Category Archives: Ancient Greece

Post Apocalyptic Neo Classical World View

I see the world through this split view of post neo classical (post enlightenment Greek/Roman) stance on everything. I see everything as it relates contextually to either philosophy, government, or religion from these two power houses. I’d like to expand that to minoan and phoenician influence, but they are hard to get at as they have no written record. But what I try to understand are the basic names, dates, places, and titles and major ideas and wars of these two entities. Doing so gives me a wide breadth of understanding of culture, but far beyond merely understanding medieval society. I see everything that the Enlightenment appreciated from the classical period but on a far grander scale. I mean like 600+ book scale.

Point is I’m trying and because of that I see the world almost as if a post apocalyptic version of classical times.

The biggest takeaway is I now start to see archetypes and how they exist in society today through images of saints and ideals. By reading so far into our shared collective past (western society), especially pre abrahamic faiths pretty much. Is I see an anthropological social psychological sub structure as it exists today, a zeitgeist if you will.

It’s no more different than reading a fantasy campaign from TSR in the 90’s (e.g. DragonLance), it’s just I built my own modules by building my own classics library. Arguably it’s Raistlin who I got this post apocalyptic pov from. Because in the books he was cursed with seeing everything as dead (as post dead, decayed). I carried this forward as when reading about these rich full ancient times, I understand where they are today and what’s transpired and how they affect us now and how no one else knows or sees. Everyone just sees the present.

My library mainly focuses on high level summaries of ideas along with some base level material by the big names (Plato, Aristotle, Pre-Socratics, Plotinus). Else I want extract/summaries of ideas, mainly Neoplatonism.

Tree of Life, Astrology, & Neoplatonism

Upon reading a few articles, one on Jewish/Sufi Post Platonism (Gnosticism), another on astrology (star maps), Star Of David (Sacred Fruit, aka Math Porn), Vesica Piscis, and Kaballah (and sacred geometry).  I noticed the word emanation and thought of Plotinus’ 3 Hypostasis, I then synthesized the following:

The idea of having an internal star map imprinted on our minds at conception sounds similar to Plato’s idea that all ideas are revealed from within. I had a difficult time with Plato’s internal ideas vs understanding ideas. Interestingly enough, I have read that Greece described art as an uncovering of beauty vs a creation of it. Sculptors hewing from a block of stone would uncover the beauty of the form of a statue. Aristotle would later argue that the form was held within the sculptor’s mind. Stoics would describe knowledge (this is much later than Plato though) as being an external stimulus projected onto the mind (which appears opposite of Plato’s position that knowledge is from within).

I think the idea of a “star map” stamped on our minds at conception bridges two worlds. It shows how the configuration of the constellations is like a specific position of a set of gears in an an engine at the time of combustion. A causal seed, or marker, signifying a specific point in time (inception) and the subsequent set of events that define a “person” that are logically dependent on that point in time.

Plato felt that knowledge was held in the pre-existent and eternal forms which are internalized within the soul and that our souls merely remembered internal ideas that are eternal.  In this way, the ideas are like integrated (interconnected points of) ideas akin to Indra’s Net.

My view has been that evolution has brought us humans our ideas by evolving our species through the crucible of nature and time. The ideas are internalized evolutionary responses shaped by time.

We are cocooned within the world soul, biosphere, gaia, what have you. Like a protein and enzyme. Unaware of how we fit like a key within the universe. Yet we don’t control the fact that we are human, or what chromosomes we are born with. We have to give concessions to factors that shaped us. Those factors are the configurations of events at the time we are born which are wholly dependent on the universes internal configuration at the time we were born.

So the idea expressed here is that we are time stamped with a cosmic time seed, makes a lot of sense to me. I always felt that the position of the stars at the time of birth determines what and who we are.

As Ibn says,
“all phenomena are nothing but manifestations of Being, which is one with God.”

When I read this quote, I think of the Universe. These cosmic timestamps which determine our nature, right down to our very species and birth locations. To me this (universe and time position) is the true source of being.

Explanation of symbols found under Merkabah Mysticism

The way I see this related to Kaballahism, is the tree of life is kind of like an artificial neural network of inputs where we sit at the bottom (the output) (Malkuth) unaware of the inputs that led us to the outputs.  Each of the 11 Seraphim’s is akin to a neuron with it’s own specific weight (think polynomial function), this weight is set at birth as imprinted by the internalized star maps.  The Seraphim represent the position of the cosmos at birth.  Each Seraphim represents a core personality trait, but what important to understand is how each layer is influencing another area and they all interlace.

Merkabah is a vehicle of enlightenment to travel between each sphere

Kabbalah relates the Merkabah vision of Ezekiel and the Throne vision of Isaiah (Isaiah 6:1–8) describing the seraph angels, to its comprehensive

Four Worlds.

