(Our bold, color, brackets, links, and violet bold italic problematics.) Our bold and color highlights follow a code: black-bold - important to read if you are just scanning our review orange-bold - text ref'd. by index pages green-bold - we see Gaffney suggesting quantum memes violet-bold - an apparent classical problematic blue-bold - we disagree with this text segment while disregarding context of Gaffney's overall text gray-bold - quotable text red-bold - our direct commentary

Doug has just started reading this text. It looks like a good place to start for anyone who wants a quick introduction with some depth of understanding gnosis vis-à-vis orthodoxy, and how we got to be in such horrible circumstances as religion is today.

From page 4 of Gaffney's 'Introduction,' we offer essence of his own approach, "...we will arrive at conclusions that are utterly subversive to orthodox Christianity and which, I predict, will eventually stand tradition on its head. <...paragraph break here...> We are going to examine powerful evidence that the Gnostic element was present in Christianity from the beginning, and was, in fact, the very heart of the teachings of Jesus." Paperback, Inner Traditions, Vermont, 2004.

You may recall that Doug has conjectured for nearly two years that The Holy Grail is a hermaphroditic blood line emerging from Jesus and Magdalene (AKA John~Mary). Gaffney's text offers affirmation, perhaps only partial, as a portion of Gaffney's compiled Birdsall (Gaffney shows preference here...), MacMahon, and G.R.S. Mead's translations of Bishop Hippolytus' Refutation of All Heresies, Book 5 (which includes The Naassene Sermon (so-called by Richard Reitzenstein...), a subsequent to Irenæus' Adversus Haereses,

"Naassenes, then, according to the system advanced by them, magnify, as the originating cause of all things else: a Man, anthropos, and a Son of Man. And this Man is a hermaphrodite and is denominated among them: Adamas...of this man one part is rational [1], another psychical [2], another earthly [3]. And Naassenes suppose that the knowledge of him is the originating principle of the capacity for knowledge of God...The originating principle of perfection is the knowledge of Man, while the knowledge of God is absolute perfection."

Page 214, GSotN, Appendix I, Gaffney's quotations from Birdsall (emphasis), MacMahon and Mead's translations of Bishop Hippolytus' Refutations of All Heresies. Doug effaced several marks and punctuation.

Doug's brackets. Brackets show gnosis' topos which is usually, at least today, shown as pneuma [1 vis-à-vis 2], psychic [2 vis-à-vis 1], and hylic [3]. Doug shows vis-à-vis here on 1 and 2 due ambiguity of rational vis-à-vis spiritual and psychic vis-à-vis spiritual. Compare topos as most gnostics use it. As an almost pure dialectical term, 'rational' doesn't fit any gnosis of which Doug is aware. This Hippolytuæn 'topos' may somehow align, though, like this: pneuma-psychical, psychic-rational, and hylic-earthly. That, at least partially, makes some sense to Doug. If you want~need a fuller view of Doug's personal understanding of rationalism see: A Doug comment on rationalism.

Doug likes to complementaroceive hermaphrodicty as a kind of genomic, "Waving of dialectic's either-or bricks from SOM's Wall." Two in one and one in two. Wæ aræ ihn Iht an(m)d Iht issi ihn uhs. Gaffney, brilliantly, uses this quantum complementarity in a host of other ways without referring it as 'quantum complementarity.' Examples are 'waters,' crossing jordan (biblically ), Elijah-Elisah included~middling of quanton(n¤nactuality,actuality) as sharing-swapping, one becoming two and two becoming one, etc. Latter agrees with Doug's memeo of "hermaphroditic s¤n of hermaphroditic man issi ihn hermaphroditic God an(m)d hermaphroditic God issi ihn hermaphroditic s¤n of hermaphroditic man." Notice hermaphrodicity used here by Doug as a quantum stochastic middle~included~straddling of enthymemes ~malæ an(m)d ~fæmalæ. Compare now enthymemeticity of quanton(fæmalæ,malæ) and classically 'unambiguous' ideal objective, formal and dyadic either-or analytic specificity of dichon(male, female).

This moves dogma and orthodoxy to a trash-heap of n¤ return, to put it mildly. Doug - 8Nov2007.

Doug also offers his own heuristics that John~Mary (Magdalene, Jesus' wife: See Kathleen McGowan's The Unexpected One), of Sang Ral, too is hermaphroditic and both of their children were. Doug's heuristics arise mostly from his one and yet only reading of Holy Blood Holy Grail by Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln. Doug senses that HBHG needs multiple passes in order to assess and only commence fathoming its depths.

Brief exposure by Doug - 4Nov2007 with subsequent markups undistinguished through 8Nov2007.

More...7Nov2007...

In Chapter 1, Gaffney makes some n¤væl inferences which we find first, and for Doug uniquely, here in his work. Key here is a notion of 'the waters.' An event happened with Elijah and Elisah where Jordan's waters parted. This is key to later Gaffney heuristics (Jesus' baptism in 'waters Jordan') in Chapter 2.

In Chapter 2, Gaffney makes, for us at least, a huge breakthrough! Allow us to quote paragraphs 2 and 3 of Chapter 2:

"Many parts of the Gospel of Thomas are nearly identical to passages in the gospels of the New Testament, but Thomas is n¤t derivative: Form critical analysis shows it to be an original 'sayings source' of Jesus. Further, the material in Thomas is not assembled in a historical narrative in the manner of the New Testament Gospels. The text's 114 sayings and parables are numbered and presented sequentially, but loosely so and in no apparent order.

"According to Helmut Koester, one of the scholars who helped translate and prepare the Nag Hammadi library for publication, recent studies of Thomas have failed to show any dependence on the New Testament. In fact, they show just the opposite: Koester writes, 'In many cases the sayings from Thomas are preserved in a form that is more original than any of its canonical parallels.' This suggests that the Gospel of Thomas predates the New Testament and may even have been one of the original sources for the canonical scriptures. Although the manuscript of Thomas found at Nag Hammadi was written in Coptic (the native language of Egypt in the first centuries C.E.), paleographic analysis confirms that the Coptic version was based on an older Greek original. Helmut Koester thinks the Gospel of Thomas dates to the earliest period of Christianity. If this dating is correct, it refutes the standard view of a sharp divide between early Christianity and Gnosticism. Until very recently, most scholars regarded Gnostic Christianity as a second-century C.E. aberration. The early dates associated with Thomas and his Gospel's thoroughly Gnostic tone challenge this view, and strongly suggest that a mystical Gnostic element was present in Christianity from the beginning. As we shall see, analysis of the Naassene Sermon, the primary source document for this book, also supports this conclusion." Chapter 2, pages 20-21. Doug's bold and some QELR. Doug effaced some important footnotes and leave it to you to dig into them. Also, it is well to study Naassene Sermon, see GSotN's appendices, so you can relate what Gaffney is saying-writing here.

From what Doug has studied so far re gnosis, "the standard view of a sharp divide between early Christianity and Gnosticism..." is wr¤ng, i.e., "the standard view" is wr¤ng. Doug isn't saying there isn't a "sharp divide." There are probably and plausibly many 'divides.' Let's show two, Gaffney's and Doug's:

1. Gaffney's 'standard divide' which is — one invented by Roman Catholics starting with Irenæus, Constantine, and about a century subsequently Hippolytus — that gnosis is heretical. Universal Irenæun, Constantinian, and Hippolytuæn social, institutional 'christianity' is anti heretical (i.e., anti gnostic). In other words common sense, 'socially positive,' agreement is 'true.' In other words vulgi opinio does 'not' err, in "the standard view." The standard view says, socially and institutionally, "God is separate from human beings." Fathom "the standard view," as a metaphor of SOM's Bases of Judgment.
2. Renselle's interpretations of Pagels, Perataean, Chaldean, and Valentinian gnosis (~gnoses) are that Essene Jesus' (n¤t radically Essene old testament legalists' like John the Baptist) view gnosis is about individuals finding God within themselves and thus implicitly avoiding institutional vulgate opinion. Essene Jesus' view is that, "God is in us, and we are in God."

Essene Gn¤stic Jesus claims that number one is Error, and number two is spiritual, pneumatic. From that, Doug makes a valid inference that Essene Gn¤stic Jesus claims, "Dialectic is Error." Number 1 IS dialectic's either-or. Number two is quantum~middle~inclusion: b¤th~ahll~while~an(m)d~mahny. So, you may choose (heretically AKA gn¤stically) to see how easy it is to compare "the standard view," and "the Essene Gn¤stic Jesus' view."

If you study gnosis well, you will find that two other classical dialectical vis-à-vis quantum omnistinguishings can be made:

1. Classical ("the standard view") - symbols are static and separable (recall Bergson's two classical delusions), and
2. Quantum - all significates must be hermeneuted and heuristed as animate processings which superpose.

Similarly, you may see how classicists like Irenæus, Constantine, Hippolytus, etc., comfortably used 'the.' But 'the' is a tell of classical adherence to monism. Doug's gnostic studies clearly omnisambiguate gn¤stics' view that "...monism is deceit..." since formal dialectic derives from monism. Gn¤stics are telling their flocks loudly and clearly, "One Size Does Not Fit All!" Enter pluralism! Attenuate monism!

Doug views all of this as more evidence that Jesus was~is gn¤stic and he taught gn¤sis. Jesus taught us to find God within ourselves. There is naught institutional n¤r 'social' in that. Çatholiçs tried to eliminate all gnosis and all gnostics so they could impose institutional 'religion' on humanity. They almost succeeded. Now it is time for us as individuals to efface 'çatholiçism.' As Doug sees it, we are already getting lots of help. Unfortunately Satan's home isn't USA, rather, it is Italy...Rome to be specific. People who founded USA adhere more gn¤stic individualism and despise 'çatholiç' OSFA fascist social-institutional totalitarianism. It is time for Muslims to grasp that essence, too. Islam's roots reside in similar ones as ancient Christians' roots. We can make this very, very simple. Religion and beliefs which find their bases in dialectic are anti-Christian (Rather than "anti-Christian" Doug should have written, instead, anti-Essene Jesus here - 26Sep2008.) and anti-gn¤sis. Those who are antign¤stic reside in Satan's lair. Those are bottom lines which may n¤t be ignored having read much of what our references on this web page describe.

Doug has this nagging sense that Gaffney confuses (perhaps conflates) John 'the Baptist' with Jesus' disciple John~Mary. John 'the Baptist' was a 'rule of law' dialectical hegemon of first magnitude, a student of James, Jesus' too-dialectical brother. John 'the baptist' was an anti-gnostic if there ever was one. John~Mary, it is clear now, was a Essene~Jesuit gnostic who practiced and taught gnosis. See Doug's Gnostic Updates.

Read our other references here. A good and fun one is McGowen's The Unexpected One. Our only fault with Ms. McGowen is that she apparently sees no major problem with Vatican as Satan's own den.

More as we progress...7-9Nov2007... Doug.

More...1Jan2008...

Chapter 2 agrees with Pagels that NT's opus is bent on making Christianity an institutional religion. Gnostic Jesus abhors this. Gnosis itself is "individual wisdom," blatantly n¤t 'social wisdom,' indeed, in gnosis society has n¤ wisdom. Both Gaffney's and Pagels' point is that institutionalization probably 'saved' Christianity. It's still an abomination, regardless. Its Thomist dialectic makes it even more of an abomination. Gnostic Jesus (Doug's heuristics), like Heraclitus implied that dialectic is a "social pattern of value," and to emphasize that, and mimicking Heraclitus, "Dialectic is war." Of course war too is a social pattern of value. Jesus referred it simply as "Error." So we modern gn¤stics and quantum~gn¤stics may refer "both war and dialectic" as Error! To make this a parable we can say, "Jesus is Light and to be In Logos' Light we must avoid Error." Error is darkness and Error cann¤t be ihn n¤r see Light. For great emphasis, c. 2008 Christianity is Irenæun Error. "In dialectic's darkness."

Again, we perceive real gn¤sis as quantum. It is vivid, lucid!

Gaffney also addresses Elijah (age of 7; 7 miracles; possibly "once beyond") and (plausibly reincarnated as) Elisha (age of 14, ba[rt] mitzvah; 14 miracles; "double spirit;" possibly "twice beyond" too) and Jesus as reincarnate Elisha. Gaffney interprets that as offering novel interpretation to Jesus' last words on his Roman death cross, "Eli, Eli why hast thou forsaken me?" I.e., "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani." Most scholars read that using Hebrew for "God" as "El." Compare Hebrew 'sel,' and Hebrew 'El.' 'Sel' is rock, stone, and cliff. Hebraic materialism and SOM's wall impose their own pro dialectical perpetual 'state' provocatives here. What is missing? If reality is quantons(waves,particles) and we use 'sel' as metaphoric 'particles,' what Hebrew phoneme replaces waves? "Ren! (actually, as 'rays')" Allow us to substitute reality is quantons(Ren,sel).

You might imagine Doug's personal fears and horror at omniscovering that!

Gaffney uses Matthew 19:30 to affirm his Elijah-Elisha heuristics, "Many who are first will be last, and the last first." This is so incredibly quantum! It is almost a direct analogue of Hindu "Li-la." A divine dance. A quantum~reality apoptosis~resurrection loop. Those who are "becoming first" anabolically learn to push 'up' Jordan (metaphorically, "river water as waves") to highest realms of spiritual flux. Those who are "unbecoming last" catabolically fall into material-hylic stuckness. (Readers should study and fathom quantum~loop ontology of Sophia: her rise and fall...) We see water as subjective~flux and matter as objective-stux. Quanton(wave,particle)! Quanton(~,o)! Li-la as a divine "both adiabatic and free~energy" dance among quantum~isoenergy (1), ~energy (2), and ~mass (3)!

