jul2009 aside. Add 'What is Gnosis?' link near bottom of page top table. 9Sep2009 - PDR
Add an QCD interpretation of sefirot in page top table of terms. 8Dec2009 - PDR
Update page top table with new terms including: Israel, Messiah, and Satan. 17Mar2010 - PDR
Update Pagels' -- Hoeller's Terms Table with more recent, CeodE 2014 exegeses. 14Apr2014 - PDR
Update Pagels' -- Hoeller's Terms Table with Sefirot's Tree of Life Shown with Star of David superposed, plus commentary by Doug. 16Apr2014 - PDR
|A caveat: This is non trivial material. It is easy to be confused by it. It begs voluminous study of countless other texts. This material is very quantum, and by that Doug means it is n¤n dialectical and enormously and memetically animate (redemption, revelation, and symbolism as process), multiplicate, multicontextual, and complementary~sophist~rhetorical. A good example just below is how Heracleon almost appears as a gnostic hero, but later in this text, post Introduction, we find Origen, rightly in our view, calling Heracleon a dialectical determinist. Again, we have to be very careful, and Doug is still in a novice (using Pagels' jargon "non initiate") phase of understanding. Much of what Doug writes below as commentary must be viewed in a light of potentially requiring change borne of subsequent, perhaps "initiate" level, understanding of material presented in later chapters of Pagels' text. End Doug caveat - 21Aug2007.|
pages 237-239, Quest Books, paperback, 2002.
marked in a light green background. Updates have pink backgrounds.
This table should be considered a 'work in progress.'
Some of Pagels' words may be missing. We'll fix that ASAP.
Some non Pagels', but relevant words, may appear.
|aeon, aion||An emanated aspect of The Divine Reality. Aeons are often represented as pairs (male and female) joined and balancing each other.||See pleroma below.|
|archon||Ruler. An inferior cosmic being ruling over and imposing limitations on creation.|
|christos||The annointed one. In Gnostic usage, A heavenly Aeon who at one point in time conjoins with Jesus.|
|cosmos||The system. The systematized appearance of reality constellated by creative agencies of limited intelligence and benevolence.|
|demiurge||The fashioner of the lower world of manifestation. He is the chief of the archons and is of limited wisdom and is imperfect.|
|Gnosis||Salvific knowing, arrived at intuitively but facilitated by various stimuli, including the teachings and mysteries brought to humans by messengers of divinity from outside the cosmos.||See Doug's What is Gnosis.|
Lowest 'material level' of three level gnostic topos. Doug.
Hoeller: Material body.
|Israel||In Autiot, there are two ways to spell this name of a country: Israel and Ishrael. Israel means Isra-El, hylically "struggle with god."||
Israel is dialectical. This spelling is what hylics and some-most psychics would use.
Ishrael is quantum. This spelling is what pneumatics and perhaps advanced psychics might use.
See Doug's topos table.
Doug - 17Mar2010.
|Kenoma. Second state of creation as in 1(2,3) Valentinian and 1(2,3),(4) Chaldean.||
Doug's 1(2,3) corresponds a quantum scripted quanton(n¤nactuality,actuality).
Latter appears as Gn¤stic Mother(son,mother) without demiurge
and Mother(son,mother) (Father) with demiurge as dead Father
and Mother(son,mother),(Father) with anthropos as living Father.
We can show latter, too, as both quantum quanton(Mother,quanton(son,quanton(mother,living_Father))),
and with a classical cosmos
We have shown power of Quantonics' script in quantum theory basic and applied. Here we see, similarly and perhaps analogously, power of Quantonics' script in gnostic theology basic and applied.
Doug - 31Aug2007.
|logos||Word of God. Jesus. Jesus is also light.||
Doug offers an unique, an quantum memeo of logos as a quantum included~middle. Essence of this memeo is that "Essene Gn¤stic Jesus issi ihn us and we are ihn Essene Gn¤stic Jesus." View that quote as animate, EIMA, quantum~holographic processings of spiritual evolution.
Note then that 'light' as bosons issi ensemble quantum~phase~encodings of flux and isoflux.
If you are familiar with Kabbalah's sefirot, you may choose to see its ten emanations' nexi as ensemble holographic quantum~phase~encodings of flux and isoflux. Its 2D graphic shows most of them. Imagine sefirot in 3-ND with all nexi entangled holographically. Amazing!
YhShWh's Branches in Green.
Doug added a fifth quantum~isobranch for Sheen.
Doug added branch sema of P'Shat, Rmez, Drash, and Sod.
Doug - 15Apr2015, 27Jul2015.
Creatio anima ex vivo aperio. (Spirit leaves a body and returns to 'nonexistence.' Read Mae-wan Ho's description of this as increased biophotonic (bosonic) emission ~24 hours prior to and at Drosophila's time of death.)
Creatio vivo ex anima aperio. (Spirit goes looking for a new wayve of livings.)
See Heraclitus (an ancient gnostic) on his views of 'logos.'
Doug - 22-23Aug2007.
|messiah||This word is often misconstrued. There are many reasons. Some view it as 'savior.' Some linguistically reverse engineer 'christ' as 'messiah.' Peter called Jesus "the Christ," for which Jesus said to him, "Get behind me Satan." Doug wants to show you a huge Autiot~lingual quantum~cypherean 'reason' why and how messiah is often misconstrued.||
Spelling of messiah is a 2000 year old reengineering of Hebrew's original meshiha.
Simply, a messiah is a dialectical king, possibly queen (ah suffix hints at latter, but since all males are genomically hermaphroditic it fits both). A chief SOMite hegemon. Someone who works for what Jesus called "satan." Rope a dope popes are pretending messiahs.
