Ok cool.

the interpretation I was presented with is that God split himself infinite > finite (present in man) and man can eventually become God through gnosis

Kinda, yeah, but not really depending on which school of thought you subscribe to. Now I see your point about 'homo deus'. My interpretation or personal understanding that rectifies this would be to say rather than becoming God, the goal is to realise the connection and the achieve a sort of union with God. Not that you yourself become god, but rather you recognise the divine 'spark' within you and know that you are a tiny piece of the whole that is God.

This isn't really a good explanation either and I do actually see you point more and more as I'm trying to avoid the issue.

Put it this way. I've known many people that became part of the psychedelic music and drug subculture. Without going into that too much, I am familiar with psychedelic experience as it relates to mystical and religious experiences. Many of the people that have a mystical experience end up with that interpretation, that they themselves are God. It's a kind of Solipsism. It's an extremely arrogant thing. It seems they take a short-cut towards something they haven't put in the time to study, and draw incorrect conclusions.

I'm a little bit tired and I'm struggling here, it's been a while. Consider this idea. Imagine concentric rings, smaller ones inside larger, expanding out infinitely or to whatever arbitrary point. My understanding of Gnosis is a state in which your mind is stilled sufficiently that you become supremely centred, within your heart of hearts or consciousness. The centre being the centre of the small concentric circle. That's little old 'you'. It shares it's centre with the heart of all creation. This is something within everyone but also outside and expanding to ever greater levels, whence my analogy of the concentric circles. The infinitely large circle if you can imagine such a thing would be the totality of everything or God. So you don't 'become' that, in a sense, but you can connect to the heart of it, the centre of it all that exists within you.

You could also argue that God wouldn't be the infinitely large circle but also whatever exists outside of it, if there could be such a thing. The boundary of the circle and analogy breaks down at that point and it doesn't really matter in any case.

Also the demiurge was presented as an antagonistic architect which placed us in fleshy prisons to suffer.

yes so this is one idea, there are many and it gets super complicated. As to whether the demiurge is something to hate and reject or to accept as a smaller part of the larger totality that is god... there's a lot to it, It gets really hectic

As with all things 'occult' in nature, there are two paths. The Gnosis or mystic state that I described would be the 'right hand path', I suppose, of making your ego small and being humbled before an almighty, infinite God of which you are less than a grain of sand. The other path would be inflating your ego to the point that it becomes the whole. That might be what people are interpreting as Gnosticism, but like I say, it depends on the school of thought.

We are in a unique position as humans. We aren't so lowly as a bug or bacteria, we are capable of reason and self reflection. We also aren't so mighty that we are tempted to think of ourselves as gods, most of the time anyway. It's a unique middle sort of position in the scale of things. I think there is something in Buddhist thought about this.

Ok cool.

the interpretation I was presented with is that God split himself infinite > finite (present in man) and man can eventually become God through gnosis

Kinda, yeah, but not really depending on which school of thought you subscribe to. Now I see your point about 'homo deus'. My interpretation or personal understanding that rectifies this would be to say rather than becoming God, the goal is to realise the connection and the achieve a sort of union with God. Not that you yourself become god, but rather you recognise the divine 'spark' within you and know that you are a tiny piece of the whole that is God.

This isn't really a good explanation either and I do actually see you point more and more as I'm trying to avoid the issue.

Put it this way. I've known many people that became part of the psychedelic music and drug subculture. Without going into that too much, I am familiar with psychedelic experience as it relates to mystical and religious experiences. Many of the people that have a mystical experience end up with that interpretation, that they themselves are God. It's a kind of Solipsism. It's an extremely arrogant thing. It seems they take a short-cut towards something they haven't put in the time to study, and draw incorrect conclusions.

