I am going to come out of left field here and come at this from an anthropological/historical perspective..
I think the more "Gnostic" movements that influenced Hellenistic Judaism made for some interesting synthesis.

I think Judaism is/was a very community-oriented religion. The basic core is that God created the lower world of physical realm in order for there to be free-willed humans who will communally acknowledge him by practicing various commandments. Some of these were meant for laypeople, some meant for Cohen-priests, and some of these over time shifted from priests to lay-Israelites to make a "guard" against violating the commandments. It was very much about communal practice. One anoints the mundane things by following a particular commandment that raises it a holier level by doing it in a prescribed god-ordained way. One can argue historically, that this kind of strict communitarian version of the religion was created by community-leaders (like Ezra the Scribe) that returned from the Babylonian Exile under the auspices of the Persian Empire, as governors, reforming the previous (probably more Henotheistic) religion into a strict monotheism with an orthodox version of how the history came to be.. This was around the Great Assembly with the last "prophets" of Israel (like Haggai and Malachi).

Hellenism after the time of Alexander and his spreading of Greek-thought brought ideas such as Platonism (and later Neoplatonism), Aristotelianism (and emphasis on "intellect" as mystical), Elysian mysteries, Mithra/Isis mysteries, and Pythagoreans, and many more mystery schools and variations thereof. There was also mystical ideas from Zoroastrians, Babylonian mysteries, and Egyptian mysteries prior to Alexander, so there were other strands as well. These traditions were more of a direct, personal, inner aspiration to commune with a mystical godhead. There were elements of this from the prophetic period of Judaism in the prior generation, but the nature of these schools is lost. Was it more esoteric inward looking meditation or still rather communal? Perhaps there was an inward meditative technique.. Either way, since this prophetic tradition was considered to be no longer legitimate, there was probably an allure of the more inward-looking traditions of the Greeks and Eastern mystery schools. That is where I think Gnosticism came in. It provided Jews living in Hellenistic communities to combine their own traditions with Greek mystery schools, allowing there to be a synthesis. Notice, the Gnostic sects and practices were not usually found in Israel proper, but in the cities around the main Hellenistic centers like Alexandria, Antioch, etc. I don't think historically, the Jesus Movement was associated with these Gnostic sects which rather used the character of Jesus as a vehicle to explore Gnostic thought in general. Rather, the historical Jesus, I would say was probably a sect of Essenic/Ebionite Judaism (much closer to Pharisaic Judaism but with different interpretations of the Mosaic Law, and ideas about the End Times that were more pronounced).

Anyways, there are four basic branches of Gnosticism.. I believe it is the Thomas Tradition (based on The Book of Thomas), Sethian, Hermetic, and Valentinian.. They all have similarities and a lot of variation too. — schopenhauer1

My 'scholarly' understanding of the Old testament largely comes from a single archaeology book, and traces it to Hezekiah, rather than Ezra and the expats. I don't know if it's right, could well not be. But I think we both agree that the OT is a a sort of library structured at some moment within the events being recalled. I'd be interested to hear more about the provenance of gnostic thought, and how it got tangled up with christ.

Your breakdown of how the various Hellenistic communities understood what happened is helpful. Your previous explanations of this history puts the events in the context of the people where it is happening.

One aspect that has long pestered me is that so much of the language appears in so many different ways but keeps repeating in one form or another at the same (or other) time.

It is a collection of ideas but also something else.

My 'scholarly' understanding of the Old testament largely comes from a single archaeology book, and traces it to Hezekiah, rather than Ezra and the expats. I don't know if it's right, could well not be. But I think we both agree that the OT is a a sort of library structured at some moment within the events being recalled. — csalisbury

So that book is bringing up the reformist period of Hezekiah. I didn't want to get that detailed, but the archeology book reflects a consensus that the monotheistic reforms started taking place more-or-less around Hezekiah. Baal, Asherah, and others from the original Canaanite pantheon were starting to be banned and centralization in Jerusalem of Kohein/Levites and Temple practices seems to take place around this period. There wasn't a full fledged system yet, but there was probably something like the Deutoronomic part of the Torah a little after Hezekiah, formulated by the priests in the time of King Josiah in the 600s BCE. At the end of the day, most scholars believe the final crystallization of what become Second Temple Judaism (that later became Rabbinic Judaism and Karaite Judaism after the destruction of the Temple), would be the consensus that came back from Persia of Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Great Assembly (if this is considered not just a myth from the Perkeit Avot retelling).

