Speaker 1: You see somethings going to happen.
Speaker 2: What What's gonna happen?
Speaker 1: What a.
Speaker 2: Welcome to the occult Rejects. This episode we got a
Speaker 2: turning our returning guest. I'm very excited to get on
Speaker 2: to be talking about this topic. We'll be talking about
Speaker 2: the inny ads again from Platony's and on gnarcissism. But
Speaker 2: before we get to arrows up, we will introduce the
Speaker 2: other rejects on the show with us today. And I
Speaker 2: got my man Ethan Indigo. What is going on? Sir?
Speaker 2: How are you?
Speaker 3: Thank you Nick for putting this together. Jules, great to
Speaker 3: see you and speak with you always. Maros excited for
Speaker 3: this learn learn a lot from you and easy to
Speaker 3: find on the social media Ethan Indigo Smith. And you've
Speaker 3: been written a couple of books and definitely appreciate people's
Speaker 3: support and checking them out.
Speaker 2: And yeah, thank you, so I appreciate it. Glad you
Speaker 2: made it. And we got my main jewels. What is
Speaker 2: going on? So the Mississippi Mystic, Yeah, that's even them.
Speaker 2: Did you play that with the m M with them?
Speaker 2: For Mason's the whole MM thing? Did you play that
Speaker 2: with the m M two for Masons.
Speaker 4: Maybe I played that.
Speaker 2: Sometimes I try to use the triple M to go
Speaker 2: with like the ot.
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, well, we'll never know what is going on.
Speaker 5: I am Jeweles, host of the Gray Pill Podcast, and
Speaker 5: I am the only, the only mystic for Mississippi. I
Speaker 5: won't find any other ones down here. Nick, thank you
Speaker 5: for having me on Ethan's good seeing you eris is good.
Speaker 4: Meeting you guys.
Speaker 5: Y'all can follow me on x that Great Pill Pod,
Speaker 5: Great put Underscore podcast on Instagram, even though I barely
Speaker 5: post on there. I need to work on that and
Speaker 5: uh over on Rumble YouTube, Spotify, uh and Patreon, Patreon
Speaker 5: if you want to support the show, Patreon dot com,
Speaker 5: slash Great Pill Podcast. We just did an esoteric book review.
Speaker 5: We discussed the Pisto Sophia, So it's funny. We're talking
Speaker 5: gnosticism right now, and so yeah, it's probably u.
Speaker 4: Nick won't be.
Speaker 5: There for the next couple of weeks, so I know
Speaker 5: we may not do it live. We may just do
Speaker 5: it on Patreon. But it's every Saturday morning. We're doing
Speaker 5: twin Peaks watch parties. A few few more of those left,
Speaker 5: so I'll probably stream those live as well. But you
Speaker 5: can go over there, support the show. That's the best way,
Speaker 5: and uh yeah, happy to be here.
Speaker 2: If you see me on the show next Saturday. From
Speaker 2: an event, you know it's fucking it sucks and I'm
Speaker 2: not bored, and I jumped onto the live yeah yeah
Speaker 2: right because if it is that bad, and I have
Speaker 2: my shit set up because you know, the one at
Speaker 2: arkisas I didn't want me to try to podcast. It's like, well,
Speaker 2: if I ain't doing anything, I'm alse just jump on
Speaker 2: with you anyway. I'm just being an event looking like
Speaker 2: a loser. But uh, real quick before we introduce arrows too.
Speaker 2: And first of all, I do want to repeat people
Speaker 2: who listen to uh you know Jewels on here or whatever,
Speaker 2: or the people on this YouTube channel that tend to
Speaker 2: come here. If I'm not streaming it out on my end,
Speaker 2: he's still doing that stuff on his end, So like,
Speaker 2: go check out his YouTube channel and his rumble. I'm
Speaker 2: not always going to be sharing it, but I will
Speaker 2: be there when I can. So I'm just trying to
Speaker 2: get people to move over. You know what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: I go over to his shit and check out the
Speaker 2: book review. I love doing it. I think it's a
Speaker 2: good time and I think it's worth listening to. And yeah,
Speaker 2: and then before we get to Aros, I just do
Speaker 2: want to plug again. December, and I just keep fucking
Speaker 2: saying that October eighteenth, I will be at Fort Myers
Speaker 2: with Brook from Dark Florida will be there. She's a
Speaker 2: speaker at Charlie's Beyond Believe shall have a booth as well.
Speaker 2: There'll be if some of us there. It should be
Speaker 2: a good time. And then on the twenty fifth and
Speaker 2: twenty sixth that will be in Arkansas, a little rock, Arkansas,
Speaker 2: there is a paranormal event that is two days and
Speaker 2: it's at a museum and it's like two floors and
Speaker 2: there'll be tons of vendors and all sorts of crazy shit.
Speaker 2: Come check that out. They're all like cheap, like fifteen
Speaker 2: or ten dollars apiece. So if you're interest, there's links
Speaker 2: in the bottom for those events and they'll hopefully see
Speaker 2: you that. And now finally we're gonna shut up, and
Speaker 2: Arrows please let everybody know what your deal is. What's up?
Speaker 1: Sure? Oh, I'm arrows Up. You can find me on
Speaker 1: YouTube where I post some studies of the Naiads at
Speaker 1: Arrows Up and then I'm on Twitter as arrows to
Speaker 1: Ethos and Diane returning. So if you are so inclined
Speaker 1: after watching this one, you might want to go look
Speaker 1: at the go watch the other podcasts that we did
Speaker 1: on the niads. We talked about are the Stars, causes
Speaker 1: and multiplicity and chaos and all sorts of things.
Speaker 2: Definitely, I really enjoyed that one one. So again, you
Speaker 2: know what, if you don't mind too, that's reader yourself
Speaker 2: with like repeat kind of like from the first one.
Speaker 2: But again, like, how did you get into, like I'm
Speaker 2: going to cover Platinis in the Enneads? You even found
Speaker 2: out what fu Platinus was, however you say his name.
Speaker 1: I guess just so a long journey of just exploring
Speaker 1: different schools of thought, and I guess the most direct
Speaker 1: path to neo Platonism was probably like looking into Christian mysticism,
Speaker 1: like Saint Augustine, stuff like that, and then just following
Speaker 1: those ideas back to Platinus.
Speaker 2: See, that is something that I've really I'm glad you
Speaker 2: kind of said that Christian mysticism. And again, I'm not
Speaker 2: not knocking the religion at all, but I don't think
Speaker 2: Christians realize how many certain basic ideas that they have
Speaker 2: about maybe the afterlife or even their religion actually come
Speaker 2: from this dupe. Like I've I could be wrong, but
Speaker 2: I think like the whole idea of like oh I
Speaker 2: might say my family and friends afterwards, like came from
Speaker 2: kind of him. I could be wrong, but it was
Speaker 2: just like, you know, that's that's a deep belief that
Speaker 2: a lot of Christians hold that don't realize who gave
Speaker 2: them that fucking idea, you know what I'm saying, Like
Speaker 2: there's occultist out there and stuff that I've influenced Christianity
Speaker 2: too in ways that I guess you wouldn't consume it
Speaker 2: assume is bad because it sounds nice and it's sweet
Speaker 2: and it is, but it's coming from people who aren't
Speaker 2: necessarily looking at the religion the same way Christians are nowadays.
Speaker 2: I guess That's what I'm trying to get at.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Yeah, especially Platinis is a pagan, and so that's
Speaker 1: kind of funny that the whole like monotheistic uh metaphysics
Speaker 1: kind of comes from a pagan.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And then like Basilio Ficino, basically you know, he
Speaker 2: was the one who put his shit out and he
Speaker 2: was he was the one who really helped cement kind
Speaker 2: of using uh I guess, correlating pagan beliefs and other
Speaker 2: religions and like you know, like Crawly seven seven seven
Speaker 2: is with kind of like putting everything like this is
Speaker 2: how that these all are the same character, it's just
Speaker 2: different pantheons. That was kind of Facino who we even
Speaker 2: did that too, and that brought a lot of like
Speaker 2: stuff into Christianity, and I don't think people realize it's
Speaker 2: very interesting.
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, Christianity also started out as a pantheon, so.