The highest World, Atziluth (“Emanation”-Divine wisdom), is

Neoplatonic: The One

the realm of absolute Divine manifestation without self-awareness,

metaphorically described in the vision as the likeness of a Man on the throne.

The throne of sapphire is an etymological root in Kabbalah for the Sephirot divine powers.

The second World, Beriah (“Creation”-Divine understanding), is

Neoplatonic: Internal contemplation (Aristotle’s Active Intellect)

the first independent root creation,

the realm of the Throne,

denoting God descending into Creation,

as a king limits his true greatness and revealed posture when seated.

The World of Beriah is the realm of the higher angels,

the Seraphim (“burning” in ascent and descent as their understanding of God motivates self-annihilation).

The third World, Yetzirah (“Formation”-Divine emotions), is the realm of

Neoplatonic: World Soul

archetypal existence,

the abode of the main Hayyot angels (“alive” with divine emotion).

They are described with faces of a lion, ox and eagle, as their emotional nature is instinctive like animals, and

they are the archetypal origins of creatures in this World.

The lowest World, Assiah (“Action”-Divine rulership), is the realm guided by the lower channels of the Ophanim (humble “ways” in realised creation).

Neoplatonic: Matter, subject to yin/yang (physical forces), Heraclitus divine judgement

“We must know that war (πόλεμος polemos) is common to all and strife is justice, and that all things come into being through strife necessarily.”

“All things come into being by conflict of opposites, and the sum of things (τὰ ὅλα ta hola, “the whole”) flows like a stream.”

“There is a harmony in the bending back (παλίντροπος palintropos) as in the case of the bow and the lyre.”

The Kabbalistic account explains this difference in terms of the Four Worlds.

All prophecy emanates from the divine chokhmah (wisdom) realm of Atziluth.
However, in order to be perceived it descends to be enclothed in vessels of lower Worlds.

Isaiah’s prophecy saw the Merkabah in the World of Beriah divine understanding,

restraining his explanation by realising the inadequacy of description.

Ezekiel saw the Merkabah in the lower World of Yetzirah divine emotions,

causing him to describe the vision in rapturous detail.

According to the Kabbalistic explanation, the Seraphim (“burning” angels) in Beriah (divine understanding) realise their distance from the absolute divinity of Atziluth.

Their call, “Holy”, repeated three times, means removed or separated. This causes their “burning up” continual self-nullification, ascending to God and returning to their place.

Their understanding realises instead that God’s true purpose (glory) for creation is with
lowly man.

The lower Hayyot (“living” angels) in Yetzirah (divine emotions) say, “Blessed” (etymologically in Kabbalah “drawing down” blessing) be the glory…from “His (distant-unknown to them) place” of Atziluth.

Though lower than the Seraphim,

their emotional self-awareness has a superior advantage of powerful desire.

This causes them to be able to draw down divine vitality from a higher source,

the supreme realm of Atziluth,
to lower creation and man.

In Ezekiel’s vision, the Hayyot have a central role in the merkabah’s channeling of the divine flow in creation.

Flower of Life

Metator’s Cube

Tree of Life



Political Reform: Sortition, a lesson from Ancient Athens

  • by Joshua Laferriere

This title says it all, “Princeton Study: U.S. No Longer An Actual Democracy

From the article itself,

Asking “[w]ho really rules?” researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page argue that over the past few decades America’s political system has slowly transformed from a democracy into an oligarchy, where wealthy elites wield most power.

I recently wrote a letter to the editor of Los Angeles times.  I wish I had saved exactly what I had wrote, but I’ll just rewrite it here.

What is an oligarch?  Let me give a little history lesson…

~350 BC Athens had a system of electing their representatives which by today’s standards is considered very left wing radical.

We have issues today with gerrymandering, money in politics, and incumbency issues.  Congress had an approval rating last year of 14%.  When we vote, we are presented often with two realistic choices; even then, it depends on how the polling went for the district your voting on.  Not sure?  Just check and it will give you a breakdown of your poll for the district before you even vote… so why even bother right?  It’s hardly a quantum event, but more so a predicted result that lobbyists and politicians rely on.  If a district is too for one side for a company, they will spend advertising in that district.  Often these districts are carefully restructured by years of gerrymandering (unless your fortunate enough to have a district that doesn’t allow their politicians to redraw their district lines).   Point is we have a deep seated issue in our current electoral body.

This picture sums up our problem, which is arguably from a few causes.  Gerrymandering, unlimited campaign spending, lobbyists, inactive and uninformed electorate, and a two party system due to a plural district voting system.  All of which leads to a highly predictable outcome, money controls politics.


Citizens United and unlimited campaign spending has forever corrupted our politics with “free speech” no limit campaign spending.  I would like to address this from another article I’ve been reading on about Ancient Athens.