Long story short, the the transformation of Israelite henotheism to monotheism didn't happened overnight and started in the prophetic schools of the "Yaweh" only around the time of Hezekiah, continued through kings like Josiah, and then the transferred to the prieistly-scribal-prophet class that were allowed to form communities in Babylonia and reform the religion when Persia let these elites come back to Israel and reform it under their new priestly based (not king based) religion.

I'd be interested to hear more about the provenance of gnostic thought, and how it got tangled up with christ. — csalisbury

I think that is an interesting thing as to just how Jesus gets mixed in with gnosticism. I think before you look into gnostic thought, you should look at some of its precursors in Jewish writers like Philo who lived in Alexandria. Pauline ideas of logos seem to be suspiciously parallel to Philos ideas. I think these ideas were in the air and came from trying to apply Greek rhetoric to Jewish thought, which was more tribal historical based on a certain people and set of practices.

This is highly speculative, but here could be a possible path that happened..
The historical Jesus became associated with the Essenic/Ebionite notion of a Son of Man who is a sort of angelic figure who was associated with the ancient figure of Enoch who was supposed to have been taken to heaven and perhaps was transformed into an angelic being (later associated with Metatron and other angelic figures). This Son of Man probably originated in speculation as to the vision of Daniel. Some groups that this was a metaphor for Israel as a whole, some saw it as a metaphor for a certain Maccabean king, and others saw it as a true blue heavenly figure. This heavenly figure then becomes associated with the notion that there would be a restoration of a Jewish king. Perhaps the Jewish king is some representative of the Son of Man on earth.. Anyways.. play with these concepts however you will... it's all speculation, what happens is proto-gnostic sects, people like Paul, take this concept of Son of Man, who is representative of heavenly ruler on earth, and makes the human who was anointed as human representative as an ACTUAL divine being that was an actual Son of God, a "god-man", etc. etc.

Anyways.. This second split from Son of Man turned into literal "Son of God", then splits again.. There are those who focus on the death/resurrection idea of a sacrifice of this Son of God who then gets even more exalted by the Book of John as the Logos (shades of Philo of Alexandria here). But then there are those who go pure "Hellenistic" and see the focus on Jesus the death/resurrection as an aberration from esoteric Hellenistic ideas of the mystery schools.

So Jesus original designation of a man who is representative of Son of Man, becomes Jesus a divine Son of God, who then becomes attached to Hellenistic groups who use this burgeoning character as a way to be a mouthpiece for the esoteric ideas that were already around in Alexandrian mystery schools, Hellenistic Judaism, Platonism, and the general synthesis of culture of that time period.

One aspect that has long pestered me is that so much of the language appears in so many different ways but keeps repeating in one form or another at the same (or other) time.

It is a collection of ideas but also something else. — Valentinus

Gnostic ideas, the idea that there is something wrong with this physical world.. I can relate :D. The idea that we are exiled here and we keep being attached to it and thus perpetuate it.

oh ok you're doing that dude's thing. Yeah maybe jesus wan't real. What's the guy's name? I read his book a while back. Finding the Idea of a christ and how it pre-existed the gospels etc etc. Bummer, I thought you were coming at this from a more interesting angle. But fair, maybe jesus wasn't real.

oh ok you're doing that dude's thing. Yeah maybe jesus wan't real. What's the guy's name? I read his book a while back. Bummer, I thought you were coming at this from a more interesting angle. But fair, maybe jesus wasn't real. — csalisbury

No you misinterpreted me completely.

No you misinterpreted me completely. — schopenhauer1

Fair, correct me. Edited: retracted: you already made your point nicely

Jesus is a real historical figure. I think he comes from some branch of Essenic Judaism around the Galilean region. End of Times was important to them. But I also think he incorporated Pharisaic Judaism as well, but not all of it. The sect Jesus was a part of was probably started by John the Baptist which was a sort of synthesis of Galilean/Essenic Judaism, if I want to get real specific. Like all sects of Judaism in Israel proper, they had an interpretation of several basic things.. Jewish Law and what to do about oppression from Rome. His interpretation of Jewish law was to follow the law very closely but that certain additions that the Pharisees advocated were not necessary.. So for example, Jesus would probably never say that one should eat un-kosher foods, but one does not have to wash ones hands ritually before consuming food like the Pharisees advocated. He seemed to appreciate the intent of the law like Hillel but sided with Shammai as far as matters of divorce. These are very specific rabbinical debates around the time of Jesus and he was putting in his two cents..

