I only watched the first ten minutes or so, but he grossly mischaracterizes all of his topics. While you can find evidence that supports his apparent beliefs about gnosticism, or hermeticism, or Hegel, or even the concept of "as above, so below," by and large he misses pretty much everything that doesn't support his conclusion (or at least the conclusion it appears he is heading towards based on what I saw). In other words, he is missing all the important context that doesn't match his narrative.
Having looked into these things quite a bit over the past few years, it's like watching the media talk about Trump Yes, he said this, that or the other thing, but why didn't you include the sentence before, or after, or the entire speech, that completely changes the context?
Context is king, and this guy seems to be missing a ton of it.
If you want to create a misdirection to the wrong enemy, this guy's approach is exactly how you do it.
He made certain of his conclusions clear in his opening argument. I can state with reasonable confidence that I think he is missing things if his opening conclusions are repetitions of arguments that I've heard many times before, and that I think are almost certainly not true based on my own study of the topics.
For example, if someone says "the earth is flat" and then gives a list of reasons why they believe the earth is flat as opening argument, and those reasons exactly mirror other such arguments I have heard and investigated in earnest, and they do not address certain counterarguments that I have already made, what could possibly motivate me to listen to the rest of their argument? They have started from what I consider to be a false premise; the same false premise as many others. How could it possibly get better from there?
As an example from this persons opening statements he states:
"Hermetical thinking is dialectical thinking." This isn't true as expressed. It has elements of the truth, but is missing important context. Hermetic teachings aren't founded on a dialectic, that is more a method of reasoning, and it isn't the only method of reasoning they employ. His conclusion is both a contextual miscategorization and a false generalization.
"Dialectic thinking is Alchemical thinking." Again, framing a problem in terms of what one imagines its opposites to be is a mode of reasoning, it isn't something intrinsically bad as he implies. No method of reasoning is complete or perfect unto itself. It is simply a method of reasoning. Also, alchemy uses a lot more methods of reasoning than just the dialectic approach. He has again made a categorical error and a false generalization.
"Alchemical thinking is making something out of nothing." That is not true at all. Alchemical thinking is how to make something out of something else. It's just chemistry. What we call "alchemy" is just chemistry. Did anyone in the past inject more into some of their formulas than perhaps they should have? Maybe, but that doesn't mean a) they were always, or even often wrong, or b) that we need to throw out the entire body of knowledge, or categorize it in its entirety without actually considering the entire body of work and the individuals who worked as chemists (apothecaries, alchemists, etc.). The alchemists made great accomplishments. Shoving them into a box with a false label is a very poor opening argument.
I could go on. He makes claim after claim like this. Shoving everything into a box and putting a label on it that is only partially true to the point of being not true at all. It's like packing up the garage and putting "tools" on a box when the box contains several different tools, each of which deserves its own label for the box to be useful, and contains several other non-tools besides, all of which is completely obscured in that one word label. "Where's my blue tie?" "It's in the box labeled 'tools'."
These are statements that he is making that are incomplete and malformed. It frankly doesn't matter what his argument is since his opening statements make it clear his argument is based on what I consider to be false premises. My own investigation into these topics, which I consider to be quite extensive, suggests that by his opening argument, he has a very likely incomplete understanding of these things. I'm not just saying that without reason. I have heard virtually identical statement from others, investigated their claims deeper, and found their arguments to be missing really important context.
People believe things such as "Gnosticism" (which is very poorly understood by most) or "Hermeticism" (ditto), or "Freemasonry" (ditto), or even the works of Hegel or Marx are a certain way; that they had a certain intent; that they said specific things, when investigation suggests that they don't really know what these people or groups said at all. Usually their conclusions come from someone else and they think "I understand everything now." "I can safely put them in this box, because I've read x number of books on the topic, and they all put them in that box." I suggest until you actually go to the source, look at their own internal conflicts, and then investigate the context of the time, you can't appreciate what people are really saying at all.
People believe that these things are evil. They open up their investigation with that conclusion in mind. People, especially those that believe they already know the truth about the nature of things (those who believe The Church, or The Science has taught them the truth e.g.), tend to believe a priori, that the things these groups or people say have a built in intent to "lead to the devil."
