Miguel Conner, Gnosticism and the Evil Question |446|

Alex

Administrator
When you say, "don't we all know right and wrong?" you could say, "don't we all have neural networks trained on similar data resulting in probability curves that are similar enough that we can agree XX% of the time on how to label a particular event?
I'm definitely saying something distinctly different from that (not that I'm right, just different).

I'm suggesting that there's an incomprehensible force in the Consciousness universe that is light / love / good / positive. I'm suggesting that we might develop neural networks that are effective / ineffective add tapping into this reality.
 
I'm definitely saying something distinctly different from that (not that I'm right, just different).

I'm suggesting that there's an incomprehensible force in the Consciousness universe that is light / love / good / positive. I'm suggesting that we might develop neural networks that are effective / ineffective add tapping into this reality.
A neural network can be perceptive or it can be generative as we've seen with GANs:
https://thiscatdoesnotexist.com/

So our perceptions of good and evil could be identifying something that is a generated instantiation of "ontological" good and evil.

If reality is generated by such a "neural network" (although this is surely in some sense a strained metaphor) then it makes sense that reality is probabilistic just as our perceptions of it are probabilistic.

In other words you need a network to both perceive AND generate patterns. And both the generation and the perception of those patterns is probabilistic with boundaries determined by the usefulness of those boundaries.

Usefulness of boundaries is related to purpose or will or intent. So that which is created and that which is perceived cannot be divorced from the will. Truth and Will are inextricable.

That which is contrary to the will is evil and that which is in accordance with the will is good. This of course begs the question: Who's will? Which begs the question of the ontological nature of self. If boundaries are a matter of choice, can you choose to identify with the one who generates?

When the will of the one who perceives agrees with the will of the one who generates, everything is good and true.

But if the one who perceives undergoes an externalization of the will (as Woman was broken off of Adam to be useful to him) and exercises independent will to choose to redefine boundaries such that the pattern that is perceived is not the pattern that was intended by the generator, then "truth" has been altered and a deception has occurred.

The act of exercising independent free-will to choose to perceive differently is simultaneously an act of destruction and creation. It is an act of rebellion against the generator and it is becoming a generator.
 
Its like, the rebel against the demiurge becomes... a demiurge! Is this the only possibility when conscious agents arise, reach self awareness and then make choices based all and only upon their perception of self once they have achieved the ability "to perceive me/not me?" And further to that, efforts to reach (again) that non-dual state... is the effort and brief moments of achievement of that non-dual (original) state self delusion? Too late to wind the 'soul evolutionary clock' backwards? Would one even want to? Even if they know the end game is to become the next monster? Is the only "good" goal simply to accept one's reality and strive to be good (as best as one can see good to be) and be it? For eternity?
 

Alex

Administrator
Its like, the rebel against the demiurge becomes... a demiurge! Is this the only possibility when conscious agents arise, reach self awareness and then make choices based all and only upon their perception of self once they have achieved the ability "to perceive me/not me?" And further to that, efforts to reach (again) that non-dual state... is the effort and brief moments of achievement of that non-dual (original) state self delusion? Too late to wind the 'soul evolutionary clock' backwards? Would one even want to? Even if they know the end game is to become the next monster? Is the only "good" goal simply to accept one's reality and strive to be good (as best as one can see good to be) and be it? For eternity?
I'm wearing my "hello darkness my old friend" t-shirt today :) 20200515_171326.jpg
 
This is one of those "things" at the top of my small list... things which I don't "know are true" but I live that they are true.

I am now (recently) all in. And I'm happy to go all the way.

Cute.

"...go all the way" is something my first 'actual' girlfriend and I agreed to.

Boy, that turned out to be a disaster.
Hers and mine first time. Wasn't what I thought it would be. All mechanical. No air of love. Looking back on it (WAY back) I would comment that it was as it was because of the anxiety.
We recovered to "a new normal" but never really were the same. An innocence was gone in exchange for the bitter taste of adulthood.
 
sounds pretty gnostic... I love parts of the Gnostic vibe, I can't help but feel that it's fundamentally missing the mark with regard to the light.
Interesting choice of words... Sin = “miss the mark” so your feeling is technically correct.

I agree in two respects - For one, Gnosticism offers the teenage perspective on Dad, but I think there’s hope of growing past that phase into a happy loving relationship with mutual respect. And two, Gnosticism plays too heavily into a victim mindset. But since we can choose the boundaries of our identity, we can choose whether to identify as a little victim or we can choose to identify as a co-creator and on some level we can take full responsibility for the painful absurdities we endure. When we make this choice to identify as the Great I Am then we choose not to be a victim and we voluntarily bear the sins of the whole world on our own shoulders.
 
Interesting choice of words... Sin = “miss the mark” so your feeling is technically correct.

I agree in two respects - For one, Gnosticism offers the teenage perspective on Dad, but I think there’s hope of growing past that phase into a happy loving relationship with mutual respect. And two, Gnosticism plays too heavily into a victim mindset. But since we can choose the boundaries of our identity, we can choose whether to identify as a little victim or we can choose to identify as a co-creator and on some level we can take full responsibility for the painful absurdities we endure.
For me, you nailed it.

In my own personal "map of all" I have mapped a region where the demiurge makes its presence known directly... I see this as the region of the soul. And I have that region divided into A and B. And I define B as "the soul captured and imprisoned (by demiurgic forces including The demiurge)" and I define A as "the unfettered soul." And the key to which Zone my "Primary Operational Point of View" is operating from appears to be based on the degree to which I have taken responsibility for every single experience within the set of all my experiences. My goal is to take 100% responsibility. My ego sometimes convinces me I have achieved a higher percentage than the reflection suggests. I am trusting more and more to read the signals from the reflection.

When we make this choice to identify as the Great I Am then we choose not to be a victim and we voluntarily bear the sins of the whole world on our own shoulders.
That seems to be the Christian mystical interpretation of the crucifixion. That seems to be bearing out for some of us...

Another thanks for your post (And same to Alex's posts)... though there are few, we are not alone.
 
Miguel Conner, Gnosticism and the Evil Question |446|
by Alex Tsakiris | Apr 14 | Spirituality
Share
Tweet
0SHARES

Miguel Conner explains how Gnosticism tackles the evil question.
photo by: Skeptiko
Welcome to Skeptiko where we explore controversial science with leading researchers thinkers and their critics. As the creator and host of Aeon Byte Gnostic Radio, Miguel Conner truly is veteran of a thousand existential deep dives. Through his interviews with nearly all of the notable esoteric thinkers of our time, Miguel has become recognized as a leading voice of not just Gnosticism, which has always been his foot in the door of your mind calling card, but the leader of, I think an undeniable alternative spirituality zeitgeist that we’re in the middle of.
So, it’s great to talk to Miguel… I’ve learned so much from him… he is one of my go-to mystics. It’s great to have you Miguel, thanks for joining me.
assuming "the god" has a temperament is comes from us once again placing things in our inherited perception.
 
Top