We must keep reminding ourselves here that anti-gnostic hylic-psychic dialecticians depend upon stux to thingk. By comparison gn¤stic~pneumatists use flux to think_q. Anti-gnostics, e.g., Irenæus in his Adversus Haereses, conceive revelation, redemption, initiation, and learning as perpetual social pattern of value 'state.' Gn¤stics (for example, "Pirsig's ancients") practice revelation, redemption, initiation, and learning as relentless~processings: perpetual individual pattern of Value flux. Gaffney quotes explicitly, from John 3:3, "Unless [one] is born [as soteriological process] from above, [s~he] cannot see the Kingdom of God." Gaffney's italics, Doug's brackets. Gaffney's quote is from a more Greek-pure individual pattern of Value New Jerusalem Bible. Compare other translations emphasizing "born again" as an institutional, social pattern of value. Individual version, as Gaffney makes clear, gnostically practices cowithin spirit as dynamic and adaptive transformative process. Social John 3:3 is stuck. Individual John 3:3 is free. See classical vis-à-vis quantum tells 1 and 2 above. If one is agnostic, anti-gnostic, one may n¤t see logos let alone be ihn logos' perpetual Light.

Aside - Just How Many Johns are There?

Keeping track of Johns in NT is a challenge, a n¤n trivial hermeneutic and heuristic challenge.

• John (author) of Fourth 'gospel,' a n¤n synoptic gospel, AKA the Johannine Gospel (agnostic)
• John the Baptist (agnostic)
• John a hermaphrodite AKA John~Mary (gnostic; "most loved")
• John a Jesuit Disciple (gnostic)
• John the elder
• John, brother of James
• John, son of Zebedee
• John a gn¤stic (which one?)
• John an agnostic (which ones?)
• John a pure hylic
• John a mix of hylic-psychic
• John a pneumatic
• John an individual, a martus aritos 'you type' ("What will you do?" Quantum~uncertainty. Abductive pragmatism.)
• John, social John, a socially-noble 'we type' ("What will we do?" Platonic-certainty. Positivism.)
• John who is like James (James was a social 'c a t h o l i c' "rule of law" we type.)
• John who is like Jesus (Jesus, Essene Jesus, was an individual quantum~gn¤stic you type.)
• ...our list appears almost unlimited in its portential reach...

Doug believes that Romans, especially Irenæus, Hippolytus (Iranæun protégé), and Constantine...pilfered, plagiarized gospels and letters to create a god-Jesus separate from a flock which Romans wished to control, and proceeded to put agnostic words in all those 'players'' mouths.

Doug sees at least three Johns in NT: John the Baptist, John, and John~Mary. Each of them falls into islandic categories which may be described by terms listed above. First two Johns were agnostic antihereticals. Latter, John~Mary, was gnostic, Essene~gnostic, and believed mightily in individual~choosings (heresy), individual determination, individual selection of morality (moral omniversity), ethics (ethical omniversity), and reason (th~ought omniversity). Simply, gnostics agree with Pirsig's MoQ whose hierarchy places more highly evolved and evolving individual gnosis above social 'state.'

Elaine Pagels touches briefly on a portion of our John problem in her Beyond Belief, Vintage paperback, 2003, p. 58-59 of 257 total including index.

Doug - 8-9Aug2008. Pagels update - 17Aug2008 - Doug.

End aside - Just How Many Johns are There?

Chapter 3 commences a omnifficult process of describing and assessing etymology of "son of man" and why Jesus insisted upon being referred "son of man," while Peter and institutional 'Christianity' insist upon calling Jesus "Christ," and "Messiah." Latter, Essene Jesus abhorred! Tentatively and for about 2000 years institutional anti-gnostics won out, but now we see "son of man" making its rapid gnostic return. Gaffney traces "son of man" etymologically back to pre antiquity.

Let's quote Gaffney on page 33 in Chapter 3, "By making the river reverse its flow, Jesus achieves the absolute: supreme union with the Godhead — and he does this while still part of the world, which distinguishes him from Enoch, Noah, and Elijah, all of whom represent previous cases of heavenly ascent." Note that John the Baptist initially refused to baptize Jesus, but Jesus insisted. What resulted is quanton(Godhead,Jesus) which Doug refers a "quantum~straddle." Jesus complements Godhead and Godhead complements Jesus. Jesus, individually, is ihn Godhead and Godhead is ihn individual Jesus: quantum~gnosis! Society cannot encroach this gnosis, then, now, and never! Institutions may n¤t be redeemed. Institutions find n¤r offer salvation. Institutions which claim to state-ically represent God are anti-gnostic and expose their satanic, e.g., Thomist dialectical-monist infrastructures. We can summarize rather quickly and simply:

• Satan is 'state,' perpetual state made dead of institutional hylic-psychic-dialectic, monism,
• Gnosis is 'process,' perpetual flux made live of individual pneumatic~Sophism, pluralism.

Satan is ESQ. Gnosis is ADQ.

Gaffney lists four unprecedented gnostic feats which Jesus accomplished at his Jordan baptism:

1. spiritual initiation,
2. descent of dove,
3. reversal of flux' flow,
4. return to (complementation with) Godhead.

Without calling it "quantum" Gaffney calls Jesus' gnostic baptismal Jordan feats a "metaphor." He does it in words like this:

"Let us now explore the symbolism of the Jordan in the Naassene Sermon and the Testimony of Truth. In both, the river appears as a dual metaphor: On the one hand, it represents the downward creative expression [QCD's TBCS quarks...] of the divine will or, in other words, the manifestation of the world. The gravity-driven Jordan symbolizes a process of materialization [...QCD's UD quarks...] from subtle to gross through a series of intermediate veils, ages, or aeons..."

From subtle:

To gross.

See our Quanton Complementary Interrelationships page.
See our Quantum TBCSUD Gen III Reality Loop.

Doug's Quark Emerscitected with Fuzzons.

"...The various intermediate levels amount to a progression of increasingly dense layers, each one stepped down from a higher vibratory field [quantum~isoflux] above. The Gnostics believed that the world of planet Earth, the home of humanity, was located in time and physical space near the bottom rung of this overarching system — near but not at the bottom..."

That description matches quantum science's QCD and Balmer ladder descriptions of quantum~reality! Amazing!

Pirsig told us that the ancients (AKA 'sophists') were already practicing Quality, but Parmenides, Plato and Aristotle hated their (i.e., sophists') gnosis. Quality has been on hold. Now it is making an unstoppable comeback. SOM is 'c a t h o l i c a l l y' dead. MoQ is in its living, Ihn Quantum Lightings,™ ascension! Without Pirsig, Quantonics wouldn't even exist folks!

Chapter 4, Gaffney explains to us that Jesus has been referred as "'the Christ,' Christ, Messiah, and son of Man." When Jesus asked Peter "Who do you say I am?" Peter responds "You are the Christ." But Jesus rebukes Peter, "Get away from me, Satan."

Why?

Jesus' preferred answer to "Who am I?" is "You are the Son of Man." Peter seldom referred Jesus as "son of Man," and continued his Satanic referrals of Jesus as "the Christ, the annointed one."

As we understand it, "Jesus Christ," and "Jesus the Christ" are Pauline post Jesus' crucifixion referrals essentially invented (contrived) by Paul-Saul himself. Simply, "Christianity" didn't exist in Jesus' lifetime.

Gaffney appears to make a point that Paul's way is man's way, and not "God's way." So, institutional 'Christianity' is man's dialectically dead Christianity, n¤t God's Gn¤stic~Jesuit (living Son of Man, logos, Light, etc.) Christianity. Doug agrees with this and, for Doug, it somewhat justifies Doug's intentionally harsh comments re: post Roman, anti-Essene-Jesus, dead social conventions and contrivances. There is a lot to say here and Gaffney does. We offer following quote to assist your grasping essence of Gaffney's major point:

"Although we are not ready, just yet to delve more deeply into the image of the stormy sea, subsequent chapters will prepare the way for that discussion, which will be presented in chapter 13. Nevertheless, we can at least begin here to address the larger questions. The evidence we have examined thus far shows, that the name "Son of Man" is one of the keys to the spiritual mission of Jesus on earth. The problem, however, is that there is no way to extract the term's significance from the usual Christian sources. The orthodox canon is simply too restrictive; the narrowing of scripture in the interests of combating alleged heresy has made discovery next to impossible for the average Christian. A serious investigation of the significance of the name Son of Man would draw from pertinent pseudoepigraphic, apocryphal, and Gnostic source material in addition to other ancient texts — whatever documentary evidence may present itself. Indeed, the need to widen the investigation of the name is implicit in the name itself: By favoring a name that clearly predated Judaism by thousands of years, Jesus was very consciously placing himself in a context of human history so sweeping in scope that it recedes from us into the mists of the dawn of civilization. And the Naassene scribe's insistence on preserving these links with antiquity surely reflects the Naassenes' awareness of this." Chapter 4, page 46. Doug's bold.

We are unsure how Gaffney will ultimately depict Son of Man as ancients may have intended. It may be worth our while~ings here and now to review Chaldæan gnosis' quanton(1,quanton(2,quanton(3,dichon(living_4, dead_4)))) as quanton(Mother,quanton(son,quanton(mother,dichon(living_Father, dead_Father)))). Simply Mother,son,mother,living_Father (no demiurge) vis-à-vis Mother,son,mother, dead_Father (dead_Father as dialectical demiurge). If we view son as Gaffney's Son of Man, we can Chaldæan gnostically view Son of Man as a Sapien~lubricating membrane which straddles, perhaps middle~includes spirit and material actuality.

Near end of Chapter 4 Gaffney offers, at least for Doug, some novel narrative re: antiquities' Primal Man as a precursor of Son of Man:

"The Naassene Sermon mentions an important characteristic of Primal Man: his hermaphroditic nature (Refutation 5.7.14). This should not surprise us. As the blueprint for humanity, Primal Man would necessarily incorporate both male and female aspects. The Sermon refers to Adamas as the rock and tells us that rock and cornerstone are equivalent (Refutation 5.7.35). In both mythology and alchemy the stone is considered to be hermaphroditic. In fact, the root of hermaphrodite—herm—means "stone," which is also the root of the name of the Greek god Hermes, the androgynous messenger of the gods. As we know from Greek mythology, Hermes shared some of the qualities of the Son of Man, so it is perhaps not surprising that the Sermon mentions him in this context (Refutation 5.7.37). The equivalence of rock and stone also affirms the intimate connection between Primal Man and the Son of Man: The First Epistle of Peter (I Peter 2:4-8) identifies Jesus as "the living stone" and the corner stone. If Adamas (Primal Man) is the heavenly rock, then Jesus, as the Son of Man, must be his earthly double or representative." Ibid. Page 47-48. Doug's bold.

Readers should realize that,

See EIMA and BAWAM.

3Jan2008...continuing...

Chapter 5's beginning, Gaffney writes, "Christianity as we know it today bears little resemblance to what existed in the beginning, so it is not surprising that the Sermon's relevance has not yet been recognized." Gaffney shows us how Naassene Sermon offers its readers many challenges. Naassene gnosis was a minority of Jesus' following then. What Doug has read shows that Jesus was Essene, Tribe of Judah, Beth David, etc. Doug knows not interrelations of Naassenes and Essenes yet. Our large table from our Classical vav Quantum Religion Recommended Reading page shows some comparisons...still it lacks explicit description of both Naassene and Essene compared side-by-side. Naassene Sermon's translations and interpretations have been many, by many, under a wide variety of circumstances. On top of that Gaffney makes no (state-) n¤ (phase~) mentions of gnostic topos. Too, he finds some criticism with Elaine Pagels' opus. So to read and understand 'the' Sermon, one must have a vast repertoire of many religions over huge spans of time. Mead, et al., have taken on this task and made some progress. Gaffney writes on page 52, "This multiplicity of voices and influences makes the Naassene Sermon extremely difficult to unravel."

Again, we have to remind our readers that Doug's major emphasis here is finding out how well ancients intuited what Doug calls c. 2008 "quantum~religion." Pirsig has written that many ancients were already practicing a nearly pagan sophism which, for us, is very quantum. We infer Pirsig might call it "an early metaphysics of Quality." Simply, he might call it "aretè." Excellence.

So Doug is interested in history, but mostly from a desire to affirm a modicum of quantum~gn¤sticism in ancients' religious beliefs and practices.

Gaffney calls Naassenes "no ordinary gnostics." Doug, using Thomas Kuhn's phrasing might agree by calling them "extraordinary gnostics." For example, they (some of them; and most ancient of all...) believed in Docetism: Jesus' feet never touched earth since he was spiritual energy. That is about as actually quantum as one may be! Clearly Romans and most Jews were n¤t at that level of spiritual development and evolution. Gaffney says this stuff was like catnip for G.R.S. Mead. Unmiserably, we commiserate.

On a downside, Gaffney tells us that some Naassenes insist on sexual abstinence. For Doug that is absurd on its face as a belief since sex is earth-life's means of procreation. Religiously and scientifically, especially quantumly, physical sex is one of G¤d's greatest gifts and greatest miracles. Clearly too, sex is healthier, more pleasurable and better than other stimuli like drugs and alcohol. Sex is great exercise.

It isn't as simple as that, though, even in Pirsig's MoQ.

What do we mean by sex? Genetics? Human interrelationships?

Genetically, Gaffney's gnostic hermaphroditic "blueprint" shows us that sexuality is quantumly stochastic. Yep! That is what we observe! Anne Fausto Sterling has written much about "The Five Sexes." She calls them female, ferm, hermaphrodite, merm, and male. There aren't just five, though. Twixt male and female there are, quantum~stochastically, all possible shades and hues of individual genetic sexual instantiations. On top of that all living sexual and other genetics are evolving. We see aneuploidy (N-somia; bisomia is 'normal') on all chromosomes. We see isochromosomatism on some, and so on... Quantum possibilities here appear stochastically unlimited.

As Richard Dawkins has made so clear in his The Selfish Gene physical sex is a congenital biological 'drive.' It tends to violate some conventional human social mores across a variety of cultural norms and contexts. As you just read in Doug's remarks, opinions about sex may violate a wide variety of individual intellectual views too.

Pirsig's MoQ is sexually gnostic, implicitly, since it places society evolutionarily above biology, then it places locally-contextual individual gnosis above society.

Some have claimed that gnostics are "darkly pessimistic." Gaffney claims there is little-no evidence of this.

