Draft version: 22-31Aug2007 - PDR Latest updates to Topos Table: 29Dec2012 - PDR Latest update - add link just below, 'bettershipings quantons...worseshiping dichons: 18Apr2013 - PDR Latest update - extend "Collision(s) vav Scintillationings and "Thought Ontology" in Topos Table below: 26Oct2013 - PDR Latest update - expand comtent of Topos Table: 30Apr2014 - PDR
Pages 20-35 of 128 total pages including Index - .John 1.1-4 in Gnostic Exegesis.
Pagels starts chapter 2 with Naassene exegesis like this, "The Naassenes, reading that '...all things were made through him...' (Jn 1.3) reject the 'simple reading' which would suggest that the passage refers to the demiurge 'through whom' all things were created. Such a reading would interpret the verse in terms of a 'single' and therefore 'deceptive' principle. With this they reject the monism of ordinary Christians who worship the demiurge [whom they refer Father] as the only creator. This demiurge the Naassenes call the 'fourth God. They consider him to be the creator of materiality alone (Ref 5.7.3.1). The demiurge then, falls below the three metaphysical principles which their theology presupposes: the passage cannot, therefore refer to him. To whom, then does it refer?" Page 20. Doug's brackets.
Allow us to pause here a moment and do a bit of quantum linguistic exegesis of our own.
In Doug's shallow fathoming of 'the Naassenes' he finds their ways of thinking exquisite. Why? Their thinking jibes what Doug has learned about quantum reality and it jibes a quantum philosophy which Doug has invented under nomenclatura Quantonics. (Beware Doug's use of nomenclatura, since Doug is an antinomialist, similar Naassenes. Doug is against monist, especially state-ic, excluded~middle 'principles,' against nomos AKA 'law' especially OSFA social 'laws.' Why? Recall William James' "Truth is process[ings] happening to an idea[ings]." Quantum present~participlings paraphrasings by Doug. See James' text, Pragmatism, Chapter VI. Can you see gnosis, quantum~Gn¤sis inherent in James' intuemic phasement? James is, and it becomes even more obvious in his book Pragmatism, a gnostic, a quantum~Gn¤stic. How can Doug say that? James gnostically omnistinguishes process and state. He rebukes 'state,' while bettershiping processings. That, reader, is gnosis! One problematic which has worried Doug immensely since his first readings of Pirsig's opus is that of 'event' as 'change of state' without describable 'process.' William James, in his Pragmatism, makes that problem go away by quantum~simply saying "event is process." Only way Doug would improve that is to say, "eventings are processings." Beware, be careful, almost all classicists today (c. 2007) deny 'event' is-as process! Why is this important? Pagels is showing us how classicists' 'events' and 'states' are concrete, while Gn¤stics' events and states are processings! Classicists removed Quality from their descriptions of reality by making them ESQ: demiurge, Father, d'evil, Satan, all concretely dead. Gn¤stics are simply asking us as Pirsig does to keep DQ with all of our SQ and drive ESQ out of our lives, out of our families, out of our cultures, out of our societies, out of our nations, out of our world,... In otherwords do bettershipings of quantons(DQ,SQ) and resist worshiping dichons(SQ, SQ). Latter answers Gn¤stic~Jesus' query, "What will you do?" One more note on James' Pragmatism: two thirds through Chapter VI, James writes "Truth is made." Immediately after that he pretends rationalism which says, "Truth is 'not' made." You need to read that and put it in light of Quantonics Gn¤stic HotMeme™ "All is quantum process, naught is classical concrete."™ HotMeme™.)
Just as an example gnostics say that redemption is a process (which Doug takes as quantum change), and redemption requires revelation which Doug then infers must too be process. Gnosis intuits evolution! Further, gnostics reject state-ic symbols, symbolism, and symbology. They claim only symbols which represent process are valid. (Shades of Robert M. Pirsig's, paraphrased, "Be sure to always keep DQ with your SQ.") Too, this is a why Doug remediated classical- 'semiotics' with quantum~ 'memeotics.' It is a why Doug is in a gradual process of remediating nearly all English language which is almost innately an objective, OSFA, state-ic language which intentionally avoids emergent-animate descriptions of day-to-day quantum~evolving reality.
So what have Naassenes taught us already? TJGiGE Naassene Gnostic Hotmeme,™ Monism is deceptive. TJGiGE Naassene Gnostic Hotmeme,™ Why? It is a 'single principle' system, and monist principles are dead due their innate state-icity. So monist 'law' is dead, and monist creation is dead, and Christians' Father who created a monist reality is dead. And that, for Doug, explains why Jesus refers "the living-Father." And that is why Naassene gnostics refer Christian monist-state-ic 'principle' of a Father-demiurge as deception, since it — as now made apparent — is deception itself. (If you think about this, we now have another explanation for Diderot's "You see this egg? With it you can overthrow all the schools of theology, all the [monist] churches of the earth.")