Plato strongly believed that an economic division between the citizens of a state is the most dangerous political condition. This belief was mainly due to the widespread and frank opinions expressed by the Greeks that economic motives are very influential in determining political action and political affiliations.

However, ironically… Plato believed in a type of government closer to modern day Communism.  Loss of property, totalitarian rule by Philosopher Kings.  If history has anything to say on the manner, communism doesn’t work [at least in a free society].  Luckily, there was another proposed solution by one of his student’s.  Aristotle, who recognized the abolishment of property is not the best thing because citizen’s like owning things.  Yay for capitalism right?  Quote from another article.

Much of Aristotle’s political writing was a retort to Plato’s republic. He believed that Plato’s communism – the elite holding everything in common – was impossible. He wrote that property owned in common received less attention than property owned by an individual. Men, he wrote, care most for their private possessions.

Athens had lobbyists as well.  There was a political movement in Athens at the time, they were called Sophists.  A direct threat to reasoned arguments and debate, more so a threat to the Philosophers than anyone else at the time; however, they quickly spread into areas of life such as lawyers and political positions.  What was their danger?  They could argue two sides of any position.  They quickly banned representation of those in legal cases due fear of sophism spreading into such areas.  Today we have lawyers and lobbyists.  It’s the lobbyists who speak to our representatives and sway their opinions one way or the other.


It is Plato who is largely responsible for the modern view of the Sophist as a greedy and power-seeking instructor who uses rhetorical sleight-of-hand and ambiguities of language in order to deceive, or to support fallacious reasoning. Plato was especially dismissive of Gorgias, one of the most famous and successful of the early Sophists. Sophism was thought capable of perverting the truth because it emphasized practical rhetoric rather than virtue, and taught students to argue any side of an issue.


Many of these people, the argument goes, are concerned only with convincing you to believe them, not with the truth.  The following Web links will help you explore this theme.

Some modern politicians are criticized for spending too much time ‘selling themselves.’  Like an advertiser, a politician must convince the public to think that they are the best candidate for the job. While they are urged to stick to the issues, too often politicians resort to attack ads, spin doctors, and damage controlOnce in office, some politicians are criticized for relying on opinion polls to make decisions instead of taking a stand and holding to their personal convictions.

Athens answer to sophism was to restructure their political system, arguably long before 350BC with Solon.  In turn this lead to the Peloponnesian War; amongst other things, such as the Delian League of Eastern City States who arguably didn’t wish to be a part of it who sided with Sparta to end Athenian Democracy which led to the Thirty Tyrants and their fall and the restoration of Democracy and ironically to the death of Socrates because he feared the rule of the mob.  History is full of interesting facts.  Socrates wasn’t a promoter of democracy, but quite possibly his prodigy Aristotle was.

There solution in 350BC was sortition, or election by lots.  Ironically I had a similar idea many years ago I discussed with a friend of mine who thought that such a system would elect incompetent people.  So I quickly abandoned the idea…

Until I read about the Athenian Constitution; which wasn’t discovered until 1879, 100 years after the founding of the Constitution of the United States.  Instead of a direct democracy where everyone votes, Athens applied the concept of random sampling to their electorate body (which was any able citizen, those who abstained were called idiocy’s, our derivative of idiot).  Therefore they eliminated the influence money and sophism had over their representation.  I would propose reinstating a similar solution.  If people were elected by random chance, everyone would be more politically involved.  Opinions of the commoner would matter.  Each citizen would be expected to be politically active and competent; similar to how we are all expected to be eligible for the draft, or eligible for jury service; we should be eligible to serve in government.  Not by siding with a party and playing party politics, but when called by government, we do our unbiased civic duty and represent no party, but the common man.  If we are representing our own selfish needs, we will be quickly drowned out as the elective body seeks to find a common solution excluding those who seek to promote their own ideology.

No longer would elections be decided by campaign advertising and demographics of an inactive electorate (whether Republican or Democrat).  It would erase the inherent flaws of the plurality system where only two parties survive to the top.  A plurality system makes our politics highly predictable and subject to influence by campaign spending by private interests (the oligarch); it also addresses the concern of gerrymandering and the desire for politicians to pursue a life in politics by any means (incumbency).  Lobbyism might still be a threat, but they would no longer be able to buy an incumbent politician.  Sortition would add a sense of accountability to the rest of government.  It would give the common man a chance to shine against say a plurality voted Senate and possibly exposure to be elected in such a process.  Sortition would address an inactive electorate and the way that demographics are used against us in elections (gerrymandering and campaign targeted ads).