Essene-tially and pneumatically, Jesus told his disciples to never refer him as "the christ." We can only infer he said similar about being called "messiah." Jesus' knew Autiot better (again, we infer, at least at Abraham's level) than most people during his time. We doubt he often used Seen in place of Sheen, but that is pure conjecture on Doug's part.
Doug - 17Mar2010.
|One reality 'exists.' One interpretation of reality 'exists.'||
One belief fits all: OBFA. Classical 'science' teaches its adherents that all 'scientists' must sense and measure reality one way: classically, monistically.
Classical 'religions' teach their adherents there is only one 'God,' their religion's version of 'God.'
Gnosis denies validity of any single principle systems. Gnosis claims that any monism based in 'single principles' is "deceptive." Quantonics calls monisms and their spawn, "deigns to feign."
Quantonics agrees: monisms and their spawn 'dialectics' are demonstrably bogus!
See Doug's QELR of whole.
Doug - 24Aug2007.
Pleroma QELRed from original Greek is 'plhr¤ma.' 'e' is absent and a quantized h-bar replaces it.
Ponder how pleroma spelled backwards is amorelp. We see amorè. "Amore!" "Libido!" "quantization~scintillation!" "Quantons(scin,quan)!" Doug - 14Apr2014.
See Mark Gaffney's Gnostic Secrets of the Naassenes, and Doug's The Last Supper symbolic interpretationings of it. In Gaffney's text (pub. Inner Traditions, Rochester Vermont), go to chapter 3 of Appendix I, The Naassene Sermon. Doug - 4Jul2009.
Allow us to refer Jean Doresse here, in his The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics, page 27.
Doresse is giving his version of exegesis of Valentinus' Gnosis. It, apparently, somewhat omniffers Pagels' exegesis. We say "apparently" since our perceived omnifferences may be due language, but it may be due also to Doresse's own framework which so far makes no mention of topos, and Valentinus is known for his multiway toposical frameworks. Allow us to quote two of Doresse's paragraphs in full,
"The origin of all things, according to Valentinus, is a perfect aeon bearing the name of pro-Father, described also as the abyss. It is incomprehensible, intangible, invisible, eternal, unbegotten[?: pure isoV?], and it dwells in profound repose. Here one can recognize a doctrine of the divine transcendence which was no invention of the Gnostics but had already been an object of Greek philosophic contemplation. Co-existent with this pro-Father is a Thought which is also Silence. From the primordial union of the pro-Father with his Thought [holographically?] emanate the [1(2,3),(4)] pairs of aeons to the number of eight (the ogdoad) as follows: Father and Thought; Intelligence and Truth (or the only Son); Word and Life; primordial Man and the Church. [Compare this to Chaldæans.]
"The Word and the Life emanate ten more aeons; primordial Man and the Church emanate another twelve. Thus is produced, together with the first eight, a total of thirty aeons the Pleroma, or Plenitude." Doug's bold. Doug's bracket: Unbegotten as, "...not brought into existence by any process of reproduction..."
Those of you who enjoy esoteric nexi may see some similarity twixt Bach's alpha aria, his thirty variations, and his omega aria in his Goldberg Variations. In Doug's view, only Glenn Gould's rendering of this is worthy of your ear.
Another: "...process of reproduction..." begs evolution, and apparently denies design, will you agree? Unless you claim 'process' is other-directed and dialectical...
Doug's first exposure to Doresse happened in Doug's cursory of Pagels' The Gnostic Paul. See her Introduction there, pp. xv, xvi, xxiv, xxv, etc.
The Nag Hammadi scripts' "...value became clear when the French Egyptologist Jean Doresse saw the first of the recovered manuscripts in 1947 at the Coptic Museum in Cairo...Doresse identified the manuscript and announced that this discovery would mark an epoch in the study of the origins of Christianity." Page xxv.
Doug has gone on to show that, even then, two major threads of thought were emerging: classical and quantum(esque). Simply, immutable-state vis-à-vis emergent~process.
Qabala's Sepher Yetsira describes The Tree of Life (Sefirot) using Autiot and Autiot's Gematria. As Doresse describes Aeons, Qabala's Sepher Yetsira uses 22 Aut (and their Gematria) to describe The Tree of Life using three Mothers, seven Doubles, and 12 Simples. We have 22 Qabalic affectors of quantum~gematraic~energy omniscriptions of The Tree of Life. In Chaldæan Gnosis we add Doresse's ogdoadic quad~pairs to arrive at that 30 total 'Aeons.' So...there is a kind of alignment and registration of great importance to understanding Doresse's version and its quantum~Qabalic 'analogue.' Doug - 14Apr2014.
Updates 5Oct2007, 14Apr2014 - Doug.
Highest 'spiritual level' of three level gnostic topos. Doug.
Hoeller: Spirit. The highest principle resident in the human being.
Middle 'intelligent-intellectual level' of three level gnostic topos. Doug.
|revelation||To reveal, especially to reveal all of The Divine Reality. (Notice a presumption of a monism: one reality... 23Aug2007 - Doug.)||
Revelation is nature's complete desnouerment (denudation), physi aperio (nature laid bare).
Doug finds it extraordinarily interesting that both religion and science see this as their major goal, yet neither is willing to alter its antique dialectical, material, substantial, objective state-event methodologies to do so.
Classically revelation is either gnostically introspective or anti-gnostically exterospective. (Apparently that word doesn't 'exist,' so Doug coined it just in case.)
Recall how Doug coined complementaroception? Well now Doug needs to coin complementarospection.
To physi deus absconditus aperio (lay bare natural G¤d's 'hiding'...), we must holographically use both quantum complementaroception and quantum complementarospection.
What do we see here? We see 'ception' vis-à-vis 'spection.'
What do we already grasp that is fairly similar?
Do you remember: perspicacity vis-à-vis perspicuity?
People are perspicacious when they grasp what they read in a book.