On page 55 Gaffney offers a 'The Great Hidden Truth of the Naassenes.' He writes, "If the Naassene beliefs were rooted in Judeo-Christianity, how then do we account for the presence of so much pagan material in the text?" He calls that a "good question." In essence: material reality is God's divine creation in actuality. Paraphrasing Pirsig, Herrigel, et al., God is in material reality and material reality is in God. Bluntly: reality is divinely quantum!

"The actual compiler of these lengthy portions of the text was the Naassene scribe, whose purpose was to inform his reader of a great truth: the most sublime secret of the universe. It is a deeply hidden mystery, yet it is profound that it is omnipresent, and, hence, discoverable at every hand. Few humans find it, however, for though the secret lies in plain view, the vast majority of humans are blind to it. Even when people touch this truth they stumble over it without recognizing it for what it is. This truth, however, is the Sermon's central message, and repeats throughout the document in a variety of ways, like a mantra." Page 56.

"The cup in question is the famous chalice used at the Last Supper (Refutation 5.8.11). This cup, then, is the grail, which, as we know, pertains to the immanence or indwelling of God. The Naassene scribe is telling us that Jesus himself is the source of the great truth!" Page 59. See Doug's much more recent depictions of Jesus' essene grail. 18Aug2009 - Doug.

To Doug, those two paragraphs imply that "immanent indwelling" is a quantum~everywhere~included~middle~associativity of God and creation. Doug calls it a quantum~straddle: coinsident cowithinitness of G¤d and creation. Qabalic gn¤stics of Carlo Suares' Autiot persuasion call it, "Aleph in all blood." Now you may perceive why Ç a t h o l i ç s abhor spilling any blood on Earth's soil when they crucify and smoke gnostics. They do not want any Aleph getting in Earth's soil (or in y~our blood). Ç a t h o l i ç s vehemently deny quantum~memes of gnosis' "Aleph in all blood." (That is, Farewell Discourse's words by Jesus', "Living Father is in you and you are in Living Father.") Doug - 8May2010

"This presents great difficulties, of course, because, as we have already observed, Christian scripture says nothing about immanence. [Gaffney makes a huge error here! John~Mary's 'Farewell Discourse' is an explicit instance of Jesus' own words describing spiritual~human quantum~immanence. Doug - 18Aug2009.] Or does it? Can it be that we have missed something? The Naassene Sermon suggests that we have! The scribe is clearly pointing to the Last Supper as the source of the great mystery. Indeed, the Sermon appears to confirm that event's historicity. Can it be that the great truth of the Naassenes originated in the person of Jesus? And was this secret teaching an original part of early Christianity that was somehow lost? In the following chapter [6], we investigate this profound idea more deeply." Page 59, last paragraph of chapter 5. Qabalic Autiot offers us superb means to "...investigate this profound idea more deeply." Doug - 8May2010.

Doug does n¤t agree with Gaffney here. Grail to Doug is Jesus' hermaphroditic quantum~included~middlings bloodline. Clearly though, said cup may be Jesus' means of last~supping via said Grail: Jesus' own spiritual blood, symbolic and otherwise. All of us, in that sense, potentially are "cups." For Doug, that is immortal and soulful, holographic, everywhere~associative, middle~including "quantum~immanence." Truthings above all state-ic 'truths.' In a way, though, humanity is stupidly responsible for allowing this to happen. Timings are nigh to undo this 'religious' universal malice. Need guidance? Simply, "No other human is your sovereign! Period!" Similarly, "You are sovereign no other human." Gnostically your body is your temple and you are sovereign your individual body.

"Doug, why did you red~embolden your own words, "universal malice?"

Catholicism is universalism. Catholicism teaches its flock to be monistic hive drones, to be uniform, and practice uniformity-unification, and social conformity. Why? A known flock is easier to control than a pluralistic flock! A known flock is ideally, Platonically, Thomist determinate and predictable. Simply this is catholic socially inhumane polemical indoctrination. It is Borg assimilation! It is what Gn¤stic Jesus hated as social manufacturing of objective cog-humans. It is satanic, and it is evil! It is antithetical individual Gn¤stic free will.

See Doug's more recent efforts on 'unification.' Doug - 20Jul2008.

Be aware that early Roman Catholics engineered a social 'christianity.' As a result, they engineered-out Godly Immanence. If God is in all of us, how could Roman Bishops rule us and tell us what to believe, what to do, what to think, and 'whom' to wors(e)ship? Irenæus and Constantine, et al., created a n¤n immanent ungodly religion whose purpose is institutional coercion of a flock of "helpless innocents." A inquisitional catholic slaughter of godly immanence in all of us.

Now Gaffney moves on to chapter 6, 'The Teaching that Didn't Take.' Without having read chapter 6 yet, Doug wants to guess. Our surmise is this: enter gnostic topos. Hylics and psychics didn't "get it." They didn't "take it." Only a few pneumatics, "Took." We'll see...

Let's see what Gaffney's exegesis looks like.

Gaffney was raised 'catholic.'

You must read chapter 6 on your own. It's just too good for Doug to attempt improvement. Gaffney is at his best here. Doug isn't worthy to be interpreting and criticizing Gaffney's words here. Naught Doug can say to make this better. Like a great movie, I refuse to ruin chapter 6 by saying more about it.

We plan to continue here after we finish our February Chautauqua segment on David A. Granger's book comparing Pirsig and philosopher John Dewey. See December, 2007 TQS News for that Chautauqua's first segment and indices. Doug - 8Jan2008.

More 6Feb2008...

Chapter 7's title is 'Parting of Waters Revisited...'

To Naassene gnostics 'water parting' holds much spiritual energy, evidently. But why do we need to revisit it?

Gaffney starts off by describing how a farmer discovered Ra's Shamra cuneiform tablets in 1928 in a ancient city called Ugarit. Ugarit's tablets were written in many languages, including: Sumerian, Akkadian, Hurrian, Hittite, hieroglyphic Hittite, Egyptian, and Cypriot. In summary Ugarit texts explain meaning of "parting of waters."

Clearly that is important to Gaffney, here, but before we pursue parting water memes Gaffney says (writes) that we need to attempt to fathom "implications of Ra's Shamra tablets." We agree.

They represent one of archaeology's major finds, ever. A big implication is that Canaanite culture was homogeneous and wide spread. Canaans spread into Egypt and partially fused with their religion. When Hebrews settled Palestine, they adopted many Canaanite mores, and especially urban technologies. Surprising all researchers it became clear how Canaanites, et al., were mostly Semitic in that much larger region. Gaffney writes, "Hebrews adopted Canaanite religion." That's BIG news! Not many Jews will acknowledge that today, c. 2008. But apparently it is so. Much OT writing is stuff of Canaanites' religion and religious practices and beliefs.

"What was omniffering, Doug?" Gaffney tells us that Canaanites emphasized sea creatures and mythology where Hebraics did not.

A key phrase appears in those tablets: "...man of God." (This seems like a statement out of con(m)text, until you mix sea creatures, water, parting of water, man of God, etc.)

Amazingly, Israel, name of northern province of Jews (Judaeah is south; home of King David, Tribe of Judaeah (Judah), home of Essene Jesus) is (appears to be) Canaanite too. Isra~el. You recognize 'el' as God, right? Canaanite for 'isra' is very roughly "to struggle with.' Doug likes that if we use quantum~gn¤sis to offer its exegesis: i.e., "...to quantum~gn¤stically middle~include G¤d and recursively immanate His immanence." Of course that assumes Essene~Jesus' proclamation, "G¤d issi ihn uhs, an(m)d wæ aræ ihn G¤d." All of us who do our best grasp how isra might be hermeneutically viewed as "a struggle," even "the struggle." Which struggle? An easy example might be "God's water and man's water as miscible, etc." Sea as God. Man's body as a bag of water. Middle~inclusion of waterings...

And here is a meme which is powerful, potent. A little background. Those of you Quantonics' adepts grasp how and why Doug rants relentlessly re quantum over classical: Pirsig's DQ over Pirsig's SQ, change over state. Take that and put it in comtext of Hebraic tribes and Canaanite culture: absolute change of Hebraic nomads vis-à-vis cultural statism of Canaanites. Nomads resisted terra firma's ground 'state' via their nomadic roaming 'change.' Canaanites adopted coastal ground 'state' but close to sea 'change.' Nomads loved nomadic change above their land-locked state. Canaanites preferred 'advantages' of state since they lived on and near a sea of 'change.' Yet 'sea' is change, water. Now compare Hebrew tribes on land as 'state' and nomadism as change. A powerful and potent set of comparative memes emerges, ad occulos. Yet what middle includes all of that? Pirsig's DQ: sea vis-à-vis nomadism. Yet both are middle~including 'state' and change as their local reality. Both are quantons(DQ,SQ) with omniffering patterns of emerscenture and emerqings. Fascinating!

Does living near sea quiet us? Does living on land induce roaming? Seems reasonable. Doug is never happier than when he is resident on Oregon's mid-coast. Some people never leave NYC's boisterous and boiling midtown.

Does that sound familiar to you now, c. 2008? What is happening in USA? Most of us are simply fed up with social stuckness called "state." It is apparently 'dead.' At very least, 'State' is slowly committing suicide. Evidence is ostensibly apparent. Leading Democrat Barack Obama is an agent of change. Losing Democrat says, "Change is just a word." Now we have to ask, "Which change is that? Only di-fferent 'state,' possibly less 'state?'"

Why? Why is change winning over 'state?' This answer is easy, at least in Doug's view. Evolution is driving SQ closer and closer to DQ. Evolution is widening humankind's sensory bandwidth while moving humankind's sensory center frequency higher, and higher, and higher. A tell? "No mo yo of status quo!" Evolution is more and more middle~including both SQ and DQ. Pirsig's MoQ anticipates just that. SQ is dead: dead-father, demiurge, AKA Satan. DQ is alive: living~Father.

Our exegesis is anthropocentric, and therefore radically incomplete. Look at our cosmos! Those of us who can, see relentless and radically stochastic change at all levels of visible reality. Ideal classical 'state' is a Bergsonian "illusion," and in many cases just plain self-delusion. Humans see 20 years as a 'long' time, yet it is only a flame~flicker, a brief cosmic moment to reality. We can say similarly re 1000 years and 10,000 years and a million years...just flame-flickers from any cosmic perspective. Now go back to human level and grasp how much change, which matters to us, is almost coherent in such epochs of 'time.' And yet, and still, to each of us a few seconds are precious and memorable. Most of those, though, have little to do with cosmic change. It's easy to say, "Humans simply do not matter much." Doug would say, "Mu!" If reality is change and humans love 'state,' then Doug would agree that 'static' humans simply do not matter at all. However, if reality is change and humans love 'change' and are learning to love it and respect it more and more as they mature as a natural species, then humans matter immensely to our cosmos. Why? Doug believes that we are in our cosmos and our cosmos is in us. Somehow, and quantumly, our cosmos is aware of our awareness of its radical changings. Somehow it rewards those who become change agents. To Doug, it's that simple. Young folk, today c. 2008, intuit that more than most. They hate stuckness. They are learning that 'state' is what most politics, religion, and classical science are all about. They intuit what a bad world 'state' makes. They not only want to...they shall vote for change. Why? Because it is real. State is phony! State is stuck. Stux sux. It's unnatural dialectical bogosity. Our young folk are figuring that out. Doug - 8Feb2008.

Now recall Pirsig describing how ancient societies somehow chose dialectism ('state' AKA demiurge) over sophism (change AKA living~Father). Recall how Pirsig described that choice of dialectical 'state' over quantum~rhetorical~sophist change as such a huge loss. Recall Gaffney's words re: "Our loss."

Gaffney summarizes a b.c.e. exemplar of religious choice of 'state' over change: slightly paraphrased to bring grammar to now, "...a notion of centralized unnatural-anticosmic kingships required centralized static authority of religion--hence the manufactured endorsement of dialectically static scripture." Page 79, chapter 7. This is a description of religion's intentional move to state over change. Subsequently, Parmenides, Plato, and Aristotle vetted this anti sophist~rhetorical~change antimeme as standard 'dialectical state' and made sophists into straw-man-intellectual demiurges. Romans turned gn¤stic~real and dynamic Essene Jesus into a static anti-christ. We live with those awful static consequences "our previously unrecognized great loss" today, but we are learning that and change is underway to benude and efface state's long reign.

Gaffney writes that much of OT is contrived to invent a new religious 'state.' We agree.

So now we have an anti Essene Jesus NT engineered by Roman liars, and preceding that, a tampered OT laying a bogus groundwork of 'state'ic lies. Worse, we have a world of several hundreds of millions of 'christians' who are worse-shiping an antichrist! Change is apropos, folks! Timings are nowings to commence a departure from static lies borne of 'divine' charlatans who engineered an antichrist. "Doug, why do you say 'antichrist?'" Recall? how Essene Jesus told Peter, "Get away from me Satan." Peter believed in institutional static authority, and had answered Jesus' "Who am I?" query institutionally authorized as "You are the son of God." Essene Jesus was preaching individual "son of man" self authority in a dynamic and recursive process of finding God within oneself. (N¤ static institutions can survive when all of us are in change processings of an Essene Jesuit nature.) Jesus told Peter that his institutionally condoned beliefs are wr¤ng. Recall how Jesus did similarly with his disciples. Ten of them asked him "What shall we do?" Jesus had been preaching to them that they should individually find God within themselves. Two disciples, John~Mary and Didymos Thomas understood that. Other ten, via their 'we' query showed how they were 'thing-king' statically, socially. To Essene Jesus that wr¤ng-headed thing-king represented Status-Quo-Satanic notions transparently. Simply: Error! Dialectical Error! After that ten disciples were jealous of two disciples for whom Jesus showed favor via clotured and separate discussions with only them. See Pagels: The Gnostic Gospels, (last) Chapter 6 - 'Gnosis: Self Knowledge as Knowledge of God.' If you do nothing else in your life, I urge you to read that Pagels' chapter. See pages 120, 123, and 131-135. 'Conclusion' starts on page 142. Our paperback copy has 182 pages including index. It may {Doug believes it will...} change your life! Doug - 11Feb2008.

