the timboucher experience

Earlier today we witnessed the birth of Phildickian Gnosticism, a term which has already caught on several other places. As a follow-up to that, Fantastic Planet also put together the first part of what promises to be an excellent series on varieties of modern gnosticism. Chief among these are: (1) so-called “Bullshitian Gnosticism” (New Age baloney, basically); and (2) Ecclesiastical Gnosticism, which is a resurrection of (essentially) Valentian gnostic ritual and early-Christian Eucharistic sacraments.

Along with these, Jeremy also coined another term, “Anarcho-Gnosticism” which I’d like to take a stab at explaining here myself. In many ways, I see this as over-lapping “traditional” Phildickian Gnosticism, but it has a somewhat different focus. I would say that the Phildickian variety is much more Christian in orientation and symbology, and focusing around a particular style of ceaseless questioning and invention. In my eyes (and it’s likely to be different for anyone who takes up the mantle) , Anarcho-Gnosticism is more concerned with the the concept of authority. The gnostic term “archons” is often actually translated to mean “authorities.” Though accounts differ radically, the way I would define an archon is basically a personified control system. To use Phildickian terms, the archons are the guards and wardens of the Black Iron Prison.

Anarchism literally means “without rulers” although most people nowadays try to paint it as simply “chaos” or “lawlessness”. In some of it’s varieties, gnosticism, I think is very much an anarchist pursuit. Philip K. Dick himself was said to have referred to himself as a “religious anarchist” in an interview:

“I’m totally against organized religion,” he states. “I believe you have a direct relation with the divine or you have no relation with the divine. It has nothing to do with faith or dogmatic creeds.

Also related to this is an excellent quote I nabbed from another site about belief:

Considered in this light, beliefs in and about God (or anything else) may be derived from the incapacity to experience what God actually is. Someone who can experience God in a direct and evidential way no longer needs to hold beliefs in or about God.

Put another way, one might say that an anarcho-gnostic doesn’t “believe” anything. They can only go by what they know. The very term, “gnosis” after all means knowledge, a “wisdom of the heart” or an intuitive knowing which can only be gained and developed through direct experience.

Archons also represent the embodiment of what Dick would call “inauthentic” or “spurious” or “fake” behavior. They are the slipping away of real honest beautiful messy human interaction in favor of streamlined automated faceless number. Not that they are synonymous with technological progress in general, but definitely when it is used to diminish and devalue human existence (which admittedly is pretty often). If the anarcho-gnostic is all about direct experience, then the archonic is all about simulating, mediating and distancing people from reality and from the wisdom inherent in themselves. Archons are frequently trying to spread their inauthenticity and impose it on others. Philip K. Dick suggests that the “authentic human” (essentially what I mean by “anarcho-gnostic”) quietly resists:

The authentic human being is one of us who instinctively knows what he should not do, and, in addition, he will balk at doing it. He will refuse to do it, even if this brings down dread consequences to him and to those whom he loves. This, to me, is the ultimately heroic trait of ordinary people; they say no to the tyrant and they calmly take the consequences of this resistance. Their deeds may be small, and almost always unnoticed, unmarked by history. Their names are not remembered, nor did these authentic humans expect their names to be remembered. I see their authenticity in an odd way: not in their willingness to perform great heroic deeds but in their quiet refusals. In essence, they cannot be compelled to be what they are not.

People nowadays often paint political anarchists as bomb-throwing instigators who only identify the problem without offering a “useful solution.” In many ways though, I think identifying the problem actually IS the solution - it is a continual resistance. As was recently written by Crasspastor:

We must not for one moment believe there is a “pinnacle” we are striving to reach. We are simply the antidote to the mind control of empire. We are taking simple human compassion and doing what we can to apply it to all the partitions of the modern mind.

Dick also addressed this in an elaborate essay titled Cosmogony and Cosmology. He talks about the Black Iron Prison as a “teaching artifact”, the sole purpose of which is to encourage you to throw off it’s shackles by lumping onto you pain and hardship:

The artifact enslaves us, but on the other hand it is attempting to teach us to throw off its enslavement. It will never tell us to disobey it. You cannot order someone to disobey you; that is both semantically and functionally impossible.

It’s a compelling argument, I think whether you’re a Phildickian Gnostic, an Anarcho-Gnostic, or just a regular person who doesn’t give a shit about labels and just likes cool ideas. After all, that’s really all I’m trying to get at here with any of this anyway. Feel free to take it or leave it, build on it or smash it to smithereens. That’s the whole point.

UPDATE!

Found a nice article on Jesus’ teachings being coopted by the right wing (via Jeremy) which has an excellent quote about Jesus that I think will enrich our discussion above:

Instead of taking orders from temple chieftains, Jesus provoked his followers into thinking for themselves. His preferred media outlet? A literary genre called the parable. It’s a style of Q&A wherein the teacher doesn’t give the answer but challenges the listener with a half-finished story that forces him to think through to the answer by himself.

[...] Jesus makes you work through your own doubt and hesitation to arrive at an answer that becomes the very foundation of your own certainty.

Whether or not this is “Anarcho-Gnosticism” I think it certainly cuts to the heart of what it is I’m getting at by the term. You might also enjoy checking out an older article of mine about Christian Anarchism, Liberation Theology and the Emergent Church or my article about Why the Vatican Hates Liberation Theology for more thoughts in this direction. And don’t forget the Pop Occult Gnostic Conspiracy which is a manifesto of sorts.

• Anarchism & Religion
• Challenge Everything
• Is Scientology Gnostic?
• The Tao of Gnosticism
• Is Gnosticism Corruptible?