For further consideration, I would recommend this article written in 2014, “Democracy Through Multi-Body Sortition: Athenian Lessons for the Modern Day” by Terrill G. Bouricius, New Democracy Institute, or the book “A Citizen Legislature” by Michael Phillips and Ernest Callenbach.  However, the premise is simple.  Random sampling of an electorate body would produce politics that is more representative of the voice and will of people vs party politics that is controlled by money and private interests.

Garden of Eden, Palace Gardens [Theory]

I saw a Pompeii exhibit today where they show cased these beautiful gardens where they cultivated special fruits and animals to create a ‘utopian’ environment.

Of course, the story of the Garden of Eden had been around for a few centuries before Pompeii, yet it was Pompeii trying to emulate Greek gardens… Greek gardens were supposedly emulating Minoan (ref: gardens…

Babylon had their hanging gardens.

Troy, and Mycanae (maybe even Pompeii) were held in myth but were based around actual events. Maybe what we are hearing is a type of ostracism practiced in ancient times being passed down in epic fashion [i.e. myth based on actual events].

Now this is all conjecture. However, Minoan DNA has been found in many western Europeans, and Minoan culture had thriving palace cities. (see

State Religions, Epic Cycles, History of Ideas, Negative Inference, and some Pandeism [2 distinct but related conversations, names removed]


I mean the entire point of argumentation – even the strict Socratic form of rigid logical argumentation – is to construct a convincing argument: A conjoined set of statements so incontrovertible as to force agreement.

Philosophy is far more than sitting around and thinking about the nature of things. Lots of people do that, and most of their names are lost to history. It’s about communicating those ideas, and most importantly convincing others that those ideas are both correct and important.

Some of the canonically “great” philosophers are better thinkers than writers. But many more, if we’re being honest, are better writers than thinkers. Their works are a joy to read, following their thought processes. But few of them have really advanced the ideas they’ve tackled very far. They didn’t earn their place in the historical canon by solving anyone, but rather by convincing others that their ideas have merit.

Ultimately there are three skills required of a successful philosopher:

Have interesting ideas
Be able to communicate those ideas fully
Communicate those ideas in a convincing way

Of all of these, the third element is the one that it seems needs the most help from history. A legal-adversarial system following the tradition of Greek democracy wherein the most convincing orator wins the dispute for himself or his client, has proven to be of enormous benefit to advancing philosophy as a concept. Because merely having and explaining interesting ideas is much easier than the third step. That requires an evolutionary historical stage to get somewhere.

– elbruce – Reddit

The powers that be that influenced Western Thought today at ~ 0 AD are Greece, Rome, Egypt, and Jerusalem.

“Had Alexandria triumphed and not Rome, the extravagant and muddled stories that I have summarized here would be coherent, majestic, and perfectly ordinary” – Jorge Luis Borges (on the gnostics).

Interesting POV on the power struggles. I always viewed the struggle as between Athens and Rome but now I think the missing piece to adopting Roman Christianity, was Hellenized Egypt. Once it was brought under Roman patsy rule with Cleopatra… and the library of Alexandria burned. You have it wide open for Christianity to sweep through the East Roman Empire. The Dead Sea Scrolls were secreted away pre East Roman Empire when the Roman empire was sweeping through Jerusalem, in fear of a repeat of Maccabees subjugation of Jewish ideas. I think the Aeneid may have been used to counter Christianity.

The Roman province of Egypt (Latin: Aegyptus, pronounced [ajˈɡʏptʊs]; Greek: Αἴγυπτος Aigyptos [ɛ́ːɣyptos]) was established in 30 BC after Octavian (the future emperor Augustus) defeated his rival Mark Antony, deposed his lover Queen Cleopatra VII and annexed the Ptolemaic kingdom of Egypt to the Roman Empire. The province encompassed most of modern-day Egypt except for the Sinai Peninsula (which would later be conquered by Trajan). Aegyptus was bordered by the provinces of Creta et Cyrenaica to the West and Judaea (later Arabia Petraea) to the East.

It was like a 2nd triumvirate.

The province came to serve as a major producer of grain for the empire and had a highly developed urban economy. Egypt was by far the most wealthy Roman province.

I’ve read about three state religions that Rome may have created.

**[Caesar’s Messiah](**, I asked through my school and got this quote on the book from a PhD Professor

> He relies primarily on Josephus which is insufficient–and he does not distinguish between the Greco-Roman construction of the Christ myth and the unknown, anonymous historical personality that provided the basis for the New Testament narrative. but Rome definitely benefited from the co-optation messianic movements during this period. They did the same thing in Egypt by declaring the Roman Emperor as the new pharaoh–the savior king. – Salim Faraji

Needless to say I didn’t really bother investigating. However, the idea stuck in the back of my head. That maybe states create religions.