How do institutions survive and maintain their existence today? By training all of us hive drones to believe in institutions, static institutions. Now we know how it got started, and we have an opportunity to undo this static evil. If you want another ~historical perspective of how this happened read Edward Rutherford's derivative Sarum. Excellent! Excellence! Gaffney very highly recommends Finkelstein and Silberman's The Bible Unearthed. A Bible Desnoured? Doug - 8Feb2008.

Of course, nearly all institutional 'anythings' are historically patriarchal static monisms. Our as possessive sways large here. Our way, n¤t Yah Weh. Objective property possession obsession. Accumulation of property declension obsession. Massive material Social Patterns of Value infrastructures, Vatican, churches, organs, parking lots... And an obsession with absolute hegemony via induction of fear, uncertainty, and doubt: FUD. Stuffings of Satan's antichrist.

But gn¤stics say brilliantly, "Monism is deceit." and Doug intuits, "Love of substance is self-deceit." Parmenides, Plato, and Aristotle loved substance and its static forms.

Gn¤stics intuit quantum~reality as radically stochastic pr¤cæss~flux and middle~inclusion as, gravitationally metaphoric, "We are phasically in It and It is phasically in us."

Given that, how does water carry such a huge Value in ancients' spiritual thinking? Water is in us and we are in water. That is a spiritual metaphor of quantum~reality! We are like food coloring dropped into a large clear glass bowl of water. Our color copermeates and spreads cowithin and coinsident water. That folks, is a splendid m¤dal of human quantum flux interpenetrating quantum isoflux. Ancients, millennia ago, picked their best possible Earth-based analogy of change, flow and flux: water.

Gaffney finishes Chapter 7 with this:

"As demonstrated by the repetitive theme of the waters, the development of Judeo-Christianity has been a dynamic process. In the hands of the Deuteronomist the waters— the dragon of old — have become the medium for a new message. Traces of the archaic elements present in Exodus and Joshua are still detectable in the Deuteronomists account. But it is also obvious that they have become vestigial. Mythology has been reshaped for some new purpose, as evidenced by the scribe's conscious rejection of the old storm-god language. And what is that new purpose? Perhaps the Deuteronomist did not understand it himself. His inspired and unerring use of the ancient language of symbolism linking water and the Spirit suggests that master over the river is the key to the mystery. Even so, within the framework of Judaism, it is a work in progress and will remain unfinished for centuries, until, as we have seen, Gnostic Christianity took the final steps." Last paragraph in Chapter 7.

If you read Doug's text commentary above, and if you read it well, we can now answer Gaffney's key query, "And what is that new purpose?" Easy answer, "State over change!" Hegemonist patriarchs wanted to control all of us. To do so, they had to invoke institutional 'state' as principle, as ruling — and above — individual change. Hegemonists created an anti Jesus, an anti gnosis to have their material ways with Earth and humanity. Science did it too. Science and religion are both complicit here! Politics did it too! Politics, science, and religion are all complicit! Timings for revolutionings? Nowings! Doug.

To Doug, "Gnostic Christianity" is becoming an oxymoron. Post Jesus' death Paul invented Christianity. Jesus never referred to himself "Christ," and called those who did refer him that way "Satan." More apropos might be, "Naassene and Essene Jesuit Gn¤sis." Doug - 14Feb2008.

We'll do another segment here early in March...

More 21-22Feb2008...

Chapter 8's title is 'Demiurge and Wisdom Dialogue...'

Gaffney writes about some early, pre 'Christian' creation scenarios. Several: pagan, Judaic, Greek, etc.

Doug is greatly affected by Gaffney's descriptions, especially when Doug attempts to put them in modern quantum~comtextings. Creation scenarios then, like now, were simply heuristic. All pre 'Christian' creation heuristics were mythologically anthropogenic, period. Most were EITHER monotheistic OR polytheistic. Greeks allowed lower polytheism under an overriding monotheism. Jews (Hebrews) claimed a monotheism headed by Yahweh.

However, most seem to believe in only one creation, one reality. Gaffney appears to buy into this in his, "At some point the Cosmic clock begins to tick." One clock! And his, "The purpose of [mythological] philosophy was to delve deeper—and the true foundation was obviously monotheism." Doug's brackets and italics to show Gaffney's uses of 'the' as monistic: "one clock," "one purpose," and "one truth." Any other polytheisms could only be derivative. See Doug's coined 'thelogos."

Doug needs to reiterate his earlier caveats, in brief summary:

• "Monism — is deceit," (Chaldæan gnostics. See our QELR of 'whole.')
• Any notions derived from static monism and its attendant dialectical and thus exclusive notions of analytic material independence — are deceit. (Doug's hermeneutics mimicking Chaldæans and modern quantum~empiritheory borne of Zeno of Elea, Heraclitus, Bergson, James, Bohr, Schrödinger, Hoffmann, Heisenberg, Bohm, Pirsig, Mae-wan Ho, et al.)
• Any notions which claim actuality is notionally objective and that negation, both 'logical' and 'physical,' is objective — are deceit.
• Etc.

Those bullets are incredibly useful, especially in efforts we apply in Gaffney's work to understand any descriptions of a 'Demiurge and Wisdom Dialogue.'

How? Any descriptions which are monistic, static, dialectical, material, substantial, objective are simply bogus.

Wisdom: Chaldæans didn't use our more modern language, but today c. 2008 Doug surmises Chaldæans would say, "Creation is dynamic, evolutionary, and holographic."

Demiurge: By descriptive comparison monisms are stable, do 'not' evolve, and their synthetics are independent. (And their negations, e.g., 'not,' are canonically objective.)

We just anticipated what Gaffney might write in balance of Chapter 8. We'll see...

Doug has mentioned that he has n¤t done enough work comparing Naassenes and other gnostic sects. Gaffney offers a notable distinction which Doug has n¤t seen prior, "Naassenes, unlike other gnostic sects, did n¤t reject the Old Testament, OT." Page 94. And nearby, "Judaism insisted on a single entity: Yahweh." So, Jews are canonically, monists.

[This is wholly out of context to refer here, but noteworthy: "Islam insists on a single entity: Allah." So, gnostically, both Judaism and Islam, apparently are monisms. We answer a valued query, "Why do Muslim terrorists and people like Mahmoud Ahmadi Nejad hate Israel?" Two monisms are 'not' a monism. And for sure, two monisms are 'not' the monism! Indeed Islam and Judaism, existing together, are dialectic! However, and this is most important of all, they are dialectically 'not' and will dialectically 'never' be syncretic! Each can (may) call other "Satan" with intra-Islam, intra-Judaism locally (i.e., either Quran or OT) 'logical' correctness; each is ideally coopposite other: dialectically a two-valued either/or pair! Is it apparent to you why Doug claims dialectic is for mindless drones? Chaldæan gnosis paraphrased, "Dialectic rules something 'not' itself!" Yet dialectic is taught in all USA schools today as the method of standard thinking! Dialectic is for idiots, troglodytes, hive drones. Are you an idiot? If you use dialectic to thingk, yes, you are an idiot! You and your ilks' time is nigh! BOAKYSAG... Doug - 21Feb2008.]

What do Chaldæan gnostics mean by wisdom and demiurge? Answer to that question unwraps a mystery, a genuine enigma, as to why Doug views Chaldæan gn¤sis as quantum.

To Chaldæan, Essene (Jesus' own brand of gnosis), and Naassene gnostics wisdom is Sophia. Wisdom is feminine, and ideally: truly hermaphroditic, a middle~includings quantum~straddle of a whole male and a whole female. Example? Adam, Adamas was a true hermaphrodite! Sophia's think_qing is ancients' wisdom, is quantum~rhetorical~dynamic~evolute~holographic~networking~self~other~referent~recursive~sophism Sophia fell to Earth due demiurge's evil, and through her wisdom struggle (Canaanite-Hebrew isra, and in Arabic, jihad; literally "struggle with G¤d") is learning how to straddle both Heaven and Earth in a kind of ultimate Quantonic Interrelationshipings' dynamic quantum~fluxings. Sophia is gradually helping quantum~gn¤stics begin their own quantum~straddlings' Chautauquas.

To Chaldæan and Naassene gnostics demiurge is a failed Earth-God who uses dialectical thing-king to create a super-logical (hylic-psychic) Hell on Earth. (A great c. 2001-2008 demiurge analogy is GW Bush.) Demiurge is masculine, androgenous, paternal, a 'christ,' authoritative, dogmatic, formal, mechanical, stubborn, decisive, unilateral, and so on...

More of Chapter 8 - 22Mar2008...

On pages 103-104 Gaffney writes, "Thus we find her—Sophia, Wisdom—described in the eighth Proverb, where we are told her presence is as old as creation." See Proverbs 8:22-24, 27, 29-31. Gaffney asks us to read about Sophia in Job, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiasticus 24:3-30. Sophia is a late addition to Judaic literature post 300 bce. Gaffney describes how OT texts suffered much retro revision. Demiurge just seems to have been unable to "get it right." We have suffered similar 'çatholiç' Irenæun and Constantinian anti-gnostic machinations with NT, especially Paul's post-Essene~Jesuit insistence re Jesus as a 'Christ,' (Essene Jesus referred those who called him a christ, "Satan," most notably Peter.) and arguably jihad-isra conflicted synoptics, especially Matthew.

If you read entirety of NT you will notice how Paul always has a thorn of some sort in his backside. It is ever there, ever wearing, ever nagging... Why? Gnosticism explains. Paul is a demiurge. A demiaugur. He took Essene Jesus and turned him into a demiaugured demiurge 'christ,' that which Essene Jesus hated and called "Satan." Paul's thorn was his own evil, in Doug's retro view. Otherwise, why the thorn? Why make Paul suffer relentlessly, his entire life? Paul as King Saul was a murderer. He killed many. Çatholiçs love dialectic and war. They love coliseums. Many males spend entire weekends watching blood sport on television. They would rather be in the coliseum seeing it in real and direct visual effect. Many of them hate blacks! Ask any black. (Doug knows this from direct experience. Spend some time in South Bend. Doug has countless stories to tell about his personal experiences with priesthood and lay alike.) They want eternal conflict. NT was written by 'çatholiçs' with an emphasis on dialectical war and conflict. N¤t much omniffering Islam. We see that in US society now, profoundly. It is evil itself ruining our nation and our world. Redeem USA! Redeem thine ownself...timings are nigh...

Those OT references describe an always presence, just a Sophial partial presence, which each of us may choose to tap—some more, some less, most n¤t at all—as a resource. Take great care with semantics surrounding 'partial presence.' Doug does n¤t intend presence as 'state,' rather presence as quantum~gn¤stic~pr¤cæssings: spiritual redeeming processings. Evolving pr¤cæssæs beg their own implicit, even tacit, evolutionarily~incomplete~partialness. Quantumly Sophia sounds like coherent, integer spin energy. As a hermaphrodite we might sense he~r as partially role~playing son. Why? Bosons middle~include both n¤nactuality and actuality, and they are key to understanding creation from any quantum perspective. So quantum~gn¤stically Sophia and son are apparently, in greater Light, quanton(son,Sophia). It is a challenge to describe this since we must also claim Sophia middle~includes actuality's gn¤stic mother and also living~Father (n¤t dead-Father). Doug says that if you believe in Sophia middle~including son,mother,living~Father it is easier to understand what is so omnifficult to describe. Doug intuits this from his own personal spiritual Chautauquas. If we use Chaldean gn¤sis and show it with quantonic script, you may see why Doug says this is a challenge:

To keep it simple Doug lumps Sophia as mother.

quanton(Mother,mother) as quanton(Mother,Sophia)

Now, that turns Doug almost all d' way ON.

More of Chapter 8...19Apr2008...

Gaffney writes about Essene~Naassene Jesus' ratification of feminine wisdom, "The ratification of Wisdom by Jesus is also evidenced by his respectful treatment of women. The text of the Naassene Sermon confirms that this new awareness of the Divine Mother was absorbed into [Gn¤sis]." Page 106. Doug's sic since Doug now views 'Gnostic Christianity' as an oxymoron since Essene Jesus refers all who call him [a] Christ, "Satan."

You have heard Doug's praise of Thomas' Gospel. Mitch urged me to first read it, roughly 2005, and it is profound and it is better even though inept çatholiçs refer it "heresy." Gaffney uses Thomas: 101 to evidence Divine Hermaphroditic Mother as ultimate fount of Wisdom:

"[Jesus said,] Whoever does not hate {hermaphroditically, both} his father and his mother as I do cannot become a disciple to Me. And whoever does [not] love his father and his mother as I do cannot become a [disciple] to Me. For my mother [gave me a falsehood] , but [my] true [Mother] gave me {spiritual} life." From Robinson, NHL. Doug's braces based upon Gaffney's remarks. NHL's brackets. We see Jesus' own quantum~both~all~while~and~many of quanton(love,hate) as redeeming quantum~durational~process c¤mplæmænts of one another. Topos' psychic-hylics can't understand that. Topos' pneumatics quantum~understand implicitly.

Gaffney writes, "The idea that the Spirit (spiritual life) flows from the Divine Mother was unprecedented in Judaism, and thus was a momentous development in the West. But the idea had long been understood in the East. [especially Hinduism]" Page 107.

	Mother vis-à-vis Father	mother vis-à-vis father
son's Love complements son's Hate:
son's Hate complements son's Love:

We ask our reader's to revel in Jesus' description in Thomas: 101 of a quantum coupling of two Quantonics' Poisson~Bracketings.

Treat it as an exercise.

Doug - 19Apr2008.

Gaffney uses "Gnostic Christianity" relentlessly now. Doug believes that we should, instead, use "Essene Gnosis," "Naassene Gnosis," and possibly "Jesuit Gnosis." Why? Again, Jesus equated Roman-Pauline "Christianity" as Satanic. That normative is emphasized even in 'approved' NT gospels. Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln, we surmise, would agree.

You may infer how Doug now views 'Catholic Christianity' as Satan, its demiurge self.

In place of Gaffney's uses of 'Gnostic Christianity,' Doug will substitute "Essene Gnosis."

