Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 31:50 — 43.7MB)
For regular Gnostics Insights, subscribe here. Apple Podcasts | Amazon Music | TuneIn | Deezer | RSS
Welcome to Gnostic Insights and the Gnostic Reformation on Substack. Before I get into this week’s episode, let me tell you that the entire uninterrupted interview with Bishop Nathan Wilson of The Gnostic Union is now available on YouTube under Cyd Ropp Gnostic Insights playlist. I’ve tried and tried to upload the captioned transcript underneath the video, but neither YouTube nor my video editing software will cooperate. I can only chalk it up to Demiurgic interference, so this must be one important interview! The link is provided here to go straight to it on YouTube. Please “like” it and forward it to friends. Thanks.
This week I exchanged emails with a podcast subscriber that presented me with some excellent questions prompted by recent episodes. I asked his permission to share them with you anonymously. I always treasure sincere observations and questions from subscibers because it prompts my gnosis. So here we go.
Hi Cyd how’s it going? I hope that all is well with you. I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed your series of podcasts with the Bishop. Very interesting to hear some stuff on the unpacking of the original Gnostic texts. I thought that today’s pod about your discussion was also very revealing as somebody who loves history, but it’s giving me an insight into why you are so suspicious of history—would I be right in thinking that you want your texts to be unfiltered from various historical takes from different flawed human recounters?
Yes. It is a common saying that history is written by the victors. This refers to the fact that the winners of wars, both physical killing wars and more subtle ideological wars, write the narratives of their opponents from then on. This is why we have had a couple of thousand years of hearing only one side of the gnostic story and one conventionally accepted version of Christian theology. And we have heard that version from Catholic Councils of the 4th century on down through the Protestant churches of today. The surviving descriptions of the nature of gnosticism were written by those who hated gnosticism, and their work is still read and venerated to this day. And I can tell you that even in the little village I live in, the church folks who have no idea what gnosticism even is are dead set against it and dead set against my efforts of sharing my gnostic insights with them and others—and they let me know of their disapproval.
I think these divisive times we are living through now also illustrate how what passes for truth is malleable and untrustworthy. We can all see for ourselves how half of the population characterizes the big picture one way and half of the population characterizes it in a completely different way—and these two sides of the ideological divide are incommensurate with each other. Incommensurate is one of those big words I learned during my graduate studies in rhetoric. It means exclusive—both can’t be right—you can’t hold both positions—it’s either or. So if you extrapolate the culture wars forward a few hundred or a few thousand years into the future, how will history frame the disputes that are currently raging through society? If, for example, socialism finally wins out do you think capitalism will be fairly represented? The reverse is also true, and the winner of this tug of war will be the one who lives to tells the tale.
My correspondent goes on to say:
I think it must be very appealing to be able to narrow down everything into one text and say that we are only going to look at this one source of right thing for the true knowledge. I think this approach has led us to the Bible and the Koran and other food containers which some followers take quite literally and interpret very strictly. There must be safety and comfort in this approach which could be described as textual at best—literal and possibly in a kind way, and without any judgement, fundamentalist, in its true essence. However, and I expect you are waiting for the but… What is listening whilst listening?
He continues:
It did occur to me that what you are basically saying is that everything in the Tripartite Tractate is correct. And all of the other texts are interesting, though they may be not to be taken seriously because they are myths. Surely it must’ve occurred to you that the writer of the Tripartite Tractate was also a human, and ergo—a product of the culture that surrounded him or her? Knowing you to be such a thoughtful and perceptive person, is there something I’m missing here? What is objectively different about the Tripartite Tractate, written by a human, just like all of those other gnostic texts? I am not trying to score points here, I genuinely would like an answer.
To which I respond: Truly I do not agree with everything the Tripartite Tractate says and, conversely, much of what the other books say is right, though obscured with layers and language of mythology.
The difference between the Tripartite Tractate and the other gnostic texts is that it stands alone and doesn’t depend upon a preexisting mythology to make sense. By that I mean that the Tripartite Tractate is a logical argument that any Sophist would be proud of. It speaks in the language of symbolic logic rather than mythology or (purported) history. The Tripartite Tractate begins with a starting premise (a priori) that in the beginning was consciousness without form. It then proposes a method by which consciousness and its attendant qualities, such as power and love, emanate from the origin and make their way downstream into us and other living creatures. It calls the descent of consciousness a fall, but does not condemn the fall, as it was necessary to escape the purely ethereal and create matter. It describes the fall as a “presumptuous thought” choice by Mr. Rationality itself—Logos. I characterize this presumptuous thought as the first action of “ego” made independently outside of the cooperation of the Fullness. This all seems to me to be an entirely rational argument that simply describes the process of the distribution of consciousness. We don’t have to argue the originating premise because our consciousness is self-evident. We are asking where it came from and going upstream until we reach a logical a priori starting point.