Speaker 2: Yep. But uh on gnosticism, Now, this is a topic why,
Speaker 2: I mean the reason why I wanted to have you
Speaker 2: cover this topic too. I think you both we both
Speaker 2: wanted to talk about it at some point, but I
Speaker 2: was a little bit more excited to talk about this
Speaker 2: is because kind of like what I skim through, I
Speaker 2: will save my opinion. Uh, I'm very much pro or
Speaker 2: for what he's saying. I think I've said over and
Speaker 2: over again since I've started covering you know, occultists or
Speaker 2: oldest stuff, that a lot of stuff is getting human.
Speaker 2: There's a lot of characters that aren't supposed to be
Speaker 2: characters at all. And then they get stuck in that
Speaker 2: and you kind of like lose, lose the whole thing
Speaker 2: because now you're personifying energies and you're actually like thinking
Speaker 2: it's a real deity. That's kind of what I got
Speaker 2: out of it, and it was refreshing to see. I
Speaker 2: was like, oh, Okay, I'm not the only answer who
Speaker 2: thinks of that. You know, somebody thousands of years ago
Speaker 2: was saying the same fucking shit. But uh yeah, I
Speaker 2: guess you know, again not knocking agnosticism or gnostics, but uh,
Speaker 2: you know, they're just a certain thing. I don't know,
Speaker 2: So yeah, I guess, Erros, I don't know where you
Speaker 2: want to start off with the whole a gnosticism and
Speaker 2: why you like that chapter or pick that one?
Speaker 1: Well first time, do you mean deities as opposed to
Speaker 1: like uh archetypes or patterns?
Speaker 2: Well, I know, like he was even saying that, I think,
Speaker 2: like the whole idea of like Sophia, it was just
Speaker 2: like kind of like fucking silly, you know, how like
Speaker 2: an aon comes into existence and then like fucking decays.
Speaker 2: It's just like God doesn't create shit like God's and
Speaker 2: everything like he was and how the Gnostics would be like, oh,
Speaker 2: this is evil, Like he's like, no, there's God in you,
Speaker 2: it's not. You know. He really looked at it a
Speaker 2: lot differently and didn't didn't agree with agree with a
Speaker 2: lot of their beliefs. Honestly, he thought it was from
Speaker 2: when I got out and when I read in my thing,
Speaker 2: like he kind of thought it was like bad, like
Speaker 2: it really wasn't good to go down that road, right.
Speaker 1: And I feel like a lot of people are gnostic,
Speaker 1: like there are oh yeah.
Speaker 2: I called myself for it to it extent, gnosticgamistic, and
Speaker 2: that's because I call myself a nastic because I would say,
Speaker 2: I look at Christianity in a coldland.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's the probably the biggest like heretic group. But
Speaker 1: I just don't think that when people talk about gnosticism,
Speaker 1: they talk about like play and where these ideas kind
Speaker 1: of come from. And so I think that if you
Speaker 1: don't understand like uh, Timaeus and like the original concept
Speaker 1: of the demi urge and stuff, then uh, I don't know,
Speaker 1: it's it's just weird that we've kind of lost those
Speaker 1: ideas and so many people are are gnostic. So I
Speaker 1: think it is kind of important to at least talk
Speaker 1: about it and the argument against it.
Speaker 2: I would almost say, it's like you can kind of
Speaker 2: look at like I've always uh, well me and I
Speaker 2: can't even say I've said this myself. My friend Jordan
Speaker 2: Barber said this, dude in the Oto. They used to
Speaker 2: be in the Oto with uh like Wika to Thlima,
Speaker 2: you know, like Thelma's like Wicka is like you know,
Speaker 2: Thelma l like you know what I'm saying. And I
Speaker 2: feel like like if you were lik into like play
Speaker 2: it over some of the older people, Platinus gnosticism would
Speaker 2: be a way of like I'm trying to say this
Speaker 2: right way, dumb it down and that actually looked too
Speaker 2: deep and just have a story that kind of tells
Speaker 2: you the tale and then unfortunately you just fall in
Speaker 2: love with the characters and don't even realize that there
Speaker 2: are archetypes. Something to that extent. I feel like that
Speaker 2: that kind.
Speaker 1: Of happens, yeah, potentially or a purposeful like divergence. I
Speaker 1: don't know.
Speaker 2: But the reason I think say Thelema is, I mean,
Speaker 2: wick is the leam a light is you know, for
Speaker 2: some people that may not know. Gerald Gardner was a
Speaker 2: student of Alice da Crowley, and he was allowed to
Speaker 2: open up an Oto lodge. He chose Wicked instead. It
Speaker 2: was probably much more profitable.
Speaker 6: Hmm.
Speaker 1: So I guess I'm not sure how to pull up
Speaker 1: the power point. I have a power point here, just
Speaker 1: kind of going through the differences between Neoplatonism and Gnosticism
Speaker 1: and Plato's arguments against it. And I tried to retain
Speaker 1: a lot of his original sass in there.
Speaker 2: Yo. He did have some sass.
Speaker 6: Right, so so sassy yo.
Speaker 2: When I was covering a shit, I was like, Yo,
Speaker 2: I like this fucking dude. I was like, kind of
Speaker 2: talk shit like, but in a good way. I was like,
Speaker 2: I gotta learn how to talk like s throw shade
Speaker 2: like this guy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's pretty funny, especially towards.
Speaker 2: The end, but it's like he'll use big words to
Speaker 2: like call people stupid. Almost.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm trying to think, I don't know. Lots of
Speaker 1: sass in there. You'll definitely see it. So basically, the
Speaker 1: reason that Platinists really even wrote this is because in
Speaker 1: Alexandria and Rome at the time, and in his own
Speaker 1: philosophical circles, there were a lot of people who considered
Speaker 1: themselves Christians and Gnostics specifically influenced by like the Scythian
Speaker 1: and Valentinian schools, and so they were influenced by like
Speaker 1: Plato and Platinis's philosophy, but they kind of reinterpreted it
Speaker 1: in a more dualistic and mythological way, right, so I
Speaker 1: guess they if we were to kind of summarize, they
Speaker 1: claimed the material world was evil and created by an
Speaker 1: ignorant and malevolent demiurge, which is a lot different than
Speaker 1: Plato's Timeeus's version of the demiurge. They despised the cosmos
Speaker 1: and its ruler, seeing like the earth as a prison,
Speaker 1: and they thought only us, this special spiritual elite, could
Speaker 1: ascend to the divine realm. And uh, yeah, that was
Speaker 1: one of the things.
Speaker 2: I ever brought up. Sorry, did I remember that specifically?
Speaker 2: I totally forgot to mention that earlier. That was like
Speaker 2: another thing. He was like, what are these people? I
Speaker 2: think they're fucking special, basically like come.
Speaker 1: On, Yeah, And I think he was pretty upset that
Speaker 1: they corrupted his like terminology and language of like emanation
Speaker 1: intellect in the one and turned it into arrogance and
Speaker 1: world hatred. So he's just trying to set the record
Speaker 1: straight and then also defend Platonism from these distortions. So,
Speaker 1: in contrast, Platinists believes that the universe is a living
Speaker 1: organism filled with intelligence and beauty, that every level of reality,
Speaker 1: even matter, participates in the good in its own way,
Speaker 1: and that evil is privation of good, like it is
Speaker 1: like a weaker form of the good, yes, but not evil,
Speaker 1: it's not uh its own principle.
Speaker 5: That that kind of goes along with when you read
Speaker 5: about black magic, it talks about how there's an original
Speaker 5: state of this blackness that's not evil, right, It's like this,
Speaker 5: It's like they kind of messed up the definition of
Speaker 5: it and the only it can only be considered evil
Speaker 5: if or uh, you know, if we create it through
Speaker 5: through black magic.
Speaker 4: That the original blackness isn't evil kind of reminds me
Speaker 4: of that.
Speaker 2: Hmmm, they continue.
Speaker 6: Let me see see. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Basically, he believes that true assent involve and involves love
Speaker 1: and purification, not disdain for creation, and that the return
Speaker 1: to the One should come from harm you with the
Speaker 1: cosmic order, not rejection of it. Because the Gnostics also
Speaker 1: believe in this return to the One, but just like
Speaker 1: in a different way. As a rejection. So the Gnostic
Speaker 1: creation story, there's this process that takes place in the
Speaker 1: pleroma or the divine realm, which leads to creation. In
Speaker 1: this process is it involves this figure Sophia, which is
Speaker 1: like their version of the of Wisdom, I guess, and
Speaker 1: they believe that.
