A healthy discussion of the "archonic metaphor" and the myriad of Gnostic interpretations

[Chester]

The Demiurge and the Problem of Evil, Deep Awake Dialogue 15

Posted in hopes we can have a mature and open conversation... a conversation for those who possess an ability to "multidimensionalize" their "understandings" and "viewpoints" and who can then consider and non-confrontationally discuss all sorts of different views and viewpoints while avoiding demanding there own to be "the truth" such that anything else (any other interpretation) is not.

I will be happy to discuss the various things I got out of viewing this discussion.

Enjoy!

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=JWIIfqUTVQk

[Chuck]

Hi Sam. Thanks for the video. Just a brief comment …

I get the impression that Tim Freke rejects the idea of “creationism” or at least the notion that a good God created all life and allows evil to exist. Rather, in his view, that life (however it got here) is moving towards the good in evolution. Not quite an original thought… but I prefer merging both creationism and evolution to answer where we came from and where we are going.

That is (and not what he is saying), I like the notion of the Gods creating the space for evolution. That is, God, creating the various dimensions in consciousness, in fact creating the space for God to have a ‘beingness’ in slowed time and vibration to know what a ripe peach tastes like (for example). The resulting tapestry of all the dimensions created during the fall of involution, leaves the space for the backward journey of evolution and the gaining of knowledge and wisdom. This is the prodigal son story.

[Andre]

Most of us have been exposed to religious belief systems and have adopted some of the basic teachings even though we think we have evolved beyond them. And most of those belief systems subscribe to a omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient God; a perfect God. But what if we're all wrong. What if God screwed up the creation and created evil without really wanting to. What if it was a learning exprerience for a God who is creating His creation as He goes, warts and all?

[Chester]

What if we are that "God" some point to as if that "God" was some third party?

[findingneo]

The path of searching for who was in charge began after I no longer could swallow the "God will have a good reason for it", and then later, during my love and light days the explanation of "The most difficult life experiences are for the benefit of working through Karma, focus on yourself, send out love, and don't look at the dark"

I found this difficult to do, especially when I saw all the horrendous things happening to people, fauna and flora and the natural world.

And what sort of loving creator builds an existence where life forms cannot exist without detriment to others/other life forms?

I thought, after a good length of time, going along with the narrative, that nagging feeling would well up inside me of, "For a loving God or Creator of our reality, he/she/it behaves awfully like an narcissistic A Hole!"

And then I discovered there was already a minority who thought along similar lines.

[Chester]

Yes, "findingneo"... the negative "gnosis" indeed.

My current "best answer" includes the taking of responsibility for "me" being here which thus then includes the assumption this is the case for us all... though I would never impose this view on anyone else as, how could I?

Another benefit in having a view that shares this responsibility is the view that an aspect of my being is that very creative force behind it all.

Of course, this view is wrought with paradox.

[findingneo]

Hi Sammy, I know I said it like it was a question, but I wasn't looking for answers to that one. I have a fair idea of what the answer is. However I appreciate your angle on it.

We can take responsibility for ourselves, and I do, but I have come to realize, creating our own reality is, still within the confines of the rules of engagement. If you learn the rules of the game, by heart, you can play it your way, and have a good life, providing you play within and by the rules. Which is fine, if you are happy with that definition of "freedom".

I joined a Gnostic Society that started up in my local area, hoping to discuss the ins and outs. I left a few months later, as instead of learning through direct experience, the teachers were very dogmatic, and behaved more like a church than free thinkers gaining experience directly. They were all about dictator teaching what the system is, and they appeared to have that nailed, but they were not really interested in anything but learning the rules, by heart, and playing the game of snakes and ladders, by learning where the snakes and ladders were and taking advantage of that. They also cut out essential players that seemed ridiculous to them, such as the ET/Ed phenomenon. As much as they had acknowledged aspects hidden to the majority, they were still blinkered. And after decades of trying to Ace the game, they are still here.

So I am not doing the victim thing, I am saying the game is rigged. But I am pretty sure I would be happier if I thought it is all a matter of perspective . It is tempting.

[Chester]

Thanks very much for this last reply, findingneo. What I was hoping to see "happen" in this thread has indeed begun, especially by your two posts. Again, thank you.


Your first post had me concluding you leaned to what Tim points out is - "the negative gnosis" and yet in your last post, I would recharacterize that as "realistic gnosis." (note the small r)

There was a clue too, in what you replied here -

Posted by findingneo (here)
We can take responsibility for ourselves, and I do...

In this statement you point to the term - "self" (in the phrase "ourselves") and why I am now focusing on this term is that it was this very "thing" we call "self" that, when I have explored what "self" might actually be, knowing that whatever I might decide in this regard is subjective, I always ended up knocking on the door of what is known in the perennial philosophies as - "the paradox."

How I got there is that I could never find the line between what is "myself" and "not myself" unless I did so from a particular "level" of what I call "Reality" (stated with the big R to emphasize its completeness). And so my own conundrum to considering where my responsibility ends is because at each level I am either a fully individuated being or perhaps, "a soul" (I am using this word as a pointer) which might be part of a "soul family" or "soul group" which might be part of a collective of "souls" which may have one foot in the realm created by (using a full blown metaphor here) - Sophia's abortion where the other foot of my "soul" might be outside of this realm of the demiurge and thus then... comes the last question... where did my individuation begin? And if there be that point where a "one" became a "many" am I only of "the many" or am I also of "that one?" If I am "of" that one, and it is "one" then, this is the paradox, exposed.

The key to why I found I had to take responsibility at all levels of my being resides in the rejection of the alternative where "I" am a victim.