Just because I think there is "more to the story" on these topics doesn't mean I think there is no fuckery in there. The Cabal have their tendrils in everything, but credit is not given to the "other side" where it's due. In order to dig at the truth, you have to start from a position of "I don't know what the truth is," and you have to mean it completely. From there, listen to everyone. EVERYONE. Listen to exactly what they say. Don't begin that "listening" by believing they are evil, or that you already have their "true motives" figured out. You have to listen.
I came to the same conclusion as you and I ONLY listened to ~5 minutes of it...This is what gets into the young peoples heads at an early age...and then the thinking patterns start changing when entering POST-HIGH SCHOOL and into college AND THEREIN lies the potential of what we are seeing today in the world of young people!!!
I will look at the timestamp you mention, but please see my response above as it applies to the idea of "the entirety has to be watched to be understood."
The one thing all gnostic philosophies all have in common is that there is always some secret knowledge we must discover in order to be saved, to ascend, to improve, or whatever, and it is knowledge that is never available to the masses. It is only ever available to a select few who must prove themselves worthy of it. In the frame of Christian religion, a gnostic gospel doesn’t maintain that salvation depends upon the death and resurrection of Jesus alone, even if it might seem that way to the casual observer. Ultimately it depends only upon what the acolyte knows. In the world at large, secret knowledge is the basis of every occult practice.
The fascination with secret knowledge is as old as humanity. The first man and woman were tempted with secret knowledge, which they were made to believe was superior to the knowledge they had. They were told it was knowledge that would raise them to a God-like level of being, but instead they fell to an animal-like state of loss, and death became inevitable. I do not believe God was announcing a punishment to discourage Adam from eating that fruit when He told him it would kill him. I think it’s more of a case of making it clear where the choice to seek that kind of knowledge would lead.
Don’t be too quick to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve if you don’t believe the Biblical story is literal. The metaphor holds true, and that means that in it there is something valuable to learn.
How many Christians have ever even heard of the Council of Nicaea? It's where modern Christianity was literally created, yet we are never taught about it. Why is that?
I haven't seen any credible evidence that the Gnostics were trying to "keep knowledge secret" from everyone else. On the contrary, it seems they wanted to share their beliefs of what was true. From what I've seen, they were saying that the truth is being kept secret from you. They were saying that others were keeping the truth secret.
Were there levels of disclosure in their organization? Maybe, but that was how these things worked in all organizations or guilds, which was the foundation of society. In the case of the Gnostics it wasn't necessarily designed to hide information, but to ensure that the information was presented when it would be understood (by their estimation). It's like any knowledge course. You don't start teaching physics by teaching General Relativity for example, you have to start by learning Calculus, and working your way up from there. General Relativity isn't a "secret knowledge," you just won't get it until you've worked through a ton of other stuff.
Is there evidence that some other groups purposefully withheld information for nefarious purposes, such as swearing oaths of fealty (Freemasons e.g.)? Absolutely, but I've seen no evidence that the Gnostics were such a group.
A group wants power, they paint a picture of utopia. Then they tell you all you know is incorrect. Then they tell you to replace your idea of reality with whatever they tell you. Then your reality is their words.
Are you describing the Christian Church or the Gnostics?
To resist it some must understand it, and not become enthralled with power.
To "resist," all you need to do is recognize that the Truth is whatever the Truth is. Stop needing the truth to be one thing or another, stop needing to "know the truth," and you will stop believing that someone else is telling it to you in their sales pitch. It is the need to "know the truth" that is the vulnerability, not the sales pitch itself.
In Gnostic philosophy, abstraction, negation, and concretion are three steps in the process of gaining knowledge or understanding something.
This is, imo, too simplistic of a view. Things like this, or the "eight fold path," etc. are just methods of reasoning. They aren't dogma. Suggesting a method of reasoning is some sort of indoctrination misses what is really going on, and forces an alignment of your own thinking on a topic.
Thx, had it queued up for later but was seeing if perhaps I should stop what I was doing to watch it now. Anytime I see a long video it's good to have a synopsis, imo
Appreciate the post, may drop back in once I've watched!
