Which leads us to today’s Umeshism: “Why are existing religions so troublesome? Because they’re all false, the only ones that exist are so dangerous that they can survive the truth.”
I’m not sure if I can really call myself Gnostic, but if I can, mine’s neither troublesome*, nor does it make any claims inconsistent with a sufficiently strong simulation hypothesis.
-* (when e.g. Voegelin was complaining about “Gnostic” ideas of rearranging society, he was 1) obviously excluding any transformation he approved of, perhaps considering it “natural” and not dangerous meddling, and 2) blaming a fairly universal kind of radicalism correlated with all monotheistic or quasi-monotheistic worldviews; he’s essentially privileging the hypothesis to vent about personality types he dislikes, and conservatives should really look at these things more objectively for the sake of their own values)
when e.g. Voegelin was complaining about “Gnostic” ideas of rearranging society, he was 1) obviously excluding any transformation he approved of, perhaps considering it “natural” and not dangerous meddling
Um, no. He was complaining about attempts to rearrange society from the top down.
The problem is, hardly anyone else would describe a person who’s actually in a position of power to do the rearranging—like e.g. Lenin—as “Gnostic”; he has certainly been known as a dreamer blind to reality, but as I pointed out that’s a very general indictment. The way it’s actually used throughout history, “Gnosticism” has the connotations of a monastic life and mystical pursuits, detached from daily life or outright fleeing from society; after all, no leader who actually left a noticeable mark on society has ever been called that. Many parallels have been drawn between Marxism/Facscism/transhumanism/etc and religious fundamentalism, but those parallels did not include a persecuted, non-populist and underground branch of a religion.
The word has always been associated with “heresy”, and a tendency that’s imposing its own dogma & suppressing opposition is not called a “heresy”. Voegelin should’ve introduced a new term for the category of people he wanted to indict instead of appropriating an unsuitable word.
That’s very nice to say, but people are apt to find giving up some faiths very emotionally wrenching and socially costly (even if the faith isn’t high status, a believer is likely to have a lot of relationships with people who are also believers). Now what?
Arthur C. Clarke
The trouble is, the most problematic kinds of faith can survive it just fine.
Which leads us to today’s Umeshism: “Why are existing religions so troublesome? Because they’re all false, the only ones that exist are so dangerous that they can survive the truth.”
I’m not sure if I can really call myself Gnostic, but if I can, mine’s neither troublesome*, nor does it make any claims inconsistent with a sufficiently strong simulation hypothesis.
-* (when e.g. Voegelin was complaining about “Gnostic” ideas of rearranging society, he was 1) obviously excluding any transformation he approved of, perhaps considering it “natural” and not dangerous meddling, and 2) blaming a fairly universal kind of radicalism correlated with all monotheistic or quasi-monotheistic worldviews; he’s essentially privileging the hypothesis to vent about personality types he dislikes, and conservatives should really look at these things more objectively for the sake of their own values)
Um, no. He was complaining about attempts to rearrange society from the top down.
The problem is, hardly anyone else would describe a person who’s actually in a position of power to do the rearranging—like e.g. Lenin—as “Gnostic”; he has certainly been known as a dreamer blind to reality, but as I pointed out that’s a very general indictment. The way it’s actually used throughout history, “Gnosticism” has the connotations of a monastic life and mystical pursuits, detached from daily life or outright fleeing from society; after all, no leader who actually left a noticeable mark on society has ever been called that. Many parallels have been drawn between Marxism/Facscism/transhumanism/etc and religious fundamentalism, but those parallels did not include a persecuted, non-populist and underground branch of a religion.
The word has always been associated with “heresy”, and a tendency that’s imposing its own dogma & suppressing opposition is not called a “heresy”. Voegelin should’ve introduced a new term for the category of people he wanted to indict instead of appropriating an unsuitable word.
That’s very nice to say, but people are apt to find giving up some faiths very emotionally wrenching and socially costly (even if the faith isn’t high status, a believer is likely to have a lot of relationships with people who are also believers). Now what?