Comments on: The Gnostic Therapeutic Bind

By: Summer Harvest » The Premiseless Imperative: In the Beginning was the Question

Thu, 21 Jun 2007 16:27:23 +0000

[...] Of course you have questions, though. So far, each of these posts has been designed to get you to ask questions– that’s been my ultimate purpose here all along. Don’t get me wrong; it’s imperative that you do the exercises, but the methodology I’m trying to employ is the Path of Radical Inquiry, the Via Paradoxa, salvation through the Double Bind (as we’ve recently been discussing over at Pop Occulture (funny how these ideas, these informational lifeforms, converge). [...]

By: Manning

Manning — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 07:41:09 +0000

prunesquallori: Aditi: I would be careful with Rajneesh, (not to criticize!, far be it from me): http://home.att.net/~meditation/Osho.html

Hey, I got tossed from a Gnostic discussion group for posting that article! It was very interesting. The person who tossed me was enlightened and in return for being as much, he was willing to let other people project “God” onto him and in return, all they had to do was anything he said. I lasted all of three days before he got so thoroughly annoyed he tossed my ass and erased any post I’d made that implied that even an “enlightened” human being is still a human being.

Which addresses my next point…

Tim: To summarize, a guy comes to a psychiatrist and says how his life is a mess and nobody likes him. Thereâ€™s a bit more to it, but the psychiatrist more or less tells the guy to shut up, change his life, and stop bothering him with nonsense. The guy gets really mad at the psychiatrist for acting so unprofessional and being so unhelpful, and then vows to â€œshow that bastardâ€ by - you guessed it - changing his life for the better.

Truthfully, that’s only one possibility and it would only work if the guy was invested in “showing up” the therapist. Given that he’s not going to see the therapist anymore, what would be the point? He could live or die and the therapist would likely never know. Likewise, the Zen master who was beating the student might produce a state of altered consciousness but he might also produce a sociopath - he may even be one himself.

When you think about it, therapists are somewhat akin to gurus. People look up to them with the expectation that they’ll have the answers that they don’t have for themselves. The mere act of adding three little letters after your name instills status, as does the apparent state of “enlightenment”.

I’ve had some interesting conversations over the years with people about this idea of “enlightenment” and it varies as to what people think it really is. My rule of thumb is that it’s an evolving process and with exceedingly rare exception, you cannot become fully enlightened if you are still in a body. That means that if you’re still breathing, you’re not. Fact of the matter is that everyone and everything has the potential to be a teacher but if you’re going to follow someone, choose very, very carefully. I’ve met a lot of “enlightened” people who were swimming in ego and a lot of therapists who should not be permitted within 100 feet of any other human beings, particularly wounded ones. In a related vein, here’s an interesting blog: http://whatenlightenment.blogspot.com/

As for complexity, here’s a rule that works: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It’s that simple.

By: Tim Boucher

Tim Boucher — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 20:15:05 +0000

on to try and formally model self-deception

God, that should be damned interesting!

By: prnsqlr

prnsqlr — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 16:21:00 +0000

Aditi: I would be careful with Rajneesh, (not to criticize!, far be it from me):
http://home.att.net/~meditation/Osho.html

traxus4420: For sure! If there is an Absolute, then all endeavors will eventually terminate in it, including science. I am expecting cognitiveresearch /evolutionary psych to produce a model of cognition that incorporates self-deception at fundamental deep level, a la the work of Robert Trivers. There is a lot of work going on to try and formally model self-deception, and if these efforts are fruitful, the current debate on evolution will blow up even bigger by forcing the “identity” component of evolutionary psych to the forefront.

If you really accept the “meaningless” interpretation of the phenomenal world, you only have two choices: essential nihilism (Straussian worldview for example) or essential metaphysicalism (”religio perennis” for example).

By: traxus4420

traxus4420 — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 22:41:46 +0000

Science is in the process of re-unleashing what may be the mother of all paradoxes on us — it will be ‘interesting’ to see what the reaction is (as I expect to be around for it) :

1. ‘You’ are in every possible sense a product (already more or less proved, but will be obvious when people start getting cloned and we understand the brain more precisely)

2. Morality is circular

3. There is no meaning

I say ‘re-unleashing’ because religion probably already is the fiction-producing reaction to the above facts. It will just become harder to deny them. Fiction as survival strategy…

By: Aditi

Aditi — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 09:10:43 +0000

To better phrase that: *I* said “I have only met one or two people who haven’t needed a system” as opposed to Rajneesh. Sorry for any confusion.

By: Aditi

Aditi — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 09:03:01 +0000

In “Book of Secrets, Vol 5″ (a tremendous and hardly read work) by Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, he states that there are two different classes of people: those who need systems (such as the Gurdjieff work, etc.) and those who don’t. I have only met perhaps one or two people who haven’t needed them.

By: alistair

alistair — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 23:29:22 +0000

opposing forces, by definition, need other opposing forces. and the idea of jesus within will get some so hot that they`ll want to tack someone to tree……….

By: fantastic planet » The Premiseless Imperative VII: In the Beginning was the Question

Thu, 23 Mar 2006 22:30:05 +0000

[...] radoxa, salvation through the Double Bind (as we’ve recently been discussing over at Pop Occulture– funny how these ideas, these informational lifefo [...]

By: Hi, my name is Nell

Hi, my name is Nell — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 21:55:08 +0000

I prefer the word parodox over contradiction. Contradictions is a result of aristotelian logic, and reality does not conform to aristotelian logic. Parodox is the word mystics are more likely to use. The inexplicable, elusive mystery of being is all that there is.
For me personally faith is a connection to the mystery of being and not so much a belief system. MY desire to reslove ‘contradictions’ actually expired after rejecting my catholic faith, reading Krishnamurti, doing yoga and simple meditation exercises.
But recently I began going to Catholic Mass on Sundays. I am a herectic but I feel a closeness to the story of Jesus stronger now than I have ever before after essentially writing Jesus off in a state of existential disgust with life. FOr some reason my inner world resolved that it wanted to reconnect with the mystery of being through the figure of Christ.
It does seem to me gnostics and catholics both agree that Jesus does exist with-in. Whatever means to activating it is all that matters, but it does usually come after a time in the wilderness, aperiod of disillusionment, fighting with the stupidity of beliefs, and not getting sucked dry by cold reason and logic. Now, I feel the beauty of life and I spend more time marvelling than I do asking questions.
Actually the biggest problem I see is the question of suffering. Physical existence is pain, Jesus came in human form to illustrate that spirit ultimately transcends physical suffering? Sorry for the stream of conscious rambling.

By: Tim Boucher

Tim Boucher — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 20:52:49 +0000

Yeah thats sort of the conclusion I’m coming to is that there’s no need to overcome the contradictions, just to live with them, and make something worthwhile out of them, using the creative energy they unleash.

By: james

james — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 20:31:07 +0000

I reached similar conclusions when reading a glut of Zen Master stories online a few months back. Here’s the post in question (only the first part of it applies to your post):

http://patafisix.blogspot.com/2006/01/cosmic-prankster.html

As for overcoming contradictions: Personally, I like contradictions. I don’t think it’s necessary to overcome them. What’s the definition of a Marxist contradiction? Two opposing forces that cannot sustain themselves without the existence of the other? Or something like that?

The key to winning arguments against other people is to expose not only their contradictions but your own. Then, it’s only matter of time– whomever cannot live peacefully with the contradiction will “crack” first. I usually don’t crack, and so I get called sadistic (or in your parlance, a “grade A bastard”)