I only watched the first ten minutes or so, but he grossly mischaracterizes all of his topics. While you can find evidence that supports his apparent beliefs about gnosticism, or hermeticism, or Hegel, or even the concept of "as above, so below," by and large he misses pretty much everything that doesn't support his conclusion (or at least the conclusion it appears he is heading towards based on what I saw). In other words, he is missing all the important context that doesn't match his narrative.
Having looked into these things quite a bit over the past few years, it's like watching the media talk about Trump Yes, he said this, that or the other thing, but why didn't you include the sentence before, or after, or the entire speech, that completely changes the context?
Context is king, and this guy seems to be missing a ton of it.
If you want to create a misdirection to the wrong enemy, this guy's approach is exactly how you do it.
How can you declare what he is missing or rate this without even watching it in its entirety?
He made certain of his conclusions clear in his opening argument. I can state with reasonable confidence that I think he is missing things if his opening conclusions are repetitions of arguments that I've heard many times before, and that I think are almost certainly not true based on my own study of the topics.
For example, if someone says "the earth is flat" and then gives a list of reasons why they believe the earth is flat as opening argument, and those reasons exactly mirror other such arguments I have heard and investigated in earnest, and they do not address certain counterarguments that I have already made, what could possibly motivate me to listen to the rest of their argument? They have started from what I consider to be a false premise; the same false premise as many others. How could it possibly get better from there?
As an example from this persons opening statements he states:
"Hermetical thinking is dialectical thinking." This isn't true as expressed. It has elements of the truth, but is missing important context. Hermetic teachings aren't founded on a dialectic, that is more a method of reasoning, and it isn't the only method of reasoning they employ. His conclusion is both a contextual miscategorization and a false generalization.
"Dialectic thinking is Alchemical thinking." Again, framing a problem in terms of what one imagines its opposites to be is a mode of reasoning, it isn't something intrinsically bad as he implies. No method of reasoning is complete or perfect unto itself. It is simply a method of reasoning. Also, alchemy uses a lot more methods of reasoning than just the dialectic approach. He has again made a categorical error and a false generalization.
"Alchemical thinking is making something out of nothing." That is not true at all. Alchemical thinking is how to make something out of something else. It's just chemistry. What we call "alchemy" is just chemistry. Did anyone in the past inject more into some of their formulas than perhaps they should have? Maybe, but that doesn't mean a) they were always, or even often wrong, or b) that we need to throw out the entire body of knowledge, or categorize it in its entirety without actually considering the entire body of work and the individuals who worked as chemists (apothecaries, alchemists, etc.). The alchemists made great accomplishments. Shoving them into a box with a false label is a very poor opening argument.
I could go on. He makes claim after claim like this. Shoving everything into a box and putting a label on it that is only partially true to the point of being not true at all. It's like packing up the garage and putting "tools" on a box when the box contains several different tools, each of which deserves its own label for the box to be useful, and contains several other non-tools besides, all of which is completely obscured in that one word label. "Where's my blue tie?" "It's in the box labeled 'tools'."
These are statements that he is making that are incomplete and malformed. It frankly doesn't matter what his argument is since his opening statements make it clear his argument is based on what I consider to be false premises. My own investigation into these topics, which I consider to be quite extensive, suggests that by his opening argument, he has a very likely incomplete understanding of these things. I'm not just saying that without reason. I have heard virtually identical statement from others, investigated their claims deeper, and found their arguments to be missing really important context.
People believe things such as "Gnosticism" (which is very poorly understood by most) or "Hermeticism" (ditto), or "Freemasonry" (ditto), or even the works of Hegel or Marx are a certain way; that they had a certain intent; that they said specific things, when investigation suggests that they don't really know what these people or groups said at all. Usually their conclusions come from someone else and they think "I understand everything now." "I can safely put them in this box, because I've read x number of books on the topic, and they all put them in that box." I suggest until you actually go to the source, look at their own internal conflicts, and then investigate the context of the time, you can't appreciate what people are really saying at all.