As far as what to do about Rome.. He was clearly influenced by ideas of the End of Times by Essenic-type groups. The Judaism of the time needed to be reformed in the practices at the Temple, the people had to follow the laws more intensely and with the right interpretation. Perhaps he thought he was on a mission to restore a more righteous kingdom, restoring the Davidic throne, etc. etc. The idea of a Son of Man was something floating around the time of Jesus. All I was saying is maybe the Messiah- the longed for restored Jewish king was somehow associated with Daniel's vision of Son of Man.. And thus when Jesus says the Son of Man sent him (if he did say something this at all), it could be like he was anointed by this angelic figure to restore the Davidic kingdom.. Jesus always viewed himself as a man restoring the kingship, even if he claimed to be sent from the Son of Man.. What I am saying is after his death.. figures like Paul of Tarsus turned this concept into something different.. Rather, Jesus becomes a divine figure who "dies for your sins".. and thus the gentile version of the Jesus Movement begins. This is usually attributed to Paul and his writings. The original Jesus Movement about a particular Essenic Jew trying to restore the kingdom of Israel by instilling proper interpretation of Jewish law becomes a god-man under Paul.. There is a lot to unpack but that is a very brief understanding.

The original Jewish movement that Jesus started continued for only 100 years or so and mainly led by his actual brothers (James, Judas, Simeon, etc.), But eventually, the Pauline gentile communities became associated with what is "Christianity" and this original movement also started getting pushed out of mainstream synagogues in the Levant..

You've done due diligence, don't get me wrong. I"m vaguely familiar with the pre-existing idea of a 'Christ' - and its relationship to NT scripture - and how Jesus potentially fulfilled that, was made to fulfill that. You certainly have a better handle on the details than me. But I don't think you really care about any of it. It seems palpable to me that you've stored up these facts for the purpose of downplaying christ's divinity. When you say all these things I can hear you learning it, for the sake of an eventual -nah, fake. And ok. You've done it perfectly, I can't say you haven't.

But, at the same time, I find myself thinking - everything you're saying is just geared to proving 'it isn't true.' That doesn't hit any chords with me. I don't care if jesus was god or not, at all. Analogically: I could talk napoleon with someone, but if that person was bent on proving one thing I wasn't super invested in, idk, that napoleon was gay, I'd be like 'damn, this guy knows a lot, but we're just not approaching this topic on the same wavelength.' I respect your research, but all I'm learning is that you know a lot of details that tend toward jesus not being the son of god. Ok, sure, but I don't feel like I'm learning anything more about the text.

I mean maybe you're just randomly interested in this, but why not be interested in turkish government from 200 ad to 700 ad, right?

Anyway, That's not what I'm interested in, though I truly think you have mastered what you've set out to master.

But, at the same time, I find myself thinking - everything you're saying is just geared to proving 'it isn't true.' That doesn't hit any chords with me. Analogically: I could talk napoleon with someone, but if that person was bent on proving one thing I wasn't super invested in, I'd be like 'damn, this guy knows a lot, but we're just not approaching this topic on the same wavelength.' I respect your research, but all I'm learning is that you know a lot of details that tend toward jesus not being the son of god. Ok, sure, but I don't feel like I'm learning anything more about the text. — csalisbury

Well, I did warn you that I was coming at this from an anthropological/historical angle. I understand, you are more trying to analyze the sayings of the group(s) in question, and not necessarily the context for the formation of the groups and where it fit in historically/anthropologically. Granted, we are interested in two different things here.. To jump more into your interests.. Even though I think gnosticism was not really related to the historical Jesus (as I explained who I thought he was), tangentially, my own philosophies of antinatalism/philosophical pessimism very much align with these views, so it interests me as a philosophy, even if its mythical aspects are simply historical contingencies converging on certain ideas and even though a main spokesperson (Jesus) was used as a mouthpiece rather than being something the historical person even knew about let alone said.