A lot of what I share at Gnostic Insights comes from my own Theory of Everything—A Simple Explanation of Absolutely Everything—that I conceived and wrote 20 years ago, without benefit of any gnostic texts. So that lens informs my reading of the gnostic books. And I immediately recognized my own T.O.E. when I first read the Tripartite Tractate. The Simple Explanation is written using secular, non-religious language and lots of science and math. My illustrations and charts are different than my gnostic illustrations and charts. But the master chart is identical.
The Tripartite Tractate did give me an answer I had been chewing over within the Simple Explanation, that being the difference between living creatures and inert elemental matter. I appreciated that clarification and incorporated it into the Simple Explanation. Otherwise, the book still stands as True. What is meant by True in this philosophical sense is whether or not the argument is coherent and internally consistent and comports with direct observation of the world.
Now, as to whether or not I believe that only the Tripartite Tractate is true gnosis and the other gnostic books are mostly mythological–that is not the way I would put it. I don’t take the Tripartite Tractate as more holy than other books, and there are a couple of aspects I don’t fully understand or agree with.
For example, the Tripartite Tractate aligns with other gnostic books in saying that there are three types of humans—the spiritual—called the pneumatic; the ordinary, emotional type called the psychic; and the material, called the hylic. The Tripartite Tractate doesn’t seem to think that the hylic types are true second order powers and that they didn’t exist in the beginning and will not return to the ethereal home above after death. The final page of the Tripartite Tractate codex is riddled with burned out areas from a fire, yet it seems to say, and I’m filling in some missing words:
“While the material beings will be left behind until the end to perish, for they will not give their [missing words—probably acknowledgment of the Christ or allegiance to the Christ ]… If they have returned once more to that which … [missing words—probably worships the demiurge] … in the way that they were… [missing words—probably passing as humans] while they do not exist… [missing words—probably from the beginning] but they had been useful [for the] time that they were among them, even if they are not… [missing words—probably second order powers, —possibly among creation] at first, then… [missing words—possibly they were brought forth] to do something else by means of the power they had in the establishment [to] oppose them.” [yes, I realize I am interpolating a lot of missing words. if you have a more cogent interpretation, please offer it.]
This final section of the Tripartite Tractate seems to indicate there are hylics among us with whom we live and work side by side who will not be redeemed at the end of time. This holds out the possibility that there are non-second order powers among us who can pass for living beings—not an uncommon thought in gnostic circles. My brother, Bill, and I contend that all life forms come from above and contain the consciousness and life of the Source. So for a non-living creature were to be born in the usual way is an impossibility.
In my mind, the only way a truly non-living hylic so-called “human” could walk among us would be in the form of robotic facsimiles. There are many examples of this in science fiction, such as the cylons of “Battlestar Galactica” and the self-aware bots in P.D. Dick’s “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” which became the film called “Blade Runner.” We are now be on the threshold of building and employing these newly constructed robots who appear human, appear conscious, appear living, but are actually programmed imitations that did not exist from the beginning. (Battlestar Galactica carries this very question throughout the series as the cylons become self-aware and question their relationship with God.) If that is the case, then these could be the hylics that will not return to the ethereal because they did not come from the ethereal and the end times would need to be pushed back far enough to accommodate their undetectable assimilation into society. But hey—that’s just my notion. And here at Gnostic Insights I try to stick with gnostic insights, not my wild speculations.
What is true is that I believe the Tripartite Tractate describes our existence and our origins, as well as our future. But we have to remember it is at least 2,000 year old prophecy and embedded in the language and concepts of that time. Maybe the writer was indeed anticipating androids among us, but that seems an unlikely interpretation. I have been watching quite a few “alternate history” videos lately on YouTube that propose completely different backstories and histories that stretch eons into the past—histories that could indeed have been technologically sophisticated enough to produce androids that blend in with the crowd. But we’re getting way into the weeds here.
One reason that most readers of the Tripartite Tractate and other gnostic texts think there is an order of unredeemable humans is that they are referred to as “those who belong to the imitation.” The most basic interpretation is that those who we call materialists are the people who only believe what they can see, measure, and taste. In that sense, they belong to the imitation since the imitation is the material projection that is this cosmos. The atheists among them do not believe in the ethereal space Above, or the originating Source, and so by default they belong to the imitation. Yet, if all living creatures are children of the Fullness above, even these will return to the Fullness at the end of time. The way I reason this comes from following the logic of emanation and return—the Fullness would not be Full without them, and it is a basic proposition that nothing of the Source can ever be lost. So you see, the logic is what drives my interpretations, logic—Logos—not mythology. At least that how it seems to me.