Distilled, monist notions of principle, redemption, revelation, Father, creator, law, symbol, semiotics, literalism, 'simple reading,' single, the and only (as exclusive), etc., are dead. Now,... An earth shaker! English language is predominately monist! So anyone who speaks in unremediated English is intentionally (via historical social presupposition) monist,...,probably ignorant of society's academical-intellectual sand-bagging, pogroming, and brain-wash programming.
Does this appear familiar to you? Foreign? Alien? What, in quantonics, can make this more familiar? You may recall our legendary Philosophical Battle Winner. What battle? A battle among SOM, CR, and MoQ. If you are a student of quantonics, those are familiar to you! "But Doug, how does that great philosophical battle relate Pagels' Exegesis of Johannine Gospel?" Allow Doug a comparative table:
Making Gnostic Topos Familiar in Quantonics
Doug edit, 19Aug2010. Please view "imaginationings" quantumly as image(s) in ationings. That is, quantum~reality is quantum~holographicity as EIMA image(s) in ationings. View, then, Autiot as fractal, holographic image(s) in ationings. View, then too, quantons as fractal, holographic image(s) in ationings.
Add logic and time columns. Doug - 4Mar2011.
Label columns. Add more current, i.e., CeodE 2011 links. Doug - 17Sep2011.
Add 'Imaginationings' link. Doug - 29Dec2012.
Add updates. Doug - 26Oct2013, 30Apr2014, 14Jul2014.
Our familiarity table compares SOM, CR and MoQ 'principles' in gnostic topos' Light. Keep in mind that we can view hylic - hylically, psychically, and pneumatically. A genuine hylic, though, would deny that. Now fathom how a genuine hylic denies psyche and pneuma. That thought qua, exemplified here for you by Doug, is what Pagels intends by gnostic exegeses. We see ad occulos H5W gnostics frowned upon monism and its literal, singular, locally naïve dogma and orthodoxy.
What are Naassene gn¤stic~principles? Their first arche is: Adam, "...blessed nature (physis [Doug uses physi]) of the blessed anthropos from above, Adam..." (Ref 5.82). Adam, literally "Aleph in blood," gnostically embodies pneuma-spirit from above. Naassenes call Adam "Caulacau." Compare that to North American Indians' "Chautauqua." Latter is process of journey, adventure, peregrination. Envision Adam as an evolutionary adventurer whose quantum~phasicityings beg Caulacau, Chautauqua. Thence we have Naassene gnostic emphasis on 'life' as blessed and sacred perpetual journey process. We cann¤t 'find' God, we can ¤nly and always and perpetually ¤nly partially beings findings G¤d. Page 21.
You will enjoy reading what Pagels has to say about Caulacau's anti-gnostic 'opposite.' (O'gadon, can you derive, on your own, how 'opposite' is an impossible notion unless one assumes state-ic monism? Doug - 25Aug2007.)
An important Gn¤stic meme (truthings as pr¤cæssings happænings to an concrete idea, paraphrasing quantumly, James) is "The ignorant cannot see their inner." Ibid. Recall how Jesus rebuked, excepting John~Mary and Didymos, his other ten disciples for their hylic-psychic ignorance, their inabilities to fathom pneuma from sælf~within.
Gnostics' Adam, "This divine archetypal anthropos, they explain, is the one mentioned in Jn 1.3: 'all things were made by him,' who has 'mixed and compounded all things in all.' " Page 21
Doug has been unable to find Pagels' last quote. She offers no footnote or reference, only juxtaposition to Jn 1.3, which our NIV version doesn't uncloak. That last quote is quantumly interesting since, for Doug it describes holographic reality. Doug - 22-23Aug2007. Temporal lacuna... As it turns out, upon reading balance of TJGiGE, one finds that the demiurge refers self egoist-myopically as "all things." Of course that is suspect since 'things' usually imply material actuality. Thus some gnostics juxtapose 'Mother, son, mother' pneuma~psyche against Father hyle. If by 'things' one intends all reality (inclusive of pneuma(psyche,hyle), AKA 1(2,3)...) then, clearly, Father is n¤t 'all things,' rather a naïve partiality. See page 117, "He imagines that he himself is the only absolute and autonomous creative power; he imagines that 'he himself is all things.' He acts as if he were wholly autonomous, claiming that he alone 'is God and there is none other.' " We have to attempt interpretation here based upon our 3x4 table below and more. Gnostically demiurge-Father is just a state-ic material symbol, n¤t more. Gn¤stically M¤thær issi s~hæ whoings issi mixings and compoundings allings in allings, quantum~holographically. Majority anthropos just cann¤t 'see' that, yet. Latter is Doug's quantum~Gn¤stic hermeneutic. As it turns out then Father is, as we surmised, just useless old ESQ rearing its hopeless head again... Doug - 29Aug2007.
