Now, some would say I was a gnostic, but I am not so sure about that categorical term for four reasons 1) historically gnosticism was multiple esoteric movements that existed within Hermetic, Hellenic Jewish, and Christian circles, typically either radically dualist or monist emanationists who the current world as corrupted, thought the serpent in the garden was the good guy, that the real God was both beyond categorical descriptors, and was hostile to legalistic views of the world, 2) it has been abused by political and religious status-quo-ers to describe everything even vaguely heterodox by their standards, 3)it is used in both Thelema and Theosophy to simply mean knower and thus has been used in esoteric circles COMPLETELY devoid of the dualist implications, and 4) even if understand in modern terms as beginning from its 1st century context, must be modified by some other descriptor to be meaningful. For example, just as there's a huge different between Mahayana Buddhists and Theravedan buddhists or, say, Lutheran and Anabaptists Protestant Christians, there is a big difference between say a Gnostic in the manner of Philip K. Dick and a Gnostic in the manner of Valentius.
Wow. That unnecessarily complicates things. While I am not sure that I hold every point in common with the gnosticism of this group, I agree that Jah--or Abraxas or true God--is beyond human descriptors, remote, and unintelligentable. I think that Aoens, both in the gnostic sense of emanations and dominators, and memes, in the Dawkins sense of ideological systems, are the same. The speaking of ideological systems makes more sense to do in mythic context than in physical ones, and that there is a dominant system that is evolving into awareness of its. This is the demiurge (which I use with more negative connotations than this group) who is deluded and needs to be aware of the information within it. And that information as understandable energy is the building block of the universe.
Now, I prefer gnosis to information, since information has external meaning. Gnosis is more specific, it is internalized, integrated, and reflective "knowledge." Information must be understood and be experienced ontologically to be called gnosis.
This integration of things directly is the closest I belive we can come to experiencing the unintelligable whole.
I know that this sounds like a mixture of new age nonsense, gonsticism, and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin with smacks of physics and structural semiotic theory. I am okay with that, because I am trying to grapple with something without a cohensive lexicon or truly consistent historical tradition.
Anyway, I hope to learn, in this group, what gnosticism looks like in the information age.
But anyway, I am slightly confused by what is being referred to as the demiurge in this group, because it doesn't necessarily seen to correspond with the "false or half-maker" ideas in Earlier Gnosticism.