Ultimately Jews lost to Romans and Yahweh failed his flock. Many Jews wondered whether they should have followed Jesus' Essene Gnosis. In retrospect, it would have been better to do that. Romans might have been disabled from their own 'intelligent redesign' of Jesus as 'christ.' Romans subsequently, unfortunately, turned Essene living~Jesuit Gnosis into a Roman dead-Jesuit Satan. We live with that today, and most of what we refer as a "christian flock" are unaware they are actually worshiping Satan. Sad, sad, sad,...

How did Romans turn Jesus into a 'christ,' a demiurge, a Satan? Gaffney recounts Irenæus' Against Heresies [~200 a.d.] which railed against Essene Jesuit Gnosis. Irenæus' efforts following Paul's footsteps invented a patriarchal (dead-Father) satanic caricature of Jesus from his (living~Father) Essene Gnosis. Recall Doug's quantonic script showing (1,(2,3),±4) as quantons(Mother(son,mother~Sophia),dichon(living_Father, dead_Father)). That script pedagogically and autodidactically attends well Thomas: 101. It also attends well Chaldean and Peratæan Gnosis. Study tetrad, ogdoad, and ogdoa[dt]ics. Note that Doug's use of a dichon begs Ockhamistically-simple, 'pure,' literal-material-objective-hylic standard Victorian interpretation vis-à-vis pneumatic quantum~spiritual~hermeneutics required for understanding quantons(1,2,3).

Bottom line here: Çatholiçism is Error, n¤t Essene Gn¤sis! Gaffney writes that, more gently, like this, "Notwithstanding the views of men like Irenæus, the Gnostic repudiation of Yahweh was not apostasy." Page 109.

Gaffney continues, "Notwithstanding the [Roman, pro dialectical, pro patriarchal, extremely hylic] views of men like Irenaeus, the Gnostic repudiation of Yahweh was not apostasy. Indeed, to many Christians it must have seemed like an advance. Certainly the demotion of Yahweh was not the end of God or heaven. The Godhead, after all, had not changed. What had changed was the concept of God, which simply reconstituted itself in human understanding. Indeed, the sloughing off of the less desirable elements in Yahweh's character surely helped many to clarify the nature of the Godhead, and thus was a positive development. Yahweh was rechristened Saklas, "the fool," and Samael, "the blind." Behind Yahweh, unseen by him, stood Wisdom (the Divine Mother, Sophia, Achamoth, the Ogdoad [or 'eight,' roughly 'two' times 1,(2,3),4], Barbelo, and so forth), now recognized as the true boss. Yahweh was simply the hired man. Above [Dialectical-literal-]Wisdom — indeed, over all — presided the incomprehensible [Essene, living-]Father about whom Jesus spoke in such loving terms. It is interesting to note that although [Dialectical-literal-]Wisdom was often [psychically-hylically-]ranked below the [dead-]Father, their relationship was intimate: [Pneumatic-]Wisdom was an integral part of the Godhead." Page 109. Doug's brackets.

This part of Chapter 8 is beyond superb. Doug is leaving a huge amount of learning out. Please acquire this text and study it. Attend its readings, though Gaffney might omnisagree, with Pagels' opus re: Johannine and Pauline gnosis.

In light of how we and Essene Jesus omnistinguish "living~Father," and 'dead-father,' what is that whole quoted paragraph's most 'deadly-sentence?' Which sentence would Pirsig pounce upon immediately as wholly antithetic his Metaphysics of Quality? Can you see it? Are you going to figure it out prior Doug's telling~showing you? Which sentence would Obama and reverend White both declare as white, Victorian insanity, and be correct in doing so? Have you figured it out? Please try. Please do not quit easily in your attempt.

Would Bergson, Pirsig, and Obama say, "State AKA stoppability is above change?" From another perspective, would they say, "Change is above state?" Would they say, "Change is perpetual?" Would they say, "State is perpetual?" Are those good hints to help you? If they are...

You may recognize, "The Godhead, after all, had not changed." That quote is that paragraph's most deadly sentence. It kills God! It stops quantum~evolutionary change by zeroing h-bar! Rather, as Essene~Gn¤stic~Jesus, Bergson, Pirsig, Obama, and Doug all agree: "The Godhead is change, perpetual change." If you want to be like G¤d, perpetually change self, individually, to become better. What have we just shown you? Social religion loves concrete: perpetual 'state.' Avoid social, anti-gnostic, static religion! What are two examples: Christianity and Islam. How do we know that? They both want to eliminate and kill other. They practice concrete religious dialectic to 'reason.' Just like Yahweh and Rome, Yahweh and Arabs, Arabs and Rome, and so on... Dialectic and its perpetual concrete is war! No dialectician can understand Essene Jesus' ancient logos. "Dialecticians are blind to the logos." Logos is Light, and Light is flux, and flux is necessary to see Change! QED! Reality is quantum~flux. Reality is n¤t 'state' canonized perpetual concrete, period! Doug, CeodE 2011-2012, has written more about Heraclitus', "the Logos, the account." See Doug's remarks in his Chapter 2 of his ongoing online textbook. Doug - 8Mar2012.

Again, with Doug's brackets, in that whole quoted paragraph, we can commence pneumatic fathoming of quantum~BAWAMings.

Doug recommendation: make Sophia your quantum~source of pneumatic Wisdom. Compare what (Doug believes) impure UChic means by 'wisdom,' i.e., 'rational' dialectical 'reason.' Bogus! Satan's dialectical wisdom is Error! Search for UChic efforts on 'Defining Wisdom.' See our 'define' problematic. Also see our 'discovery' problematic.

That wraps Chapter 8. One of best chapters so far.

We like Chapter 9's title, 'Spiritual Malfeasance.'

To Doug, now in his fourth score, Christianity is 'spiritual malfeasance.' Why? Christianity is a Roman antithesis of what Essene Jesus taught. Essene Jesus called a[ny] 'christ' "Satan." So if that imperative is plausible we can say with some authority all "Christianity is spiritual malfeasance." Essene Tribe of Judah, Beth David, Jesus is saying that 'christianity' means "religious social management of hive drone flocks." Religious social management, to Jesus, is Satanic! Further, to Doug, Christianity is, is, is, is, is..., dialectic. Gnostically 'dialectic' is Error! It is anti wisdom, anti gnosis, anti Sophia, anti Essene Jesuit, anti spirit (pneuma), and on and on and on... We see dialectic's self-indictment. It tells just one anti, and shows instead, many. Dialectic claims reality is either-or, two-valued, opposite, etc., yet shows us in our use of it how reality is implicitly heterogeneous. Dialectic unveils its own antimony. Why are religion and science modeling and describing reality dialectically when evidence abounds dialectic is simply bogus? How did Greco-Roman-Hebraics believe one implies two: either 'one' or its 'opposite,' and stop there? How did science fall into this enormous "two value" "true or false" trap. Why did David Hume describe probability as unreal? Impossible? Unreasonable? See Doug's recent c. 2008 Quantonic unveiling of omnivalent.

Marx, et al., have said, "Religion is the opiate of the mind." They are wr¤ng. Doug says, "Dialectic is the opiate of the mind." Further, any discipline which uses dialectic as its general basis of reason shall fail, ultimately.

"Doug, how can we stop using dialectic?" Study Quantonics. Read Pirsig's opus. Read William James. Read Henri Louis Bergson. Study n¤n mechanical quantum theory...

(For example, read David Bohm's opus, but realise that Bohm treats his implicate-explicate orders dialectically as dichon(implicate, explicate): i.e., either implicate or explicate. To grasp Bohm's dichon well read David Z. Albert's Quantum Mechanics and Experience, Chapter 7, 'Bohm's Theory.' Albert explains how Bohm made his explicate order (what Doug means by "quantum~actuality"), both localably particulate-objective and unitemporally-trajectory-determinate. That is a massive classical failure of thought.)

Realise that all current social organizations on Earth today fundamentally adhere some dialectical notions. Realise that gn¤sis inverts society over individual to individual over society. That is what Essene Gn¤stic Jesus taught. Societies have a strong evolutionary tendency toward dialectic and monist, OSFA notions.

By keeping individuals in power as individuals, n¤ group can impose their monism on those individuals. So any quantum~society can only be affective if it supports assiduously individual rights (n¤t civil AKA "social, the people, OSFA rights!). A major individual right is freedom from oppression by any other individual, group, society, union, whatever. In equilibrium that society of free individuals will be more productive than any monist, dialectical, group-on-top-social organization.™ You recognize this kind of tentative quantum~society when, say, your business is alive-on-fire and everyone is contributing to a coherent whole. But that tentative quantum~coherence isn't sustainable in a OSFA 'continuous' analytically-designed to maintain a monistic "rools is tools for fools," "status quo is the monistic way to go," dialectical social genre.

You recognize this coherence when your favorite basketball team is loss-proof via shared team effort as a quantum~coherent whole of coherently associated individuals. Doug isn't describing hive drones here! Humans are n¤t ants and bees. We each have individual qua, n¤ two humans are alike, regardless that dialectical 'equality' crap you hear. Our DNAs are all omniffering. Even two 'cloned' full chromosomal ensemble DNAs omniffer! We really cann¤t 'clone' anything. That is an unevident axiom of quantum~reality. Students of Quantonics please attempt to fathom how, "We really cann¤t clone anything," is close philosophical brethren of Cratylus', "You cann¤t step in the same river once," which Doug referred in our 'describe probability as unreal' link just above. If you understand that, you have acquired at least partial quantum~wisdom.

Begin 5Sep2013 Aside Re Classical notions of stoppability for purposes of measurement:

Doug asks you to compare Cratylus to Banesh Hoffmann, et al.:

• "You cann¤t step in the same river once," (Cratylus),
• "One may not measure frequency at a point," (Hoffmann),
• "...scientists assume they objectively, stoppably can measure frequency at a stopped moment...," paraphrased (Einstein, et al.)
• "...scientists (physicists) assume they can make ideal non disturbing scalar measurements of physical properties like frequency and phase...," paraphrased (Julian Schwinger)
• and so on...

It is crucial, for quantum~exegesis, to ask self, "Self, what does Cratylus mean by 'same?' " (A river is never moment-to-moment completely identical to itself. This is how Doug interprets-hermeneuts what Cratylus meant. Philosophically we have to entertain and obtain quantum~memes of partiality. Are you same today as you were yesterday, a month ago, ten years ago? Partially_q yes! Ditto river. Ditto water. Ditto steel. Ditto rock. Ditto all biologicals. To speed this up notionally, watch a fire burn. Metaphorically it is autsimilar aging (burning), then dying (ashes)...)

Essentially, classical science claims it can stop (clone, sample) evolution's absolute change and save it as a static scalar magnitude. Compare a pond and a river. Compare a lazy river to a rushing mountain stream. Do our bullets work in each of those comparisons?

If said pond is in absolute motion and its contents are hydrogen and oxygen atoms which are absolute quantum flux, is said pond stable? Can we say a pond is stable (analytic) when its local context is changing absolutely. To make a stable scalar measurement does context matter? (compare vacuum of space context and gravity of earth context: compare measurements in one then other context...measure weight in each context...compare...'classical measurable physical properties' change as context changes...) If a pond's local context is in absolute motion is it OK to say "That pond is always 'the same' regardless of context?" Classical maths make that assumption, e.g., A is A regardless...free of context. Pond is pond regardless of context. Doug's point: "Simply, that isn't real."

Cratylus wagged his finger claiming we shouldn't even talk about it. His assumption (wr¤ng) is that uncertainty is absolute. "Why is that wr¤ng Doug?"

Quantum reality is very neat, very subtle, uneasy to grasp in its quintessences. Two examples are:

• Change is absolute in quantum~reality (consider cosmic cycloidal motion, consider elemental flux, consider QED and QCD...), and
• Uncertainty is stochastic in quantum~reality.

Pound that into your noodle.

Cratylus assumed wr¤ngly: "...uncertainty is absolute." No! Uncertainty is a symptom of absolute change (like acceleration is a symptom of gravity). Like acceleration isn't identical to gravity, uncertainty isn't identical to absolute change.

End 5Sep2013 Aside Re Classical notions of stoppability for purposes of measurement.

Doug, you just wrote, HotMeme™ "In equilibrium [any] society of free individuals will be more productive than any monist, dialectical, group-on-top-social organization."™ HotMeme™. Doug, How? Why?

Cultural Relativists have been chanting a mantra of 'cultural diversity' for decades, if not a century. What Doug is describing is individual omniversity. Doug's approach, following Mae-wan Ho's quantum~lead, for example, will change USA from a melting pot cultural 'diversity' into a gnostic plenty~horn of individual~omniversity. Doug is taking CR's cultural diversity to its gnostic extreme of individual omniversity. Thanks to Mae-wan Ho's mentorship: using a quanton(quantum_social_coherence,quantum_individual_autonomy) we can offer a quantum~leap from cultural diversity to quantum~s¤cial gn¤stic~individual~omniversity: quanton(quantum_s¤cial_gn¤sis,quantum_individual_omniversity). Why? To maximize: individual freedom, self~actualization, individual~opportunity and individual~productivity. Any crippled lens of dialectic is naïvely two-valued: 'di' verse. Qua~enabled lensings of quantum~think_q~ings are gn¤stically omnivalent, omnifferings, and omniversal. When we superpose all of those individuals in quantum~coherence, we achieve perpetual betterings: Pirsig's Lilaesque incremental betterment Valuings as moral: nature's own quantum~gn¤stic pr¤cessings of æv¤lutionings.

What does Gaffney have to say about Spiritual Malfeasance re: spiritual wisdom, gn¤stic wisdom?

Chapter 9's first paragraph: "The wisdom dialogue inspired by the book of Job reached its culmination in the teachings of Jesus—yet those same teachings never found their way into orthodox 'Christianity.' [Doug's single quotes on 'Christianity' for reasons given in Chapter 8 review above.] The ['Catholic Church'] aggressively resisted the Divine Mother and succeeded in erasing every trace of her from its official doctrines." Page 110. Doug's bold, brackets and single quotes for what Doug views as "Satanic" analogous appellations and onomas.