A book is perspicuous when it is readable.
So, comparatively, 'exterospection' is a pr¤cæss of seeing 'outside' oneself. It is still classical, isn't it? Why? Dichon(outside, inside).
Again, comparatively, 'introspection' is a pr¤cæss of seeing 'inside' oneself, and it too is classical.
We have to 'see' quantons(complementaroceptive,complementarospective)!
Do you recall Doug's proselytizing Women's Ways of Knowing? Why did Doug do that?
That text's authors, in their first four chapters, 'di' stinguished societal "objective received knowledge," and individual "subjective intuitive knowledge." They 'di' singuished external-society as inferior-quantity and internal~individual as higher~quality.
Clearly we need both, and that suggests a quantum approach as superior any classical methods. Quantonics teaches its students that our QTMs subsume classicism as a tiny subset of a much larger Qualitative spectrum.
Doug - 23Aug2007.
Gnostically, a process bringing about individual self~salvation and ~redemption. Gnosis sees a cosmos of Mother, son, mother, and Father. This distills under gnosis in at least two versions: hermaphroditic_pair(Mother,living_Father) and exclusionary_pair(Mother,dead_Father). Gnostic Jesus described former pneumatically and psychics-hylics see latter as actual, literal.
Doug reverse engineered this description based upon his own limited gnostic research.
|Gn¤stically, redemption is quantum~pr¤cæss. Doug - 20Mar2008.|
|Satan, satan||Colloquially most people view this as 'the devil.' Doug wants to show you a huge Autiot~lingual quantum~cypherean 'reason' why and how 'satan' is often misconstrued. Also see Elaine Pagels' fine Origins of Satan.||
See Doug's Autiot deconstruction and decyphering of 'satan.'
That link is to an Satan anchor under Autiot's Sheen. Most 17Mar2010 updates in this table find their bases in a reader's having a basic grasp of Sheen. Our 'satan' link above offers a start, but it skips most of a fuller omniscription of Sheen.
Distilled, 'Satan' is Essene Jesus' (n¤t the Çatholic 'christ' which is an example what Jesus called "Error") word for dialectical thought, narration, and lingual Error.
In Autiot, satan is spelled Seen-Tayt-Noun. Hylic-literally "dialectical-focus on a cell which is uncertain." To classicists (AKA SOMites) dialectic should produce absolute unambiguity, but it doesn't since axiomatic foundations of dialectic are inane.
Let's say it simply: satan in Autiot means a way of understanding reality whose maltuitions induce, instead, ambiguity.
Those of you Quantonics adepts immediately see Poisson's Bracket as quanton(~,o) which is also quanton(wave,particle) and quanton(sheen,seen). So when we focus on o, particle, and Seen it is apparent that we make what Essene Jesus called "an Error." (Doug note: There is an implicit semantic replication here of Autiot's Seen and English's 'seen.' Autiot says beware when 's' appears without h~bar. A quantum analogue of this is how what humans can 'see' is less than one octave of nature's full quantum~flux spectrum. So visually seeing is focused: n¤t quantum~diffuse accross that much larger spectrum. Compare those words to what Doug and Carlo Suares intend by How to Tap Into Reserve Energy and Suares' quantum~complementary Aleph~Tav.
Interpreted pneumatically, then, satan means to focus on Tayt as o, particle, and Seen. And when we follow satan and focus like that we educe Noun: uncertainty as insufficient classical bivalent ambiguity. What is 'bad' about acting for satan is we become blind to s(h)eeing, pneumatically~quantumly, what is really happening.
Now, something hugely powerful and fascinating. What happens if we turn on satan's quantum~h~bar? We get shatan. We get Sheen~Tayt~Noun. Now shatan s(h)ees Tayt quantum~diffusely and Noun becomes a quantum~probability distribution of Tayt's peaqloings! Quantum~Enlightenment Ihn Quantum~Lightings, Ihn Quantum~Realities' Hologramings!
Doug - 17Mar2010.
|Sophia||Wisdom. Gnosis. Probably mother, who has fallen and risen in a tribulation filled cosmic Chautauqua. Re: Mother, son, mother, Father.|
Soteriology: A doctrine of salvation.
Websters Dictionary and Thesaurus.
This one is Doug's transcription from Websters.
Doug - 31Aug2007.
|topos||A gnostic hierarchy of pneuma, psyche, and hyle top down. Doug.|
Doug Renselle's Review notes and draft review text from Pagels' Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis:
1) Gnostics agree on one thing: "...the majority of Christian contemporaries misinterpret the revelation in Christ." Anti-gnostic social Christians, "the many," agree with Valentinian gnosis on Christian hypothesis: Christ is real. This hypothesis is called "the postulate." Page 11.
Begin aside - 4Jul2009:
Wise gnostics, students of Sophia and quantum~reality adhere an omniffering hypothesis: Jesus is real, however, hermeneutics, especially quantum~hermeneutics, of him are omnivalent...as omnivalent as 'the waters.' (Read The Naassene Sermon. Strike Bishop Hippolytus' bilge as you do so.)
Roman Çatholiçs' "Christ is real," Essene Jesus would say, "Their label of me, 'the Christ,' is an Roman-Israeli-Greco abomination. Anyone who calls me 'Christ' or 'the Christ' is Satan. They conned all of you 'christians' by labeling me 'christ.' "
A Christ is a social manager. A ruler. A controller. This is stuff Romans love. But Essene Jesus hated it and said, "Those who would rule must serve, and do so not socially rather, individually." Another way he said this is that, "Monism is deceit." In other words, gnostically, one size does not fit all.