Visual holograms (borne on photons whose radiative flux is approximately 400 to 750 nanometers wavelength, less than one non light speed octave) are disabled by darkness and enabled by light. Light: logos, word, Jesus, etc. Since having read Jeremy Campbell's The Grammatical Man nearly two decades ago, Doug has intuited DNA as anabiocoquecigruecal (i.e., bio n¤n logical) l¤g¤s which dwells c¤ihnsihdænt, h¤l¤graphically~c¤within all living quantons with grace and truthings. Darkness can be classical (ideal naught, perfect emptiness), and darkness can bæ quantum: isoflux, cancellation of flux, etc.
Quantum isoflux and flux and canceled flux are quantum~real and æist. Classical 'darkness' cannot 'exist' in quantum reality! Why? Some "mixtures and compoundings" of actuality cancel one another tentatively, and thence offer darkness only as impermanent apparition. An everyday example is a shadow. A quantum exemplar is diffraction. Dark bands in a diffraction 'picture' are actually, viewed transversely, 'double' light energy, perfectly canceling one another!!! Latter is n¤t classical negation!!! Rather it issi superpositive flux phasistic encoding. Classically it is symbolically "absurd" as 1 + 1 = 0! Quantum superposition may cancel: it both attenuates and intensifies via animate phlux phase interrelationshipings! Classicists add and subtract stopped differential discrete amplitude measurements; alternatively, they sum plus area and minus area. But quantum waves have n¤ 'discrete' measurable, stoppable 'amplitudes.' Classicists have n¤ symbolic way of showing that mathematically without insisting flux can be 'classically negative.' Fathom pneuma as dialectically 'unseeable' (classical view: darkness: 1-1=0.) since dialectic requires classical two-valued 'oppositive' negation and disallows animate, stindyanic, phasic quantum flux cancellation, since dialectic canonically disallows quantum flux... Dialectic disables quantum flux by zeroing h-bar. Adepts among you will now fathom why quantum O'gadons say "amplitude is irrelevant." One way to intellectually manage this is to commence viewing mathematical darkness and lightness as quantum partial presence (c¤mplæmænt_actual) and absence (c¤mplæmænt_n¤nactual) of encoded~phlux. If Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen had thought latter instead of former they would n¤t have claimed "quantum theory incomplete." See Doug's Bases of SOM Judgment, showing why dialectic is problematic, simply bogus, when applied to quantum reality.
Agreeing with what Doug just wrote, gnosis views 'things' as material, hyle, hylic, and thus, too, deceptive. Why? Things hold still. Things have (objectively 'possess' propertyesque) state. Clearly this is a why Doug narrates classical thing-king as "state-ic, dead, deceptive, and bogus." Gn¤sis views all as alive and dynamic, wholly absent dead-Father-demiurge's deception of 'state.'
Which brings Pagels to Naassene exegesis of 'life,' per Jn 1.4, "In him was[is] life, and the life was[is] the light of [wo &]men." Page 21. Doug's brackets. Clearly Naassene gnostic 'principles' excise dead-paternal instincts as hyle. Essentially what Pagels offers here is what should now be apparent to adept readers: all words must be pondered pneumatically to avoid his, Jesus' Essene, tribe of Judah, house of (Beth) David rebuke. Especially 'life,' 'light,' and 'men.' We would ask Pagels to extend those with issues of grammatical tense and a quantum mandate of absolute change and dynamic, holographic evolutionary process.
Then Pagels describes Naassene exegesis of what Pirsig's MoQ calls "SOM's wall" as..."...what comes to be apart from him." (Jn 1.3b). SOM's knife AKA dialectic AKA war AKA evil AKA Satan is that which formally separates hylic-psychic stux-sux-them from pneumatic flux issi crux him. Page 21-22.
Historically (View link 'Context of Ancient Israelite Religion.' Search for <ca. 931>.) it is worthy of mention here that in ninth century b.c.e. Israel and Judah split from one another, thus Essene Jesus was 'from' tribe of Judah where early Judaic gnosis emerged. Israelis, Greeks, and Romans tended to anti-gnosis, anti-choice (i.e., heresy) deceptions of dialectical hyle and psyche of intelligible social state, anti-individual choice, objectivity, and dialectic's exclusive "You are either for us or against us!" separation. One might fathom how imperial fascist slavery was routinely acceptable in those times. Doug - 26Aug2007.