Speaker 2: Sorry, Roma, weren't we talking about the early jewels or something?
Speaker 5: I was just saying this is it's crazy that because
Speaker 5: we didn't plan to talk about that book.
Speaker 2: All right, yeah, yeah that book. Actually we spun a
Speaker 2: wheel on the screen to pick that book. Yeah.
Speaker 4: It was a kids and they like to open the
Speaker 4: garage door sometimes. But no, we definitely talked about the
Speaker 4: How is it like this? These different dimensions? Uh, that
Speaker 4: are all They all have their own angels and stuff.
Speaker 4: It's fits. It's very uh, very interesting.
Speaker 1: The this divine figure, I guess, moves from a state
Speaker 1: of like repose or like rest peacefulness to action, and
Speaker 1: that this movement creates the material world. And the cause
Speaker 1: of this movement from resting to an active state that
Speaker 1: created this creation or resulted in the creation, was from
Speaker 1: Sophia experiencing a desire or stirring to know the unknowable
Speaker 1: or to emulate creation. And the divine, and that this
Speaker 1: disrupted the perfect harmony of the Pleroma, which introduced imperfection
Speaker 1: and the creation of the demiurge.
Speaker 2: The painting is bugged out. I was stuck on that
Speaker 2: for a moment.
Speaker 5: I was gonna say, you can always share, like share
Speaker 5: the screen if if the whole PDF thing doesn't work
Speaker 5: and stream, but it's up to you.
Speaker 6: Oh you can't see the image very well?
Speaker 2: No, no, we Yeah, it just sometimes like if you
Speaker 2: bring it up as an image, you can blow it up bigger.
Speaker 2: It's one thing that sucks about slides sliders on your mousepad.
Speaker 2: Do you have a Mac? It's too much fun to do. Okay, Yeah,
Speaker 2: it's just bugged out. I was just like, I feel
Speaker 2: like there's like a lot of ship in there. It's
Speaker 2: weird problem, Like I feel like this part of the
Speaker 2: art is like to look like different ship looks like
Speaker 2: a wheel spoken like one of the legs.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Like, I was like, is there sigils in there that
Speaker 2: I get all that weirdy?
Speaker 3: Someone in the chad just mentioned Samsara and and it
Speaker 3: made me think of how Samsara is like the imperfected
Speaker 3: world that we live in, which is from nirvana, which
Speaker 3: is like the.
Speaker 4: If you will right right, right, yeah, just a different
Speaker 4: name for it, right.
Speaker 3: A lot of a lot of correspondence. There, certainly excuse me, arrows,
Speaker 3: Oh no, yeah.
Speaker 1: I don't apologize. Please jump in at any time, So
Speaker 1: I guess. He kind of starts out his argument with
Speaker 1: some important quotes.
Speaker 6: So he.
Speaker 1: Explains that the good is primal, the most absolutely simplex
Speaker 1: and integral unity. The secondary can never be simplex. It
Speaker 1: contains nothing, and that the good is self sufficing in
Speaker 1: the sense that it is not of that compound nature
Speaker 1: which would make it dependent upon any constituent. So it's
Speaker 1: self contained, deriving from nothing alien, entering into nothing alien
Speaker 1: in no way a made up thing. There can be
Speaker 1: nothing above it, because there's this idea that that there
Speaker 1: is like no beginning and end to it.
Speaker 6: And so.
Speaker 1: He begins his argument against the Gnostics and their creation
Speaker 1: story with the following quote, They will scarcely urge upon
Speaker 1: us the doubling of the principle and act by a
Speaker 1: principle and potentiality. It is absurd to seek such plurality
Speaker 1: by distinguishing between potentiality and actuality. In the case of
Speaker 1: immaterial beings whose existence is an act. Even in lower forms,
Speaker 1: no such division can be made. And we cannot conceive
Speaker 1: a duality in the intellectual principle, one phase in some
Speaker 1: vague claim another all uster Under what form can we
Speaker 1: think of repose in the intellectual principle as contrasted with
Speaker 1: its movement or utterance? What would the quiescence of the
Speaker 1: one phase be as against the energy of the other.
Speaker 1: So what he's really saying there is that the creation
Speaker 1: story holds this belief that the divine exists in those
Speaker 1: two states in potential, in that reposed state, the wanting
Speaker 1: or desiring something state, and then another state, which would
Speaker 1: be act, doing something, creating, falling right, Because that's how
Speaker 1: they believe that creation came to be, is from Sophia
Speaker 1: stirring from that repose to movement by that desire. So
Speaker 1: Platinus argues, potentiality only makes sense for things that can
Speaker 1: change immaterial intelligence, such as you know what Sophia would
Speaker 1: be because this is before her descent, before she came
Speaker 1: to have a body. They have no potential. They are
Speaker 1: pure act and the divine is pure actuality or pure activity,
Speaker 1: and that there can't be two phases in intellect. It
Speaker 1: is that unified activity rest in motion are material metaphors.
Speaker 1: The divine is timeless and always fully itself. It never
Speaker 1: stops and starts. So it's like he's pointing out that
Speaker 1: Sophia is like a very for a divine being without
Speaker 1: a body. It exists like a human and that just
Speaker 1: does not make sense for the higher realms.
Speaker 2: I think that's kind of what I was getting at earlier.
Speaker 2: It was like how people would like take something that
Speaker 2: really can't be put into human form, that it's not
Speaker 2: meant to be, and it kind of will screw it up,
Speaker 2: you know, and it's unfortunate. I mean, we do it
Speaker 2: in me myself, I'm sure in our own ways. I mean,
Speaker 2: we do find ways to come not in love, but
Speaker 2: been dazzled by like characters. You know what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: I don't know. So do you think that can screw
Speaker 2: stuff up?
Speaker 6: All right?
Speaker 1: Let's see, there's this quote. To ask why the soul
Speaker 1: has created the cosmos is to ask why there is
Speaker 1: a soul and why a creator creates. The question also
Speaker 1: implies a beginning in the eternal and further represents creation
Speaker 1: as the act of a changeable being who turns from
Speaker 1: this to that and then this is kind of a
Speaker 1: sassy little thing. Those that so think must be instructed
Speaker 1: if they would but bear with correction in the nature
Speaker 1: of the sopernals, and brought to desist from that blasphemy
Speaker 1: of majestic powers which comes so easily to them, where
Speaker 1: all should be reverenced gruple. It's kind of like making
Speaker 1: fun of them for thinking that they are like elite
Speaker 1: and even above the demiurge. Okay, this is hilarious to me,
Speaker 1: the contrary's supposition, and would give us two beings, one
Speaker 1: that merely knows, in another a separate being.
Speaker 6: That knows of the act of knowing.
Speaker 1: If we are answered that the distinction is merely a
Speaker 1: process of our thought, then at once the theory of
Speaker 1: a further hyposthesis is abandoned. Further, the question is opened
Speaker 1: whether our thought can entertain and knowing principle so narrowed
Speaker 1: to its knowing as to not know that it knows,
Speaker 1: a limitation which would be charged as imbecility even in ourselves,
Speaker 1: who if but a very ordinary moral forces are always
Speaker 1: master of our emotions and mental processes. The absurdity becomes
Speaker 1: still more blatant if we introduce yet a further distinction
Speaker 1: after that, which affirms the knowledge of the knowing, a
Speaker 1: third distinction affirming the knowing of the knowledge.
Speaker 6: Of the knowing.
Speaker 1: Yet there is no reason against carrying on the division
Speaker 1: forever and ever. So you can know and not know
Speaker 1: that you're knowing, but you can't know that you know
Speaker 1: and not know of the knowing.
Speaker 3: That you know.
Speaker 2: It'd be totally honest. I think that word no knowing
Speaker 2: and knowledge is totally fucking misused constantly.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it means completely different.
Speaker 2: Now probably you know, well, like listen, well, like I'm
Speaker 2: just gonna keep it real. Let me put it this way,
Speaker 2: like people listening to the show, you can only take
Speaker 2: our stuff as a faith of belief until you've actually
Speaker 2: had an experience with it. Then, once you've had that
Speaker 2: experience and whatever we said might fucking fit your experience,
Speaker 2: then it might be knowledge or knowing. But until then
Speaker 2: it's actually not. You know, I could I could read
Speaker 2: a book. I could pick up Crowley right now and
Speaker 2: spend ten hours reading a book and literally put it
Speaker 2: down and polace say, I really don't understand half of
Speaker 2: the shit I read in there. Just because I fucking
Speaker 2: read it doesn't mean it equals up. Yeah, I have
Speaker 2: to comprehend what the fun I'm reading first.
