In the gnostic view of creation (well, one of many interpretations of it), the material world is created through a sort of error or accident by the Aeon (emanation of god, essentially) called Sophia. Sophia comes from the Greek for “wisdom.” She supposedly makes the error of trying to create without the consent or aid of her consort, and from her efforts springs a sort of aborted fetus which later gives rise to the material world and to the Demiurge, Yaldabaoth (ie, Yahweh). Pretty much the whole goal of gnosticism is to break free from the prison of Yaldabaoth through gnosis or intuitive spiritual knowledge. Christ in gnosticism is seen as a messenger sent by Sophia to humans whose wisdom teachings - and not his crucifixion - liberate human souls.

Anyway, in researching this, I came across a good point that I’d never considered before: namely that it’s sort of weird that a being which is literally called “Wisdom” would make the error that she did in creating this world. An article on the gnostic account of the Creation and Fall says:

It seems strange that an entity called “Wisdom” should be held responsible for an act of folly. The most likely explanation is that these Hellenistic Gnostics were having a dig at the intellectual philosophers: the Platonists, Aristotleans, Stoics, Epicureans, and the rest. These philosophers claimed it was possible through reason alone (or “wisdom”; “Philosophy” means “love of wisdom”) to know the Absolute. The Hellenistic Gnostics however said that such perception can only come about through a higher, intuitive, knowing.

This explanation doesn’t completely add up for me, but it’s interesting nonetheless. Actually, the Valentinian gnostics made this whole thing a little bit more clear cut, I think. Here’s a good explanation of what happened to Sophia as a result of her error:

The first part of the myth describes how Sophia (Wisdom) attempted to know the Father through thinking alone and as a result she was excluded from the divine Fullness (pleroma). She fell into deficiency and suffering. …

In the second phase of the myth, Sophia repented of her actions and she underwent a conversion. Rather than continuing her struggle to understand the Father, she instead began to plead for assistance. …

In the third phase of the myth, the Father had mercy on her and sent Christ to her. Christ redeems her and gives her knowledge (gnosis) of the Father.

This is supposed to be based around the Valentinian view that the world was tripartite in nature, consisting of soul, spirit and matter; each of the above phases gave rise to one of those elements.

Anyway, the part I’m more interested in at the moment is that you can’t reach or know god through thinking or through reason alone. Here’s a quote from another site also in tune with that:

Sophia wished to know the nature of the Father (God), and would not stop trying to understand the incomprehensible. Eventually her wish twisted itself and she became impregnated by her desire for unattainable knowledge.

I think this is something that’s greatly overlooked among contemporary gnostic seekers. A lot of people seem to basically equate gnosticism more as a quasi-rational search for knowledge, rather than an intuitive inbreaking of knowledge of the divine. The trick here, I think, is that such a search for knowledge - a path of research and learning - may actually prepare the mental soil for a flowering of gnosis. Or it may create so many structures and patterns that you end constraining or preventing the explosion of non-rational (or maybe “trans-rational”) truth which goes beyond any and all forms.

I’ve never seen any gnostic writers talk explicitly about Sophia’s error is actually a metaphor for what happens in the seeker - the philosopher, the “lover of wisdom.” That there exists a real danger (and maybe even necessity?) of becoming so enamored of wisdom that this desire begets an abortive illusory world unto itself. Perhaps the egotistical nature of the Demiurge is an example of one who has become trapped in such a world, and who then thinks that they are its Lord and Creator. Christ then, as gnosis, would be more a reminder or a wake-up call - an in-breaking of personal intuitive trans-rational knowledge of the divine. And the Demiurgic Egotistical mind with its world of patterns, structures and forms, would attempt to annihilate anything that doesn’t fit - namely this idea of the Christos.

This would also cast the idea of the phenomenal world as illusory into a new light. A lot of times, you’ll hear people in gnosticism go on about how this world isn’t really real, but maybe that is intended more to be a reminder to keep your options open, and that there is more to the mind and to the self than the ego and rational thinking and the forms that it clings to.