Another aspect of the imitation is the molecular structure of our world, including our bodies. We inhabit a molecular body. Our living essence, the light of consciousness that makes organisms soft and squishy and alive, literally inhabits an otherwise dead, rocky, elemental body of molecules. So everywhere we go, it goes. And when we “die” and our spirit exits this material cosmos, our hylic body is left behind. It belongs to the imitation—get it? So in this case, the hylic human refers to the elemental molecules that make up our bodies—that inert mud that the Demiurge could not raise up to life, as the mythological version goes. So, this material aspect of our earthly existence is part of the imitation and will not return to the Fullness along with our spirits because it did not exist from the beginning. It is a product of the fall.
But I digress—back to the subscriber’s email:
Secondly, I would like to ask you a question about giving glory to God. I liked what you were saying about turning your attention away from yourself, and your ego, and to look towards the divine and offer up a prayer. I am at the stage of my journey where this is something that does not seem so completely alien, as I am moving gradually away from materialist atheism, which has been caught on my existence for the past 50 odd years.
Where I get into trouble is basically the whole business of giving glory to God, because the monad who is omniscience and immutable is hardly likely to need me to do a lot of worshipping or giving glory. This was like a bit controversial, and I’m not trying to argue in bad faith, but wouldn’t the demiurge himself be more likely to want humans to give glory to him than the monad? I imagine that giving glory means something to people who have come up in a Christian background, but personally it seems completely irrelevant and unnecessary – A bit like one of those business buzzwords, you hear like synergism or government types talking about inclusiveness or diversity—a sort of empty phrase that could really mean anything you want. It would be really helpful if you could unpack it a bit for me because I’m sure I’m missing something here.
Giving glory is not for the benefit of the Father. Giving glory is how we tune into the Father’s resonance. Giving glory is for our benefit, not God’s.
Now, the God of the Old Testament, the Demiurge—is that jealous, forgetful god that thinks it’s the be-all and end-all. It does like to receive worship and glory because it feeds its ego. But the God Above All Gods, the Father of consciousness and the ALL, doesn’t need our worship and glory—you are right about that. It is we who need to give glory, not It that needs to receive glory. The Totalities of the ALL which were the first emanations from the Son, and the Aeons of the Fullness love to give glory. The Totalities do nothing but give glory to the Father, and that is a pure expression of love and devotion to the Father. It’s a good thing for us, way down here in the consciousness stream, that they give unceasing glory, because they are the first emanations out of the Son and the fountain of the consciousness and love that eventually flows into all living creatures. The Totalities that give glory continuously are like an electrical plug that stays connected to the greater originating Source.
As above so below—we also connect with the Source when we give glory.
And since connecting with the Source cannot be accomplished when ego rules your psyche, you must be humble enough to set your ego aside and pray to/give glory to the greater Source. Surely you recognize that your ego is a lesser being than the Father of everything. If your ego does not allow you to think that, then you are not putting your spiritual foot forward but merely your ego.
Our correspondent replies:
Dear Cyd
As usual- I’m so impressed by your clear and reasoned thinking – it is so elegant and simple. I wish I could think like that. However, there are a few things I would like to push back on respectfully. I have been dialoguing with the Demiurge – Chat GPT – and here’s what the archonic AI came up with in answer to your firm assertion that there is no mythology in the Tripartite Tractate.
It basically thinks that it’s an overstatement – and I quote:
The text gives an extensive creation story involving:
• an unknowable Father;
• the Son and the Church;
• emanated aeons inhabiting the Fullness or Pleroma;
• Logos making a presumptuous, defective attempt to comprehend the Father;
• the production of deficiency, psychic and material powers;
• a Demiurge who creates humanity;
• three fundamental classes of human beings;
• and a Saviour who descends to restore what has become divided.
[Cyd] Let me pop in here to correct a very important error in this demiurgic version of Gnosticism. It sneaked into its answer a very demiurgic assertion that is not True:
• a Demiurge who creates humanity
The Demiurge certainly did not create humanity or any other living, conscious being. The second order powers—all living beings—are children of the Aeons of the Fullness, sent down into this lifeless cosmos to remind the Demiurge of the greater power Above, the true source of life, love, and consciousness. I have a habit of calling us the children of the Fullness, but the Tripartite Tractate actually calls us the fruit or the spores of the Fullness. Which is another way of saying the emanations of discreet packages of consciousness, or what I call in Simple Explanation language units of consciousness. To me, this is not mythological but descriptive to the best of our ability. Now, back to the correspondent’s email:
That is all mythological material. So then it rambles on quoting lots of sources etc BUT what the machine is getting at is that the difference between the Tripartite Tractate and some other gnostic texts is that there is a solid logic framework under the superstructure of mythological language and characters.
