PDA

View Full Version : Who Are You?



dianna
5th February 2014, 22:52
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyR3TzIgi-U

You wake up in the morning … still nothing. There are thoughts, but these are just like the hard buttons sewn on your shirt, useful and necessary; but replaceable. Emotionless thoughts. No guilt, no remorse, no struggling with shame; the idea of love is a foreign language. Whoever you think about, whatever self-indulgent, immoral, harmful or irresponsible place these thoughts take you … no need for concern. Born without internal restraints makes life a thrilling ride; and destruction is the only thrill you seek.

You can spot the others like you. The really successful ones are running countries and playing war games; just imagine writing laws that torture millions, or getting to swindle whole banking systems! The really unsuccessful ones fill up the prisons and give us a bad name. Then theres the ones who seem to hardly ply their trade at all; they sponge off the relatives, or live in their mama’s basements, kings of internet forums; an ambition in its own right. Although you love to fantasize such lives in a pornographic fashion, you accept yourself on the middle spectrum. No, you prefer the life of a big fish in a small pond, more of a “garden variety” existence. Maybe you’re a shrink or a lawyer; you may like to coach children, or be involved with the elderly. Corporations can be as giddy as a playground for you. What fun it is to sabotage projects, lie to the bosses you sleep with, or steal a couple of jobs.

You know you are missing some fundamental elixir that the “normals” use to live. But it doesn’t bother you because you are on tour of another reality. There is every advantage in being able to hide in plain sight. The normals, gullible fools that they are, live in a paradigm where a conscience is a universal given; and you laugh at the way they strap themselves down with it. Because you are gifted at mimicking them, they would never guess at your condition, leaving you free to manipulate and use them in whatever way you see fit. You fancy yourself an interspecies predator free to fill its empty container with all that is antithetical to the general population.

What fun it is to belong to the cult of self. You get to be your own diety. And diety is a word that suits you just fine; what with all your superficial charm, self-importance and grandiosity. A constant need for stimulation helps to hone those supernatural skills of deception and manipulation. You are no mere mortal; you are everything that isn’t mortal. It is a right of birth to destroy those around you in a quest for power and money; this is your morality, justified and embraced. You actually are the stuff of myths and legends; but who reads those stories anymore?

Lately, however, its been alarming to read the papers. It seems more and more, the idea of you is being guessed at; outed. Connections are being made between the insanity of the planet, and your species as a whole. Some of them seem to be studying you; maybe even got your number. They still argue amongst themselves about whether you are born and unredeemable, or, is the disturbing world you live in is simply a matter of fixable character flaw. But, now they are starting to agree; organic portal that you are, is becoming less of a dark mystery, and, once acknowledged, has staggering implications for society. Although your number is small, your quality is like a ribbon weaving in and out of the fabric of society in such a negative way that it has the capacity to affect millions.

You are a psychopath; and the idea of you is an “idea whose time has come”.

giovonni
6th February 2014, 01:10
It is unfortunate that in general an empathic nature is perceived as a flawed human weakness ... Whereas sociopathic tendencies seem to reign as the new norm in today's modern society ... Especially when these traits are glorified in the media...

Such as in this disturbing spill ...

http://thumbs.media.smithsonianmag.com//filer/Psychopath-Norman-Bates-631.jpg__800x600_q85_crop.jpg

The Pros to Being a Psychopath

"When most of us hear the word “psychopath,” we imagine Hannibal Lecter. Kevin Dutton would prefer that we think of brain surgeons, CEOs and Buddhist monks. In his new book, The Wisdom of Psychopaths: What Saints, Spies and Serial Killers Can Teach Us About Success, the Oxford research psychologist argues that psychopathic personality traits—charm, confidence, ruthlessness, coolness under pressure—can, in the right doses, be a good thing. Not all psychopaths are violent, he says, and some of them are just the sort of people society can count on in a crisis.

“Psychopath” is a term that gets thrown about a lot in our culture. Are psychopaths misunderstood?