Why? Predominant Greco-Roman-Hebraic beliefs at that time were funda mentally patriarchal, society over individual, authoritative ('christ' means manager), anti-individual, dialectical, monist, "our way or death's way," etc.

A simple way of saying that is 'Roman Catholic Christianity' attempted to destroy wisdom and enabled Satan, enabled dialectical "dead-father" Error! Demiurge!

That is clearly one view of religious history. Doug agrees with it.

Why? Doug's studies of quantum memes and memeos about reality see a indubitable correlation twixt classical 'scientific' thing-king and classical 'religious' thing-king for our western cultural past's, at least, two millennia.

Similar how Roman Çatholiçs — using OSFA anti heresy (anti choice), anti gnostic, anti feminine, anti individual~wisdom polemics, dogma and social orthodoxy — attempted to destroy individual spirit and wisdom made available to us through gnosis, western 'scientists' attempted to destroy individual change-based subjective pursuits in favor of social-class one size fits all orthodox concrete science based in dialectical objectivism: Error! A way you can pursue this thread historically by reading:

• (~900-800 bce:) Homer's Iliad, total civil and barbaric worship of dialectical war as noble and excellent, then moving forward and studying,
• (600-300 bce:) Parmenides (beware: Parmenides' dichon(is_not, is) is 'dialethism' AKA dialectic, enabler of classical notions of 'ideally' oppositional contra 'di' ction AKA 'two-valued' logic; Parmenides is the bad guy, the Satanic anti gnostic dead_father of modern EOOO dialectic), Plato, (beware: Plato hoisted Parmenides' dialethism to an ultimate, bogus concrete classical notion of immutable and stable form, precursor of western cultures' 'law'), Aristotle (cemented Parmenides' and Plato's anti gnostic dialectic as sillygistic 'truth' and concrete substance...) and compare pre quantum Heraclitus (his pro gnosis, "Dialectic is Error, and Dialectic is War!"), jump ahead a tad more and read,
• (1225-1274 ce:) Thomas Aquinas, a pure dialectician who worshiped Aristotle's dialogical BS, jump ahead to,
• (1800s-1900s ce:) Jacques Maritain (his anti gnostic dialectic) and compare William James and Henri Louis Bergson (their pro gnosis and pre quantum intuitions).
• If you wish to pursue issues involved here even further, seek out and study Chaldæan (e.g., G. R. S. Mead), Peratæan (e.g., Elaine Pagels, etc.), Essene, Naassene, Valentinuæan, and Kabbalic (esp. Gershom Scholem's Kabbalah...) toposical and ogdoatic gnoses compared to Irenæan, Constantinian, and say Ptolemæan anti-gnosis. Doug - 1-10May2008.

Early churches worshiping Jesus treated men and women as equals, as peers, as compeers, as Jesus had exemplified during his life and his teaching. Both women and men taught, again, as exemplified by Jesus during his life. Romans destroyed all that and pursued a Greco-Roman patriarchy. They invented Satan's own 'religion:' 'Christianity.' 'Christianinanity.' 'Managementinanity.' "By 200 ce women were relegated to subservience. Nor did their lowly stature improve over many centuries." Page 110.

Gaffney refers Timothy re: "women as subservient" as doctrine. This is simply Roman Catholic Bu()sh()! Pure Satanic Error! It is anti Sophia, anti sophism, anti feminine, anti individual, anti wisdom, anti quantum~realism! Damn them! Damn them! Damn them! We shall have our way with them, all of them. Their gradual extinction shall be slow and miserable, Catholics and all their BS doctrines shall become religious lepers of Earth's novel quantum~gn¤stic~societies. Be keenly aware that these 'catholics' burned gnostics in Roman coliseums for fun — ha, ha. Be aware that they burned Giordano Bruno at 'the stake,' in 1600 ce. Be aware that they murdered Hypatia. Be aware that they kept Galileo under permanent house arrest nearly all of his life. Our list can fill a library of opus scum d'evil.

Jesus' pneuma taught that male and female are quantum~complementary via perfect hermaphrodicity of 'the Godhead.' Gaffney makes that unambiguously clear. For 'catholics' to demote women, taken in Jesus' quantum~complementary and pneumatic light, is Satanic! Simply, the Catholic Church is Satan! We have gnostic evidence to show us that is what Jesus would say, "The Catholic Church is Satan." Doug believes that, with deepest possible and irrevocable con(m)victions, Doug believes that. Current implications of this are enormous! If citizens of USA elect a 'catholic' to office, they are electing a representative of Satan to office. We currently have five of these Satanics on our USA Supreme Court!

So you are gonna say, "Doug, you are a bigot!" I understand! I worry about my own legacy in terms of you n¤t understanding my views.

I am bigoted against dialectic and all who practice it, in whatever ways. I admit that. Dialectic is based in monism: people who accept and believe OSFA. Doug believes MSFA. OSFA types practice ideal Platonic either-or. Doug hates that. Doug believes quantum~reality is both~and and everywhere~associative~included~middle. OSFA types believe classical reality is everywhere-excluded-middle-dissociative. Doug is bigoted on those bases of judgment.

OSFA types say there is only one choice: theirs...good for all time, forever state-ic, concrete and immutable. Doug says all of us as individuals have unlimited individual choices and our choices are adaptive, dynamic. Again, Doug is bigoted given his abilities to omnistinguish omnifferencings in those two classes of 'bases of judgment:' classical CTMs vis-à-vis quantum QTMs. Classicists are bigoted that their one choice is the monistic choice forever. Doug is bigoted that all choosings change radically, always.

Doug is bigoted in favor of evolution (radical adaptive change through quantum~selection processings which allow ensembles of selectors to vote for their perceived next's betterings) and evolution's gradual selection of apparent betterings. Who created evolution? Doug does n¤t k~n¤w! Doug can only be partially k~n¤w~ings! But Doug quantum~metaphorically adheres Essene Jesus' pneumatic teachings which say that quantum~gn¤sis' Mother ("the G¤dhead") created dynamic evolution. Recall Doug's Peratæan~gn¤stic quanton(Mother,quanton(son,quanton(Sophia,dichon(living_Father, dead_father)))). Depicted there in quantonic script Mother, as Jesus taught, is The G¤dhead.

Our script's dichon is, in a sense, Dialectic. It allows monists to stupidly, hylically either-or choose dead_father as their demiurge. 'Catholics' did! Essene Jesus hates that, and he said so over and over and over...and as Gaffney shows us above those whom Jesus refers his disciples must both hate and love their mother and their father. Jesus essentially asks his disciples to love Mother, son, Sophia and living_Father, and hate dead_father. That is Doug's religious source, his spiritual source of his own bigotry. So, go ahead, if you want to, and call Jesus "a bigot." Dialectically you may choose either-or. Quantumly you are always iteratively selecting their quantum~complements which means you realise that quanton(love,hate) means "love is in hate and hate is in love," just like Doug's ancient "quanton(livings,dyings) means "livings are in dyings and dyings are in livings." We both love and we hate. We are livings and we are dyings. Analogously bigotry is in its complement and its complement is in bigotry. We have a huge lesson here if we choose to lose dialectic and choose to gain quantum~gn¤sis.

So, if you want to call Doug "a bigot," Doug would ask that you dump your implicit dialectic and go quantum, allowing you to say, "Doug's bigotry is in its quantum~complement and its quantum complement is in Doug's bigotry." If you do n¤t yet grasp what Doug means, why are you reading this? You are already extinct.

"But Doug, I do not want to become extinct!" OK! Give up your thing-king! Give up CTMs! Give up dialectic! Commence think_q-king. Start now learning about quantum~reality. How? Read every paper and article you can find on quantum. Go to your local bookstore (online or in that stupid shopping center) and buy 2-3 quantum texts which appeal most to you. Read them, using Feynman's method. Study Quantonics. Study how to become a student of Quantonics. Study QTMs. Study quantons. Study probabilityings, plausibilityings, and likelihoodings (See Doug's QELR of stochastic. See Doug's PNFings.). Study coquecigrues. Study quantum~logic. Study macroscopic quantum~uncertainty. Study Bergson's philosophy (CE, TaFW, AItM, etc.). Study Pirsig's philosophy (Read ZMM and Lila...read SODV here in Quantonics.). Study gnosis (This page you are in right now is all about quantum~gn¤sis and how it rebukes classical Roman contrived 'christianity.'). Study Heraclitus and Zeno. Read as much as you can about quantum~memes (memes are 'ideas' which evolve, adapt, and change; by way of comparison Plato's idea is immutable, concrete...) and memeos. Fathom how you can use quantum memes to manage change and uncertainty.

Listen to what Gaffney has to say on pages 111 and 112:

"But the Church's subordination of women was only the most visible sign and symptom of a deeper malady: the obfuscation of the vital role of the Holy Spirit. One of the earliest lists of orthodox scriptures appeared around the time of Irenaeus (180 C.E.). It is known today as the Muratorian Canon, named after Ludovico Antonio Muratori, the Italian archaeologist who discovered the Latin fragment in 1740. Its date is disputed, but most scholars believe the list was from an earlier rather than a later period. Conspicuously absent from it is any mention of the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of Thomas, both of which, as we have seen, associate the Spirit with the Divine Mother.

"The Church's official erasure of the Mother had the effect of reducing the Wisdom literature to mere scribblings from the past. The last books of the Old Testament became a quaint collection of gargoyles with no apparent connection with or relevancy to the Gospels. The Church expunged every image of the feminine from its official teachings, the sole exception being the Blessed Mary, mother of Jesus. Given the official misogyny, the question as to why Mary was retained is an interesting one. The probable answer is that there was simply no way to be rid of her. In the year 427 C.E., after the defeat of paganism, Cyril, archbishop of Alexandria, delivered a famous speech in Ephesus, Greece, in which he proclaimed Mary the "Mother of God." Thereafter, statues of Mary were installed in the pagan temples in place of Artemis, Demeter, and Aphrodite. Some of the temples were even converted into Christian basilicas. No surprise that the Virgin Mary immediately acquired a quasi-divine status, a curious compensatory phenomenon that the Church fathers tolerated over the centuries even while frowning upon it.

"Although the Church officially retained the Holy Spirit as an equal member of the Godhead, the Paraclete was either rendered neuter or transformed into a masculine energy imbued with the seminal virility of a pagan fertility god. We are informed in the infancy Gospels of Luke and Matthew—doubtless both late additions—that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, the mother of God, accounting for the virginal conception of Jesus—a contrivance that blurred and even obliterated the enormous difference between sexual insemination and the descent of grace. Another effect was to trivialize the Spirit to the point of meaninglessness. No wonder the term Holy Spirit has become a cliché! Yet we need to remember that this stands in sharp contrast with its potency in the first century C.E., when the expression generated incredible excitement." Doug's bold and red. Doug effaced Gaffney's footnotes. Doug has a strong inclination, just now, to rename 'current era, c.e.,' to "Current Error, C. E." Surely, Earth humanity has been living in an dialectical era of Error since at least Parmenides. For fun let's invent our own and call it Current era of dialectical Error, C. e. o. d. E, or as an acronym CeodE. Clearly it infected and metastasized 'catholicism' massively.

So we now fathom rather deeply how Roman Catholics are responsible for decimation and attempted annihilation of Cathars, Templars, women, wisdom, sophism, and gnosis. Catholics attempted to do to gnosis a holocaust similar what Hitler attempted in his burning and decimation of Jews. Whether Catholic anti gnostic~wisdom Inquisition, whether Nazi anti gnostic Jewish Holocaust, it is all anti-gnostic~Jesus patriarchy, all anti~quantum stupidity! But they failed! How can Doug write that? Doug is writing against catholic crimes against humanity and feminism. Those words are Doug's own anti 'catholic' bigotry! Residue of Doug's former SOMiticism. Too, Gaffney is writing about evils of 'catholicism.' Most authors represented in this Quantonics web page are writing about it. Our gnostic congregation is growing rapidly. Best of all, we have quantum~reality, Essene Jesus, John~Mary, Didymos Thomas, countless others like them, plus Heraclitus, Cratylus, Zeno of Elea, Bergson, James, Pirsig, countless quantum researchers, all in addition to practicing gnostics, urging us on. When one fathoms non dialectical 'science' as wisdom, one commences accepting our own Quantum~Gn¤stic view. But one also needs to accept our view that "science is ihn spirit and spirit is ihn science." Why? HotMeme™ "Good scihæncæ issi gn¤stic!"™ HotMeme™. Good individual bettership of spirit, pneuma is gn¤sis.

A powerfully interesting and illuminating question thrusts itself upon us here. Specifically Gaffney's clause, "... trivialize the Spirit (pneuma) to the point of meaninglessness..." Why would 'catholic' patriarchy do that? Gnosis makes answering this query much easier. Recall gnostic topos? Top down: pneuma (spirit~wisdom~feminine~hermaphroditic), psychic (intellect-theory-abstraction), hylic (patriarchal-material-objective-substantial-literal-dialectical). Paternalism hates anything, any notion, which threatens it. So hylics hate psychics and supremely despise pneumatics. You can immediately surmise how any patriarchy would despise gnosis, fear gnosis, and try to eliminate gnosis by declaring gnosis' psychic and pneumatic levels 'heresy.' Catholically one must be either for the church or against the church! Dialectically either for 'patriarchal hylicity' or against it. If you are against it, "You are Satan." What is most interesting here is that Essene-Naassene gnostic Jesus claimed "Hylics who worship a 'dead-father' (i.e., 'a hylic, literal, dialectical father') are worshiping Satan." Paraphrased. One must realise that hylics who want to emerge ascendently must evolve via wisdom first to a psychic level of topos and ultimately to a pneumatic level of topos. Doug - 23May2008.

Gaffney's next section of Chapter 9 is 'The Gospel of Hermas.'

Gaffney, quantumly, kicks religious ass here. He shows us that 'God's Church' is quantum. How do we know? It is built upon flux! "But Doug, how can you say that?" Like this: God's Church is built upon water! Water is quantum~flux's hylic-psychic analogue! Mythologically water represents quantum~flux AKA gn¤stic~change, perpetual~change, unrelenting~change...

