The Gnostic Revolution

From TN's Armchair Philosophy Department: Gnosis means Knowledge. Not knowledge but KNOWLEDGE, you know? Understanding of Things Eternal, of the Forms, of the Ephemeral, of the Infinite, of the Capitalized.

Gnostics are people who Know. Gnosticism is a school, or a philosophy, or a frame, or what have you, grounded on the notion that there are things to be Known out there that are only poorly reflected in the "real" world. Indeed, you might identify a gnostic by whether she puts scare quotes around "real." In some extreme forms, gnosticism holds that the "real" world is not only only "real," but also bad, corrupt, yucky. All the good stuff is ephemeral and infinite; the stuff we can handle every day stinks in comparison, therefore a person should spend her life trying to stay connected to the Infinite and reject the ick that lies close to hand. 

Tolkien expresses a gnostic sensibility when he writes that a man who wakes up and finds himself in prison cannot be blamed for trying to get out and go home. For Tolkien, the prison is the real world, and home, for Tolkien, is Heaven. Some religious teaching aligns quite nicely with gnosticism, urging followers to seek Truths only within. Other religions emphasize that the world is a good place and absolutely deserves our attention. Moreover, when some people run around claiming that they have a Special Insight to The Beyond, all too often the Movement results in other people losing their money, their time, or their lives.

Gnosticism invites rejection of the real world and its status quo. A new conflict along these lines is going to play out quite directly through the emergence of virtual worlds.

If I were a Gnostic, having determined that the real world completely and totally stinks, it would be a natural move to create an environment better aligned with the Forms, as I understand them to be, that is, as my Knowledge has Revealed them to Me in the Infinite Void of Capitalized Stuff. I would then be quite comfortable spending every waking moment there. Moreover, I would urge others to do the same; I would raise that urging to the level of a Plea, an Evangelization, an Awakening, a Great Big Capitalized Movement inviting people to escape to the virtual. This of course would run head-on into those who incessantly bleat for the real, saying we must always get a real job, a real relationship, a real degree, a real politics, and so on. No scare quotes there.

It's not a new conflict, but Gnosticism now has a tool of programmatic implementation that it has never had before. Its ability to cause genuine social change is enhanced by currents in technology. Were we all to become Gnostics, we could quite easily exit the real world, rather completely, down to a few bodily functions. Gnosticism has the tools to foment a significant social upheaval.

One senses the emerging connection between tools and philosophy in the passionate self-justifications of all-night gamers and inveterate role-players (including myself at times). "What is so great about reality?" we ask. "What is indeed so wonderful about this outer world we have made?" "Exactly why is it better for me to sit in the suppurating hell of rush hour on the 91 freeway than in front of a computer?"

Well, that's a good point, and as long as abominations like the Southern California Highway System exists, gnostics will have a good case for escaping. A Gnostic Revolution might be the spur we need, to fix the real world before we lose everyone to the Forms of their choosing. Moreover, a Gnostic Revolution might be a good antidote to the Materialism of our day.

On the other hand, too much Gnosis is bad for the soul. The world is good and we ought to take care of it. Moreover, life in a computer alone is not a good life; we need to touch other people, not merely talk to them. Thus if there's to be a Gnostic Revolution, let's hope it runs out of gas before we all end up in pods.

Comments

[Charles Ellis]

1.

This assumes that we, of this unfortunately icky reality, would be able to create a virtual environment closer to the Forms than our own reality.

So far, I haven't seen any virtual worlds I would want to live in.

[Edward Castronova]

2.

Yes, that's right. I am taking for granted that fighting a dragon in WoW makes people feel closer to the Ultimate Form of Hero-Fighting-Evil than does, say, securing the Johnson account for Bigby, Inc. As acts, they can both be metaphorically related to some higher purpose of good triumphing over evil, but fighting a cartoon-and-AI dragon requires less heavy lifting inside the brain. If you're a Gnostic, you'd rather fight the dragon. IMHO, of course.

[greglas]

3.

If you read Plato, he says that art is just an illusion made out of an illusion. And most of the Christian Gnostics, iirc, were intent on the denial of the body and the senses. So I'm not sure Gnostics or those devoted to ideal forms beyond the realms of the senses would be too keen on the virtual. Indeed, they might be especially contemptuous of it.

The set that might like it the best would be the hedonists, I think, since they live for the pleasures of the senses.

From an ethical standpoint, though, I suppose that hedonists and gnostics are somewhat alike in that neither of these ideal groups is really fond of community or politics. They're both oriented toward a particular brand of escapism.

[Richard Bartle]

4.

If you're making a virtual world in the real world, it's still part of the real world, therefore it still sucks. You can have fun from pretending it's not real, but the only way you're going to get a religion out of it is if you claim it actually IS a different (possibly spiritual) reality.

Richard

[Richard A. Bartle]

5.

By the way, if you're interested in this kind of thing you might want to take a look at the 1998 book TechGnosis by Erik Davis. There are some excerpts from it (along with other essays and writings by Davis) on the TechGnosis web site.

Richard

[Johnny]

6.

I'm not sure that the Cultural Revolution is a particularly good example of Gnosticism in action. Whatever one thinks of Mao, one would have to recognise that his political philosophy was not concerned with an attempt to move towards an eternal ideal that existed outside of the material conditions of life, but rather was a dialectical analysis of how the social forces present at that particular time in history were interacting. A deeply flawed analysis as it turned out, but one that was firmly grounded in the material conditions of the real world, that, as you say, Gnostics would have little time for.

[greglas]

7.

Yes, I was sort of puzzled by that Mao link too. I thought maybe you were just trying to extend your category to other forms of idealism.

[Edward Castronova]

8.

(Sorry, I've been away)
The link to Mao was intended as a reminder that many of the most brutal regimes have resulted from a conceit by the leaders that they had access to special knowledge that motivated their power. Mao's political philosophy may have focused entirely on the movement of material forces, agreed. But in thinking this, Mao was also convinced that he knew something that others did not. He felt that what he knew was so true, and so important, that implementing its prescriptions was worth killing untold millions of innocent people. He (and indeed all fans of central control) are confident that society can be improved by the unilateral decisions of a Knowing Person In Charge. That Knowing part is a Gnostic move. Hitler felt he knew better; Stalin felt he knew better; Mao felt he knew better; and even our democratically elected and ostensibly rule-bound leaders tend at times to feel that they know better as well, taking on not only the loyal opposition but the very rules and traditions that have defined the game.

In the digital age, those who believe they know better can freely indulge their impulse to redesign the game.

[Priyanka]

9.

Best Software Downloads and Reviews. the most comprehensive source for free-to-trysoftware downloads on the WebBEST 4 DOWNLOADS