I want to combine the last few things I’ve been talking about into one semi-coherent whole. In reverse chronological order they are: (A) the formula of spiritual advancement; (B) the ongoing cultural debate between Aristotle &. Plato; (C) and that weird stuff about Jesus, Lucifer and Ahriman. And to talk about these correlations, I’m going to try and use gnostic language and imagery, because I think it deals with these things very explicitly - although I’m willing to admit that my interpretation of it all might not have a lot to do with what other people envision as gnosticism.

Let’s begin with a quote from Philip K. Dick’s Tractates Cryptica Scriptura, item number 49:

Two realms there are, upper and lower. The upper, derived from hyperuniverse I or Yang, Form I of Parmenides, is sentient and volitional. The lower realm, or Yin, Form II of Parmenides, is mechanical, driven by blind, efficient cause, deterministic and without intelligence, since it emanates from a dead source. In ancient times it was termed “astral determinism.” We are trapped, by and large, in the lower realm, but are through the sacraments, by means of the plasmate, extricated. Until astral determinism is broken, we are not even aware of it, so occluded are we. “The Empire never ended.”

In the terminology of Rudolf Steiner, we might be able to suggest that Form I, as described above correlates to the Luciferian drive:

Lucifer is the symbol of energy, dynamic motion, dissolution of boundaries, and in a larger context, light, transcendence, and immateriality […]

In Phildickian terms though, we’d probably refer to this as the Plasmate (the “living information”) or the Holy Spirit. In philosophical terms, Dick’s “Form I” comes from Plato’s realm of Ideal Forms.

In Steiner’s system, the mechanistic Form II would be Ahrimanic:

Ahriman is the symbol of matter, crystallization, formation of boundaries and limitations, solidification in all regions. Ahriman is the tendency for the animate to become inanimate, for motion to become stillness.

Form II in gnostic terms would be the realm controlled by the Demiurge and the archons, Philip K. Dick’s Black Iron Prison. This realm of matter more than likely could also be philosophically correlated to the realm of the senses and empirical objects which we see Aristotle leaning towards. I realize I’m mashing a bunch of things together here (possibly inaccurately), but bear with me, because this seems like an interesting experiment.

Now, let’s take Form I and Form II and try to overlay them onto the experimental model I’ve been working with:

1. The observation of limitation
2. The intuitive knowledge of potential beyond limitation
3. The experience of transcending limitation into potential

Could we make the argument here that what Dick calls Form II - the mechanistic, Ahrimanic, empirical Aristotelian universe of the senses is what I’m describing in step 1 above? Seems like it. And that would leave Form I - the realm of Luciferian, Platonic Ideals - as number 2 in my experimental formula. Now I realize this is just a model that I invented, but I’m deriving usefulness out of it for right now. It’s very likely I’ll discard it in the future, but it’s helping me see a lot of new possibilities.

What this seems to be telling me is that gnosticism teaches that the experience of ultimate fulfillment is to move out of the mechanistic Demiurgic Black Iron Prison of Form II into the purity and idealism of Form I. To quote Jeremy’s criteria of gnosticism, this seems reasonably accurate (to a point). The goal of gnosticism is:

Transcendence of the world of forms [ie, Form II] via close, personal experience of the hidden deity (gnosis) and pursuit of self-knowledge,

From this perspective, I might be able to make a good argument that groups like Scientology and Christian Science are indeed gnostic, because both point towards the Platonic Ideal, seeing that as either more real or more spiritually worthwhile than the Aristotelian. (Disclaimer: this of course only applies to certain strains of gnostic thought. Homework: Which ones does it not apply to?)

Zac had some interesting thoughts on this:

a lot of modern luciferians do not seem to understand themselves as such, but you can see it in the obsession with the salvific quality of information, with acceleration, and occasionally even in some kind of apocalyptic transfiguration of the material world caused by the acceleration of the Lucifer current, whether it be the singularity, 2012 timewave zero, S.M.I.L.E. or the new jerusalem.

But wait, we’re not done. There’s one other important catch in this whole thing: in Steiner’s system, the Christ force is that which combines and transcends BOTH the Luciferian & the Ahrimanic. It doesn’t merely rest in Plato’s Form I, it transcends it just as it transcended Aristotle’s Form II. In Steiner’s system, both poles are represented as negative, drawing adherents to either direction into a sort of counter-initiation away from God. Speaking of God, if we look at the Trinity, we find something similar, but without the inherent value judgements. The Holy Spirit is pure Platonic (Luciferian) Form I spirit. Jesus is the god descended into Aristotelian (Ahrimanic) Form II matter, and God the Father is that which transcends both spirit and matter.

Since I’m in a combining mood, let’s also toss Ken Wilber’s concept of the Pre/Trans Fallacy. Without getting into a big thing about it, it basically consists of a three part process as well. Unlike Steiner who believes that Luciferian and Ahrimanic energies oppose each other, Wilber seems to set them along a time-line. In his conception, we first encounter the pre-rational, then the rational, then the trans-rational. If we apply our existing terminology here, we could probably combine “rational” into the same group as the spiritual Luciferian Platonic Ideal (Form I) and this makes what he calls pre-rational fit with the Aristotelian Ahrimanic, Demiurgic Form II. Whew! This is getting hairy with all these terms in it, and playing the matching game is always a dangerous thing to take too literally. But what we see in Wilber’s bit is that again both Luciferian & Ahrimanic are transcended in favor of a third all-inclusive option.

Okay, wow. That was a mouthful. And before you respond, understand that my intention here is not to start the Semantic War to End All Semantic Wars. I’m knowingly playing fast and loose with terminology. I’m intentionally mashing a bunch of things together, not with the intention of separating or excluding, but with integrating and reaching a new level of understanding - which I’ll ultimately transcend at some other point in the future. Until then, there’s a ton of interesting stuff to chew on here. Where should we start?