Speaker 4: I don't know anything, dude, Right, that you know something
Speaker 4: is to know nothing.
Speaker 2: So no, But I just like, even like how we
Speaker 2: use words nowadays, it's like it's not even fucking correct,
Speaker 2: you know, especially when we're going to our own heads off.
Speaker 5: I think it changes more than just the word, right,
Speaker 5: It changes the meaning behind it.
Speaker 4: It changes, you know, stuff that's happening in our world.
Speaker 5: That goes back to how all this stuff is connected,
Speaker 5: you know, spiritually. But I digress.
Speaker 2: Go ahead, go ahead, go ahead.
Speaker 3: Well, the polarity of the known and unknowns and the
Speaker 3: response of knowing it reminds me of I think it
Speaker 3: was Aristotle who put forth the idea of the move
Speaker 3: the unmoved, and the unmoved, mover and the moved, and
Speaker 3: it has this kind of sense about that. And there
Speaker 3: is also kind of a way to look at information
Speaker 3: as known knowns and unknown knownes and so forth, and
Speaker 3: it can get a bit redundant and kind of confusing.
Speaker 3: But essentially, there's things that we know that we don't know,
Speaker 3: and there's things that we know that we know, and
Speaker 3: then the unknown uh nones that gets to be kind
Speaker 3: of level of intuition too, writ like from where did
Speaker 3: we know this unknown? So it gets a little bit
Speaker 3: redundant and hard to definitely hard to put forth, and
Speaker 3: and someone just deaf Knoxter, I like your name just
Speaker 3: put forth. That is very Rumsfeldian for Rumsfeld to point
Speaker 3: it out this one time in a really crude notion.
Speaker 3: And but he only pointed out three. There was actually
Speaker 3: a fourth type if you really get into it. But
Speaker 3: interesting that that whole series, that whole couple of paragraphs
Speaker 3: is very interesting. And the two beings reminds me of
Speaker 3: I maybe even in in this chapter Eros you might
Speaker 3: know about the the house and the two brothers, I
Speaker 3: do not know, Okay, No, it made me think of that,
Speaker 3: which I think it was essentially one way to look
Speaker 3: at the divergence of the Gnostics and the Neoplatonists. Was
Speaker 3: two brothers in a house and one is just totally
Speaker 3: disappointed in the flaws of the structure and can't really
Speaker 3: get past that. And the other brother is totally aware
Speaker 3: that the house is flawed and there's things that need
Speaker 3: to be fixed, but he also wants to go forth
Speaker 3: and I live, you know, without being held back.
Speaker 2: By that.
Speaker 1: Okay, yeah, actually yes he does mention that in this
Speaker 1: chapter now that you're refreshing my memory, gosh, he says
Speaker 1: that it's a matter of necessity, like accepting necessity. That
Speaker 1: you know, the one that's always unhappy with the architecture
Speaker 1: just can't accept necessity the other, does.
Speaker 2: You know? It was another thing I just wanted to
Speaker 2: add in with. I think his the whole thing with
Speaker 2: the elite and stuff. I haven't want to like, you know,
Speaker 2: if you want to start playing again on the word
Speaker 2: nosis or knowing and all that stuff. I also do
Speaker 2: think like Plotinus was big on I think you called
Speaker 2: it hernosis. I could be wrong, and that to me,
Speaker 2: to me, the way he explained it, that was crossing
Speaker 2: the Abyss, and I think he had even claimed that
Speaker 2: he had did it like four times, you know for
Speaker 2: a cult. This for myself is that that's when I
Speaker 2: have a knowing because now I've actually experienced both sides,
Speaker 2: and there's certain things that you know now because if
Speaker 2: you've experienced it, the people who have that experience can well.
Speaker 2: The reason where all this fucking humanity is fucked up
Speaker 2: is because people who have that experience take you know,
Speaker 2: take advantage of the people the massive you know, again,
Speaker 2: like ninety three percent of the population will never have
Speaker 2: that fucking experience, probably so that that little bit percent
Speaker 2: can manipulate everybody else if they want to. So I
Speaker 2: could see like maybe like that whole idea of like,
Speaker 2: you know, those people thinking they're they're the elite. I mean,
Speaker 2: technically they are more elite amongst the population because of
Speaker 2: their understanding of the human psyche and reality. So I'm
Speaker 2: even wondering if you even like kind of looked at
Speaker 2: it that way, is that he understood that, like some
Speaker 2: of these people do understand what the fuck's going on,
Speaker 2: and they're actually just being pieces of shit about it.
Speaker 2: You know, they're selling people fucking bullshit they're taking advantage of.
Speaker 2: You know, I've wondered because you know, of knowing how
Speaker 2: big he was on her nosis and that equaling like
Speaker 2: kind of knowing as well I think are understanding just
Speaker 2: I think the same.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that is interesting. I wonder if he goes into
Speaker 1: that and like any of his tractates sound like the
Speaker 1: evil or the problem of the soul or something.
Speaker 2: I mean, it'd be no different than like me and
Speaker 2: a few other people, like even the guy that we
Speaker 2: had on last night with Annie. I mean, both of
Speaker 2: us are both saying that a lot of this UFO
Speaker 2: alien shit is a bunch of bulls ship, you know,
Speaker 2: it's it's all, it's all occult stuff being wrapped up
Speaker 2: into some fairy tale to sell people. It's the same
Speaker 2: ship with narcissism, probably coming from people who actually understood ocultism,
Speaker 2: because he's like, you should know better, you shouldn't be
Speaker 2: putting it out this way because people are taking it
Speaker 2: the wrong way.
Speaker 6: Very true.
Speaker 2: Yeah, maybe it's something like that too. Who knows, We'll
Speaker 2: never know, so.
Speaker 1: I guess Platinus how he sees the knowing and the known.
Speaker 6: He believes that.
Speaker 1: The knowing, the knower, and the known are one in
Speaker 1: the same reality.
Speaker 2: That what would you consider that? Would that be like
Speaker 2: the one and a new I don't know, is that
Speaker 2: father down anything. I feel like that's almost like an idea. Yeah.
Speaker 2: I feel like it's almost like an idea that he uses,
Speaker 2: or like I forgot how there's like a couple of
Speaker 2: things like I forgot this phrases that he uses. I
Speaker 2: could be completely wrong.
Speaker 4: What are you doing about the now snick? Yeah?
Speaker 5: Yeah, like like that the same thing as the Christ.
Speaker 5: It's like the same spirit.
Speaker 4: I believe it's similar, very similar.
Speaker 2: Could be getting confused with somebody else that I covered
Speaker 2: where it's like they had like these phrases like the
Speaker 2: person thinking and the thought and then the thinking of
Speaker 2: the thought. I would have to explain ship like that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean he believes that the one is pure knowing.
Speaker 6: And that new right.
Speaker 1: It doesn't first know something and then turn to reflect
Speaker 1: to itself like you can't.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, that's yeah, like that that's so choke my
Speaker 2: like in fucking in a kabbala. Oh my god, I
Speaker 2: feel like that is so choked face to face with God,
Speaker 2: you know.
Speaker 1: I think it's just like like that last slide, like
Speaker 1: you can't know and know that you know, Like that's
Speaker 1: just one knowing. It's like they handshake each other, if
Speaker 1: that makes sense. Can't really be distinct.
Speaker 3: Maybe Kashdar a little riddle about knowing or the kind
Speaker 3: of maybe like knowing and more intuiting or knowing deeply.
Speaker 3: Would if you need to get to the place that
Speaker 3: you've never been before, and you're in no country you've
Speaker 3: never been before, would you rather go with the person
Speaker 3: who knows the way or the person who has been
Speaker 3: there before. And at first it might appear like knowing
Speaker 3: the way, Well, that's great, like let him take me,
Speaker 3: but has he he hasn't been there before, right, and
Speaker 3: so you might want to go with the person who
Speaker 3: he can't explain he doesn't know it in a way
Speaker 3: that he could tell you, but he knows it in
Speaker 3: a way that he could get there bodily wise. Excuse
Speaker 3: me that, I just thought that was worth kind of
Speaker 3: sharing the two different knowledge there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, thank you, So yeah, I guess that's the argument
Speaker 1: is that news is just the act of knowing, so
Speaker 1: it can't be two separate things, and you can't break
Speaker 1: it up into like a reposed state and an active
Speaker 1: state because it is pure activity.