I'm a little bit tired and I'm struggling here, it's been a while. Consider this idea. Imagine concentric rings, smaller ones inside larger, expanding out infinitely or to whatever arbitrary point. My understanding of Gnosis is a state in which your mind is stilled sufficiently that you become supremely centred, within your heart of hearts or consciousness. The centre being the centre of the small concentric circle. That's little old 'you'. It shares it's centre with the heart of all creation. This is something within everyone but also outside and expanding to ever greater levels, whence my analogy of the concentric circles. The infinitely large circle if you can imagine such a thing would be the totality of everything or God. So you don't 'become' that, in a sense, but you can connect to the heart of it, the centre of it all that exists within you.

You could also argue that God wouldn't be the infinitely large circle but also whatever exists outside of it, if there could be such a thing. The boundary of the circle and analogy breaks down at that point and it doesn't really matter in any case.

Also the demiurge was presented as an antagonistic architect which placed us in fleshy prisons to suffer.

yes so this is one idea, there are many and it gets super complicated. As to whether the demiurge is something to hate and reject or to accept as a smaller part of the larger totality that is god... there's a lot to it, It gets really hectic

As with all things 'occult' in nature, there are two paths. The Gnosis or mystic state that I described would be the 'right hand path', I suppose, of making your ego small and being humbled before an almighty, infinite God of which you are less than a grain of sand. The other path would be inflating your ego to the point that it becomes the whole. That might be what people are interpreting as Gnosticism, but like I say, it depends on the school of thought.

We are in a unique position as humans. We aren't so lowly as a bug or bacteria, we are capable of reason and self reflection. We also aren't so might that we are tempted to think of ourselves as gods, most of the time anyway. It's a unique middle sort of position in the scale of things. I think there is something in Buddhist thought about this.

Ok cool.

the interpretation I was presented with is that God split himself infinite > finite (present in man) and man can eventually become God through gnosis

Kinda, yeah, but not really depending on which school of thought you subscribe to. Now I see your point about 'homo deus'. My interpretation or personal understanding that rectifies this would be to say rather than becoming God, the goal is to realise the connection and the achieve a sort of union with God. Not that you yourself become god, but rather you recognise the divine 'spark' within you and know that you are a tiny piece of the whole that is God.

This isn't really a good explanation either and I do actually see you point more and more as I'm trying to avoid the issue.

Put it this way. I've known many people that became part of the psychedelic music and drug subculture. Without going into that too much, I am familiar with psychedelic experience as it relates to mystical and religious experiences. Many of the people that have a mystical experience end up with that interpretation, that they themselves are God. It's a kind of Solipsism. It's an extremely arrogant thing. It seems they take a short-cut towards something they haven't put in the time to study, and draw incorrect conclusions.

I'm a little bit tired and I'm struggling here, it's been a while. Consider this idea. Imagine concentric rings, smaller ones inside larger, expanding out infinitely or to whatever arbitrary point. My understanding of Gnosis is a state in which your mind is stilled sufficiently that you become supremely centred, within your heart of hearts or consciousness. The centre being the centre of the small concentric circle. That's little old 'you'. It shares it's centre with the heart of all creation. This is something within everyone but also outside and expanding to ever greater levels, whence my analogy of the concentric circles. The infinitely large circle if you can imagine such a thing would be the totality of everything or God. So you don't 'become' that, in a sense, but you can connect to the heart of it, the centre of it all that exists within you.

You could also argue that God wouldn't be the infinitely large circle but also whatever exists outside of it, if there could be such a thing. The boundary of the circle and analogy breaks down at that point and it doesn't really matter in any case.

Also the demiurge was presented as an antagonistic architect which placed us in fleshy prisons to suffer.

yes so this is one idea, there are many and it gets super complicated. As to whether the demiurge is something to hate and reject or to accept as a smaller part of the larger totality that is god... there's a lot to it, It gets really hectic

As with all things 'occult' in nature, there are two paths. The Gnosis or mystic state that I described would be the 'right hand path', I suppose, of making your ego small and being humbled before an almighty, infinite God of which you are less than a grain of sand. The other path would be inflating your ego to the point that it becomes the whole. That might be what people are interpreting as Gnosticism, but like I say, it depends on the school of thought

Ok cool.

the interpretation I was presented with is that God split himself infinite > finite (present in man) and man can eventually become God through gnosis

Kinda, yeah, but not really depending on which school of thought you subscribe to. Now I see your point about 'homo deus'. My interpretation or personal understanding that rectifies this would be to say rather than becoming God, the goal is to realise the connection and the achieve a sort of union with God. Not that you yourself become god, but rather you recognise the divine 'spark' within you and know that you are a tiny piece of the whole that is God.