So now... having made up my own mind enough to incorporate the above as part of my operational assumption set (though I am always open to changing my mind), "the game" that you point to could be seen as "our own creation" too, yes? Of course, this would only be a yes if you shared a similar view of how the individuated being fits into Reality (how you got here, etc.). Yet if there is no aspect of ourselves that was ever involved in the creation of this particular area of "the Grand Game Zone" (the realms of Reality) and yet we find "ourselves" "here" and we see it as a freedom restricting horror zone and thus a sub zone of the Grand Game Zone (you would get no argument about that from me), then, we are a victim. (yes, back to victim again).

Another clue I found in your post is a hint that being here (this sub zone) is something that should be transcended or escaped or never returned to - ever. I say this based on this quote -

Posted by findingneo (here)
And after decades of trying to Ace the game, they are still here.

But also, I could have interpreted this wrong. You may be simply saying, "still here" as in, the folks in this group are still anchored into their beliefs and non open mindedness (for example regarding ETs).

But if it is the former, I also very much understand that too. I went through that phase of my exploration as well and frankly, I am stuck there. And here's why. The rest... my loved ones, family... close friends and then... how that extends to my neighbors and those I pass on the street and those I may never meet (at least not in this lifetime). And so this is where I am stuck. How do I decide to leave and never return (if this is possible and I like to believe it is) without that decision being utterly selfish? At this point, I am unable to live with myself if I made a final decision like that. And this fits well with my well admitted "messianic complex" in the form of self sacrifice... that I would (at this point) be willing to be "the last soul to leave." I just can't feel right about any other alternative.

Back to "responsibility." I can get through all the "whose responsible" part and accept responsibility for this aspect of my "self" being here and do so all the way up to the end of "the self" and into the realm of potential. So I don't have the victim issue dogging me. And I agree with your characterization of this particular game zone where clearly "freedom" is limited. In the way I take responsibility, I am actually admitting my own role in creating this limiting reality experience.

I think what your reply, findingneo, has helped confirm to me is that unless one looks at these things from the various potential levels of the unfoldment of what may be the "Grand Reality" which is inclusive of all, including potential... where I am using words in to attempt to point to something that cannot be described in words because that would limit it and limit is not a property of what I am pointing to, and one wishes to engage the mind in considering it, what is exposed is the limits of mind, itself.

Is this not (at least in part) what greybeard, Wind, tim and others have been posting about over here and here and here?

And funny how when I just went to the Spirituality section I find this thread too?

We are all one, and reality is an illusion by gnostic9

And in this same sub forum resides one of my own threads which is an attempt to make a case for "monistic idealism" and which wraps this post up with a very nice bow.

One's Metaphysical World View

[Mike]

[Chester]

Posted by Chuck (here)
Hi Sam. Thanks for the video. Just a brief comment …

I get the impression that Tim Freke rejects the idea of “creationism” or at least the notion that a good God created all life and allows evil to exist. Rather, in his view, that life (however it got here) is moving towards the good in evolution. Not quite an original thought… but I prefer merging both creationism and evolution to answer where we came from and where we are going.

That is (and not what he is saying), I like the notion of the Gods creating the space for evolution. That is, God, creating the various dimensions in consciousness, in fact creating the space for God to have a ‘beingness’ in slowed time and vibration to know what a ripe peach tastes like (for example). The resulting tapestry of all the dimensions created during the fall of involution, leaves the space for the backward journey of evolution and the gaining of knowledge and wisdom. This is the prodigal son story.

Just after I created this thread, I began to experience a "new" Tim Freke. In fact, (and from my POV), Tim went a direction I never imagined. After years of presenting to his readers that his metaphysical cosmological world view was based in Idealism (consciousness has primacy), Tim "Freked Out" (pun intended) and essentially projected himself as a materialist. I have my theories as to what factors probably played a role in his shift but I prefer not to make those public as I care for and appreciate Tim (thus can't bring myself to publicly bash him) but no longer share an aspect of his current journey.

Tim's new thesis was that everything started with the Big Bang and that hydrogen evolved to be able to "sing opera" where at some point along the way, a self-aware human being might begin to grow their soul. Yes... you read that right.

Another thing too and very relevant to my journey as to where I see all this today. I see paradigms. One being "the archontic metaphor." I see that a paradigm holds a certain degree of "power" over individuals and groups, some on a massive scale. The alternative community is filled with paradigms.

All too often, it appears one paradigm competes with another paradigm leaving many folks feeling like they have to chose one or reject them all.

Where I am at now with all this now is an expanded view which see the possibility of an underlying, far more hidden and possibly the most pervasive paradigm of all... that which we could see as "the life/anti-life paradigm" which is inclusive of all realms of manifestation or individualized expressions of being. This view is clearly dualistic and so far I have found only one solution to rising above this paradigm's power over my own individualized experience. And that is primarily Advaita Vedanta and secondarily my view that at the level of the aspect of my being I prefer to call, "my soul," no harm can come to me. So for me, "archons" have become no more a nuisance than mosquitoes.

And trust me, I have experienced (and still sometimes do) extremely disturbing levels of "archontic attention" but thanks to the last 8 years of a serious attempt to solidify my core where this very forum played a primary roll, the crap that gets thrown at me is quickly and successfully dealt with.

I did note that though I tried to "kick up" a conversation surrounding the OP and Tim's video... it really didn't get far. There's a far more pervasive paradigm - that which houses demonics - that is featured throughout the Horus-Ra thread which I need to catch up on and thus will so do.

[DeDukshyn]

Good to see you again. Hadn't noticed you'd returned ... then again I haven't been around much lately.