It’s true, no sooner is the word “psychopath” out than images of your classic psychopathic killers like Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer and a whole kind of discreditable raft of senior politicians come kind of creeping across our minds. But actually, being a psychopath doesn’t mean that you’re a criminal. Not by default, anyway. It doesn’t mean that you’re a serial killer, either.

One of the reasons why I wrote the book in the first place was to debunk two deep-seated myths that the general public have about psychopaths. Firstly, that they’re either all “mad or bad.” And secondly, that psychopathy is an all-or-nothing thing, that you’re either a psychopath or you’re not.

What is a psychopath, anyway?

When psychologists talk about psychopaths, what we’re referring to are people who have a distinct set of personality characteristics, which include things like ruthlessness, fearlessness, mental toughness, charm, persuasiveness and a lack of conscience and empathy. Imagine that you tick the box for all of those characteristics. You also happen to be violent and stupid. It’s not going to be long before you smack a bottle over someone’s head in a bar and get locked up for a long time in prison. But if you tick the box for all of those characteristics, and you happen to be intelligent and not naturally violent, then it’s a different story altogether. Then you’re more likely to make a killing in the market rather than anywhere else.

How are these psychopathic traits particularly useful in modern society?

Psychopaths are assertive. Psychopaths don’t procrastinate. Psychopaths tend to focus on the positive. Psychopaths don’t take things personally; they don’t beat themselves up if things go wrong, even if they’re to blame. And they’re pretty cool under pressure. Those kinds of characteristics aren’t just important in the business arena, but also in everyday life.

The key here is keeping it in context. Let’s think of psychopathic traits—ruthlessness, toughness, charm, focus—as the dials on a [recording] studio deck. If you were to turn all of those dials up to max, then you’re going to overload the circuit. You’re going to wind up getting 30 years inside or the electric chair or something like that. But if you have some of them up high and some of them down low, depending on the context, in certain endeavors, certain professions, you are going to be predisposed to great success. The key is to be able to turn them back down again."


From Smithsonian.com (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-pros-to-being-a-psychopath-96723962/)

Shezbeth
6th February 2014, 02:32
Such as in this disturbing spill ...

I can see how that article can be interpreted as a disturbing spill, and that is not an invalid assessment; Neither is it invalid to interpret it as accurate, sound, and appropriate. Psychopathy, like any human expression, may have its own particular necessitating time(s) and place(s). Thank you for sharing it.

giovonni
6th February 2014, 07:47
Such as in this disturbing spill ...

I can see how that article can be interpreted as a disturbing spill, and that is not an invalid assessment; Neither is it invalid to interpret it as accurate, sound, and appropriate. Psychopathy, like any human expression, may have its own particular necessitating time(s) and place(s). Thank you for sharing it.

Yes i agree and i might also add ... It has been from my own personal experiences and perspective that i have derived ... That most modern day humans (do) indeed exemplify the sociopathic behavior and characteristics portrayed above ... Perhaps that's calling our collective kettle black ... So to speak ... :(

giovonni
6th February 2014, 08:17
i will share this here ...

From chunkymark ~ The artist taxi driver

Jeremy Hunt The twisted Philosophy of Caring

Published on Feb 5, 2014


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AEbC8H9R4w

Finefeather
6th February 2014, 13:38
Psychopathy, like any human expression, may have its own particular necessitating time(s) and place(s).
This is more than profound and deserves a comment IMO.

All manifestations...be they objective or subjective...good or bad...for or against...in or out...occur in our Cosmos. It is said that the Cosmos is an ordered and balanced state.

So...that which occurs, and is foreign to us, or rejected by us, or frowned upon by us must surely just be our own lack of understanding and knowledge as to it's 'particular necessity'.

But the question then, is..."why do we reject the murderer, or the rapist, or the thief, or the abductor, or the liar, etc etc etc?"

Could the 'particular necessity' of some conditions be that we need to find these repulsive?... and why are some, like love, found to be attractive to us?

Could the conditions we find in life be the things we are here to choose from? and does this in fact point and prove that ultimately life is good if we somehow always head for those which we find attractive?

And finally why then do some of us get attracted to the stuff the majority find repulsive?