I mean maybe you're just randomly interested in this, but why not be interested in turkish government from 200 ad to 700 ad, right?

Anyway, That's not what I'm interested in, though I truly think you have mastered what you've set out to master. — csalisbury

Thank you. Simply because Jesus is such a huge part of Western Civilization, I think it important to understand the origins of all this. Religion needs to be put in its historical context. In fact, a lot of things should be understood in its historical context.. but religion especially goes out of control when it just becomes layers of layers and layers of its own bullshit and isn't put into context of how it developed.

Jesus is a real historical figure. — schopenhauer1

Actually there is no certainty on this. Some suggest the character may have been based on a real person - there were numerous itinerant messianic teachers at the time it is stated. There are branches of mythicists who argue he is a total fiction - Dr Richard Carrier is an exponent of this.

I personally don't care if he was based on a real man or not. The question is what status do we give the claims made in the stories about yeshua ben yosef - those from outside and inside the tradition.

I am interested in the relationship between pessimism and religion. It doesn't surprise me that, as a pessimist, you're into the context of Christ - whereas it would surprise me if you were into, idk, coal markets in the balkans in the 50s. I am - truly - impressed to the extent to which you've gone into this. But at the same time it feels like .... not a foregone conclusion per se -can't place it. I respect your knowledge -its deep - but all I can see is anti-natalism HQ sending a good, shrewd, diligent, worker on a two-year mission. I dont' know how we can talk about any of this, because the horizon of your research is going to be the same fixed thing.

Analogically: I know more about breaking boxes at the homestead restaurant than you could ever know. I know which boxes they get the most of, how certain boxes fit etc. I know it inside and out. I broke boxes there for years in high school. But what is the horizon of that? It's just a kid breaking boxes for money. I think you're breaking the OT for pessimism. I respect the craft, but I just - what am I supposed to learn from it?

What I'm wanting is what you make of all this and why it matters.

I think you're breaking the OT for pessimism. I respect the craft, but I just - what am I supposed to learn from it? — csalisbury

OT does this refer to Off Topic or Old Testament?

Old testament, & new! You know a shit ton about it, but what would be most interesting is how you organize that knowledge to put forth a novel approach.

Dr Richard Carrier is an exponent of this. — Tom Storm

He is, that's the name I was grasping for - but at the end of the day, why's he doing it? I've watched many interviews with him, when I was reading the OT with a friend, who was a fan. He's cagy, and isolated. As are many people who are pushing heterodox ideas...but you just get a feeling that his impulse is based on religion, and he's trying to get a comeuppance. It's very tantaiizing if you grew up in a strong religious community; it's kind of weird otherwise. To put it into context: imagine Richard Carrier giving a lecture, with the same vibe, on the role of mana in polynesian tribes.

Proferssor Bart Ehrman is probably more nuanced. He thinks YbY was probably real but few of the stories are.

I guess I've just always come to the usual conclusions - why should I care what is written in any holy book?

The tantalizing proposal is that early Christian tradition may not have seen Jesus as divine nor risen from death. The later vulgar superhero twist to the story avoids engaging with the idea that this particular hero's journey may have been about self-knowledge, not everlasting life.

Sociologist and religious scholar John Carroll wrote an interesting book on Mark, with Jesus as an existential figure. The point was more (and I am putting this crudely) that Jesus ( traces of this are in Mark, the oldest Gospel - around 70 AD) was not interested in God and doctrine but in exploring the self - he died in despair and his rising again is tentative. There is a later end tacked onto Mark that tries to make it seem more glorious. Gnosis is perhaps an existential Jesus' answer to Camus' absurdity, to touch on another discussion.

I guess I've just always come to the usual conclusions - why should I care what is written in any holy book? — Tom Storm

I don't think you should care about any of it.

And I should check myself here. If you grew up in a problematic religious community, then I have no right to talk about these texts vis-a-vis your relationship to them. I can only talk about them from my perspective: slightly secular - raised half catholic, half protestant, (which one depended on which parent, in a messy marriage, had the upper hand in any given year) but, in any case, it was primarily a social thing. Believed in god, as a kid, but the rest was up in the air.