Pagels writes of Naassene gnosis' threefold principle (see table just below). Doug has commented and suggested prior that quantumly we should refer it N~fold. In that 'light' allow Doug to summarize quantum~principally what has gone before in this chapter:
Pagels remarkably ends this topic with, The Naassene exegete's "task is to discern in each text to what principle of being or non-being each phrase [, each word,] refers." Page 22. Doug's brackets.
Pagels then offers Peratae exegesis like this, "A similar exegesis of Jn 1.3 occurs in the works of a second group which Hippolytus classifies also among "ophite" gnostics. These, the Peratae, he says, claim to have been instructed "in the knowledge of necessity and causes of becoming" and to have come through these and "transcended" (perasai) them (Ref. 5.15.1-16.1). The Peratae claim to teach "a doctrine of Christ" and specifically to have constructed their theology from "the holy scriptures" (Ref 5.6.l) . Apparently their group was not generally regarded as heretical among Christian circles. Hippolytus himself admits that "their blasphemy against Christ has for many years . . . gone unnoticed" (Ref 5.12.1). According to his account they support their theology primarily from Genesis and John, referring occasionally to Exodus and Isaiah (they also cite a passage from the "Lord's prayer" without mentioning Matthew). The Peratae also acknowledge the spiritual insights of the Greek poets and philosophers such as Homer and Heraclitus. They teach that all things derive from a triad or trinity of three principles in one...
[ 1(2,3) - is that beautiful, or what? Mother(mother,...son...,Father)! Notice that with dead Father AKA demiurge it's 1(2,3)SOM's_Wall(4) Doug - 29Aug2007.]
...The first of these they call the "perfect good" or "the unbegotten cosmos;" the second "infinite self-generated potentiality" or the "self-generated cosmos"; the third, "eidetic or formal principle" or the "generated cosmos...'
[Doug's quantum analogue is a quantons(n¤nactuality,actuality) 1(2,3),(4). Notice here (4) is Essene Jesus' living_Father as a n¤n~demiurgical anthr¤p¤s. Psychic-hylic see dead Father. Pneumatic sææ living~Father. Psychic-hylic cann¤t 'see' living~Father. Observe table below. Using quantum script, its Peratæan analogue is perfect_good(infinite_self-generated_potentiality,generated_cosmos). If we take 'infinite self-generated potentiality' as our comma-nospace we can write quantons(perfect_good,generated_cosmos). In latter quantonic version, our script's comma~nospace and 'quantons' correspond Peratæan 'infinite self~generated potentiality.'] [One may feel an urgent appeal of pneuma here to assist those hylic-psychics grasp what Essene Jesus offered as manifest and important: dead-Father routinely practices and speaks dialectic: anti-heretical, anti-choice, anti-individual-free-will dialectic, living~Fathær and his pneumatic disciples (omniciples) avoid dialectic when speaking among themselves, and use dialectic when speaking among hylic-psychics. So, O'gadons and quantum~gn¤stic adepts may ¤mnistinguish their company, and be k~now~ings howings to be speakings, thusly. Doug - 6Oct2007.]
[Doug's quantum analogue is a quantons(n¤nactuality,actuality) 1(2,3),(4). Notice here (4) is Essene Jesus' living_Father as a n¤n~demiurgical anthr¤p¤s. Psychic-hylic see dead Father. Pneumatic sææ living~Father. Psychic-hylic cann¤t 'see' living~Father. Observe table below. Using quantum script, its Peratæan analogue is perfect_good(infinite_self-generated_potentiality,generated_cosmos). If we take 'infinite self-generated potentiality' as our comma-nospace we can write quantons(perfect_good,generated_cosmos). In latter quantonic version, our script's comma~nospace and 'quantons' correspond Peratæan 'infinite self~generated potentiality.']
[One may feel an urgent appeal of pneuma here to assist those hylic-psychics grasp what Essene Jesus offered as manifest and important:
So, O'gadons and quantum~gn¤stic adepts may ¤mnistinguish their company, and be k~now~ings howings to be speakings, thusly. Doug - 6Oct2007.]
...On the basis of this structure, they distinguish [rather omnistinguish] three orders each of theos, of logos, of nous, and of anthropos, respectively.2" Page 22. Doug's brackets, bold, link, color, and underline. Doug effaced at least one footnote.