Catholics did their best to destroy this ancient mythical 'notion' of reality as radical change. Holy Mother is this godhead of radical change! Please, again, recall quanton(Mother,quanton(son,quanton(mother,[Ff]ather))). [Ff] represents dichon(Father, father). Lower case 'father' is the demiurge AKA Satan's representative 'on' Earth. Upper case Father is whom Jesus refers "the living~Father" AKA G¤d's, M¤thær's representative ihn Earth. One must understand quantum memeos of recursive~self~other~reference and emerscence and emerscenture to fathom how M¤thær could spawn G¤d and all of G¤d's evolutionary quantum~cræatih¤nings.

Let's wrap this section up with Gaffney's "The displacement of Sophia by the Church in the Gospel of Hermas is a shocking example of male chauvinism gone amok." Page 114.

The Roman Catholic Church wanted and attempted to take Mother's place as the godhead. Prior on page 114, Gaffney writes, "In a denunciation of schismatics [dialectisms] Cyprian wrote, 'He cannot have God for his Father who has not the Church for his Mother'."

We see, ad occulos, eidetically 'the Roman Catholic Church' is the demiurge, a pretender, 'church as father.' We cann¤t make it any simpler than that folks!

In balance of this chapter Gaffney goes on to show how Roman 'catholics' "...tampering with scripture" to impose patriarchy on their invented, contrived father-headed 'church.' Bogus! Garbage! Spiritual ineptness. Stupidity! Ignorance! Deceit! Monism! Bunk! Gaffney calls it "soiled linen." Gaffney refers The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church, by scholar S. G. F. Brandon, a 1951 study which benudes all this opus dei, all this opus dead-father d'evil. We may see here as Doug has independently found in his quantum studies that 'law' is social hegemony, means for controlling 'the flock.' To good, Paul agreed, we must toss out 'law.' Very gnostic, but Paul invented 'Christ' (i.e., 'social manager') in place of gn¤stic Jesus who called those who referred him 'Christ,' "Satan." In that process Jesus' own Naassene and Essene gnosis was intentionally and maliciously all but obliterated, which said Roman Catholic Church adored and worse-shiped.

Balance of this chapter puts Peter and Mark apocryphally in great uncertainty. Was Peter "Satan" as Jesus called him? Was Peter "Rock of my Church" as Roman inane contrived Matthew claimed? We leave this to your own judgment. You grasp how Doug distills it. Quantum~Gn¤sis makes hermeneutics, understanding and distillation much easier.

Adepts should realize that 'rock' and 'stone,' gnostically are symbolically hermaphroditic.

Doug absolutely is astonished by that since Doug's apparent birth name was 'Rensel,' later evolved to 'Renselle.' Hebraic ren sel means "radiating rays of rock." Sounds a tad like Prince Louis de Broglie's quantum "matter waves." Of course, quantum waves have qua to hermaphroditically and superpositively copulate, commingle, and coinside. We call it "animate, sorso EIMA." Crudely, flux is crux since HotMeme™ "...flux fux flux..."™ HotMeme™. We call flux~fuxing "quantum~phase~encoding and quantum~cancellation depending upon prior partial presence~absence of quantum~entanglement." Quantum flux~fuxing may result in lots of 'sparks' which we quantumly refer as "scintillation." Doug - 7Jun2008

I'll try to do a bit on this each day... Doug - 7Jun2008. Minor updates 8Jun2008 - Doug.

As an afterthought re: Chapter 9, Doug feels a strong need, a strong urge to offer a potent Gaffney comment: his two paragraphs ending Chapter 9 from page 122. (You need to read pages 111-122 carefully and with an open mind. Probably most important pages Doug has read since he commenced his study of Western religion. Here are those last two Chapter 9 paragraphs.

"It is easy to show that all three of the synoptic accounts of the New Testament are parallel to each other in structure. For example, Peter's Confession (or his Profession of Faith) also occurs in Mark 8. But the line "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church" is conspicuously absent. Nor can it be found in Luke 9. Because the famous line is absent from the original source document—Mark—the obvious question arises: How did it find its way into Matthew? The Roman Catholic Church has no answer to this question. The evidence we have reviewed strongly suggests that the line in Matthew equating Peter with the foundational rock of the Church was a fabrication, the result of tampering, perhaps, by someone with a political agenda.

"The oldest extant copy of the Gospel of Matthew dates to no earlier than 200 C.E. If some lucky archaeological find in the future should produce an older draft—say, a copy of Matthew dating to the last years of the first century—we will probably discover that the line "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church" is nowhere in evidence. The omission will be as telling as a cloven hoof print in the mud. The main scriptural foundation for the authority of the institutional Church of Rome will have been demolished, once and for all, clearing the way for the rediscovery of the Wisdom teachings of Jesus by many more Christians, leading to a spiritual renaissance in the West. Toward this end, we shall now look more closely at the primary source document for this book, the Naassene Sermon." Doug effaced footnotes. Doug's bold and color.

Gaffney makes it abundantly clear: 'The Çatholiç Çhurch' is a Satanic ruse, and that's all.

If Doug can do little more than learn that...something which he has suspected since he was a child...this whole web page and all of Doug's quantum~learning efforts in Quantonics have paid off. Of course that is Doug's view, n¤t the view. Doug-12Jun2008.

13Jun2008 - Doug's next chapter for review is Chapter 10, 'The Primary Source Document: The refutation of All Heresies.'

Those of you well aware of Doug's efforts in Quantonics understand that Doug's motivation in creating Quantonics is to invent n¤væl modes of think_q~ing, QTMs, which can, will, and shall subside Classical Thing-king Methods, CTMs. That subsidence will take at least a century and perhaps as long as a millennium. CTMs have been ingrained in human minds for at least three millennia, from about Homer's Iliad until now CeodE 2008 early in Earth's third Millennium.

Doug is regurgitating here his Quantonic raisons dêtre as a reminder and to explicitly criticise Chapter 10's reuse of Hippolytus' document title: The refutation of All Heresies. Our criticism is intended as means of educing your own gn¤sis, your own auto didactism.

Prior commencing our Chapter 10 review efforts, a crucial portion of historical evidence must be made unambiguously clear at this juncture.

• Irenæus wrote Adversus Haereses.
• Hippolytus wrote The refutation of All Heresies.
• Irenæus lived 2^nd century a.d. through early 3^rd century a.d.
• Hippolytus lived 3^rd century a.d.
• Irenæus was Hippolytus' mentor, i.e., Hippolytus was Irenæus' protégé.

It is pure conjecture, but Irenæus probably taught Hippolytus how to tamper with biblical texts to make them c a t h o l i c - patriarchal, etc. As Gaffney will show us, Hippolytus did just that, in spades.

Doug wants to do some simple linguistics here. Let's assume 'the' is a definite article. Let's assume that 'of' is a simple preposition. Let's further assume that 'all' is an expectation of totality, an anticipation of a subset as its own complete-totality, explicitly "all heresies." Quantumly all of those terms are problematic. You may examine our QELPs and~¤r QELRs of each: the, of, and all.

Adepts may easily see that any classical notion of 'all' as 'finally, state-ically, concretely complete,' violates Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems, quantum~evolution, quantum~partiality, Heisenberg's uncertainty ...

(p • m N•h

(least Planck quantum of action, i.e., least uncertainty, requires N=1; macroscopic uncertainty probably starts to
manifest macroscopically at some much larger N, say as a swag, in realm of ~10¹⁰ to ~10¹⁵),

...i.e., quantum~n¤ncommutability of, e.g., position and momentum, too, any pair of quantum~ømnihtørables, due absolute motion~flux, ...

(here we see how gnosis' metaphor of water symbolises absolute motion of quantum~flux)
of multiverses: simply, state-ic laundry lists do n¤t 'work'),

...Quantonics' macroscopic uncertainty, Bell's Inequalities, and quantum abs¤lutæness as both :

• c¤mplætæ - æv¤lvæs ahllings (ahllings as absolutely changings quantons, e.g., primally quanta) and
• comsihstænt - ahlways æv¤lvæs.

See our Absoluteness as quanton(completenessings,comsistencyings). Also see Doug's recent 2007-2008 efforts on notions of 'unification' as a kind of 'all.' Simply, n¤ 'all' can finally be all since quantum reality evolves relentlessly at up to Planck rates. A reality which is always evolving is always quantum~partial, so any 'all' too is always partial.

"Why did Doug use 'changings' as plural?"

Quantum~flux affectors are ubiquitous and multiplicate. Just as there are many truthings, too there are many affectorings. Recall how classicists mostly adhere 1-1 root cause determinism? That is, one cause, one effect? Quantum~reality's flux pluralism says, "Classicists are naïve," Quantum reality is a manyings-manyings radically-uncertain multiplicately-affective ihndætærminism. Like this:

All ephemera are changings. All ephemera are unlimited nexi holographically affectings lesser and greater all other affectings.

We might now claim we have adequately covered 'the,' 'of,' and 'all' and that leaves us with 'refutation' and 'heresies.'

Let's cover 'refute' first as verb form of noun 'refutation.'

Apple's Thesaurus says 'refute's' synonyms are: disprove, prove wrong, prove false, debunk, discredit, invalidate, and most formally confute.

All of those terms are classically dialectical. In quantum~reality dialectic is bogus. Gn¤sis significantly agrees with quantum~reality, so inferentially gn¤sis claims that dialectic is bogus too.

That shows us that a key term, "Refutation," in this Chapter 10's title is genuinely bogus.

Quantum~reality demonstrates and describes how all notions of ideal, objective classical negation are wr¤ng. Simply all quantum~flux is positive and quantum~flux may be tentatively~canceled by other quantum~flux, but quantum~flux may nævær bæ classically perpetually-negated!

Let's cover 'heresy' as singular of 'heresies.'

Apple's Thesaurus says 'heresy's' synonyms are: dissent, nonconformity, heterodoxy, unorthodoxy, apostasy, blasphemy, freethinking, agnosticism [Error: actually 'agnosis' is a dialectical antonym of 'heresy'], and atheism.

We see here how 'The Church' is formally inconsistent in its usage of terms. Agnostic means 'not gnostic.' That is how Apple's Dictionary describes it. But Çatholiçism hates Gnosticism as heresy, and heretical Church dogma. So 'The Church' is actually agnostic! This is very similar what Gaffney uncovered in Chapter 9 re: Matthew's claim of Peter as 'the rock,' yet no such claims appear in either Mark or Luke. Alleged is 'The Church' tampered with Mathew. We now allege 'The Church' tampered with root semantic of 'agnostic.' Actually gnosis IS Sophial light, Essene Tribe of Judah, Jesuit wisdom, individual wisdom. Then dialectically we must con(m)clude Çatholiçally that agnosis is individual stupidity, ignorance taken to its ultimate. Agnosis: against wisdom. That's pretty much what Church leaders want from their flocks, won't you agree? But popular, colloquial culture believes agnosis means atheism. We see Çatholiçism at work again distorting history to its own Satanic advantage.

As you can see 'heresy' is complicated since Apple's Thesaurus is wr¤ng in using 'agnosticism' as a synonym of 'heresy.'

If we look, instead, at Roget's Thesaurus it shows us, more correctly, that 'heretic's' synonyms (Doug selected a subset which fit our local con(m)text here) are: heresiarch, Gnostic, Manichaean, Catharist, Catharan, Paulician, Albigensian, and Antinomian. We agree with those. We aren't religiously educated well enough to know whether other Roget's entries for heretic are valid, but we feel sure they are.

Readers should know that agnosis is anti-gnosis. So for Apple's Thesaurus to claim that agnosis is a synonym of heresy is a grave mistake! Çatholiçs view gnosis as a worst case exemplar of heresy! Çatholiçs attempted to kill all gnostics and destroy all gnostic texts.

Again, if we harvest our quantum~reality trove of pro~quantum semantics we find that heresy as choice is viewed dialectically as wrong, yet quantumly choice, choosings, evolutionary selection, decidability are all Essence of quantum~reality. So without doubt The Refutation of all Heresies and alternatively Adversus Haereses as text book titles we may freely indict as dialectically anti-quantum. Doug - 14Jun2008.

Let's find out what Gaffney has to say about this.

After having progressed to start of our Chapter 11 review of Gaffney's learned text, we plumb our desire to offer a kind of Quantonics~Pirsigean overview in light of MoQ as potentially quantum~gn¤stic. Let's take a look at Pirsig's reality hierarchy:

• Intellect (top)
• Society
• Biological
• Inorganic (bottom)

You may recall from our 2003-2004 (October, 2003 through March, 2004 TQS News) Feuilleton Chautauqua I that Doug evolved Pirsig's hierarchy into a plausible quantum metaphorical complement. Our efforts there offer inadequate scope for what we are describing and reviewing here. That Feuilleton isn't about gnosis, even though it arrived at a gnostic requisite: individual sovereign society. Let's evolve Pirsig's basic hierarchy to include some quantum~gn¤sis, Essene Jesus' (we infer) style. It will benefit our audience — our invaluable readers — if we first show that hierarchy, just above, with our gn¤sis added and then show our evolved quantum version with our gn¤sis added:

• Intellect (top)

• classical-dialectical-anti-heretical-anti-gnostic
• quantum~complementary~gnostic

• Society
• Biological
• Inorganic (bottom)

Doug's simple pragma of adding those two sub bullet items offers a profundity extraordinaire!

When Doug wrote that Feuilleton Chautauqua, he knew naught re: gnosis. All of what Doug has learned since then (roughly, CeodE 2005) about gnosis has made it possible here and now to exegetise that profundity quantumly: a iamai. "But Doug, what is a Feuilleton, and what is a Chautauqua?"

Chautauqua - Doug first learned Chautauqua from Pirsig when he wrote of North American Indians using it (that term) while he was in Montana and later in Pirsig's efforts re: WJS and Boston area NAI 'beanholes.' In Australia we would say, "walk about." More formally we would say "peregrination."