I'm very much on board with the self-knowledge approach, and I think these texts potentially offer some good insight. At the same time, it would be ridiculous to pretend that they haven't been used in truly noxious power-maintaining ways. (gospel of thomas, maybe not, at least not in the modern era, but it certainly hooks back up to the full christian complex)

I resist the existentialist approach, only because I think it puts too much emphasis on the individual will (another story, but I don't oppose it for any external reason - I think that approach immanently self-destructs, naturally, according to its own logic) but I think some stuff in these texts is just good, in the same way I think a Don Delillo or Marilynne Robinson novel is good, or a book on investment is good, or a friend's advice about cooking is good- it feels, to me, like the gospel of thomas is doing its genre very well. I don't think that genre is sovereign, but it's a good genre among others (& invites power-hungry assholes, like any genre: you got your Norman Mailers & Phillip Roths in literature, take your pick in finance, Gordon Ramsey in cooking etc.)

I don't generally focus on Christianity - I'm generally much more interested in Taoism, Buddhism, and Shamanism (of which there are christian, Buddhist and Taoist variants.) It would be a full thread to explain my journey from catholicism to atheism to existentialism to post-structural relativism to ecumenical spiritualism, but the end result is ecumenical spiritualism (yes, psychedelics are involved.) It is wishy-washy, in some ways - but only if it's not grounded in general practice. Life comes first, is a base, Maslow, and then you have to learn how to ritually, rhythmically structure the rest - there's no way around it. No one should care about any holy book, only tap in if its useful.

You make a great point about the pridefulness of Cioran. As Cioran says somewhere, he's been a student all his life and is proud to have done nothing. He sees time pass. He thinks of it as the highest thing. He's too good, too splendid, to take life seriously. He's a beautiful loser. Or rather he would be a loser if he wasn't so fucking good at being a loser, at speaking from the place of loss. There's something castrating in nihilism. One identifies with the screaming void as a dark god. Or plays at it. I see Cioran as occasionally ecstatically happy. I have only read some of his work, but I'm reminded that Kafka would laugh hysterically at some of his work (according to a bio that change my way of thinking about him.) You mention Tim & Eric in another post, and some of that humor is so dark that simple laughter isn't the target. It's supposed to create some fascinating wound.

On the picking a fight issue, yes indeed that's stuff we humans do. And I wrestle with shame sometimes too, because there's the temptation to mock, challenge, subvert. Then there's perhaps the worse temptation to be above all this, to scorn all this in an even less forgiving pride (silent contempt.) If one knows this evil or aggression in one's self, it's hard to be earnest, because one expects it in others, especially in those who matter, because our pretty intellectual flowers grow in the soil of cruelty (something like that.) Messages are contorted as they are squeezed through defense mechanisms (like dream work of some kind.)

I do love the idea of sinners confessing to one another in humility. That's so not cool in our world at the moment. I'm tempted to think that Twitter/Facebook has made people worse, but perhaps it's just made the structure more naked, open to research. At least beautiful Christian collisions are possible in private. Privacy is sacred for that reason perhaps. A space to be naked and forgiving (and forgiveness itself is a public sin, excepting trivial cases.)

Absolutely right - this was my point before - recondite knowledge is the poor person's pathway to an elite status. I suspect this is behind the pursuit of much mysticism. — Tom Storm

I've tended to view things this way. Perhaps academia is a kind of middle path. The respected researcher making 120K might feel greatly superior to the billionaire. Warriors also come to mind. I suspect that Navy seals are as proud as billionaires. Invidia, the human essence?

The respected researcher making 120K might feel greatly superior to the billionaire. — norm

I would think that would be justifiable. Behind every fortune is a terrible crime (Balzac).

"Casting pearls before swine" -- that's a way to keep up the appearance of one's worthiness and the worthiness of one's ideas. Because if (some) other people are demoted to swine, then one's ideas, however lowly they might be, instantly look more elevated, pearly ... — baker

This touches on one of the big issues of life. Even a socialist can't help turning up his nose at some people, in his heart if not in his public actions. There are books that I know are great that I wouldn't bring up with certain people. I wouldn't recommend them. Drugs sell themselves. The good things don't need hype.