This isn't really a good explanation either and I do actually see you point more and more as I'm trying to avoid the issue.

Put it this way. I've known many people that became part of the psychedelic music and drug subculture. Without going into that too much, I am familiar with psychedelic experience as it relates to mystical and religious experiences. Many of the people that have a mystical experience end up with that interpretation, that they themselves are God. It's a kind of Solipsism. It's an extremely arrogant thing. It seems they take a short-cut towards something they haven't put in the time to study, and draw incorrect conclusions.

I'm a little bit tired and I'm struggling here, it's been a while. Consider this idea. Imagine concentric rings, smaller ones inside larger, expanding out infinitely or to whatever arbitrary point. My understanding of Gnosis is a state in which your mind is stilled sufficiently that you become supremely centred, within your heart of hearts or consciousness. The centre being the centre of the small concentric circle. That's little old 'you'. It shares it's centre with the heart of all creation. This is something within everyone but also outside and expanding to ever greater levels, whence my analogy of the concentric circles. The infinitely large circle if you can imagine such a thing would be the totality of everything or God. So you don't 'become' that, in a sense, but you can connect to the heart of it, the centre of it all that exists within you.

You could also argue that God wouldn't be the infinitely large circle but also whatever exists outside of it, if there could be such a thing. The boundary of the circle and analogy breaks down at that point and it doesn't really matter in any case.

Also the demiurge was presented as an antagonistic architect which placed us in fleshy prisons to suffer.

yes so this is one idea, there are many and it gets super complicated. As to whether the demiurge is something to hate and reject or to accept as a smaller part of the larger totality that is god... there's a lot to it, It gets really hectic

Ok cool.

the interpretation I was presented with is that God split himself infinite > finite (present in man) and man can eventually become God through gnosis

Kinda, yeah, but not really depending on which school of thought you subscribe to. Now I see your point about 'homo deus'. My interpretation or personal understanding that rectifies this would be to say rather than becoming God, the goal is to realise the connection and the achieve a sort of union with God. Not that you yourself become god, but rather you recognise the divine 'spark' within you and know that you are a tiny piece of the whole that is God.

This isn't really a good explanation either and I do actually see you point more and more as I'm trying to avoid the issue.

Put it this way. I've known many people that became part of the psychedelic music and drug subculture. Without going into that too much, I am familiar with psychedelic experience as it relates to mystical and religious experiences. Many of the people that have a mystical experience end up with that interpretation, that they themselves are God. It's a kind of Solipsism. It's an extremely arrogant thing. It seems they take a short-cut towards something they haven't put in the time to study, and draw incorrect conclusions.

I'm a little bit tired and I'm struggling here, it's been a while. Consider this idea. Imagine concentric rings, smaller ones inside larger, expanding out infinitely or to whatever arbitrary point. My understanding of Gnosis is a state in which your mind is stilled sufficiently that you become supremely centred, within your heart of hearts or consciousness. The centre being the centre of the small concentric circle. It shares it's centre with the heart of all creation. This is something within everyone but also outside and expanding to ever greater levels, whence my analogy of the concentric circles. The infinitely large circle if you can imagine such a thing would be the totality of everything or God. So you don't 'become' that, in a sense, but you can connect to the heart of it, the centre of it all that exists within you.

You could also argue that God wouldn't be the infinitely large circle but also whatever exists outside of it, if there could be such a thing. The boundary of the circle and analogy breaks down at that point and it doesn't really matter in any case.

Also the demiurge was presented as an antagonistic architect which placed us in fleshy prisons to suffer.

yes so this is one idea, there are many and it gets super complicated. As to whether the demiurge is something to hate and reject or to accept as a smaller part of the larger totality that is god... there's a lot to it, It gets really hectic