Speaker 6: It's pure actuality.
Speaker 1: And then you know, another argument coming from that is
Speaker 1: that this movement implies like temporal development something, you know,
Speaker 1: going from a potential to actuality, and they like linear
Speaker 1: developmental fashion. But these higher realms they don't they don't
Speaker 1: have time. Everything just exists. They're all at once, the
Speaker 1: patterns all exist.
Speaker 6: Matter is.
Speaker 1: Developed uh literally like that through time, but it matter
Speaker 1: has potentiality. But that's just you know, what is necessary
Speaker 1: for things to come into form. So yeah, basically he
Speaker 1: believes that potentiality doesn't exist in us or the one.
Speaker 1: It belongs to the soul and to matter. And so
Speaker 1: how could Sophia.
Speaker 6: You know, have.
Speaker 1: Kind of like actualized or desired or uh.
Speaker 6: Any of those things.
Speaker 2: Yeah, can you go back real quick. I hate to
Speaker 2: like drag this throng, but it's just like this stuff
Speaker 2: right here football Titus uh news uh. I mean that's
Speaker 2: for real. It's like so choke muf for me again.
Speaker 2: Like you know, the experience is supposed to be face
Speaker 2: to face the God, and it's like the knower knowing
Speaker 2: the knower and the knower won. I mean, if you
Speaker 2: look at how the tree works, I mean obviously that
Speaker 2: was the situation before you became sphere two like but
Speaker 2: so but then like again you even have here something
Speaker 2: else then then turned to reflect on itself. I think
Speaker 2: that's how you actually know what the fuck is even
Speaker 2: going on is because now you're able to look back
Speaker 2: and see what you were. You know, that whole thing
Speaker 2: is when the knowing comes in and it just to me,
Speaker 2: it's so very much Chokoma right there in Kabala. Just
Speaker 2: to me, it's exact same.
Speaker 3: I was thinking a similar thing Mick about it keeps
Speaker 3: on beckoning the four dimensions, so, uh, creation, in formation
Speaker 3: and of course the first one. Why am I spacing
Speaker 3: it right now? But it's all, It all just kind
Speaker 3: of beckons to those four worlds.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's very cabalistic to me vice versa, which everyone
Speaker 2: can people want to argue that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I feel like metaphysics really translates to very similarly
Speaker 1: in so many different schools of thought. It's kind of
Speaker 1: interesting how it works and how they differ. Okay, So
Speaker 1: I guess here's a little sass on Sophia.
Speaker 6: He says, to those who.
Speaker 1: Assert that creation is the work of the soul, after
Speaker 1: the fall of its wings, we answered that no such
Speaker 1: disgrace could overtake the soul of the all. If they
Speaker 1: tell us of its falling, they must tell us also
Speaker 1: what caused the fall and when did it take place?
Speaker 1: If from eternity, then the soul must be essentially a
Speaker 1: fallen thing. If at some one moment, why not before that?
Speaker 1: We assert its creative act.
Speaker 6: To be proof not of decline, but rather of its.
Speaker 1: Steadfasthold, its decline could consist only in its forgetting the
Speaker 1: divine But if it forgot, how could it create?
Speaker 6: Once?
Speaker 1: Does it create but from things it knew in the divine?
Speaker 1: If it creates from the memory of that vision, it
Speaker 1: never fell. Even supposing it to be in some dim
Speaker 1: intermediate state, it need not be supposed more likely to decline.
Speaker 1: Any inclination would be towards its prior and an effort
Speaker 1: to the clearer vision. If any memory it all remained,
Speaker 1: what other desire could it have than to retrace the way?
Speaker 1: What could it have been planning to gain by world
Speaker 1: creating glory? That would be absurd, a motive borrowed from
Speaker 1: the sculptors of our earth. Finally, if the soul created
Speaker 1: by policy and not by sheer need of its nature,
Speaker 1: by being characteristically the creative power, how explain the making
Speaker 1: of this universe? And when will it destroy the work?
Speaker 1: If it repents of its work, what is it waiting for?
Speaker 1: If it has not yet repented, then it will never repent.
Speaker 1: It must be already accustomed to the world, must be
Speaker 1: growing more tender towards it with the passing of time.
Speaker 2: I do agree with to be your well us, it's
Speaker 2: explained that the whole material world being evil. But I
Speaker 2: do agree with a lot of that stuff. The way
Speaker 2: he looks at it with God being you know, everything
Speaker 2: has the I guess the potential.
Speaker 4: It's very interesting to see it from this point of view.
Speaker 2: Definitely.
Speaker 1: I think the big part of this is, you know,
Speaker 1: he has this idea that we are that you know,
Speaker 1: there are the pure forms and news, and that we
Speaker 1: are always kind of striving upwards towards the more pure forms.
Speaker 6: And so it's like this idea that like, how could
Speaker 6: the I at it?
Speaker 1: But yeah, but basically like we we retrace the way
Speaker 1: back up and like what really could a creator get
Speaker 1: from creating all of this? And how could it forget
Speaker 1: what it knew and all of those things? Oh shooting, okay,
Speaker 1: And so this is him defending the good. He says,
Speaker 1: it is the essence of things that each gives of
Speaker 1: its being to another. Without this communication, the good would
Speaker 1: not be good, nor the intellectual principle and intellective principle, nor.
Speaker 6: Would soul itself be what it is. The law is
Speaker 6: some life.
Speaker 1: After the primal life, a secondary where there is a
Speaker 1: first all linked in one unbroken chain, all eternal divergent
Speaker 1: types being engendered only in the sense of being secondary.
Speaker 1: In other words, things commonly described as generated have never
Speaker 1: known a beginning. All has been and will be. Nor
Speaker 1: can anything disappear unless where a later form is possible.
Speaker 1: Without such a future, there can be no dissolution. So basically,
Speaker 1: the divine can't fall. It's perfect. It lacks nothing. No
Speaker 1: ignorance or error can occur to cause a fall. All
Speaker 1: things flow naturally from the good, like light from the sun,
Speaker 1: not through accident or sin. This outflow is eternal, not
Speaker 1: a one time event in history or time. The material
Speaker 1: world isn't evil, but the dimmest reflection of divine light.
Speaker 1: Reality forms one continuous chain. So nothing truly separates or
Speaker 1: falls from the divine source. And I think it gets
Speaker 1: explained even better further, and so I'll just keep going.
Speaker 2: Sounds good, okay, Im.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I know my powerpoints are so boring. It's all
Speaker 1: just text and like two pictures.
Speaker 3: But.
Speaker 2: People, it's okay.
Speaker 1: Yep.
Speaker 5: So this is.
Speaker 6: Again just trying to.
Speaker 1: Defend like the good and that everything is made from
Speaker 1: the good, and everything is a mirror reflection of the
Speaker 1: good or orchestrated from things that are higher.
Speaker 6: So all right.
Speaker 1: He furthers his argument by saying, nor may we grant
Speaker 1: that this world is of unhappy origin because there are
Speaker 1: many jarring things in it. Such a judgment would rate
Speaker 1: it too high, treating it as the same with the
Speaker 1: intelligible realm and not merely its reflection. And even further
Speaker 1: in the tractate, he says that you know, to call
Speaker 1: the world evil because it is a less perfect reflection,
Speaker 1: you know, like you could use that argument against even
Speaker 1: like noos because news isn't as perfect as the one either,
Speaker 1: So that's just not a great argument. And then yeah,
Speaker 1: I added this image because I'm a very visual learner
Speaker 1: of just.
Speaker 6: Like how reflection really works. Right, Like if.
Speaker 1: Glass reflecting something, some of that light is going to
Speaker 1: be absorbed, some of it is transmitted where it just
Speaker 1: kind of like keeps going kind of past, and then
Speaker 1: only some of that is reflected. And then even more,
Speaker 1: if that surface isn't like perfectly level, it's.
Speaker 6: Gonna reflect.
Speaker 1: Sometimes like dispersed and just not a perfec reflection, you know.
Speaker 6: Okay, And.
Speaker 1: Now he's kind of going into how the gnostics kind of.
Speaker 3: Have this.
Speaker 1: Idea that kind of makes no sense, where they believe
Speaker 1: that they'll ascend when they die to a more heavenly version.