Take care
Ray

chocolate
6th February 2014, 14:50
Who am I?
In this particular instance I am one who could not connect to the expression of the first post at all.
I liked the tune, though.

I was reading this yesterday, and although I can understand the inner impulse to write it, I don't agree with the position from which the issue has been addressed, and to the general 'appeal' to condemn something that (I think) we still don't (fully) understand, at this stage.
Are we already having the opinion of the accuser, and if yes, why and by who's authority?
(Rhetorical questions, since I don't argue in general, only with myself, on occasion).
I know there is a whole thread devoted to this (from which I found a link to this one), but I see no place for this opinion in my view to the world, personally.

Sometimes, to see what you want you need to know what you don't want. That is all I can say regarding this and many others such as this conditions.

I am partially sorry, Dianna, to write this controversial opinion here. I don't mean to ruin your thread, but I figured it can use a bit of another's point of view for some balance.


It seems to me we like from time to time to light fires, and to throw wood in it whenever the need arises.

dianna
6th February 2014, 14:53
Who am I?
In this particular instance I am one who could not connect to the expression of the first post at all.
I liked the tune, though.

I was reading this yesterday, and although I can understand the inner impulse to write it, I don't agree with the position from which the issue has been addressed, and to the general 'appeal' to condemn something that (I think) we still don't (fully) understand, at this stage.
Are we already having the opinion of the accuser, and if yes, why and by who's authority?
(Rhetorical questions, since I don't argue in general, only with myself, on occasion).
I know there is a whole thread devoted to this (from which I found a link to this one), but I see no place for this opinion in my view to the world, personally.

Sometimes, to see what you want you need to know what you don't want. That is all I can say regarding this and many others such as this conditions.

I am partially sorry, Dianna, to write this controversial opinion here. I don't mean to ruin your thread, but I figured it can use a bit of another's point of view for some balance.

No need to apologize for disagreeing with me Chocolate, really.

I know the dead our among us … I stand by my piece LOL

chocolate
6th February 2014, 15:15
I am sure you have your reasons.
And again, don't take my post as 'against', but rather as an expression. I am sure if I delve in the other thread, will find some of your reasons, though.

:peace:

Shezbeth
6th February 2014, 20:32
But the question then, is..."why do we reject the murderer, or the rapist, or the thief, or the abductor, or the liar, etc etc etc?"

In antiquity, the ability to make use of guile and strategic duplicity is what allowed Odysseus to survive the Odyssey, and even for the Trojan war to be won though not without consequence. I would be quite amused and surprised to see a legitimate justification for rape, but self-defense that results in death is not an unheard-of necessity and stealing and murder is something of a guerilla's bread and butter.

I have read it suggested increasingly that in the event of a complete police state takeover/martial-law scenario guerilla warfare will be the only available method of resistance. If a person loathes, but is capable of behavior that can rightly be described as psychopathy, are they a psychopath? Of necessity perhaps?

Finefeather
7th February 2014, 14:01
But the question then, is..."why do we reject the murderer, or the rapist, or the thief, or the abductor, or the liar, etc etc etc?"

In antiquity, the ability to make use of guile and strategic duplicity is what allowed Odysseus to survive the Odyssey, and even for the Trojan war to be won though not without consequence. I would be quite amused and surprised to see a legitimate justification for rape, but self-defense that results in death is not an unheard-of necessity and stealing and murder is something of a guerilla's bread and butter.

I have read it suggested increasingly that in the event of a complete police state takeover/martial-law scenario guerilla warfare will be the only available method of resistance. If a person loathes, but is capable of behavior that can rightly be described as psychopathy, are they a psychopath? Of necessity perhaps?

It is clear, from my perspective, that you might not have given your ‘profound’ statement enough thought...or you might in fact not be aware of your own inner wisdom...I suspect it is both.
Lets just reprint it again here:

Psychopathy, like any human expression, may have its own particular necessitating time(s) and place(s).
You now, in your above post, seem to be discriminating between one human expression and another...therefore you might not have given yourself enough time to understand your statement and thus determine what the necessity of rape might be...if in fact their is one...nevertheless it is still a human expression. This does not in anyway imply that I am in favor of any repulsive action...but all we need is to be a little more rational about things.