Here's a table which shows Peratæan exegesis with Doug's quantum embellishments:
Peratæan Quatrotomy:
This cell is radically extended by Doug as of 5Oct2007.
theos
Mother (Cg)
1st ogdoatic pair
logos
the account
son (Cg) (sun: Constantine)
Jesus
Light
Fire (Cg)
2nd ogdoatic pair
nous
mother (Cg)
mater
Sophia (Cg)
wisdom
mind
3rd ogdoatic pair
anthropos
Father (Cg)
pater
demiurge
4th ogdoatic pair
SOM's Box, SOM's Bases of Judgment
tendencies: hyle (most) pneuma (few)
[gnostic con(m)textual issues of individual vis-à-vis social, dialectical vis-à-vis rhetorical sensibilities, intelligibilities, interpretationings, hermeneutings, and intellectings]
nægæntr¤py
is¤c¤hæræncæ
zær¤æntr¤py
c¤hæræncæ
posentropy
decoherence
mixentropy
mixcoherence
1 - "the called" dialecticians, "helpless innocents" "material objectivists" fool as in Voltaire's, "the first divine was the first rogue who met the first fool" etc. Fools adhere nomianism. Greek nomos is 'law.' See antinomianism. Canonic 'law' is essence of social 'state' hegemony.
2 - "the elect" "the chosen" "those who see Light," etc.
Cg - Chaldæan gnosis; see Stephan A. Hoeller's republication of G. R. S. Mead's Echoes from the Gnosis; See Alibris' G. R. S. Mead's Chaldæan Oracles I & II.
Those of you who have studied Quantonics now for nearly ten years, especially most recent four years will see a quantum exegesis here. Notice quantonic trinity SOrON recursion at table's top middle. This is sublimely amazing for Doug!
On page 23 Pagels writes how Peratæans have a notion of cosmic 'destruction.' This is, at least for Doug, a classical dialectism. As we have written prior, quantum flux may be canceled; however, quantum flux may never be classically 'negated,' AKA 'destroyed.' Patterns of flux and their phasementings may become 'extinct' in actuality, but even Peratæans show at least potential for memory of former patterns in theos AKA nonactuality. We call those potentially extinct and perhaps yet unrealized patterns "isobs, and isoVs."
Too, Pagels explains how Peratæans agree with Naassenes that monistic simplicities and literal interpretations are deceptive. They also agree with Chaldæans that son is an included~middle mediator-straddler roughly corresponding their 'middle principle' of the trinity. Pagels writes, "Through the son all receive life. What comes into being 'apart from him' (as in Naassene exegesis) is the material realm of non-being. Applying this principle to Jn 8.44, the exegete explains that the material realm is ruled by 'the creator and ruler of matter' — the Johannine 'ruler of this world.' " Page 23. Doug would hermeneut "...the material realm of non-being..." omnifferently Peratæans, he senses. That is, to Doug, that quoted phrase corresponds what Pirsig's MoQ calls "ESQ." ESQ does n¤t, cann¤t exist in quantum reality since all is change, absolute and relentless change.
Pagels tells us that a Valentinian exegesis is hugely more comprehensive than both-either Naassene and Peratæan exegeses. Doug checked. She uses balance of this chapter, 12 pages to do so. It will be a tough trudge, folks! Here we go...
Pagels makes it clear that Irenæus holds Valentinus 'heretical' and Irenæus especially claims Valentinus was fond of 'the fourth' gospel, John. Valentinus felt that John most resembled his own gnostic Christian exegeses. Pagels lists others: Ptolemy, Heracleon, and Theodotus who "amply" confirm Irenæus' view of Valentinus' heretical exegetical gnosis re: John.
But Pagels queries, "How can we account for the fact that these sources — apparently all 'Valentinian' — offer such different exegeses of the same Johannine passages?" Good question, especially if one assumes reality is a classically singular nomos-canonic monism. She goes on, "The problem is not simply that these three different commentators offer different interpretations of the same passage. It becomes more complex when we recognize that the same commentator sometimes offers variant exegeses of the same verse in his different writings."
What is Pagels describing from a Quantonics perspective? Quantum reality. Quantum reality says evolution is real. Absolute change of all issi real: quantum~reality!