This fits in with your TOE very neatly – and it is no surprise that you had an ‘OMG’ moment when you discovered the Tripartite Tractate—I would also have thought the same if an ancient text fitted perfectly into a system of thought that I had spent years developing. And you might be right—the uncanny fit could be a ‘tell’ that this truly IS the way of everything. On the less interesting point of contention though – I must disagree with you – there IS mythology in the Tripartite Tractate superstructure – the language is mythological – maybe less so than other gnostic texts. As an aside, as a writer – I would also say -there is nothing particularly bad about being mythological either.
To which I reply:
I have to laugh at using Dialogue with Demiurge AI as a trustworthy source. lol. I will see your Chat GPT and raise you Microsoft CoPilot AI (poker language, I assume you recognize). My AI says this:
“This work presents a restored cosmology of the Fullness — a structural, metaphysical account of creation, fracture, and restoration. It is not myth, nor allegory, nor theology in the conventional sense. It is architecture: a precise description of how consciousness, relation, and harmony operate across the three great phases of existence.”
I like that description—that the Tripartite Tractate gives the metaphysical architecture of consciousness rather than a myth. I always like to take the higher, meta view of information, which is literally a step above the normal language and arguments. That’s the secret of how I observe and reconcile seemingly irreconcilable positions—by looking up above the words for the meaning behind them. It seems to me that most people are lost in the language and “can’t see the forest for the trees.” Not meaning you, necessarily, it’s just my observation of how understanding goes awry. By taking the meta approach, the concepts automatically simplify as many points of view and language choices are collapsed into their base meanings.
The words I use in my Simple Explanation of gnosis and science and everything else are not written in stone. They are my attempt to convey large concepts in the simple, most recognizable forms. If I say “god” it’s because people are familiar with that term. I offer alternative words, like Source, Mother-Father, Metaverse, the Great One, the Origin, so that people will see that the particular word is less important than what it represents and that what they think of as god has a broader meaning than the meme they have been holding onto.
The writer shared this final thought from the Chat GPT:
There is also a genuine philosophical difficulty: how can a perfect and harmonious divine Fullness generate an irrational act? Saying that Logos possessed the capacity to exceed his proper limits explains the mechanism only by placing the possibility of deficiency inside the supposedly perfect order.
He says, I think that is actually a pretty decent question from our AI demiurge—right? I expect that you have a great answer though.
To which I reply:
As to the Demiurge’s new question that you have put forth in this email—that’s an old canard that is often trotted out to stump theists. “How could a good and perfect God allow for the creation of evil?” I am not at all stumped by that question. The answer can most simply be stated in two words: Free Will.
If we begin with the premise that the Father/Source/etc. emanates its entire nature outward with its emanation, then obviously free will is a part of that emanation. After all, it is inarguable that the Source possesses free will. The Aeons have free will. Logos is an Aeon. Logos has free will. While the rest of the Aeons were using their free will to cooperate with each other and to glorify the Father and the Son, Logos used its free will to go in a fresh direction. Logos thought it would be going upward to rejoin the highest glory. The Tripartite Tractate says that Logos didn’t realize this was in impossibility, because no one can approach the power source that is the Origin without being annihilated. And like a magnetic polarity, Logos was repelled by the Source and was knocked out of alignment with the Fullness (the fall). This dissonance became our material cosmos. And because Logos had free will, we have free will. This all flows logically from the a priori definition of the Source.
This may sound mythological, but it is not. It could be easily described in scientific terms. Like the way a beam of focused light still allows for stray photons to go off beam. Or boiling water in the kettle mostly clumps together on the top of the water as bubbles, but some bubbles go outward to the edge of the kettle and pop. And so forth. The limit is our language, not the architecture or process. The limit is also imposed by the meme bundle being held the human observer-inquirer when their memes do not allow for certain possibilities to be seen and accepted. It is our meme attachments that limit our capacity to observe and learn. So says me. 😉 Onward and upward, little brother. I applaud your willingness to engage.
He signed off by saying, “That is far too much to chew over so I will sign off now. BTW I am going to give more thought to your response to the give glory to the father thing – I mean if you mean ‘pray to god/the father/the source/ christ’ then why not just say ‘pray to god’ in the first place and have done with it? Are you praying for something or is it more about connecting with the eternal? Actually – maybe save that for another email.
Well. What did you think of that? Do you have any thoughts related to this discussion? Please feel free to correspond with me via the Comments below or you can even email me. We get very few comments, and those are mostly from the same two or three people.
I love you all and I am so grateful that you are here. God bless us all. Onward and upward.