Rape is merely an out of control sacral energy with an imaginative emotional and mentally driven repulsive outcome...something which Reiki practitioners claim they can balance. So it is clearly a disease in the eyes of some. This condition is avoided by esoterics because it has such a powerful effect on the ignorant...and the practice of Tantric sex is discouraged because of the negative effects it can have on the ill disciplined....besides it is just a dead end street to a deluded nirvana.

Then you seem to want to justify murder...as a means of self defence...as some necessity which is born out of lack of freedom. Sure if your life is been threatened, and death is immanent, you have every right to defend yourself...but a police state or martial law is far from a threat on your life...it is about control...and if everyone was killed, there would be no police state or martial law.

But lets get back to the rape because you think you have a legitimate necessity...in your mind...for everything else I mentioned.

Rape is a very tricky and sensitive subject because it usually involves the ‘weaker’ sex, and it is our ‘duty’ to protect our ‘fair maidens’ from this danger...but there is a law in life which esoterics teaches us and that is that everything that we reap is a result of our own doing, in this present life, or some past life. This truth which is cause and effect or karma or sowing and reaping is completely misunderstood by most and some have not the faintest idea what it even is...and it’s many many manifestations.

Of course we just cannot ‘get it’ and what it might manifest itself as, in real life, because we have this thinking that everything that happens to us is out there and we are always innocent in here.

Every experience we have, in life, is only ever experienced within us...nothing can be experienced outside the confines of our own individual consciousness. One minute we are happy the next we are mad at someone...sometimes we like what we see in the mirror, sometimes we hate what we see in the mirror.
All is a result of our own consciousness and thinking. If we think right our lives will be a better experience.

Everything that happens to us is our own creation because we are what we think, and thought is the most powerful creative principle in life...so we should be careful what we think...we might be in for a big surprise :)


I would be quite amused and surprised to see a legitimate justification for rape,
So this statement of yours might be easier for you to answer, than you think, if you had all the causal factors at your finger tips...and if we were not so easily fooled by the cry of the ‘innocent’.

Take care
Ray

Finefeather
7th February 2014, 14:34
Further some might like to watch some of this...it might interest you.
There are 6 parts to this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZYb59_NYU4&feature=c4-overview-vl&list=PL34034ABA975322F9

This is the channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCepVoZdciyAUWFlbpZHC5bw

Shezbeth
8th February 2014, 23:55
Everyone is welcome to their opinions and dispositions, subjective that they are. One might re-read what I have written, as the subsequent observations are inconsistent with what I am conveying. I'm not seeking to justify anything, I am questioning the preconceptions pertaining to psychopathy of any kind ("We reject the,...") as being in some way unjustified/unjustifiable, and give cursory scenarios to illustrate.

It is not my intention to prove that 'psychopathy is potentially conducive', my intention is to indicate that the position that 'psychopathy is always non-conducive' is its self non-conducive. I'm not about to claim that 'If psychopathy can be conducive, then all psychopathy is', as evidenced by the comment pertaining to rape.

One might be careful referring to theories as evidence, especially as pertains to the opinions of one particular school of thought.


It is clear, from my perspective, that you might not have given your ‘profound’ [retort] enough thought

My thoughts exactly, after a slight modification.

dianna
9th February 2014, 00:09
Feel like reposting this here …

http://inspirably.com/uploads/user/2877-god-did-not-create-evil-just-as-darkness-is-the-absence-of.png


On the Origin of Evil


By James M. West

There are people out there who insist that evil has its ultimate origin in God, the supreme Being. They reason that if God is really supreme, and all powerful, and all-wise, then there is no way that evil could exist unless God allowed it for a purpose. According to this view, even the Gnostics have failed to recognize the contradictions in their own myths, which represented the efforts by Gnostics to separate God from evil. The Gnostics were notorious for the way they established a chain of intermediaries between God and the world. The purpose was to show that evil began somewhere down the chain from God; where some lower agent fell into error and introduced evil into the universe. The Gnostics are accused of foolishness and self-delusion, because they fail to see that this very chain of intermediaries goes straight back to the supreme Father himself.