Similar as William James wrote, paraphrased with present participle plurals, "Truthings aræ pr¤cæssings happænings t¤ ideas." Richard Dawkins calls them "memes." Memes: unconcrete ideas which evolve. All reality issi memes, we call them 'quantons,' relentlessly evolving. Are you same now as you were one second ago? N¤! You are changing at subharmonics of Planck's rate. You now issi a partialitying of you at any future timings. And notice how tenuous now is! Exactly when is now? Same applies to y~our ideas and th~¤ughts...AND to our own individual, private, esoteric exegeses of whatever wæings aræ læarnings. Classicists expect ideas and exegeses to hold still, retain 'state,' be immutable, be socially OSFA exoteric-public, and tautologously perpetuate concrete. Classicists deceive. Classicists' methods of thing-king are dialectical: bogus! Irenæus was a dialectical classicist, in spades! Quantum~reality perpetuates change: quantons(isoflux,flux), quantons(n¤nactuality,actuality), Chaldæan~quatrotomous~quantons(Mother,quantons(son,quantons(mother,Father)))!
So,... What Pagels has uncloaked about Valentinians is that they aræ quantum~ræl, n¤t classically, deceptively, concretely bogus.
What Doug finds most em~bare~assing of all is how so many dialectical monists refer classical concrete "positive" especially, "consensually and thus socially positive." Ugh!
Immediately, we grasp another quantum HotMeme™ Social consensus is deceit.™ HotMeme™.
We k~n¤w~ings betterings do we n¤t? Quantonics HotMeme™ Only quantum~flux issi positive!™ Quantonics HotMeme™. Only classical DIQheads scalarbatively worseship either-or negative-positive monistic "two-valued" concrete.
Pagels undertakes an detailed analysis of this issue. It settles on a view that our 3 by 4 table above offers multiplicate assessments of varying exegeses across authors in multiple texts at multiple times. We like Pagels words, "The Valentinian threefold theological principle leads to the development of a threefold exegetical schema, according to which the same verse may be interpreted in each of three correlated frames of reference." Page 26.
Actually we see at least 12 'frames' each with grammatical hues and impetuses of their own and each of those needing hermeneutic assessment in larger relative local and n¤nlocal con(m)texts. You may recall Nick Herbert's book Quantum Reality. In it he describes "The Quantum Interpretation Problem." It is so similar what Pagels describes here as to be uncanny. Quantum reality may be described an unlimited number of ways: all valid! That is quantum reality! Gnostic exegesis is quantum. There are an unlimited number of valid, legitimate ways to socially and individually, publicly and privately, explain gnosis, especially quantum~Gn¤sis.
Now, as died-in-wool classicists how do readers of that text interpret it? Philip R. Wallace told us in his Paradox Lost: "Interpretation involves according primacy to subjectivity over objectivity." Simply, interpretation implies subjectivity. Canon is n¤t subjective! Nomos is n¤t subjective! Law is n¤t subjective! Orthodoxy is n¤t subjective! Dogma is n¤t subjective! Classicism is n¤t subjective! Quantum reality and gn¤sis are subjective. Quantum reality and gn¤sis are real! Canonic OSFA objectivity is bogus! One global truth does n¤t fit all! One global context does not fit all! Interpretation reigns. Subjectivity reigns. Heuristic hermeneutics reign! Quantum uncertainty reigns! Why? Value is quantum~waves of absolute change. Wavings are PPL~stochastic: absolutely subjective. 26-30Aug2007 - Doug.
That is what we see happening here, but monists claim there is only one right, orthodox, dogmatic way to describe anything, especially christology and its three-fold hypothesis (rather hypotheses). Any other way is, by dialectical 'definition' and 'canon' "heresy." Babel! BS! Error!
What does classical analysis do? Mostly it draws boundaries, lines, demarcations... That is what analysis means: cut up whatever it is you want to understand. Look at pieces' properties. Whole is analytic sum of pieces' properties. BS! (Recall Mae-wan Ho's comments re: Cuisinart as analytical violence.) Classical monist, objective, e.g., Irenæun analysis offers n¤ synergy. Almost every decent analyst, at least, understands that. Ptolemy, a dipstick monist objective mathematician, is an expert at SOMitic knife-cutting analysis, so that is what he does. Ptolemy: garbage in, garbage out. Babel in, Babel out. BS in, BS out. Error in, Error out...
Gn¤sis, like quantum~reality is intrinsically n¤nanalytic!
Ptolemy chops up, then socially-monistically unionizes Chaldæan topos. He puts son~logos with Mother AKA theos. Why? To leave a pluralism and re-enter his comfortable dialectical monism. Now logos is the Ptolemaic monism. Ptolemy jumped back into SOM's box.
Pagels explains how this exegesis is same as Theodotus'. Page 27.
All antiheretics attempt to drive out arbitrariness, idiosyncrasy, and (quantum) uncertainty AKA apocrypha.