Speaker 6: Of the world.
Speaker 1: Right, So he says, furthermore, these teachers and their contempt
Speaker 1: for this creation and this earth, proclaimed that another earth
Speaker 1: has been made for them, into which they are to
Speaker 1: enter when they depart. Now, this new earth is the
Speaker 1: reason form of our world. Why should they desire to
Speaker 1: live in the archetype of a world abhorrent to them?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 1: You know, why would you want to live in and
Speaker 1: like a more like a closer archetype or the archetype.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's still if you're if you live there,
Speaker 1: it's still going to have form, so it wouldn't be perfect.
Speaker 6: And if you think that the.
Speaker 1: World is evil, and then like it's really just a
Speaker 1: mirror of that archetype.
Speaker 6: How can that archetype be good but the mirror reflection
Speaker 6: of it be evil?
Speaker 1: And so then uh, I guess he talks about that
Speaker 1: as being like a midworld, right, And I guess is
Speaker 1: that kind of like what you guys were talking about
Speaker 1: the pleroma and like these midworlds?
Speaker 5: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, kind of like these certain levels
Speaker 5: that have these hierarchies of these entities that live there
Speaker 5: some you know, some people call them angels or you know,
Speaker 5: the archons, the AONs whatever.
Speaker 6: But you see it in a lot of.
Speaker 5: Ancient culture, you know, the same idea, right, So I
Speaker 5: don't know if there may be something to it, but
Speaker 5: it's just not you know, it's probably not exactly what
Speaker 5: it is, you know.
Speaker 4: I don't know if if anyone has it at one
Speaker 4: hundred percent.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I think it's an interesting idea. I think
Speaker 1: Platinus believes definitely and like us hierarchy and immortal beings
Speaker 1: and all of those things. But he does think that
Speaker 1: the midworld idea is kind of dumb.
Speaker 2: I got.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Hey, I mean his argument makes sense, to be
Speaker 4: honest with you, Like I said, I hadn't really looked
Speaker 4: at it from that perspective before.
Speaker 6: Yeah. He explains that more here.
Speaker 1: Actually, he says, let us suppose the maker craving to
Speaker 1: construct such an intermediate world, though, what motive could he
Speaker 1: have in addition to the intellectual world, which he eternally possesses.
Speaker 1: If he made the midworld first, what end was it
Speaker 1: to serve to be a dwelling place for souls? How
Speaker 1: then did they ever fall from it? It exists in
Speaker 1: vain if he made it later than this world abstracting
Speaker 1: the formal Sorry, if he made it later than this world,
Speaker 1: abstracting the formal idea of this world and leaving the
Speaker 1: matter out. The souls that have come to know that
Speaker 1: intermediate sphere would have experienced enough to keep them from
Speaker 1: entering this. If the meaning is simply that souls exhibit
Speaker 1: the idea form of the universe, what is there distinctive
Speaker 1: in the teaching? So basically, if the divine already possesses
Speaker 1: the perfect intellectual realm, a separate midworld would serve no purpose.
Speaker 1: If souls have already experienced this midworld and are naturally
Speaker 1: drawn to higher reality, why would they descend into matter
Speaker 1: at all? They would have already reached full understanding. If
Speaker 1: the archetypes already exist in noos, What is the point
Speaker 1: of this midworld at all?
Speaker 2: I think I think angels is like a good example
Speaker 2: of like doing something human form that isn't that might be,
Speaker 2: you know, m I think that's why they don't even
Speaker 2: a lot of times they see androgenous, because they're not
Speaker 2: supposed to actually be in the flush well.
Speaker 4: And I'm sure, yeah right, I'm I'm I'm sure it's
Speaker 4: it's probably just their light.
Speaker 2: Bodies, right, So I think they all yeah, that's actually, yeah,
Speaker 2: seeing that.
Speaker 5: Ind the astral realm, that would just give off color, right,
Speaker 5: color in a shape a form maybe, so they interpret
Speaker 5: that with wings in a halo and.
Speaker 4: All that stuff, when really that's all symbolic later on.
Speaker 2: You know, I think a lot of the wings uh
Speaker 2: wings sometimes is my theory, well my theory with a
Speaker 2: lot of angels actually, I mean, they're always considered messengers.
Speaker 2: I do actually think the nervous system might fit some
Speaker 2: angelic stories. I mean, because there are traveling messages and
Speaker 2: they are of electricity on.
Speaker 5: Link from this dimension to the next. You know, people
Speaker 5: look at it so black and white, like they just
Speaker 5: come down, you know. It's like, no, it's it's a
Speaker 5: lot more.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a little different than like what dogmin when
Speaker 2: they were like, you know, actually in human form and
Speaker 2: they got wings. All right, sorry interrupted, No, It's.
Speaker 1: So interesting though, like uh to try to conceptualize those
Speaker 1: things and like how how they would be different, how
Speaker 1: would you even really categorize them? And so now he
Speaker 1: starts accusing uh the Gnostics of like not giving Plato
Speaker 1: proper recognition and of like inventing jargon to try to
Speaker 1: make their uh metaphors work.
Speaker 5: And to.
Speaker 1: Oh that part of their doctrine comes from Plato and
Speaker 1: the rest from outside the truth. He says, from Plato
Speaker 1: come their punishments, their rivers of the underworld, and the
Speaker 1: changing from body to body. As for the plurality they
Speaker 1: assert in their intellectual realm, the authentic existence, the intellectual principle,
Speaker 1: the second Creator, and the soul, all this is taken
Speaker 1: over from the time Aus. It's kind of saying like
Speaker 1: you got all of your metaphysics from Timeus and you
Speaker 1: give no credit. And then even further, he says that
Speaker 1: the Gnostics dishonor Plato and misrepresent his theory in every
Speaker 1: way possible, and this is like one of the sassiar
Speaker 1: full passages.
Speaker 6: He says.
Speaker 1: They hope to get the credit of minute and exact
Speaker 1: identification by setting up a plurality of intellectual essences, but
Speaker 1: in reality this multiplication lowers the intellectual nature to the
Speaker 1: level of the sense kind. Their true course is to
Speaker 1: seek to reduce number to the least possible in the
Speaker 1: supreme simply referring things to the second hyposthesis, which is
Speaker 1: all that exists as it is primal intellect and reality
Speaker 1: and is the only thing that is good except for
Speaker 1: the first nature, and to recognize soul as the third principle,
Speaker 1: accounting for the difference among souls merely by a diversity
Speaker 1: of experience and character. Instead of insulting those venerable teachers,
Speaker 1: they should receive their doctrine with the respect due to
Speaker 1: the older thought and honor at that noble system and
Speaker 1: immortal soul, and intellectual and intelligible realm, the Supreme God,
Speaker 1: the soul's need of emancipation from all intercourse with the body,
Speaker 1: the fact of separation from it, to escape from the
Speaker 1: world of process to the world of essential being. These
Speaker 1: doctrines all emphatically asserted by Plato, they do well to adopt.
Speaker 1: Where they differ. They are at full liberty to speak
Speaker 1: their minds, but not to procure a cent for their
Speaker 1: own theories by flaying and flouting the Greeks. Where they
Speaker 1: have a divergent theory to maintain, they must establish it
Speaker 1: by its own merits, declaring their own opinions with courtesy
Speaker 1: and with philosophical method, and stating the controverted opinion fairly.
Speaker 1: They must point their minds towards the truth, and not
Speaker 1: hunt fame by insult, reviling, and seeking in their own
Speaker 1: persons to replace men honored by the fine intelligences.
Speaker 6: Of ages past.
Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, the ancient doctrine of the
Speaker 1: divine essences was far the sounder and more instructed, and
Speaker 1: must be accepted by all not caught in the delusions
Speaker 1: that beset humanity. It is easy also to identify what
Speaker 1: has been conveyed in those later times from the ancients
Speaker 1: with incongruous novelties. How for example, when they must set
Speaker 1: up contradictory doctrine, they introduce a medley of generation and destruction.
Speaker 1: How they travel at the universe, how they make the
Speaker 1: soul blameable for the association with the body, how they
Speaker 1: reviled the administrator of this all. How they ascribed to
Speaker 1: the creator identified with the soul, the character and experiences
Speaker 1: appropriate to partial beings.
Speaker 4: WHOA, yeah, yeah, he didn't like him.