[**Appollonius of Tyana**]( is a [conspiracy-like] figure of whom there isn’t much known on and is hard to find reputable authoritative quotes on. However, [livius]( has some good info. I can’t find the quote or reference, but I read one theory where Apollonius was actually *used by the Romans* to combat the spread of Christianity. Indeed, it seems the book was requested by Empress [Julia Domna]( ~200 AD. A lot of theories exist where he may actually be the historical figure of Jesus, of which I do not make that claim. I like to play devil’s advocate, and if their is a POV where I can posit the alternative position, I will do so, as an antagonist to Christianity. Either way, he was a Neo Pythagorean.

[**The Aenaeid**]( Following in the footsteps of Hail Caesar and Caesar declaring himself a God… you have not so much a religion but rather divine manifest destiny by writing an epic based on Trojan myth that we all know and love to justify some course of action, in this case rule by authority.

So now… I’m wondering if Imperial Rome was in a state of Intellectual decline and promoted a type of intelligence warfare, in the [Sophist tradition](, on it’s own people to attain political motives.

> …there were some grounds for this suspicion. On the practical side, merely, there always was a danger lest the Sophistic skill be prostituted to unsocial ends. ([Rogers](, pp. 42-43).

The Theogeny/Illiad is an Epic of the [Mycanean]( empire and the Fall of the Bronze Age.

> The later Greeks told stories about the Mycenaeans who preceded them, like the poet Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey. In the eyes of the later Greeks, the Mycenaeans were larger than life. One reason for this belief comes from the ruins of the Mycenaean city-states. The walls around these palaces are massive, made from blocks of stone weighing several tons and carried to the mountain-top settlements. The later Greeks called these walls cyclopean walls, named after the one-eyed giant race, because the later Greeks felt only giants could move the stones. A walled mountain or hilltop settlement is called a citadel.

Vergil’s [Anneaid]( was an Epic for the justification of Rome continuing it’s rule.

> Immediately after finishing the Georgics, Virgil began his masterwork, the Aeneid. He was fortunate enough to enter the good graces of Augustus, and, in part, the Aeneid serves to legitimize Augustus’s reign.

Is Christianity nothing more than an epic creation itself?. A lot that would make up that cycle was actively suppressed during Rome’s decline. I like to believe this was a period of intellectual decline* in general [this is just before the Dark Ages mind you]. **Domitian** [~80 AD] declared philosophy free zones, and Christianity/paganism in general was persecuted by the Roman Empire. The trend of declining intellectual reason was being met with the desire to control. Indeed, [Sophism’s]( negative connotation is tied to the fact that in ancient times, only the rich were educated, therefore well spoken. Athenian democracy opened up the forum for everyone to be an orator, to influence others by words. Socrates took this up and opened up Philosophy to the wretches because information in the hands of the few [in power] leads to oligarchy. Hellenized Greece created this environment of persuasive speakers.

> *[As to this matter of faith] I have to reply that we accept it as useful for the multitude, and that we admittedly teach those who cannot abandon everything and pursue a study of rational argument to believe without thinking out their reasons.
– Origen, Contra Celsum (~185 AD)

Two sources [for this idea]:

[Sophists, primarily paraphrasing PhD Philosophy Prof: K Rogers](
> The earliest Greek philosophers (e.g., Thales, Anaximander, Democritus, etc.), had focused primarily on developing accounts of physical reality, asking “Of what is the world made?” However, social and political unrest demanded that philosophers move beyond the merely physical questions (i.e., questions about substance) in order to address spiritual and ethical issues. The traditional Greek religion, with its accompanying supernatural explanations for the phenomenal world, were being questioned. Likewise, traditional laws were being questioned (see Rogers, 1923, p. 45). As all citizens in Athens had the opportunity to participate directly as legislators, those who wanted to advance in politics desired special training in rhetoric for the purpose of learning to persuade audiences in the legal/political realm. The Sophists occupied themselves as teachers of rhetoric, among other topics.

[CS Lewis on the Aeneid and Christianity](
> First, Lewis thought, the Aeneid proved that Virgil’s form of Roman paganism was a whole and comprehensive religion, legitimate in itself, and therefore equal to Christianity in its scope and strength. After all, Lewis reasoned—a bit cynical from the shallow pieties imposed upon him by his schooling—“In the midst of a thousand such religions” stood Christianity, assumed by many to be “true.” In reality, he thought, Christianity was merely the “thousand and first” religion.