Doug believes Essene Jesus would agree that he is real. See John~Mary Gospel's Farewell Discourse, where Jesus also tells his disciples during their last supper with him, paraphrased, "I am in [all of] you individually and [all of] you are in me individually, therefore God is in [all of] you and [all of] us are in God." To be gnostic we must believe that. In order to do that all of us must do our own spiritual and individual due diligence to affirm presence of G¤d in each of us individually. Doug believes that Essene Jesus would claim that as the gn¤stic postulate, and that it is the key to becoming gn¤stic, i.e., believing that postulate.
Çatholiç (Roman) OSFA (i.e., catholic, universal, totalitarian, communistic) social-labeling of Jesus as 'christ' is an Satanic-socialistic dialectical abomination, really. Jesus essene~tially said so!
Classical society places itself arrogantly above individuals. This is a dialectical Error! It is Satanic: Error! We must remove classical society and emersce a n¤væl Essene~Naassenesque society.
Quantum~Society repairs this classical mistake! Read Mae-wan Ho and Dana Zohar. Read Women's Ways of Knowing. Commence believing Jesus' wife AKA John~Mary AKA Mary Magdalene issi wisdom issi Sophia.
Stop believing classical societies' monist edicts, postulates, axioms and laws. Dump Rulers' dialectical Error!
Thank you for reading - Doug.
End aside - 4Jul2009.
2) Irenæus is a social, dialectical Roman Christian and a founder of social, dialectical (crucifix is a classic icon and emblem of dialectical, literalist, hylic-psychic either[cross ordinate]-or[cross abscissa]) Cartesian Christianity, a Christianity of "the earthly (hylic-dead: crucified for sedition by Romans and once dead relabeled 'christ,' the 'Christ') Jesus." Irenæus is that notorious 'ç a t h o l i ç' who declared choice, plurality of interpretation, "heresy." Irenæus: a OSFA universal monist.
3) Pagels compares Irenæus' social Jesus of history and gnostic individual Jesus: What is the historical postulate? This: Jesus in flesh is God's revelation. (Gnostic view is that 'flesh' is hylic-material.) Pages 12-13.
Be careful here as warned by Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln in HBHG. 'Christ' is a term applied to Jesus by Paul [King Saul] in a post Jesuit era. Some writers say Paul used "Jesus the Christ." You may observe that some authors usually use yyyy c.e. You probably are more accustomed to yyyy a.d. That means "after death." Former may mean current era and it may mean christian era. During his life Jesus was not referred as 'Christ.' In Greek 'Christ' means manager, possibly king, it does not mean messiah. To talk about an era of Jesus' life we probably should use yyyy j.e. Recognize further that we probably need two of those: Irenæus' social hylic-psychic jesuit era - s. j. e., and Gnostics' individual pneuma jesuit era - i. j. e.
Doug's current (c. 2007) interpretation is that gnostics believed that Jesus is us and we are Jesus. Quantumly, Doug would say that, "We are ihn Jesus and Jesus issi ihn us." Classical dialectic disallows any such memes as "absurd." Quantum~reality intrinsically coinsides, cowithins, interfuses, interpenetrates, compenetrates, etc. How? Flux, all kinds of quantum flux: superpose, cohere, entangle, etc. Dialectic is innately incapable, lacks qua, for all of those quantum animate EIMAings.
3 continued...) Justin claims that Jesus is 'true.' Justin claims that 'proof' of Jesus as truth is that he was predicted, and given that, he came. That is proof of Jesus as the son of God.
Of course that is classical dialectic. Dialectic is bogus! Proof predicated on induction is pseudo proof!
3 continued...) Justin also refers to apostles' remarks about Jesus as evidence for his reality.
Again, Doug is troubled here by any use of 'apostle.' To Doug, Jesus' followers were disciples, not 'ç a t h o l i ç' apostles. Pagels makes it abundantly clear in this text that 10 of Jesus' disciples were hylic-psychic. As such Jesus rebuked them. Why? They didn't understand Jesus' pneuma, and as a result could not support Jesus' own gospel: All Jesus' disciples except John~Mary and Didymos were anti-apostles of Jesus' pneumatic gospel! To call all 12 disciples universal "apostles" is a 'ç a t h o l i ç' deign to feign. Doug - 21Aug2007.
3 continued...) Pagels enunciates first principles of Christian faith (this is a 'ç a t h o l i ç' version):
a. On Jesus' birth "God was made man,"
b. Jesus was born ~41st year of Augustus' reign,
c. Jesus lived, suffered, and died "in the flesh," and
d. Jesus was raised from the 'dead.'
3 continued...) Justin accepts the four Gospel writings as fact as proven using dialectical methods described above.
Doug suggests you read Matthew 10:34 to see what Roman 'ç a t h o l i ç s' did to Christ. They turned him into a dialectical hate-monger: the anti-Christ (Doug should have written 'anti-Jesus' here vis-à-vis Doug's 2007 original 'anti-Christ.' Gn¤stically 'a christ' is Satan is dialectical Error AKA 'anti-Jesus.' - 4Jul2009.). Read it for yourself and decide for yourself.
3 continued...) Pagels writes, "The gnostics challenge these first principles." Page 13. Gnostics deny that those principles matter theologically.
But 'theology' is dialectical. And dialectic, we can show and have shown vigorously, is bogus as a method of 'reason,' since its own 'first principle assumptions' aren't real! So, a theology which uses bogus logical methods would appear to be incapable of assessing truth of any "first principles" of Jesus' divinity. For Doug, that is debatable, but ultimately dialectic itself is demonstrably bogus!
What Doug has come to learn empirically is that thought is quanton(¤ught,th). See our QELR of thought. Allow Doug to offer a Quantonics interpretation of gnosis' topos:
3 continued...) Pagels finishes this section by saying that Heracleon (see page top caveat) claimed that hylics and psychics...