Speaker 2: Thrower definitely thrown shade at the gnostics. Man, it was
Speaker 2: kind of like I said, from even a little bit
Speaker 2: I looked at I was like, this was kind of
Speaker 2: funny that he said.
Speaker 4: It is kind of making sense.
Speaker 2: So now I had I had, I had my thing,
Speaker 2: because you had two different I think, like two different academics.
Speaker 2: You know, doesn't mean they know everything. That were like
Speaker 2: looking at it, and uh one said that they thought
Speaker 2: he had like almost like a total hatred for him.
Speaker 2: But then there was another one who said that there's
Speaker 2: proof of him allowing him allowing them to even come
Speaker 2: and debate, that he was cool with them. You want
Speaker 2: to show up and you want a debate on this,
Speaker 2: let's let's do it. So I think he was even
Speaker 2: open and he even had some friends that he still
Speaker 2: kept in touch with that was cool with that did
Speaker 2: actually become gnostics. So uh, you know what I'm getting
Speaker 2: at is that I don't know if it happened or not,
Speaker 2: but you know, maybe he even let let them come
Speaker 2: over and they even debated. That would have been pretty
Speaker 2: fucking wild. I wonder if like the ship talking, then.
Speaker 4: That's definitely.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean he was a nice guy, but oh yeah,
Speaker 1: there was a throng in his opinions.
Speaker 2: Yeah. They said he even took in like like kids
Speaker 2: are people that like, uh like families will like help
Speaker 2: them like if they were fucked up, and ship they
Speaker 2: actually so like the way he lived was like he
Speaker 2: actually was like a really good guy.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I'm trying to remember for how many orphans he
Speaker 6: took in. I think it's like.
Speaker 1: Somewhere between five and like twelve, which is which means
Speaker 1: like no one really knows, I guess, but yeah, I
Speaker 1: think that they were mostly though his like friends' kids, like.
Speaker 3: Some of the.
Speaker 6: More like nobles, like when.
Speaker 1: Their parents passed away, they took them on and and
Speaker 1: they gave him actually, like they're like a lot of
Speaker 1: wealth to take care of these kids, and yet he
Speaker 1: basically just took care of that wealth for them and
Speaker 1: like set them up like for when they were ready
Speaker 1: to take that on. But he like lived in like
Speaker 1: very modestly. He never took any of that money for himself.
Speaker 6: It's kind of.
Speaker 1: Oh, okay, we're almost nearing the end here, and this
Speaker 1: is this is like the pretty funny okay, he says,
Speaker 1: admitting that human souls have descended under constraint of the
Speaker 1: all soul? Are we to think the constrain the nobler
Speaker 1: among souls? What commands must be higher than what obeys?
Speaker 1: And if the coming was unconstrained, why find fault with
Speaker 1: the world you have chosen and can quit if you
Speaker 1: dislike it. It's like a hilarious, like polite way to say,
Speaker 1: why don't you kill yourself?
Speaker 2: So jeez.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So if you guys ever need a polite way
Speaker 1: to say that, just say why find fault with the
Speaker 1: world you have chosen and can quit if you dislike it.
Speaker 6: I don't know if you guys have ever seen this.
Speaker 4: Meme, but turning, yeah, he seems pretty base.
Speaker 2: I like him.
Speaker 4: I'm gonna look into this guy.
Speaker 5: Yo.
Speaker 2: There's a two hours show on the Occult Rejects. You
Speaker 2: could listen to such a dick hey, And honestly, if
Speaker 2: you listen to arrowsis ship, you'll hear exactly what he
Speaker 2: was talking about. So she covers a lot of his
Speaker 2: actual like the any ads of Porphyry took down.
Speaker 1: Yep. Yeah, it's definitely worth looking into. It's so influential,
Speaker 1: especially like on Western culture.
Speaker 2: For real, if you're still looking at yeah, like his
Speaker 2: and a few other people like, you'll be like, holy shit.
Speaker 2: Just you'll see within a few dudes in some women
Speaker 2: how much they impacted like religion the way we look
Speaker 2: at it now. And it's not like this is the
Speaker 2: interesting thing in the way I try to even attribute
Speaker 2: it to it. It's almost as if like people who
Speaker 2: are in AA, they'll understand this. They'll have the big book,
Speaker 2: and then they'll have all these slogans that actually aren't
Speaker 2: in the book at all that you start going by.
Speaker 2: It's like, well, that's not actually in the material. That's
Speaker 2: just sound some cute little shit you made up. That's
Speaker 2: actually not part of the formula, you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: And then you actually have like fuck, I totally forgot
Speaker 2: what was going with fuck just oh my god, I
Speaker 2: fucking had a brain for it.
Speaker 3: Like the stuff that comes later may be useful, but
Speaker 3: it's not the original doctrine.
Speaker 2: Then yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah exactly, I mean that's that happens,
Speaker 2: you know. Actually yeah, I feel like AA does.
Speaker 1: That with that, And that can happen, and then sometimes
Speaker 1: those you know, become really popular, then they get more notoriety,
Speaker 1: and then usually things with more notoriety people are like,
Speaker 1: that must be the truth, that must be like, you know,
Speaker 1: people rarely dig deeper to understand where ideas come from.
Speaker 2: Yeah yeah, and then like all right, that is now
Speaker 2: what reminded me and what I was even getting at. Again,
Speaker 2: I could be wrong about Plutonis, but it was like
Speaker 2: somebody who had the idea that you might actually meet
Speaker 2: your famis friends and family when you go out to
Speaker 2: fucking heaven, or the way they describe that, people took
Speaker 2: it that way. Again, that is something that Christians will believe,
Speaker 2: but it's not actually in the fucking Bible. You know
Speaker 2: what I'm saying. Again, it's like a slogan that goes
Speaker 2: along with it, but where does it actually say that.
Speaker 5: Well, yeah, and I mean we me and Headless talked
Speaker 5: about how Hell is not mentioned in the Bible. You know,
Speaker 5: it's mentioned as Bihinnah and so, which is also referring
Speaker 5: to a valley, you know. So, I mean it could
Speaker 5: be metaphysical. I don't know, but you know in Norse mythology,
Speaker 5: hell is freezing cold or Hellheim. Right, Hell is the
Speaker 5: goddess of Hellheim. But Helheim is freezing cold, it's not hot.
Speaker 5: So it's a complete inversion of just history. It seems
Speaker 5: that's what religion does.
Speaker 2: Yes, Yeah, that was awesome presentation.
Speaker 5: Then, yeah, that was great errors. Oh thinks I actually
Speaker 5: learned a lot. I always learn on the show. That's
Speaker 5: why I love doing it exactly.
Speaker 1: I'll try to close it out with a good summary here,
Speaker 1: all right, So to summarize Gnostic cosmology, is incoherent. It
Speaker 1: assumes error and desire and the divine where there can
Speaker 1: be none, and creates multiple unnecessary worlds. Higher realities give
Speaker 1: rise to lower realities. What commands is higher than what obeys, right,
Speaker 1: like the demiurge would be higher than us. So it's
Speaker 1: kind of silly to think of yourself above them. Higher
Speaker 1: realities are timeless, eternal, and fully actualized. There is no potential, knowing,
Speaker 1: only known. Everything inherents the perfection.
Speaker 6: And order of the good. A mirrored image of the
Speaker 6: good is good, even if imperfect.
Speaker 1: And then.
Speaker 6: Here news is fully actualized.
Speaker 3: In it.
Speaker 1: Multiplicity is structured. All forms exist eternally infinite but coherent,
Speaker 1: and the soul it's partially actualized. It can change, develop, learn,
Speaker 1: differentiation emerges in time, and then for matter it's fully
Speaker 1: potential and mutable. That's where chaos and in completedness exists
Speaker 1: and differentiation arises through actualization.
Speaker 2: Very well, very well said that was good. Thank you
Speaker 2: so much. Ers. Uh, yeah, we definitely have to have
Speaker 2: to keep putting pressure on you, but it definitely you
Speaker 2: talk about more of it. But yeah, this was fucking awesome.
Speaker 2: I really like this stuff. I was really big into
Speaker 2: Platini's when I covered him like that one actually for
Speaker 2: me was like, yeah, it sound like corny, but I
Speaker 2: was like, I really was like proud of putting that
Speaker 2: one out because I do think he's a very influential
Speaker 2: person and somebody you should look into, you know what
Speaker 2: I mean. It's almost like you could look at the
Speaker 2: stuff like there's in Dixon demons in there. Let's put
Speaker 2: it that way. You know what I'm saying, You're actually
Speaker 2: just looking at like how the fuck do you get
Speaker 2: your head straight and having a contact with God. There's
Speaker 2: all this other fucking bullshit thrown in there.
