I was worried that people would walk around having all these shitty ideas about gnosticism and the RCC that I’d be having to fix people’s misconceptions

I’ve been worried about this a lot in the past, having to fix people’s misconceptions for them. But isn’t it pretty close to just telling people what to think? I’m getting to a point where I think their misconceptions are actually really interesting. I like hearing about them. And my goal now is simply to cultivate conversation. Not so I can fix anything for them, but so that we can all bring our experience and interpretation to the table. Like a pot luck sort of. Everybody can try out dishes brought by other people, see if they like it, and maybe even ask for the recipe so they can make it themselves.

i’m introducting somebody new to gnosticism and maybe they’ll look further into it. i don’t mind answering those questions one bit ‘cause they might be someone’s doorway into gnosis, y’know?

Which reminds me of a sweet phenomenon that I observed while working at Borders. I was upset that the populatiry of the pop-culture crapfest “DaVinci Code” because I was worried that people would walk around having all these shitty ideas about gnosticism and the RCC that I’d be having to fix people’s misconceptions as soon as the subject came up, wherever the hell I was. I cultivated a “fuck it” attitude toward the whole thing, and often, just avoid the subject at all costs.

An interesting thing started to happen though - because Borders has contracts with Amazon to keep track of “who buys what books,” the corporation was linking DaVinci code with all this quality non-fiction literature. What seems to have happened is that people who read the DaVinci code would order nonfiction, like Pagels, on related subjects, and Borders began to link the two. So when you went into the religion section, there were little tags on the Nag Hammadi Library, and Pagels, and Hoeller, labeled “DID YOU LIKE THE DAVINCI CODE? YOULL LIKE THIS!”

I remember thinking, HALLELUIA! A silver lining!

I think a lot of people think public domain-folklore type rituals and spells are more ‘authentic’, because someone didn’t just sit in their bedroom and make them up. they do have history, and a thread of understanding and antiquity.

i think scott’s right on with this statement. i also generally think that it doesn’t matter so much where people get their information, provided that they aren’t being exploited or harmed in the process (i.e. newage scam cults, etc.). if somebody wants to get into wicca through ‘teen witchcraft for dummies,’ it’s no skin off of my back. as silly and cheesy as we might find that stuff, we should also remember that most of us (readers of this site) are already exceptionally familiar with most of the material. to someone breaking into alternative spirituality for the very first time, maybe ‘teen witchcraft for dummies’ is new & refreshing & exactly what they need!

as far as the dangers of gnosticism falling victim to some kind of pop cultural quagmire, i’m not concerned whatsoever. whatever way the logos chooses to manifest itself is okay with me. that moore quote says it all. if someone wants to know what i think about the subject, they can read what i write or ask me directly, and vice-versa. and, every time i have to tell someone ‘no, not AGnostic, no not the davinci code,” i’m introducting somebody new to gnosticism and maybe they’ll look further into it. i don’t mind answering those questions one bit ’cause they might be someone’s doorway into gnosis, y’know?

Remember that “Gnostic death cult” out west? You’d be surprised how often people bring that up to me when they hear I’m a gnostic. This sort of bad publicity I think is unlikely to “ruin” gnosticism per se as much as it is only going to make life more annoying for us at Borders.

There’s a great Alan Moore interview, where the interviewer asks him if he’s worried that movies of his comics will ruin his comics. And Moore says, if people want my comics, they can still go read them. They remain intact no matter how many shitty movies are layered on top of them.

In the case of the Santeria botanica, I don’t see this as a spiritual dilution of their tradition but a strengthening of it. After all, you won’t see Paris Hilton, Ashton Kutcher, and Lindsay Lohan at a botanica or carrying around a little Virgin Mary votive candle. The botanica is an isolated little mini-tradition that stays under most people’s radar. It is not a pop culture crapfest like the Kabbalah Institute, with celebrities and trendy bookstores and fashion items.

Gnosticism on the other hand has a potential to get very stupid very quick. In the case of a popularization of gnosticism, certain gnostic ideas would almost certainly get blown way out of proportion: the idea that “everyone is an emanation of God” is often taken to New-Age extremes that are spiritually bankrupt, for instance.

And seriously, as much as I love his comics to death, God help gnosticism if Grant Morrison or somebody like him decides to be the one to bring it into the mainstream awareness. I don’t know if it can recover from that sort of unintentional slander, sort of how Kabbalah struggles to distance itself from “Madonnaism.” Instead of “hey arent you those DaVinci code guys?” its going to be “Hey, aren’t you some kind of magickal time-travelling hedonism cult?”

Of course, I think that it’s just that some witch stood out in the wood and thought it up, and when it worked, wrote it down.

I don’t see anything wrong with the prefabricated stuff. It’s the authenticity that the practitioner brings to their work that makes the difference. An artist and a dilettante both may have good technique, but the artist will have the passion that makes it come alive.