...are illiterate and intelligentsia-literalists and cannot fathom deeper pneumatic truthings of Jesus' significance on Earth. We tend to agree, but would also criticize Heracleon's methods of reason which are also dialectical. An easy way to think about this is that pneumatic truth is an agent of its own change (thus truthings, see Emet), while comparatively hylic-psychic 'truth' is wholly objective and thus infallibly "holds still."
4) Now Pagels discusses importance of Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke the three "synoptics" and fourth John, latter a more gnostic approach and topic of this entire Pagels text which we are reviewing) in gnostic exegesis.
Irenæus, as the ç a t h o l i ç father of anti-choice, anti-heresy orthodoxies and dogma, tried to put words in gnostics' mouths in his claim that Valentinus, spoken for by Heracleon, claimed that Roman 'christian' hypotheses are shared by gnostics. Pagels says, however, "But the Valentinians never suggest that their Christian contemporaries in the second century have originated this 'error.'" Page 13.
Pagels continues, "They trace its course through the 'canonical' gospels to the circle of the disciples themselves. They point out how often Jesus rebukes the disciples for taking his symbolic statements literally. (cf AH 3.12.1 f; CJ 13.35; AH is Irenæus' own text Adversus Hereses; CJ is Justin Martyr's Commentarium in Johannis.)" Page 13.
Recall in Thomas Gospel, how Jesus rebuked all disciples except John~Mary and Didymos (semantic: twin, a twin, possible implication: Jesus' twin; another possible implication, similar John~Mary, Didymos may be a hermaphroditic 'twin'). Why? They could not understand his pneuma! They were hylics-psychics. Jesus had, n¤t just Judas, but a majority hylic-psychic anti-Christs in his own group of disciples! Today, c. 2007, we call them n¤t "hylic-psychics," rather, "Christians, both 'ç a t h o l i ç' and 'p r o t e s t a n t.' "
Doug loves Thomas' Gospel! In it we hear Jesus tell us about (Doug infers) quantum reality. One example is Jesus quoted by Thomas in Gospel number 3, only partially quoted here, "Rather, the kingdom is within you and it is outside you." That is a beautiful example of what we mean by pneuma. Jesus does n¤t say "or!" He says "and." This is about as explicit an example of an included~middle as we can offer, folks. Notice how Jesus outright contradicts ç a t h o l i ç dogma and Irenæan canon that God is 'separate' from humans. See pseudo-evangelized dialectic and objectivity in dogma, canon, and orthodoxy? Isn't it obvious to you that what we have been taught is malspel? Dialectic and objectivity are malspel, n¤t gospel!
Jesus, in Thomas Gospel number 3 continues, "When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty." This wholly contradicts 'ç a t h o l i ç i s m.'
We have to be very careful here, since Jesus' use of "Father" is clearly gnostic. For a better grasp of what Jesus intends here we need to go to The Chaldæan Oracles I. We want to look at oracle 'Limit the Separator.' Doug has already used that as item 12 example of quantum~included~middle thinkqing, in our How to Become a Student of Quantonics. Read text at that link.
Study gnosis' descriptions of quantum~interrelationshipings among:
That is gnostics' anthropocentric perspective of their G¤d~human topos hierarchy. It roughly corresponds this list:
When you learn to be pneumatic, when you commence tapping reserve~energy that hierarchy dumps evil and looks like this bullet list:
When we move from hylic and psychic gnosis to pneumatic gnosis d'evil demiurge AKA ESQ AKA state-ic, unliving 'Father' ceases to 'exist.'
Jesus refers unambiguously "the living Father." That is like saying, "not the demiurge." How do we deal with this? Gnosis teaches that Mother is living quanton(Mother,living_Father), a hermaphrodite, a quantum BAWAM!
Fanfare...tata tata ta ta...!
We trumpet a Doug grail innovation. We see grail as a Millennium III Nexus of Heaven and Earth. Heaven at top, and Earth at bottom. Female top, male bottom. Quanton(Heaven,Earth) grail. Quanton(Mother,Living_Father)grail. Quanton(Female,Male)grail. Quanton(Movement,Rest)grail.
Again, we see, as Doug likes to call it, "A quantum~straddle, in this case of Heaven and Earth." Dialecticians say it is "impossible," just as they have said it is impossible for fact and Value to straddle. But Quantonics' quantons make it possible: quantons(Value,fact). For dialectical contrast, see Hume's Law.
Doug shows cuneiform grail symbols in white line drawings as lazy and upright. Click on graphic for detail.
Impetus for this n¤væl artwork emerges in Mark Gaffney's fine Gnostic Secrets of the Naassenes. His Appendix 1 of that textbook is his version (assembled from other authors' works as a kind of Gaffney synthesis) of The Naassene Sermon. Doug developed (invented) his hermeneutics, especially what you see at right from Chapter 3 of The Naassene Sermon.
Doug views atlantes as quantum~complementary as he does mouths of glasses as gates, narrow gates. Where are said "stones?" Doug will add those in a subsequent evolutionary increment of this web page. (Folks at Riedel...would you do some glasses like this for us? Doug senses that every gnostic family on earth would like to have this as a symbol of their quantum~gn¤sis. Beth buys our snifters, champagnes, and various wine glasses from Riedel. Doug loves their stemless versions too. They roll like Quantum~Eggs: in evolutionary QSQCAs.)
Fathom how "the waters" flow upward through the grail leaving Earth and entering its complementary Heaven. And vice versa. Upward flow is "reversal." Elijah and Elisha, 7 and 7 were first to reverse Jordan's flow. Jesus, 14 is most recent to do so.
Question: "Was Jesus' cry, 'Eli, Eli, lama Sabachthani,' apropos?" Wasn't his reversal of flow (upward through an Essene Grail) justified by his sacrifice as a requisite for 2 to unbecome 1 again? Fermions, apparently, must suffer in order to return to their pneumatic bosonicity...just heuristics...by Doug.
