pynchon a gnostic? II

[jbor]

on 1/3/03 11:42 AM, prozak at anus.com at prozak at anus.com wrote:

> I find some religions abuse categorical thinking in a form called
> "dualism"; gnosticism seems to me, as something derived from an older
> religion in which such artificial abstractions did not exist, an
> intermediate step and one that is less destructive.

I'm not sure about "categorical thinking", but I agree that the physical
"truth" of a bullet hole in the chest is incontrovertible. But surely that
sort of phenomenon is not in the same category as religion, ethics &
morality, interpersonal relationships, modes of social organisation etc?

I think Judaism, Christianity, Islam etc all derive from similar root
sources, or along similar lines, as Gnosticism. I must admit that I'm very
suspicious when arguments or manifestoes defer to some variation of a notion
of "The One True Faith". And, if the practical ramifications of the "truth"
which is supposedly revealed include endorsement of a prospect of mass
extermination of humans, then the claim to "truth" is total bullshit as far
as I'm concerned, regardless of whether it's in the name of "God", Jesus,
Muhammad, or F.W. Nietzsche. That seems like basic common sense to me.

Perhaps one of the reasons why those ancient, non-binary (i.e. pluralist?)
modes of thought/approaches to living became dominated and overwhelmed by
zealotry and manipulation, both from within and without, is precisely the
passivity and tolerance which were espoused and embraced therewith. That, to
use your analogy, they were benign viruses rather than malignant ones.

best


> There is an ultimate or universal "truth" in the sense that logic
> requires; if a man fires a gun at another, the other will find out
> how much of the shared perception of events is real. The question of
> this truth - which comes in varied forms from "5.7% of Amazon
> rainfall makes it to the forest floor" to "the blockage in the aorta
> initiated the chaotic fibrilation before death" to "2+2=4," is not so
> much "do we share an environment in which events are absolute?" but
> "are our perceptions of events coloring our view of truth?"
> 
> Judaism, Christianity, Reaganomics, and most forms of American
> politics all rely on a schizophrenic thought system, in my opinion
> derived from the same impulse that produced "Platonism" as we
> understand it today. This is broken intellect.
> 
> I know it's not fashionable, in "educated" and "prosperous" circles,
> to say that one viewpoint is broken over another. But some things are
> not true, and some things are incorrect, and all dogmas are viruses,
> something W.S. Burroughs and F.W. Nietzsche explain at opposite ends
> of the scale (and of the human beings involved!). If you receive
> mental programming from a religion or political dogma, in accepting
> it you begin acting it out, or vice-versa. But groups inculcated in a
> dogma retain that dogma by acting it out, or are assimilated.
> 
>> I think you'll find that the majority of people who embrace just about any
>> religious or philosophical system of belief are actively tolerant (if only
>> through ignorance, xenophobia etc) of other points of view, other systems of
>> belief, and clear-headed enough not to use their personal faith as a pretext
>> for suprematism, persecution or genocide. It's those who aren't, and those
>> who manipulate the impressionable and the suffering, who are most dangerous.
>> Missionaries, for example, cop a bad rap in _GR_, much more so than do
>> soldiers and civil servants.
> 
> Emotionally, I like this worldview more than mine, but I don't think
> it's as accurate. Yes, people are "individuals" in the sense that
> they act independently; however, most do not reinterpret wholly their
> belief systems.
> 
>> Of course, revenge and retaliation, greed, powerlust etc are other
>> motivating forces driving human conflict.
> 
> And technology applies equally to greed/power games and religion as a
> motivational behind-the-scenes impetus.