Maybe one enjoys what feels like a relatively universal cure for existence. In that case it's natural to share it, celebrate it. But humans take such pleasure in going against the grain, being contrary...Who wants to be in the club that accepts everybody? Like many people, I've been interrupted by Jehova's Witnesses and Mormons. None of them struck me as good advertisements for the faith, and a cynic might say they were selling a product, since surely a tithe would finally be involved. Worse, I was supposed to pay for a manager rather than be paid by one. In this example, I guess I'm the swine. But what I have in mind is the first-person experience of remaining silent where speech would be futile. [For instance, I don't bother nice believing mothers with my atheism. One size does not fit all here, or it wouldn't feel right to harass them, enlighten/threaten them, etc.]

I would think that would be justifiable. Behind every fortune is a terrible crime (Balzac). — Tom Storm

I'm about to reread Cousin Bette, the only Balzac I've read. But, yeah! We all love and need money, and so all worship it to some degree, but perhaps only a few of us make it the metric. It's a universal half-god. If humans were immortal, the pursuit of wealth would be a more powerful religion perhaps. But we know that we must age and die, and this threatens every 'rational' comfort-seeking calculation.

I've known a few seriously wealthy individuals. They were pretty ordinary or miserable folk and it never made me imagine that money (past having enough for reasonable comfort) was worth pursuing.

I've never been thirsty for it myself. One of my friends has become somewhat wealthy, and it's a little awkward. Chris Rock jokes about men being willing to live in a cardboard box if it wasn't for women. Well, I'd need a cabin. But basically (perhaps you can relate), I just want a little simply security so I can read, daydream, walk in the sun, play chess, scribble now and then. Freedom from worry ! I'd happily sacrifice various expensive and complicated pleasures for that.

I've been thinking about the image of the Devil lately. He shows up in the gospels to tempt Jesus with wealth and power.

I'm waiting to see if he shows up in this gospel.

On the picking a fight issue, yes indeed that's stuff we humans do. And I wrestle with shame sometimes too, because there's the temptation to mock, challenge, subvert. Then there's perhaps the worse temptation to be above all this, to scorn all this in an even less forgiving pride (silent contempt.) If one knows this evil or aggression in one's self, it's hard to be earnest, because one expects it in others, especially in those who matter, because our pretty intellectual flowers grow in the soil of cruelty (something like that.) Messages are contorted as they are squeezed through defense mechanisms (like dream work of some kind.) — norm

Beautifully put. It is like dreams. The phenomenology of posting: You're not consciously choosing to elide this, or add that, but it sort of feels right. You have an inner sense of how things will 'land' and adjust accordingly. There's the impulse - the thing you want to say - and then in posting it, the editing, the awareness of the audience, happens sort of through you - only you experience it, a little self-misleadingly, as what you meant to say the whole time. (Alcohol facilitates that, I think, but that's its own topic.)

I think the shame might come out of a sort of cognitive dissonance - e.g. ' I know that I wanted to say - and really thought I was saying - this, but now (sober) I realize that what I subjectively experienced is different than what I was objectively doing, and I want to sweep the whole thing away. The gap between the fantasy and the reality is massive, and I'll maintain the fantasy by 'deleting' the reality. With the delusion that, itndoing so, the next time around the objective and subjective will be perfectly wed, and there won't be anyone around to remember the last time, and drag me down out of the fantasy.'

You wake up with a gasp and want to delete a post - I almost did with my last one ('ecumenical spiritualism', what are you talking about dude?)- but that impulse feels like not wanting to be the individual who made that mistake. And if you made it, that's part of how you're currently operating, and that's a good thing to know! Deleting it - as I've done in the past, and have been tempted to do - is like taking the stance of 'silent contempt' as you put it, toward yourself. The 'bad' part is pushed into the cellar again, to stew and resent, while you do stuff in a 'good' way, until the cycle repeats. Original SIn gets a bad rap, in may cases rightfully so, but one way at it is just: it's a worldview that allows you to fuck up, and makes sense of it after, without recoiling from and repressing it.