We Gnostics are accused accordingly of self-deception and of failing to grasp one of the greatest and most sublime of all mysteries: which is that God himself introduced evil in order to teach us about the value of goodness. After all, how could we know the evil of the Holocaust unless there actually was one for us to know? Or how could we know the evils of child rape and kiddy porn, unless these heinous crimes were realities for us to know? And how could we ever condemn the evil of nuclear weapons; unless we know what nuclear weapons are? Supposedly we are blessed by God because we now know what these things are; and maybe have been victims of these evils ourselves…

How God has blessed us! Isn't this a wonderful thing that God has done for us? – that he has initiated us into the mysteries of wickedness? Oh the wonderful depths of the Father and his knowledge!

Of course the issues are really not as simple as this. I have my own reasons for doubting that God is the source of evil; and for me this is a matter of gnosis at its deepest level. In this article I will share my thoughts as to why evil does not originate from the supreme Being. And I would like to explain, in the light of Gnostic wisdom, why the above proposition is not the best explanation for the paradox of how a good God and “evil” can both exist at the same time.

For a Gnostic the question of whether evil comes from God is not simply a question of intellectual debate or dialectics. That sort of debate is more applicable to the question of whether this world, and the Human race, are the product of a supreme Being. Before we can discuss the origin of evil we really must consider and reason logically on the question of whether this world is from the hand of a supreme Being.

In my view, the notion that this world was created by a supreme Being is wishful thinking. We would all love to believe that we are from the hand of some supreme and wise God. But the facts at hand point to a prospect which is much less flattering.

If this world was really created by some supreme and perfect God then it seems to me that this world, and the Human race, should reflect these attributes accordingly. But the ugly truth is that our so-called “civilized” world emerged from three or four dozen centuries of wars in which numerous tribes robbed, raped and murdered each other in their quests for survival.

To make matters worse, we Humans today, in spite of our ‘progress’, still don’t know where we came from or why we are here. Our religions offer their doctrines and fables; and scientists offer their theories – but there is no unified consensus on the question. The Human race as a whole has no natural or innate knowledge of its origin or why it exists. If Humans discover the answers at all, it is only through a difficult process of soul searching. This is not something that most Humans have a natural, conscious awareness of. Most Humans are not inclined to know themselves. In Western culture there is an entire industry – known as psychiatry – which is dedicated to helping people figure themselves out. This is very strange indeed.

As a race we have no innate sense of purpose. We are unable to live in harmony with each other, or our inner-selves, or with the natural environment. We don’t understand our own bodies and how to care for them. There is something about us Humans that is unnatural and artificial. We never seem to fit into the Earth's environment; and are constantly at odds with it. The more advanced we become technologically, the greater the probability of self annihilation, possibly through war, or tampering with genetics and viruses, or because of pollution. We Humans can be compared to some genetically altered virus which has infected the Earth’s surface.

And then there is the future. What is the future of the Human race? Do we have a practical vision or goal for the future – aside from the easy saying that “God” or “evolution” will provide? The fact is, as a civilization, and as a race, we Humans have no practical vision or goal for the future. And again, this is a result of the fact that the Human race has no natural understanding of its own identity and purpose. So how can anyone define what the future is? If you approach the Fundy Christians, they will tell you that the future will bring Christ’s Kingdom, and that Jesus will ‘fix’ everything. The Atheists will tell you that Humanity’s future will be determined by evolution (not very re-assuring!). The Muslims will tell you that the future will bring a world dominated by Allah and ‘His’ obedient Muslim servants. The Jews in turn envision a world where YHWH rules, and Israel dominates the world. The “New World Order” people believe that the world’s problems will be solved with the imposition of a UN world government and global “Free Trade” which will solve everyone’s problems. (In the case of the latter group, money, power and cronyism are the answers to everything.) And the Communists imagine that someday they will control the world, and provide all the answers…

My point is that Humanity has no unified sense of itself, or its purpose for existence, or its origin. The origin of evil on Earth can be traced to Humanity’s fundamental ignorance regarding itself. Most Humans don’t really know within themselves why they are here. So they just focus on surviving, competing, ****ing, and engaging in the never-ending game and business of war. Each culture has its own religious explanation for Human existence: and none of these religious traditions agree. Nor do these traditions provide any practical solutions for anything.