Doug thinks you will enjoy comparing these gnostic cuneiform symbols to a few Tao-like hermeneutics Doug drew aboard flights to and from Madeira, Portugal in 1997:
Quantumly, son metaphorically becomes our included~middle comma~n¤~space. Quantumly, son is a metaphor of gluons and bosons. Mother metaphorically becomes quantum~n¤nactuality: source of all actual reality: both known and unknown, both known and unknowable, both seen and seeable, both seen and unseen, both seen and unseeable, both said and unsaid, and Sophia becomes quantum~actuality. In Quantonics, we write concisely in our script, quanton(n¤nactuality,actuality). We could just as easily write quanton(Mother,Sophia) and quanton(Mother~living~Father,actuality) and quanton(n¤nactuality,Sophia). Latter may be comstrued as a straddle of quanton(Mother,wisdom) and quanton(n¤nactuality,quantum_rhetoric) and quanton(Mother,martus_aretê). Keep in mind that dichons are dialectical either-ors while quantons are quantum~rhetorical bothings~whileings~andings processings. In a gnostic sense quantons are redemptive symbolings' revelationings!
Doug is now comfident Essene gnostic Jesus, real Jesus, taught what that hierarchy gnostically means pneumatically.
If we look at this from a quantum~science perspective we see pneuma as isoflux (AKA reserve energy) which compenetrates actuality even though hylics-psychics reject its ubiquitous presence. We see actual quantum~reality as flux and its holographic phasicityings.
Interestingly dialectical SOMites see neither! They do not want to see isoflux, they do not want to fathom pneuma! They are at worst hylics and worse dialectical psychics.
Pagels writes that gnostic Valentinians (perhaps that is redundant) accuse Peter of being most literal, most hylic of all disciples. They also claim a majority of 'Christians' are like Peter. All rock-headed, funda mental DIQheads!
Heracleon speaks biblically re: similar remarks thus, "...those who take the events 'literally' as if the events themselves were revelation have fallen into flesh and error. (CJ 13.19)" Page 14 of Pagels' text. Heracleon says they mistake literal 'data' for pneuma. Distilled, Heracleon agrees with Quantonics: they mistake 'state' for real process. This is amazing! Gnostics at least partially, enthymemetically understood quantum reality over two millennia ago! Do you, reader, grasp immense significance of this? For good coverage of 'state' and 'event,' see Doug's review of Daniel C. Dennett's Breaking the Spell Chapter 3. Doug - 19,22Aug2007.
Heracleon says, "Redemption is process." I.e., redemption is n¤t literal, dialectical, classical 'state.' We add our own memeo of quantum~partiality: redemption is always, as evolving pr¤cæss, only partial with potential for becoming better. Redemption issi quanton(unsaid,said), quanton(redemption_enthymeme_c¤mplæmænt,only_partially_achieved_redemption).
Pagels uses 'symbolic' as a word to describe how gnostics compared literal and quantum: Gnostics "...attempt in common to interpret the revelation of Christ in terms of its inner, symbolic meaning." Page 14. Linguistically, that is OK since 'symbol' may be used to represent-describe process. Pirsig warned us that symbols are OK as long as we remember that they represent process when we are using them that way. As soon as we allow symbol to harden into concrete 'state,' we lose Quality and animate Value of any process quantum~complementing said symbol. As you have noticed, Doug uses pr¤cæss as quantum~animate pneumatic flux to omnistinguish classical hylic-psychic 'state.'
Doug also coined stindyanicity as a means of avoiding 'symbol,' since almost everyone treats 'symbol' as state-ic. Symbols in quantum reality should be stindyanic. In Quantonics a symbol, then, becomes a stindyan.
Begin 16Jul2009 Aside on Quantonics usage of stindyan:
According to Thomas Gospel number 50, paraphrased, Jesus said, "When you are asked what is the sign of the Living~Father within you, you should answer, 'Movement and rest.'"
You may imagine how stunned Doug was when he realised that Pirsig's "always keep DQ with your SQ," and Doug's derivative "stindyan," are Jesus' "movement and rest!" Quantum~reality issi "Movement and rest." Classical-reality is dogmatically "Concrete and state." Classical reality is "zero momentum state." Ideal absence of motion and absence of change. Quantum~reality issi evolutionary wave~change OEDC grail apoptosis~resurrection: creatio ex nihilo aperio and nihilo ex creatio aperio. Flowing upward (waters' reversal of Jordan's flow) through our grail hermaphroditic "quantum~worm~hole" is both by loci and tempora at a "narrow gate." Stones in our Riedel grail we may now desnouer as etched Greco-Roman atlantes. Erect at top, inverted at bottom.
Hermeneutics for 'the waters' are in modern terms, the People. Except Gnosis demands individuality so 'the waters' must be interpreted as ensembles of individuals. Now ponder "primordial waters," and "Et in Arcadia Ego." English language problematics arise blatantly here: 'the' as a singular definite article is wholly inappropriate. 'Tis so, too, in general. 'The' refers a monism, and good gnostics grasp an essential that "Monism is deceit."
Please omniscriminate Living Father as Jesus' way of complementing Dead Father AKA demiurge, latter being a dialectical drone of absolute state. Former is a premier agent of quantum~reality's absolute change: and redemption is quantum~gn¤stic change in you, i.e., from believing in state to believing in change.
Thank you for reading,
End 16Jul2009 Aside on Quantonics usage of stindyan.
Valentinus and Heracleon likely would applaud our efforts here, since hylic-psychic English may now be omnistinguished from more pneumatic English.