People believe that these things are evil. They open up their investigation with that conclusion in mind. People, especially those that believe they already know the truth about the nature of things (those who believe The Church, or The Science has taught them the truth e.g.), tend to believe a priori, that the things these groups or people say have a built in intent to "lead to the devil."
Just because I think there is "more to the story" on these topics doesn't mean I think there is no fuckery in there. The Cabal have their tendrils in everything, but credit is not given to the "other side" where it's due. In order to dig at the truth, you have to start from a position of "I don't know what the truth is," and you have to mean it completely. From there, listen to everyone. EVERYONE. Listen to exactly what they say. Don't begin that "listening" by believing they are evil, or that you already have their "true motives" figured out. You have to listen.
I came to the same conclusion as you and I ONLY listened to ~5 minutes of it...This is what gets into the young peoples heads at an early age...and then the thinking patterns start changing when entering POST-HIGH SCHOOL and into college AND THEREIN lies the potential of what we are seeing today in the world of young people!!!
I will look at the timestamp you mention, but please see my response above as it applies to the idea of "the entirety has to be watched to be understood."
The one thing all gnostic philosophies all have in common is that there is always some secret knowledge we must discover in order to be saved, to ascend, to improve, or whatever, and it is knowledge that is never available to the masses. It is only ever available to a select few who must prove themselves worthy of it. In the frame of Christian religion, a gnostic gospel doesn’t maintain that salvation depends upon the death and resurrection of Jesus alone, even if it might seem that way to the casual observer. Ultimately it depends only upon what the acolyte knows. In the world at large, secret knowledge is the basis of every occult practice.
The fascination with secret knowledge is as old as humanity. The first man and woman were tempted with secret knowledge, which they were made to believe was superior to the knowledge they had. They were told it was knowledge that would raise them to a God-like level of being, but instead they fell to an animal-like state of loss, and death became inevitable. I do not believe God was announcing a punishment to discourage Adam from eating that fruit when He told him it would kill him. I think it’s more of a case of making it clear where the choice to seek that kind of knowledge would lead.
Don’t be too quick to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve if you don’t believe the Biblical story is literal. The metaphor holds true, and that means that in it there is something valuable to learn.
How many Christians have ever even heard of the Council of Nicaea? It's where modern Christianity was literally created, yet we are never taught about it. Why is that?
bout 2hrs, got a summary fren?
I haven't seen any credible evidence that the Gnostics were trying to "keep knowledge secret" from everyone else. On the contrary, it seems they wanted to share their beliefs of what was true. From what I've seen, they were saying that the truth is being kept secret from you. They were saying that others were keeping the truth secret.
Were there levels of disclosure in their organization? Maybe, but that was how these things worked in all organizations or guilds, which was the foundation of society. In the case of the Gnostics it wasn't necessarily designed to hide information, but to ensure that the information was presented when it would be understood (by their estimation). It's like any knowledge course. You don't start teaching physics by teaching General Relativity for example, you have to start by learning Calculus, and working your way up from there. General Relativity isn't a "secret knowledge," you just won't get it until you've worked through a ton of other stuff.
Is there evidence that some other groups purposefully withheld information for nefarious purposes, such as swearing oaths of fealty (Freemasons e.g.)? Absolutely, but I've seen no evidence that the Gnostics were such a group.
Are you describing the Christian Church or the Gnostics?
To "resist," all you need to do is recognize that the Truth is whatever the Truth is. Stop needing the truth to be one thing or another, stop needing to "know the truth," and you will stop believing that someone else is telling it to you in their sales pitch. It is the need to "know the truth" that is the vulnerability, not the sales pitch itself.
This is, imo, too simplistic of a view. Things like this, or the "eight fold path," etc. are just methods of reasoning. They aren't dogma. Suggesting a method of reasoning is some sort of indoctrination misses what is really going on, and forces an alignment of your own thinking on a topic.
Thx, had it queued up for later but was seeing if perhaps I should stop what I was doing to watch it now. Anytime I see a long video it's good to have a synopsis, imo
Appreciate the post, may drop back in once I've watched!
Oh I don't plan on skipping thru it, just dont have a block of time yet