Regarding Cioran, Kafka, and Tim & Eric. I think you're right about the castration, the laugh at the void, and all of it. What I want to say is that I think it is, to echo an earlier post, sort of one genre among others. There's this Joanna Newsom song where she sings - plaintively, sweetly, patiently, understandingly - 'honey, where'd you come by that wound?' - and the plaintive, sweet, understanding vibe felt so nice that for a few months, I kept playing that song again and again - the feeling of loving attention gets tied to identifying with your wound. It's a powerful complex of things (in every 'cioran' theres an offstage 'joanna newsom' singing that song. For me it maybe echoes being sick as a kid, and mom taking especial care of me) It is a powerful aspect of life and should be given a spot - refusing loving care is its own temptation - but I also feel that it is not the sovereign genre (or emotion, or stance) I want to take - or I don't want to take any genre (aspect, region, vibe, atmosphere, emotion, frame) as sovereign at all.

One thing I've been drawn to, reading about Taoism, is the refusal of any one aspect (the mechanical ritual, the normal workings of life, the philosophical frame, the ecstatic experience, etc) to be the 'real' thing - it's all part of it. We're probably on the same page there - I just don't know if Cioran, say, is. I haven't read all of him, not even close, and there is a lot of subtle stuff - but sometimes it feels like it's all sort of subservient to a beautiful suffering to be experienced.

That at least is my working model of Cioran, which is rusty. If it isn't accurate, that's good too. I guess, regardless of whether Cioran exemplifies it, I'm interested in critically approaching the impulse of raising anything into an over-valorized thing, association with which lets you partake of it. And man, I guess even that is ok too, as long as you can navigate re-entry into the profane space where you're not part of the valorization, which is inevitable. In such a case, that valorization is an ecstatic, or ritualistic thing which has value, but oughtn't diminish the value of the stuff that isn't it.

Part of the reason I come back to this I had something that I guess would be considered a manic episode - though drug-induced -in my early 20s and it was really beautiful and after I was charged with this really great energy. As it faded, I couldn't admit it was fading and the world in the absence of that experience felt really drained and ugly. But what happened is the memory of those highs became a way I structured my life, and I wanted to attach myself to things I felt 'linked back to it' while dissociating myself from things that felt like they didn't. This was a recipe for disaster, and looking back is I think basically addiction in its purest form. All the other addictions are aspects of it, so to speak.Finding a better way of relating to these peak experiences has been a big part of how I've tried to think of stuff moving forward, so these themes crop up a lot. A sluggish, slow process filled with relapses, granted, but I think the guiding light is good.

On that note, just had the thought and impulse to repaste the last section I posted from the Gospel of Thomas:


(3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

It almost seems too clunky to explicitly break down the consonances, but I think it wonderfully fits with all of this!

You wake up with a gasp and want to delete a post - I almost did with my last one ('ecumenical spiritualism', what are you talking about dude?)- but that impulse feels like not wanting to be the individual who made that mistake. And if you made it, that's part of how you're currently operating, and that's a good thing to know! Deleting it - as I've done in the past, and have been tempted to do - is like taking the stance of 'silent contempt' as you put it, toward yourself. The 'bad' part is pushed into the cellar again, to stew and resent, while you do stuff in a 'good' way, until the cycle repeats. Original SIn gets a bad rap, in may cases rightfully so, but one way at it is just: it's a worldview that allows you to fuck up, and makes sense of it after, without recoiling from and repressing it. — csalisbury

So many good themes here, it's hard to start. I'm for Shigalyovism original sin. (I'll leave in the obscure, dorky Dostoevsky joke but get back to The Possessed.)

A more targeted response: I think I learn more from online conversation because it hurts to overhear one's public self. Dead text is a terrible nudity. Maybe you are stuffed with high feeling but then the text stain sometimes looks so pathetic. If any human being is great, then I suspect such greatness is momentary. Flowers stand pretty in the manure of ordinary life. Nietzsche wrote about the higher arising from the lower. It seems like a small point in the book, but it's everything. Instead of perfect gleaming greatness being self-created and having no shameful past, there's the slow crawl out of the mud. Warhol did some book that was just 24 hours of his friends and him talking bullshit, uncensored and raw. Maybe they performed a little for the tape-recorder, but I like the aim of sanctifying ordinary life, or making peace with the banal, the lazy, the imperfect. (I wish Byron's journal hadn't been burned. It would have been nasty, sure, but illuminating even in its nastiness.)

But yeah original sin and forgiveness...these old ideas are valuable even without traditional notions of god. It's just good relationships 101, a class which is maybe never mastered, despite its priority.