Feuilleton - A Feuilleton is one meme Doug learned from reading Hermann Hesse's (CeodE 1943) Magister Ludi. It means serial, almost self~effacingly~cartoonesque, news. It is a kind of colloquial for contemporary 'gospel,' i.e., messages of wellness, messages of gnosis, which Doug might call, using Pirsig's nomenclature, "Value News." BTW, Magister Ludi (Master of Games) won a 1946 Nobel prize in Literature (in those days a Nobel prize actually carried some merit).

"But Doug, what profundity did you experience?"

This: when you read that Feuilleton through its 2003-2004 segue, you will find that Doug, pre~his~own~gnosis understanding had replaced Pirsig's 'Intellect' with 'Individual,' and alternatively replaced it with a more quantum~coinsident "Individual~Intellect." In that Feuilleton Doug taught himself that Society has n¤ intellect, and its view of intellect is what society refers as "common sense." Guess what? Dialectic is social, we, common sense! Guess what? Gn¤sis is extraordinary individual sense! For this web page you might classically, dialectically ask, "What's the difference?" This: Christianity (catholic contrived anti-Jesus) says, "God is separate, dialectically separate (lisr) from individuals." Quantum~gn¤sis says, "G¤d issi ihn us, and wæ aræ ihn G¤d!" Christianity is socially dialectical (Error; wisdom absent in any wisdom of sharing God's nature; referred using topos as "hylic," and "psychic")! Essene Jesuit Gn¤sis is individual Sophia (wisdom; wisdom shared with G¤d; referred using topos as "pneuma"). Refer our Topos Table.

Given that, we can show our bullet list revised like this:

• Intellect~Individual (top)

• quantum~complementary~gnostic

• Society (society has n¤ intellect, instead runs on automatic 'common sense,' and 'rules is tules for fules')

• classical-dialectical-anti-heretical-anti-gnostic

• Biological
• Inorganic (bottom)

If you ponder all this well, you commence an individual understanding of your own that society's greatest goal is to destroy individualism. Society fears and hates individualism. Friends, what did you just omniscover? That is why gn¤stic Jesus was crucified! Society, Greco-Roman-Hebraic societies feared and hated him! Jews, Greeks, and Roman-inanes wanted to use 'The Temple' for money-changing and financial dealings similar Wall Street in USA today. Jesus hated that misuse of 'The Temple.' He acted, individually, on his hatred. We call it "gnosis." Romans hate gnosis! Why? Society, especially patriarchal society, has n¤ means of controlling gnostics. Society could n¤t control Jesus, so they killed him. They couldn't control gnostics, so they killed them. Just like GW Bu()sh() today: he cann¤t control Middle-East so he invades it and kills Muslims with utter disregard for millennia of social~cultural inertia which is incapable of turning on Bu()sh()'s naïve "we must, 'Rule of Law,' stay there indefinitely" dialectical 'Christian-Satanic' digm.

Bu()sh(), in Doug's view, is Earth's most coprolytic trueper! The hylic par excellence! A bottom-dwelling troglodytic neandertal.

What does Doug's profundity do? What is its pragma? It demotes dialectic and all of its classical bilge under Society. Gn¤sis stays where it belongs as more highly evolved Individual Sophial~wisdom.

It says simply that social 'rule of law' is n¤t above, n¤t even a social-compeer of, Individual Gn¤sis. We see ad oculos why and how ancient gnostics said that "Monism is deceit." and "Individualism begs antinomialism."

Allow Doug to take this a bit further. You recall evidence of Chaldæan tetragrammation in our QCD Table above? What about Pirsig's MoQ's four levels? Quantumly like this:

quantum_actuality

quanton(Individual_Intellect,quanton(society,quanton(biological,inorganic))).

As you may choose to observe quantum~holographic interrelationshipings ahllæg¤hrihcahlly abound.

Classically it looks like this:

which distills to:

...i.e., pure dialectic!

Our quantum tetragramation doesn't show quantum~n¤nactuality. Classical reality denies any 'existence' of n¤nactuality. You may use plurals and present participlings on all instances of quanton and dichon at will. Subjunctive and other irrealistic use of dichons and dichonings, be aware, break SOM's canon 'laws' that reality is monistic, stable-immutable, and SOM objects are independent of one another.

"Doug, where does quantum~actuality fit in our QCD Table's Chaldæan tetragramation?" Superb query. It isn't a perfect instantiation, but living~Father represents roughly quantum~actuality, so that is where Doug would instance it. Notice how quantum~reality's EIMA superposes compenetratingly living~Father in all and all in living~Father. Living~Father then is in G¤d (represented by Chaldæan tetragrammation) and G¤d is in living~Father who subsumes Pirsig's MoQ tetragrammation. Any way you look at it, "We are in It and It is in us! QELRed: Wæ aræ ihn Iht amd Iht issi ihn uhs!"

Isn't that remarkable! Wow! Awesome!

Gaffney quotes Thomas Gospel at Chapter 11's beginning. Let's pick up there, next, OK? See you soon.

Doug - 28Jul2008.

Gaffney's second mast quote (of three) on Chapter 11 is from Gospel of Philip. Both Thomas and Philip gospels are crucial to our studies of gnosis. Over last two years Doug has sampled Philip sporadically. Gaffney's second mast quote begged a scratch read of Philip. That reading is underway now. Doug found a Philip saying which tells a very large story re: classical social and religious hegemony. Here it is:

RULERS

The rulers wanted to fool us,
since they saw we were connected with the good.
They took the names of the good
and gave them to the not good
so with names they could trick
and rope us to the not good.
As though doing us a favor,
they took names from the not good
and placed them on the good.
They knew what they were doing.
They wanted to grab those of us who were free
and make us eternal slaves.

Page 262, The Gnostic Bible, edited by Barnstone and Meyer, Shambhala, 2003, hardbound.

For Doug, in Doug's self~confident opinion, that describes Roman C a t h o l i c i s m and most of its P r o t e s t a n t offshoots almost perfectly!

Rulers - AKA "The first divines." Voltaire: "The first divine wast the first rogue who met the first fool."

Rulers - It is a story of what actually happened.

That is what we, as gnostics, must undo. It is one of the greatest evils ever perpetrated against humankind.

We might ask a relevant question, "Why did Robert M. Pirsig write Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (published 1974) and Lila (published 1991)?"

Simple answer: Pirsig's two books are about Good. He writes about two Goods: first good and second good, DQ and SQ. His only evil is 'not good:' ESQ.

What has happened? Rulers tentatively accomplished 'not good.' But Good is making a comeback, and we call it "gnosis." Doug calls it, "quantum~gn¤sis." Quality is about to take 'not good' down.

How did Jon say it, do you recall? Doug's paraphrasing recall, "And for the first time since Rulers took power, Good (S¤phial Gn¤sis) got up and knocked (dialectical) truth ('not good') on its ass."

Doug - 22Aug2008.

29Aug2008 - Let's continue our ongoing review of Chapter 11.

This chapter's title is 'The Grail.' In this chapter, Gaffney picks up on some memes he omniscussed earlier, for example, immanence...in Chapter six. Like this, which we have already shown you elsewhere:

"As it turned out, the propitious times never arrived. On the contrary, the individuals in the Gnostic Christian communities who might have made the difference became the object of one of the greatest witch-hunts1 in human history. Swept up in a broadening net of Church repression, they disappeared into one of the anonymous eddies of history. The passage of time has been anything but kind because the magnitude of our loss has yet to be recognized, which explains why the spiritual impoverishment of the West is ongoing. Nearly twenty centuries after Jesus first spoke the words, they lie on the page like some cuneiform text, in wait of the happy hour when Christianity will finally rediscover their meaning." Doug's footnote. Page 74, last paragraph, chapter 6, 'The Teaching that didn't Take,' Gnostic Secrets of the Naassenes, by Mark H. Gaffney, Inner Traditions, 2004. 1 A 40+ year 'c a t h o l i c' inquisition of Cathars, a multi-hundred year pro-social-anti-individual inquisition of 'witches,' hereticals (heresy means choice), and anti-dogmatists. In those days Doug would have been branded a 'witch,' a 'heretic.' What most people do n¤t yet realize, and what Gaffney is writing about, today c. 2008 is that real... anti Essene Jesus, anti tribe of Judah, anti gnostic, anti individual, pro social... ...dogmatic evil emerges from Satan's own patriarchal den: the Vatican't. Study our Classical vav Quantum Religion Recommended Reading page. Read, for example, Elaine Pagels' text, The Origin of Satan and pay attention to what she says 'Satan' means.

Part of what we lost is a memetic, yes enthymemetic, understanding and grasp of what 'grail' etymology is. But that understanding is only part of what Gaffney means by "...our loss."

What did individuals lose? How can individuals know? Will it help individuals realise their loss and regain it? How does this relate to MoQ? How does this relate with Doug's quantum~quantonics? Does it matter? Gaffney says it matters. Doug agrees.

Perhaps a list will assist. We can only emerq a partial list since our personal growing qua itself is always attenuated by its own evolutionary-incompleteness, but let''s do our best and amelioratively emersce a list and incrementally learn more, OK?

We offer a tentative and extensible list of what (whatings) individuals believe are personal losses, "What individuals have lost:"

• "The Grail," cup as hermaphroditic, hermaphrodicity of godhead and primal son of man, cup as included~middlings of all reality, cup as a Möbius~open both vessel and rod,
• Anima, animus, pneuma, (spirit as flux, alternating cup up then cup down, a wave, flux as hermaphroditic Value of up then down, up then down...)
• Immanence,
• Logos, the account, light~wordings as Sophial gn¤stic wisdom,
• Essence, Essene~Jesus as a holographic~light~membrane quantum~included~middling of all creation with Chaldæan tetradic Mother as pneumatic godhead,
• Martus aritos, self~other~referent Haganah~havlagah individuality,
• etc.

Why is that list important? Let's show a list of that list's affectors:

• Cup hermaphrodicity destroys patriarchy,
• Quantum~flux decimates classical notions of state,
• Immanence eliminates c a t h o l i c dogma, canon, and orthodoxy that "God is separate from humans and humans are separate from God,"
• Logos, as Heraclitus taught, neuters dialectic as Error,
• Essene~Jesus would call 'the c a t h o l i c church' "Satan,"
• Martus aritos is Essene~Jesus' first edict to self~witness and never witness socially for any group or organization...to witness an organization is inept, since society is inept (See Pirsig's description of Hector's martus aritos in ZMM and in our transcription of that part of ZMM under title The Birth of SOM.),
• etc.

How does that list relate to Quantonics and MoQ?

In Quantonics one asks a quantum~gn¤stic question, "How can I accumulate individual qua?"

In Pirsig's MoQ one asks a quantum~gn¤stic question, "How can I put Quality back into my life?"

In Bergson's Creative Evolution one asks a quantum~gn¤stic question, "How can I cease viewing 'state' as simple and commence viewing flux (perpetual absolute change) as simple?"

In James' Varieties of Religious Experience one asks a quantum~gn¤stic question, "How can I give my private self a rest and find my Greater Self?"

In reality's quantum~empiritheory one asks a quantum~gn¤stic question, "How can I turn h~bar on and avoid those sas-erps who keep turning h~bar off?"

Doug has omniscovered, desnoured, for himself these answers:

• Restore that gn¤sis which each of us as individuals have lost, and
• Learn how to tap into quantum~reserve~energy.

In Doug's wayings of perceiving this, autodidactic self~restoration of individual quantum~gn¤sis enables one to tap into quantum~reserve~energy.

What does gn¤sis teach individuals?

• "All is ihn all,"
• "Monism is deceit," "Orthodoxy is deceit," "Dogma is deceit," "Patriarchy is deceit,"
• "Principle rules something not itself,"
• "All is perpetual process," "Reality is unstoppable,"
• "Dialectic is Error," (See SOM's Bases of Judgment, and What is Wrong with SOM's Logic.)
• "We is social hegemony," (Common social sense is Error; Vulgi Opinio Error!)
• "Iht is ihn each of us individually," "Each of us is perpetually~evolving heterogeneous instancings of both Iht ihn us and us ihn Iht,"
• "Analyticity is deceit," "Syntheticity is deceit," "Exclusion, excommunication, and isolation are deceit," "Formal separation is deceit," "Cartesian stable locality is deceit," "Mechanical reduction is deceit," "Objective negation is deceit," "Contradiction is deceit," "Proof is deceit," "Objective unification is deceit,"
• etc.

Gaffney offers muchas explication of more of our losses and how humanity allowed other inquisition of self. If it continues, society as we know it now will become extinct. All dialectical (Newtonian 'enlightened') society is inept and is putting itself out of business. Gaffney's last two paragraphs of Chapter 11 offer a smidgen of exegesis why:

"Like a therapeutic dream pointing the dreamer toward the resolution of some real-life dilemma, the Grail's spontaneous appearance in Europe filled a deep spiritual need in the Christian culture of the Middle Ages, a need that the institutional Church had failed to satisfy. The Grail pointed Europe toward a spiritual renaissance and became the symbol for that awakening—but it was actually a reawakening, a remembering, of the lost teaching of God's immanence. Nothing less can account for the numinousness of the Grail and nothing less can explain the Church's swift reaction to the revival.

"As we know, the promise of the Middle Ages was never realized. The spiritual awakening of the eleventh and twelfth centuries ended as one of Western civilization's most grotesque failures, aborted in the thirteenth century by the same forces of reaction that had suppressed Gnostic Christianity nine centuries before. The Church responded to this renaissance with the feared Inquisition and the so-called Albigensian Crusade, during which a million or more Cathars—deemed heretics—were slaughtered in southern France. The flowering that began with such promise ended as one of the darkest chapters in the long history of Christian intolerance, with chilling effects that—one could argue—have continued to the present day."

Now we know, we grasp, we understand, why Islam and some gnostics like us, why we call them—those 'institutional church' inquisitors— why we call them "satanic bastards." That is what they are!

The greatest Satanic bastards of all? Irenæus and his student Hippolytus. Not unlike Cheney and Bush today... That analogy is almost too overwhelming to ignore.

Doug - 31Aug2008.

Chapter 12 review is next...

...

 

---

Arches