Both quotes above are Christian sourced, and ironically, never fully consider if Christianity itself isn’t continuing an epic cycle, one of Judeo myth instead of Trojan myth. It’s hilarious that Christianity is purported as “true” by Lewis as he denies it is an epic myth itself. What is important to note here, is CS Lewis also did not have the vantage point of knowing the full extent of Gnostic documents that the [Nag Hamadi]( unearthed that exposes more of this proposed *epic cycle*

What I’m thinking is… That Christianity was nothing more than **[Greco-roman sophist epic cycle drama](** *unfolding during the decline of the Roman Empire* in Anatolia (Asia Minor) via Gnostic Gospels. It’s posited Homer wrote the Illiad from here, early Philosophical ideas are also from here (ex. Thales to Pythagoras are from Asia Minor, Paul the Apostle, The Essenes). An alternative theory (can’t find source 🙁 ), is it was Athens that propagated the gnostic gospels to offset the rise of Judaism. Marcion of Sinope would be a central figure in this theory, as his bible was the 1st bible that excluded the Old Testament for his belief in [Sophia]( and Gnosticism.

The theory purports that Gnosticism was a rise against Judaism possibly by Jews themselves (but it could have easily been Athens and Rome), but I only focus on the fact that Gnosticsm was driving a wedge between Christianity and Judaism; point being that Anatolia ideas were mixing violently.

Christianity and the Roman Empire were virtually at war with each other, it is during this war that [Athenian/Anatolian] Philosophy was being impregnated into Christianity [& Gnosticism] (Gospels are all Greek and written in Asia Minor), Rome persecuting and crucifying Christians, and Christians defiling Roman temples. Gnosticsm was eventually schismed *away* from Christianity when the [Marcion]( version of Christianity was put down with Constantine. When the [East] Roman Empire adopted Orthodox, [East] Rome turned the persecution against the [Greek] Gnostics (I should note the term Gnostics has been used by Plotinus to mean Anatolia pagans). It is important for Rome to adopt Christianity, because Rome [and Greece] remember a set of [Philosophical] beliefs that preceded Christianity and has no reason to accept it’s legitimacy. [East] Rome can now bring followers of Christ under an authoritarian literalist interpretation and bring a wide range of ideas under control, therefore squashing the once rising Christian rebellion. Let the book burnings and Dark Ages begin.

This is where the Schism occurs away from Gnosticsm. Gnosticism was trying to offset Judaism, where as Constantine was trying to Epic build off of it. In the process, they got the documents they needed in line with a philosophical point of view that they found commonality in. Ultimately creating a **philosophical myth inspired legend**, nothing more different than modern day [comic book ethos]( Either way, what we end up with is a East Byzantine Empire based on Orthodox [Greek] Christianity. It would appear that Greek influenced ideas win over Roman ones in terms of pre East-West schisms as the Roman Empire experienced a collapse/split into an East [Greek non Latin] Rome, carrying Greek thought forward (but not for long w the Crusades, which creates the East-West Schism and divorces Latin Christianity from Greek Christianity).

> We must persuade our citizens that the gods are the lords and rulers of all things and what is done, is done by their will and authority: and they are the great benefactors of men, and know who everyone is, and what he does, and what sins he commits, and what he intends to do, and with what piety he fulfills his religious duties.
–Cicero, “The Law” 2:15,16

Apparently the book, [Paradise Lost]( is a form of Epic using Christianity as it’s base.

Is this how religions get started? Documents alluding to past legends mixed in with philosophical viewpoints taken from the time which make up legends and part of an evolving “cycle”.

If what I’m thinking is true, it would explain why we have no historical record other than testimony for the historicity of Jesus. Thinking of it in light of the Trojan War and Achilles. We can ask ourselves is Achilles a real person? Or was he a plot device where other real names were weaved in with myth. The more I consider this, the more it makes sense. It would explain why we have people quote Jesus but no physical records of his existence. I’m not sure what physical records we would expect. I would suspect a house, an address, taxes paid, something of that sort. Log entries in schools, etc. However, what we have are people quoting his [claimed] deeds ([Flavius](, Cornelius). Just like people quoted Achilles deeds as if it were part of history. Of course we have a much smaller timeframe for an epic cycle to develop; what we do have is conflicting gospels popping into existence, and another [saviour]( like figure existing at the same time, as well as other state religions trying to be created at this time.

Oh Asia Minor, how I do love your wiley ways. I think the best way to map something like this, is to create a timemap of ideas (gospels in this case) and put a date, name, and birthplace of the idea. Instead of trying to chart the area of influence the idea has over a period of time, one could create a hierarchy of idea dependencies using the dates and locations to help get a reference of how far the ideas dispersed and evolved from each other. One has to assume author’s adopt pen names when they write and may not be the person they are pretending to write about, also, we cannot assume that documents have been left unaltered as they have been passed down throughout time, both part of the [tradition]( of the epic cycle. Some wonder how much Homer had added to the Trojan War with his Illiad than was factual, since the Illiad was written hundreds of years after the war itself. Yet, the words he wrote were pretty much held as fact by Alexander the Great, Xerxes, Augustus, and Sultan Mehmet II when it came to Troy [the sultan is in reference to Trevor Bryce from his Article, The Trojan War from The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean].

R: “That’s how religions get started.”