The question now is am I really obligated to believe that this is all simply the providence of a supreme Being? Can this be proven? I think the answer is no. Why should I be expected to believe that the supreme Being is the author of ignorance and chaos? And, why should I be expected to believe that a supreme Being should benefit from something like this? (I think my argument here is applicable to atheists too. Why should I be expected to believe that “evolution” produced this chaos we call the Human race? Is there a precedent for this? I think the activity of some deviate intelligence is a valid theory that may explain this enigma.)

I think that simple, consistent logic dictates that this world is the expression of some lesser intelligence which is in turn at odds with itself. To proclaim this world and Humanity as evidence of a supreme Intelligence is to believe the improbable and the illogical. I also believe that such a proposition is dangerous because if a supreme Good God is responsible for the existence of this world, and the manifold evils herein, then this constitutes an obscuring of clear definitions for good and evil. It amounts to believing that that which is purely Good somehow produced evil. To believe such a thing is immoral, illogical and is spiritually degrading. To embrace such an ideal is a poor choice; especially when the thesis can never be airtight anyway.

This unsound opinion is also very dangerous because it opens the way for the idea that evil can be used to achieve a ‘good’ purpose. This is the foundation of Machiavellian philosophy. And it is the creed of all tyrants like Hitler, Stalin and Bush in their pretensions to solve the world’s problems. This is also the creed of the God of the Old Testament: “I form the light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil. I, the Lord, do all these things” (Isaiah 45:7) and also “The Lord has made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil” (Proverbs 16:4).

Indeed we know a tree by its fruit.

The early Gnostics were unique among the religious traditions in that they refused to impute any form of evil to the supreme Being. And they wrote their myths with the purpose of explaining the paradox of how a good God and an evil cosmos could exist at the same time, and why. They didn’t base these myths on a scientific knowledge as we know it. They used images and symbols from the religious traditions of their day in order to explain why goodness does not hold sway over evil in the world. (We must remember also that the ancient Gnostics lived in a time where violence, poverty and suffering existed at a level that few of us have seen today. I shudder to think of some of the evils that these people either witnessed or endured.)

The Gnostic myths appear in the form of two main themes or motifs. The older and more primitive theme expresses the notion that this material world was created by certain fallen angels who rebelled against the good Father. The Savior is sent from the Father in order to bring gnosis to those good souls who share some essence in common with the Father. Irenaeus attributed this motif to Saturninus, Cerinthus, Marcelina, Basilides and Carpocrates (Against Heresies, 1.24-26). According to this scenario evil came into existence because of the angels. The God above it all will save the good people and destroy the cosmos.

And then there are the schools associated with Valentinus, the Sethians, and the Naassenes. They developed the myth of Sophia, which was based on the “wisdom” parables in Proverbs 8 and 9, and the Apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon. According to this scenario “Wisdom” is identified as an “Aion” (an alternative title for a “god” among the Greeks; used most often in reference to Chronos/Saturn). This Aion in turn resided in a perfect archetypal realm that was called the “Pleroma” in Gnostic jargon. (The latter term was derived in part from the words attributed to Paul in Colossians 2:9, “For in Him dwelleth the pleroma of the Godhead bodily.” Irenaeus reports that the Gnostics construed this passage to mean that Jesus represented the Pleroma in person (ibid. 1.3.4).