But all O'gadons grasp how quantum reality is arbitrary, idiosyncratic, uncertain, perverse, prevaricative, apocryphal, equivocal, etc. Quantum reality simply will n¤t fit in a naïve and l¤cal classical reality's "rools is for fools' tools" box. Quantum reality from any classical conspective is antinomianism! Flux breaks stux! Flux pluralizes state. Quanta pluralize reality, animately, too; in and as perpetual flux quanta, too! Quantumism breaks classicism! Classical monism is simply impossible in quantum~reality. Similarly, quantum~gn¤sis breaks orthodoxy! Gn¤sis breaks monism! Doug is pondering QELR of 'Gn¤sis' as 'Gyæsis.' Doug - 25-26Aug2007.
There is a lot of detail here. It is good reading, but incredibly tedious. Doug simply doesn't trust dialecticians, especially mathematicians. Why? They lack qua to describe gnosis. Irenæus is a perfect exemplar of gnostic incompetence. Dialecticians like Irenæus and mathematicians are innately, socially objective (E.g., nine isn't 'nine' individuals, it is a monism of nine ones. All mathematical nines and ones are stable, context free monistic dead symbols.). Reality isn't objectively dead, so to listen to an objectivist attempting to explain gnosis objectively is just stupid in Doug's view. Objectivists are already dead-extinct, but they haven't fathomed that yet. We do n¤t expect them to ever fathom that, since they are dead objectivists. Most, if n¤t all, of Valentinus' critics are dead monist objectivists.
And we offer another HotMeme™ Irenæus was(is) the greatest deceiver of all.™ HotMeme™. Irenæus, by all gnostic perspectives, is the deadly demiurge: evil personified, evil reified!
And Ptolemy's mind is, to Doug, a wasteland of dead objectivism, even though he claimed adherence and belief in a gnostic three-fold schema. Unfortunately, Pagels appears to have fallen into this Ptolemic trap-full-of-deceit. She apparently requires deadly exegetic consistency to attain deadly objective Ockhamistic comprehensibility. Let's repeat:
It's good to keep that in mind, keep it on your quantum stage to avoid classical deceptions borne of ideal, concrete notions of truth.
Those are two entirely omniffering descriptions of reality. They juxtapose Henri Louis Bergson's two, much simpler, dead classical delusions:
Note that Jacques Maritain an Thomist (Aquinas) 'Ç a t h o l i ç,' was a student of Bergson who attempted to erase Bergson's philosophy, but failed through his own extreme lack of qua. See Maritain's Bergsonian Philosophy and Thomism. Maritain, from Doug's personal reading of him, is even less competent than Irenæus. You may not accept what Doug says here, and if not, please see Maritain's Conclusion, especially this fragment, "...as to the truly historical Aristotle (to the extent he is accessible), if we defend his doctrines and his metaphysical principles against interpretations which in our view are pure misapprehensions..." Do you grasp Maritain's ineptness? Especially, "...defend...against interpretations..." How can one do that? Only way we are k~n¤w~ings is to assume a stable, dead, independent, monistic reality. But reality is quantum and quantum~reality issi intrinsically hermeneutic! Clearly, Maritain is a dialectical demiurge fool of Nth magnitude! He, like his 'church,' believes there is only one interpretation of reality, theirs! Garbage! Intellectual ineptness! Bilge! HyperBoole! DIQheadedness! A fool calling someone else a fool. Error calling another view Error! But that is what the Roman inane 'ç a t h o l i ç church' does! So what can we expect? Doug - 26Aug2007.
We looked for cogent nexi regarding Maritain and gnosis. There appears to be little. In that light we might ponder a major dialectical 'criticism' of gnosis: apparent objective separation of material reality and spiritual reality. But if one carefully reads major gnostic works, one will find that criticism wholly invalid! And quantum reality agrees. Physis' included~middlings are ubiquitous!
And gnoses Pagels describes here are evidently hermeneutic: they require multiplicate, plural, heterogeneous interpretations. Quantum reality too! And that folks is a benchmark we can ill afford to ignore.
Perhaps you may now fathom Doug's quantum semantics when he says:
If their bases of judgment are objective, canonic, stable, socially-consensed, etc., they are dead. It is so...
Pagels goes on to show how Ptolemy, et al., contextualize their discussion. But they make an enormous mistake. When they change contexts, they seldom announce their change of context, and tend to carry prior context's interpretive rules into their current context. So if they later start out in current context and drift into former context their results omniffer since this latter description of former topic in current context is radically omniffering its description in former context.
Surely, apparently, that is a quantum tell of real gnosis' hermeneutics. But it is incredibly more omnifficult than that. Quantum comtexts evolve. Quantum comtexts compenetrate one another, partially. Quantum comtexts are both local and nonlocal.