Pagels' last paragraph on page 14, pinches Doug's faith deeply, "Gnostic approaches to the 'gospels,' then, differ radically from those of their theological opponents. They tend to dismiss as 'literalism' the apologists' view of the gospels. Gnostic theologians claim that those apparently simple gospel narratives are actually allegorieswhich, read 'spiritually,' disclose in symbolic language the process of inner redemption. They recognized that to explicate the symbolic truths hidden in scripture would require nothing less than to develop a new hermeneutical methodand this is precisely what they have done. Hippolytus relates as clear evidence of their heterodoxy that the Naassenes and the Peratae have developed a 'new hermeneutical discipline.' " Doug's bold and color. Since 1996 Doug invented Gn¤sis' quantum anacoquecigrues and calls it "Quantonics."
Though developed for quantum~research and studies, Quantonics accomplishes what gnostics' "...new hermeneutical method..." requires.
Is it apparent to you? Ancient gnostics didn't realize it, but they were attempting to turn quantum~h~bar on! Holy Dirac!
To do so, however, they had to embrace heterogeneity of pluralism and absolute animacy of flux. Both are heretical and heterodox to Ç a t h o l i ç and P r o t e s t a n t canonic [?] 'principles.' Further, they had to embrace a quantum~included~middle which is everywhere~associative! They were describing a holographic reality over 2000 years ago! Amazing! WowMom! XX8XX! Go Gn¤sis!
Ç a t h o l i ç s and P r o t e s t a n t s call this gnosis we and Pagels just described, "Satanic!" But clearly and obviously immutable, exclusionary, unevolvable 'state' and dialectic are Satanic, n¤t quantum reality. Satan socially controls. HotMeme Quantum~G¤d engenders individual free will. HotMeme. Doug - 19Aug2007.
Genuinely, in quantum~reality Quantonics style, there is n¤ Satan. H5W? Quantum~flux is positive. We can tentatively and only apparently cancel it. We cann¤t Descartes-negate it. That is what quantum~phasicityings do: they dynamically (stindyanically) enthymemetically cancel and uncancel positive quantum~wave energyings. Neurons in your brain do exactly that in endless pr¤cæssings of quantum~wave energy~wellings interrelationshipings: holographic quantum~coherence! Chain of thought required here to grasp, perhaps better, what Doug just wrote is this: waves are flux, flux are waves, waves are quantum PPLings, PPLings are (quantum~coherent, ~entangling, and ~superpositively) additive, n¤n negative wave~functionings. PPLs are predicable only as PPLs. Therefore wave~functionings are predicable only as wave~functionings. "When one objectifies that which is subjective, one does not make progress, only Error..." Bruno de Finetti. Paraphrased slightly by Doug - 27Aug2007.
Pagels' writes about gnostic 'doctrine' which tells followers that monism is bogus. Universal specificity [as 'principle' AKA dialectical 'science;' Regard how classical science's dialectical efforts it self-refers "progress," and "scientific success," however, what Doug has just shown you is that dialectical 'scientific progress' is just and only Error! Ditto dialectical religion!] is just and only superstition: beliefs and principles applied to the world as representative of all reality. Error! Page 15. (Doug's paraphrasing of Julian Jaynes' famous quote.)
Evolving ensemblings of partialityings (quantum~wave~functionings) can approach a better, more real, evolving but always l¤cal quantum~truthing.
Recall that quantum~truthings' abs¤lutænæss issi quanton(c¤mplætænæss,comsistæncy).
Instead of ensemblings Naassenes specify three... a specific number is just as troubling to us as a monism is to them... Doug - 21Aug2007.
We agree, though, with Naassenes' rejection of Justin, Irenæus, and Hippolytus re: validity of Roman Christian revelation of Jesus as a Pauline 'manager.' Too, their rejection of a stux sux state-ic dead-Father's (i.e., demiurge's) 'earthly Jesus,' and hylic-psychic literal dialectical reading of gospels. Literal level and literal interpretation is just Babel, linguistic garbage, intellectual garbage.
5) Next Pagels explains how Origen (and Clement) are disagreeable to Valentinus. Why? Valentinus insists on process while Origen and Clement, Pagels appears to say, want to put data on know ledges and use that as foundation. In Quantonics, data is state. Data is metric scalarbation. All dialectical classicists practice, routinely and rotely, scalarbation.
6) Pagels undertakes an 'Exegesis of John in gnostic circles...' Pages 16-17.
She writes, "This study is intended to investigate gnostic, especially Valentinian, exegesis of the Johannine gospel. How did gnostic exegetes actually interpret it? Is their exegesis as hopelessly "arbitrary" and "contrived" as Irenæus, Clement, and Origen allege (with concurrence from several recent scholars 4 - date is 1932 as 'recent')? Does it reflect any systematic methodology? Most important, what theological presuppositions underlie their hermeneutical practice, and what theological issues are at stake in the controversy over Johannine exegesis? [Doug effaced footnote 4.]
"The method for this investigation is to examine the known fragments of gnostic Johannine exegesis, and to analyze their interrelation as well as their relation to the Johannine exegesis of Irenæus, Clement, and Origen. Valentinian exegeses of John offer the most extensive source material, especially as reflected in the fragments of Heracleon's commentary. These fragments provide the main focus for this study." Doug's brackets, bold and color. Doug's partial footnote 4 information.
In Doug's view, this is an excellent approach. Comparatives allow each reader to assess for themselves what for them, individually, is better. Too, we are quickly apprised of which characters represent which views, how they may potentially overlap, and further possible appraisals and assessments of any completeness and consistency of their views. See our QELR of absolute.
7) Pagels challenges her own method in her 'How representative is Heracleon?'