Wisdom, or Sophia, resided in this Pleroma with other Aions. And all of these Aions in turn were the progeny of one supreme Aion of Aions. This concept of an archetypal realm was based on Plato’s concept of the primeval archetypes on which the material cosmos was created, and by which order was brought to the primeval, material chaos. Thinking in the context of Plato the Gnostics introduced the notion that this chaos came into existence as the result of error by Sophia: which is to say that chaos and evil came into existence as a result of a disruption of the primeval order. This is described symbolically as a futile desire by Sophia to be like the Father. This desire leads her into error, and causes her to conceive a miscarriage. In the Valentinian myth this miscarriage is ejected from the Pleroma and accounts for the existence of Plato’s primeval chaos, from which the cosmos was created. (Platonism does not assign an origin to chaos, but maintains that it existed from eternity. In contrast, the Gnostics believed that chaos, and evil, originated from a breach in the primeval order as symbolized by the Sophia myth; e.g. the Gnostic treatise The Apocryphon of John; see Marvin Meyer, Nag Hammadi Scriptures, pg. 114f.)

Sophia’s miscarried metaphysical goo becomes the substance from which the material cosmos and the souls of Humans, angels and gods were created. Evil exists in this cosmos as the result of Sophia’s misguided passion and error. The purpose of the myth is to convey the idea that both the cosmos and evil came into existence through error, and not through the will of a supreme Being. Let us here note this plain statement from the Gospel of Philip: “The world came about through a mistake” (NHC: II, 3.75; M. Meyer, ibid., pg. 179).

I know that others will say that if the supreme Being is truly supreme then he must have allowed evil. But this is speculation. And it depends on the unsound idea that evil has its ultimate origin in Good. And at this point I could appeal to simple logic: It is illogical for me to believe that Good can produce evil. Good may produce error, and from error, evil proceeds. But there is no reason why I should believe that evil has a direct origin from Good. The Gnostic mythos is based on this simple formula, and for this reason they used the concept of intermediaries in their myths. Hence from God came goodness, from Sophia came error, and from error came evil. Some people think the Gnostic myth is a scandal and a form of self-deception. But is this really any worse than the claim made by some that evil came out of Good? I think the latter proposition is far worse and is a gross error. To believe such a thing is to embrace an opinion that is logically and ethically perverted.

But again there are those people out there who want to believe that God has it all under control; and that only a stupid and weak God would allow evil without willing it. In my opinion this approach is symptomatic of those people who desire to believe in a “personal” god who has it all under control. But in reality there really is no evidence that God has it all under control. If God has this world under control then he has shown himself to be a corrupt and incompetent ruler indeed.

To embrace such logic, and to jump to such conclusions that God is weak or stupid is to engage in rude speculation that is unworthy of a true Mystic or Gnostic. The true Gnostic understands that God is sublime. God is not about power: God is about consciousness: perfect consciousness. There is nothing physical about it. What I refer to here is part of the experience of gnosis. Perfect consciousness has no connection with evil and has no need for it. The goal of the Gnostic is to tap into this perfect consciousness and to join with it.

Personally, I believe this perfect consciousness is identical with the Light that certain people have encountered in so-called “out of body” experiences. This is the unknown God that true Gnostics have encountered. I believe this is also the source of those experiences, or visions, which were known among ancient mystics as the “Vision of the Divine.” This is the Vision of the Light of the Good God. This is the good God that awaits us once our earthly lives have crumbled into dust. For the Gnostic, to know this God is to know peace, and to know that good will ultimately prevail in the end to matter how ugly and how evil this world becomes. If you have seen this Light then you are a Gnostic in Truth. You share a portion of the divine nature, and by nature you will be saved from this world, and from death. You beheld the Vision because the Light is aware of your existence and has revealed itself to you.

This is the unvarnished Gospel of Gnosticism.

Getting back to the subject in question: those who know the Light know that there is no evil in God, in Perfection. The world we know is imperfect, and is plagued by evil. This world is evidently the product of an imperfect consciousness which has revealed itself, and struggles with itself, through the existence of the Human race. Gnostic wisdom tells us that we are capable of redemption because our Sentience originates from the highest and finest substance. We can discover that redemption, that hope, by seeking within ourselves. The Light appears to those who seek self-understanding and maturity. And this in turn is relevant to the most important reason that we must not attribute evil to the Light: because it is a wrong conception of God that will obscure the Vision: and will lead us into communion with the lesser god instead – and the seeker will remain enslaved.

Remember above all else that no evil comes from God. Those who maintain base conceptions of God will seek and find according to their own distortions. –jw