Most of us are in multiple comtexts most of our lives. We try to force a single context, but it always breaks, always fails if we carefully monitor its 'consistency,' and 'completeness.'
So what do we do? How can we really do animate thinkqings? For Doug, after years of autodidactic effortings, we answer simply, "Adhere Quantonics' QTMs." At least use them as your own starting point, and then evolve your own heuristics and hermeneutics from there. Essence? Flux is crux. Dispositional? Stux sux. If you want detail comparative lists see our QELR of think. See our Bases of Judgment. See our How to Become a Student of Quantonics. See our Jammer Quantum Logic summary of classical disposables.
Pagels introduces a novel phrase: complementary exegeses. It is a quantum tell, in our view, since all hermeneutics are at least quantum~partially quantum~complementary. Why? Reality issi quantum~hologramings: every fuzzon has a partial holographic exegesis of all other (quantum~complementary) fuzzons!
Pagels closes with this Chapter 2 ending, The theological basis for the Valentinian hermeneutics -
"From this outline we can see how Jn 1.4 as well as 1.3 receives three distinct and complementary interpretations. The basic methodological principle of Valentinian exegesis is that the exegete must define precisely in terms of which context—pleromic, kenomic, or cosmic—he intends to interpret any given verse. So when Ptolemy sets forth the pleromic interpretation of the prologue, he selects for exegesis only those verses from which he can trace the members of the first ogdoad [original group of eight - Doug - 31Aug2007.]. In this context, the references he makes to the christological and soteriological interpretation of these verses remain only peripheral to his primary exegetical aim. Such exegetical decisions are grounded theologically on the ontological trinitarianism which is expressed mythically in terms of the pleroma, the kenoma, and the cosmos. Knowledge of the myth and its theological basis forms the essential prerequisite for understanding Valentinian exegesis. [Can Quantonics adepts see how Pagels' relentless use of 'the' begs her own monism. We are sure she intends n¤ deceit, but if gnosis is correct that "monism is deceit," then (it appears) she is surely abetting an antithesis via her individual use of ubiquitous thelogos. Apparently to Pagels' the is çathaholiç: universal, monistic, dogmatic. Doug - 31Aug2007. In retrospect Doug could have added some brackets to make her 'Valentinian' "context" toposically more apparent, like this: pleromic (pneuma AKA spirit), kenomic (son, Jesus, Light, included~middle, psychic AKA intellectual), and cosmic (objective, dialectical, substantial, hylic AKA material-literal). That addition makes it easier for novice readers to map Valentinian hermeneutics onto a gnostic topos. It also jibes our table above. To understand gnosis one must be able to speak and think in all of those con(m)texts both together and individually. Doug - 9Jun2008.]
"The exegetical methodology of their opponents, conversely, also emerges from a specific theological perspective. So Justin claims that the gospels are and must be understood to be 'memoirs'—witnesses to actual events—and not poetic fictions or mythologically expressed allegory. He and Hippolytus insist that, in witnessing to unique events, these writings—including both the Jewish prophecies which anticipate them, and the gospels which attest them—must be, as a source of revelation, unique. They are not to be compared with any other writings, whether poetic or philosophic. Since it is in the actual events that revelation occurs, what the gospels testify can be super[s]eded neither by any inner intuitive or mystical experience, nor by independently derived metaphysical principles. Doug's sic.
"Such apologists for the mainstream position as Irenæus, Hippolytus, Clement, and Origen clearly have little interest in examining gnostic exegesis on its own terms. They denounce it as 'arbitrary,' and 'contrived,' or 'irrational'—accusations certainly appropriate for their polemical intention. Their assessment, however, has too often been adopted and repeated by students of early Christian history. When Valentinian exegesis is investigated in terms of its own theological principles, however, the diverse fragments of exegesis, even the apparently contradictory interpretations of the same verse, can be seen to derive from a consistent theological structure."
Pagels offers, finally, a table, extraordinary as it is, of Three Valentinian Exegeses of Jn 1.1-4 Correlated. See her text for this. You'll find nexi to female lead in Dan Brown's The da Vinci Code.
And there you have it...again.
Thank you for reading,
Doug - 31Aug2007.
PS - We can make some globe-shaking political analogies here, having read first two chapters of Pagels' TJGiGE. A BIG one is Osama [has]Bin Laden's 'A l l a h' is the demiurge AKA a myopic number 4 egoist. George Bu()sh()'s 'God' too is the demiurge! Islam's Iraqi Chaldæan Allah is 1(2,3)(4). Gn¤stics' G¤d issi 1(2,3)ings. In latter quantum case n¤ demiurge æists. Doug - 31Aug2007.