"Such a method raises a question: On the basis of Heracleon's exegesis, is it legitimate to make inferences about 'gnostic,' or even Valentinian, theology and hermeneutics in general? De Faye suggests that neither Ptolemy nor Heracleon can be taken as representing the type of theology that Irenæus and Hippolytus characterize as 'Valentinian.' He suggests that Ptolemy and Heracleon reflect instead a 'strictly monotheistic' development within Valentinian tradition; that they deliberately omit from their theology the 'mythopoetic' formulations of Valentinus and his earlier followers5 Brooke6 and von Loewenich7 agree that Heracleon's exegetical insight into the fourth gospel has 'compelled' him to break with the 'usual dogmatic-gnostic interpretation' of John. Sanders adds that Heracleon's Valentinianism has been 'profoundly modified by his study of the fourth gospel.'8 The conclusions of Brooke, von Loewenich, and Sanders rest, I believe, on what these scholars assume is the 'true' interpretation of John. The present study should demonstrate that Heracleon does not share these assumptions: instead they form the central issue of the hermeneutical controversy." Our bold. We effaced all footnote detail.
Pagels illustrates how various writers appear inconsistent in their exegeses of gnosis. Heracleon appears as a monist, but gnosis isn't. Pagels asks, "But how are we to explain the fact that Heracleon never refers (for example) to the myth of the pleromic aions?" She writes that Origen says Heracleon presupposes it. But Origen could be unintentionally and perhaps intentionally misleading... She lists: fragments of Valentinus, Ptolemy's Letter to Flora, and supposed Valentinian Gospel of Truth as effacing notions of pleromic myth. Could Valentinus' system have evolved over time? Might there be omniffering versions of it? Could myths have been omitted and added possibly by others later? "Ptolemy's Letter to Flora proves to be...consistent with Heracleon's exegesis." Page 18. But Ptolemy's Johannine exegesis if Pagels includes what she believes is Valentinus' Johannine exegesis in AH 1.8.5 then Valentinus' theology does include pleroma and aions.
Doug wants to launch a novel quantum memeo here. What does 'genuine' mean? Most of you will probably respond, "real." Doug agrees. Now what does 'real' mean? Classicists may answer "true." Possibly "certain." Quantumists will tell you that reality is "uncertain." But true could mean classically "certain," and quantumly "uncertain," right? So 'truth' then depends upon which belief system one adheres. Agree? Then when we say texts are classically genuine, we are saying classically they are not apocryphal. By comparison when we say texts are quantumly genuine, we are saying quantumly they are apocryphal.
Pagels has a similar problem here. Gnosis isn't either classical or quantum. Its topos is, bottom up: hylic, psychic, and pneumatic. If we look at Chaldæan gnosis we see more detail, bottom up: Father (hylic), mother (psychic), son, Mother (pneumatic). Topos has three levels while Chaldæan gnosis [Cg] shows four. Addition of 'son' characterizes Cg vis-à-vis topos.
Will you agree that similar classical vis-à-vis quantum, we can take a stand of viewing exegesis from topos' three views, and we can take a stand of viewing exegesis from Cg's four views?
Pagels adds two more views: exoteric (for public consumption) and esoteric (for private, secret consumption).
What Doug can be genuinely proud of at this juncture is that Quantonics' quantum thinkqing modes encompass all of that and more.
She distills all this by writing, "I suggest that Heracleon intends his Johannine exegesis to be read by non-initiates." That is how she can write that "it agrees with Ptolemy's Letter."
But then Pagels takes us right back into Doug's concerns with 'levels of exegesis,' via her, "Yet even Heracleon refers, in his exegesis, to a pre-cosmic myth. He mentions that the 'son of man beyond the topos' effects the pre-cosmic 'sowing of the seed' which the 'son of man' in the cosmos reaps (CJ 13.49). In another passage he states that the logos provides pneumatics with their primary 'genesis' that prepares their 'formation' in the cosmos (CJ 2.21). Such references indicate that Heracleon, like Ptolemy, does regard the pre-cosmic myth as the presupposition of his theological exposition. Furthermore, his exegesis of John 4 follows the structure of the Sophia myth in such detail that Sagnard concludes that the Samaritan must be an image of Sophia.9 But Heracleon omits any mention of so obvious an inference. I believe that this omission is certainly deliberate...these observations also indicate that both Ptolemy and Heracleon consciously discriminate between their exoteric teaching (available to outsiders) and the esoteric teaching (which includes the pleromic and kenomic mythology) reserved for initiates. The Valentinians claim Christ as their example of a teacher who adapts his teaching to the capacity of his audience (cf AH 3.5.1). As a cardinal principle of gnostic teaching, it earns Irenæus' vehement censure, for he perceives that this same epistemological principle underlies Valentinian christological [i.e., 'logic of Christ'] and soteriological [i.e., 'logic of salvation'] theology as well as Valentinian hermeneutical practice." Doug's brackets. Doug effaced footnote detail. Clearly Pagels refers Cg's four level hierarchy re: son shown above.
For Doug, having read a few of gnosis' gospels, agreement with Pagels' assessment of Jesus' exoteric-esoteric adapting is just obvious. Jesus' lingual, et al., adaptation and adaptive qua is a clear indicator of his quantum intuitions and his "use what audiences can understand:" pneumatic, psychic, and hylic lingual skills. Having said that, it is crucial to recall how Jesus rebuked 10 of his disciples for their, as individuals, lack of pneumatic qua! He glorified John-Mary and Didymos for their own individual pneumatic qua. Even Jesus had great omnifficulty conveying his gospel.
Irenæus fought that classical notion. Why? He wanted social consensus on all biblical 'truths.' Why? So 'the church' could tell its flock exactly what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' and hegemonously control said flock, absolutely.
Gnostic Jesus would have thrown Irenæus out of 'the church.' Gnostic Jesus told all of us 'children of the cosmos' to find God within each of our individual selves. No social consensus there, folks! Society: "OSFA." Individual: "MSFA."
That completes Doug's draft review of Pagels' Introduction to her The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis.
Thank you for reading.
Doug - 22Aug2007.