R: Fear backed political programs, cast by flames on the walls of our cave (much like tv except through regular reunions at the church). They reuse each other content to facilitate adhesion to their party conversion to their religion, but they adapt the interpretations (for better or worst). And to this day these artificial constructs still fool people, unable to see them for what they are, laws they have not participated in writing. How things have changed.

Plato, exactly.

R: There are small amounts of non-biblical historical records (aside from the Dead Sea Scrolls) for Jesus, not too much but enough to back a strong argument in favor of his physical presence ~2000 years ago. The Gnostic gospels and Gnostic views are a huge mind-opener, and studious comparisons of the older sacred texts of the Buddists and Hindus reveal striking parallels that will reshape your present understanding. It blows my fucking mind.

really? Tell me more. I only have Evidence that Demands a Verdict and Halleys, tektonics is another good site (that I haven’t delved into too much). I never really looked into it until I was ready to look at it from an informed perspective, if these are your sources, they are mine as well (in fact I quoted two of his sources in my blurb). Until I was able to use negative inference, reason, and informed research to posit a secular hypothesis at early Christianity, I was scared to delve into a possible Sophist interpretation of events. I think after reading a few weeks of early Greek thought, I found the bed of ideas that birthed Christianity outside of dates and names. There may have been a historical Jesus, but I’d like to subtract all the pre existing ideas before I meet him.

R: First off, it’s important to know that you need to keep an open mind, no matter how hard it is to accept it at first. For me, I find thinking about what I’m learning as the truth until there’s some contradictions within it’s own explanation, regardless of prior knowledge. And then at the end of an argument or perspective I give it a second to digest, at which case the stuff I’m going to try to briefly explain begins to make sense the more and more I read. Being skeptical is good, of course, but where most people falter is that being skeptical hinders you and keeps you closed-minded when you deny any argument before understanding it. And its much harder to understand it if you go into it being skeptical–the pieces don’t connect as they would if you believe it to be true.

I’ve been going back over these posts to ensure I’ve absorbed them correctly. I do the same with my readings to be honest. I do a 2 POV commentary passover over each “author” that supposedly has these “truths”, whatever form they are in. Then I try to find the common denominators of the ideas and see where the contradictions lie. However, I do a much more comprehensive overview as well, I tie in dates, names, and locations of ideas, and try to fit the contextual background of political history.

R: The reason I say small evidence is because, much like a conspiracy, you have to build up bits of basic knowledge–each alone don’t necessarily mean anything by themselves and can be easily pushed aside but the more you understand and learn about it the more it begins to make sense.

R: You have to /want/ to know God for him to be revealed to you.

I think a big problem is the limited time we have. We look to authority for answers, but often authority suppresses information. So one has to look “within” without the biases of authority to survey in an unbiased manner.

R: There’s a lot of misinformation regarding God and the Gnostics and Christianity in general out there and you have to be careful from where you source your information. I hope that what I have to tell you will get one foot started on the right path for your journey within.


I think the system is setup to marginalize these ideas. I’ve read PhD professors write about my ideas (Guthrie)… so… idk how more “out” it’s going to get there. Someone with political clout would have to push the ideas. However, 2015 is blogosphere territory…

Yeah, I dunno. I like to push the envelope a little bit, but only in search for truth. Reminds me of the movie Conspiracy Theory with Mel Brooks. I figure in my world of sensory input, I’ll try to shoot laser beams of thought out into the corners of unseen chaos in hopes of finding an unobstructed path.

My philosophy is the opposite of plausible deniability, but plausibility. I could be wrong about this here or there, but no single part of my argument is contingent on just one piece. I try to see if I can find the common elements that would hold the theory together from what is plausibly true. I figure if I get enough “right facts”, people either will not comment on it, or not correct me on the wrong things and be quite in hopes I won’t discover more truth.

I like to think Sophia was an allegory. In fact, I think just as The Theogeny birthed all the Greek debates about religion and reality, Sophia was a way of people birthing their own ideas about reasoned reality. That’s what I think gnosis is. Reverse engineering religion.

holy shnikey’s. He just went into 1st causes, and thoughts (which are 1st aristotle causes) and tied it into Egyptian/Sanskrit shit that I was reading about with the Cult of Isis (of which I want to see in LA at the Pompeii exhibit!) and then went into love/hate ying/yang Parmenides philosophy. Yeah, I know my shit, and I’ve been reading about the mysteries. I think what happened is these ancient philosophers were high classed travellers who studied other cultures belief systems and shared the knowledge back at home and tried to psycho analyze it (or philosophize it).

while I don’t buy all the stuff in the video. My theory on the Universe and his inter connectedness that violates General Relativity and is observed in Quantum Entanglement? I think… is the Higgs Boson field acting as a wave as if in another dimensional plane we cannot fully see giving everything it’s mass. Changes in our plane, we don’t see; because it’s happening in a fluid like field in the Higgs plane.