Speaker 6: Mm hmm, like intermediaries and stuff.
Speaker 2: Yeah, like the whole Like it's just like, really, I
Speaker 2: just like the way he explains it. He doesn't give
Speaker 2: you much of a dark aspect to try to like
Speaker 2: grift with or fall in love with or go too
Speaker 2: far with.
Speaker 4: Not everything's a demon.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well not even that. It's just like you know,
Speaker 2: even dealing with your dark at self. I guess like
Speaker 2: sometimes when it gets like we you know, with the OTO,
Speaker 2: I feel like the image that gives us some of
Speaker 2: the people there, they will oh, I'm doing shadow work,
Speaker 2: Well you've been doing it for the last fucking year
Speaker 2: on the same problem. Obviously you're feeding it, you're not
Speaker 2: dealing with it. You're actually getting worse.
Speaker 4: Right, Yeah, because it's always gonna be there.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I just feel like his was like a little
Speaker 2: bit more conservative. It's just a little bit more cleaner,
Speaker 2: more you know, just straight to a god or a
Speaker 2: good I don't know.
Speaker 5: Well, the mention of demons automatically and still fear into people, right,
Speaker 5: and we talked about how you have fear is one
Speaker 5: of the strongest emotions, emotions being the highest of the
Speaker 5: planes of the elementals, right and and and so well,
Speaker 5: not emotions, I'd say that's the mental plan the emotions
Speaker 5: you actually come from the etheric.
Speaker 2: But but yeah, this is even another interesting thing. I'm
Speaker 2: glad he even brought up demons and then they'll shut up, uh, Erros,
Speaker 2: you might.
Speaker 4: Even demon erasers on naar, so we get to talk
Speaker 4: about demons.
Speaker 2: I guess, yes, good to Erros might even know this.
Speaker 2: I I could be wrong, but I think I think
Speaker 2: he they called it then as well. I would even
Speaker 2: say that their idea of demons was different, because Plutinus
Speaker 2: at one point proved himself to some like I think
Speaker 2: Egyptian priest at some temple of iis that he was
Speaker 2: of I guess something because this guy brought out his damon.
Speaker 2: Plutinus's damon appeared and was of like some higher angelic order,
Speaker 2: and that's how this priest was able to say, this
Speaker 2: guy is that full shit? Wow, dude, But yeah, I'm
Speaker 2: almost again the terminology damon was being used, but now
Speaker 2: we're talking about an angel, so it's like, you know,
Speaker 2: where the fuck we're even going with this word? How
Speaker 2: we how was it even originally used? No idea. I'm
Speaker 2: still confused on that now, trying to charge it out,
Speaker 2: but I just say, I just think there's misunderstandings.
Speaker 1: And the.
Speaker 2: Reason there's different spellings is because it's a different energy
Speaker 2: or a different thing, you know that could.
Speaker 5: It's different than a demon man. People think it's a
Speaker 5: different just a different way to say it. But I
Speaker 5: think it's it's a different thing all the exactly.
Speaker 2: Yeah, thank you.
Speaker 4: Something that comes from a higher nature, not our lower nature.
Speaker 2: Yes, something probably right, something like that, Yeah, all right, yeah,
Speaker 2: thank you very much, Erros. Yeah, if you want, let
Speaker 2: everybody know what way they can finally work out again,
Speaker 2: and please remind them with the other episode that you did.
Speaker 6: Yep, so just reiterate.
Speaker 1: You can find me on YouTube at Arrows Up where
Speaker 1: I do some studies on the tractates in the inneads
Speaker 1: kind of like this one, and then you can find
Speaker 1: me on Twitter at Arrows to Ethos and then yeah,
Speaker 1: if you liked this episode, please go watch the episode
Speaker 1: that Nick did Platinus or the episode that we did
Speaker 1: last which was on again are the Stars Causes and
Speaker 1: really going into Platinus's idea of this differentiation scheme of
Speaker 1: multiplicity that everything emerges out of.
Speaker 2: Yes, thank you so much yet and people haven't checked out.
Speaker 2: I let this an episode that she did. Go check
Speaker 2: it out. It was like a month ago maybe something
Speaker 2: like that. Definitely was fun. And again I really really
Speaker 2: appreciate you coming on, especially with the slide show. I
Speaker 2: mean that's uh, I myself know that that takes time to.
Speaker 4: Work very professional era.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I appreciate that because again, like I mean,
Speaker 2: just if you listen to my stuff that I do
Speaker 2: on my own, it's like very much. I understand the
Speaker 2: time it takes a good ship.
Speaker 4: Your stuff's fun.
Speaker 2: No, No, I'm just saying I understand, like it takes
Speaker 2: time to do that ship like solo work and all
Speaker 2: that ship.
Speaker 4: Like, fuck.
Speaker 2: Yo, you should know Jewels, you do solo shit yourself too. Yeah.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I have like ten shows I do and then
Speaker 5: I don't have. I'm the only I'm like the progenitor
Speaker 5: of the show. So I do all the stuff I try.
Speaker 1: I know.
Speaker 2: But it was like all the topics that you did,
Speaker 2: you sold that ship, didn't you. Yeah, that's what I'm saying.
Speaker 5: That shit.
Speaker 2: You understand what I'm getting at. That's that's what I mean.
Speaker 2: So I appreciate that. Thank you. Yeah, all right, Yeah,
Speaker 2: let's Jules, let everybody know what the fu's up with
Speaker 2: you like find out you guys.
Speaker 4: Earlier as you heard.
Speaker 5: You can follow me on Twitter at Great Pill Pod,
Speaker 5: Great Piled, Underscore Podcast on Instagram and Rumble YouTube, Spotify,
Speaker 5: Apple Podcasts, Patreon, dot com, Slash, Great pul Podcast if
Speaker 5: you want to support the show.
Speaker 4: We got three episodes of Twin Peaks left, so we
Speaker 4: may do it tomorrow night. My wife may be hanging
Speaker 4: out with us too, so yeah, yeah, I'll just keep
Speaker 4: you updated.
Speaker 5: But tomorrow around noon, maybe a little afternoon, I gotta
Speaker 5: get the time down.
Speaker 4: As Brian from Demon Racers is coming on, so it's
Speaker 4: gonna be a fun show.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 5: This, this is a great conversation. And uh, I'm about
Speaker 5: to go out to the country to a pig gross.
Speaker 2: Oh man, you suck for you. That's at My.
Speaker 4: Wife's going to record a couple of episodes, so y'all
Speaker 4: look out for that this week.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah.
Speaker 4: Reposting the Babel on podcast. Yeah yeah, episode three.
Speaker 2: Oh, thank you very much, Josie. I appreciate it.
Speaker 4: And it's great to see you, Ethan. It's good to
Speaker 4: be yeah, it's good. Yeah, it's good to be here.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, yeah, and this this was fun. I really
Speaker 2: enjoy these shows, this topic too. Ethan. Please let everybody
Speaker 2: know what's up with you, and they can find all
Speaker 2: your books as well. Please.
Speaker 3: Yeah, thank you so much Nick for getting this together.
Speaker 4: Ros.
Speaker 3: That was awesome. Look forward to your next presentation. And yeah,
Speaker 3: I got I'm easy to find on all the social media,
Speaker 3: Ethan Indigo Smith and check out my books on Global
Speaker 3: com or Amazon as they call it.
Speaker 4: And yeah, appreciate you guys, Ethan.
Speaker 2: I appreciate you making it. I know it's a little
Speaker 2: bit earlier if it's for YouTube as well, because of
Speaker 2: the time difference, but that's what's up man, and thank
Speaker 2: everybody in the chat as well. That's what's up. There
Speaker 2: was a lot of people here from the beginning to
Speaker 2: the end. There's a lot of the same same faces,
Speaker 2: and I saw all the names. I'm sure that's probably
Speaker 2: on other people's channels. That's what's up. Thank you for coming, buying,
Speaker 2: checking it out, and again Arrows and everybody else on
Speaker 2: the panel, please again, thank you for coming on. And
Speaker 2: I had a really good time. And that's what's up.
Speaker 2: And until the next one, everybody be well.
Speaker 1: La