But… wtfdik? I’m not a physicist, just a hobbyist.

last response. Finished the video. It hits on Henosis about the big bang, how we all start with this “feeling” which I like to posit as pneuma. I assumed that the Pineal gland was the source of this pneuma, but I was schooled on that, so I don’t think that anymore. But, I do believe our consciousness is experienced as if we have a filter on, but we ultimately derive from the same conscious source. Sometimes we can transcend our barriers and observe this inter connectedness that I like to dub Henosis, but some others call Ego Death.

R: Bingo!… You’re spot on about our unity. You see, the biblical narrative of the attainment of the knowledge of Good and Evil is about the birth of the illusion of the ego. Everything in this universe is made by God, and God is in everything and everyone, and it is the attachment to this physical world and our mortal lives as individuals, often blinded to this unity, that the ego wants. “I am the body” is what it wants us to think, and that our lives are about accomplishing the mortal pleasures of sex, food, drugs, etc and that the body is who we really are. The ego is the devil who was the first to want to be separate from God.

R: All evil can be traced back to the ego (loving ourselves over each other, ignorant that we are our neighbors and they are us and we are God), and it is this ego that we must destroy in order to become one with Christ spiritually. This is what God sent Jesus to do: spread the understanding of non-duality to abolish the ignorance.

R: Look up the history of the Pharisees, they were seen as the closest people to God in the eyes of the public, but Jesus knew that their elaborate displays of humility were merely a guise to feed their ego and be looked up to by the “lesser people.”

R: These same teaching of non-duality–the fact that all of us are equal and one with God, from the poorest of the poor to the richest of the rich–was taught in Asian cultures through the Christ that had merged with Buddha and Krishna as they sought understand the order of the universe. Even Einstein got spiritual and began to write quite differently in the later epoch of his life because of it. He sought to prove that, as far as the universe goes, what you see is what you get, but the deeper he looked the more he found he was wrong.

R: The meaning of life is to love everyone as much as you can, and to eliminate the ego, to merge with God and find the Kingdom of Heaven within yourself. You can get to heaven right now, right here on Earth. This alone is my favorite hidden treasure I’ve ever uncovered through my search of conspiracies.

R: If you’re more interested, I invite you to check out this book called The Mystic Christ ( I found out about it after diving into one of the Gnosticism sites. I also do not trust the tektonics website you linked to me.

Ye I don’t trust tekton too much either but I respect the effort. I take a less Christi myth approach to it all, but the body thing. Yeah, that’s all in the Dionysius mysteries, bachich death of a god that we consumed to experience the divine spark. Yeah, cool, I feel like I’ve been studying correctly the common theme 🙂

R: Well that makes me glad. By no means was I trying to make you believe in Christ and I certainly feel as though religion is completely unnecessary to understand our divinity. I hope I was able to help you find something of good use or help you get to where you want to be 🙂

oh yeah, I don’t necessarily believe in happiness here on earth via this divine knowledge in itself. One can realize henosis and not be enjoying one’s life. Rather, know that one’s divine spirit is eternal and then the person should probably just adopt Stoic philosophy to get through it. I’m still not 100% on that one, apparently stoic’s believed in logos, which I do as well, but beyond that, I haven’t read they attributed anything to an afterlife.

You and I are the same entity. Before we came to realize the oneness of everything, we believed in ego and the self. Your consciousness is from the from the same source as mine was birthed from. When we move on, we merely return to it? That’s my belief. That we achieve a state of transcendence or oneness or henosis, kind of like an omega point. Where the entirety of the universe is complete and whole again (possibly at the end of time, or we just return to this divine fire/logos] and everyone realizes everyone elses thoughts as one vs being experienced through these separate individuals.

So in essence, if two people realize it and meet each other; they are in essence meeting themselves.

Some of the mystical healing shit in that video… idk. I’m a Deist. I think the Universe is hard coded a way and set on a course. We come to realize god not through religious texts, but by understanding nature. As the natural philosophers put it,the divine fire or spirit of the Universe is the constant flux of energy. This movement of energy is an intelligent movement, aka stoic logos. It is this pandeistic intelligence that I think we become one with. It’s this very study of this divine fire that the philosophers were studying. Thales called it water (flux/fluidity) who btw visited Egypt. Anaximenes called it density, and the shifting of densities is the fire that spreads apart and affects these molecules of density. Pythagoras believe we can explain the movement and densities with what he believed he discovered as divine math. Heraclitus really hit the nail on the head with diametric duality [perfect opposites] and proportions really being the one and same in a closed system [IMO]. He also hit the nail on the head that no two moments in time are ever the same as the eternal flow of the river of time (divine fire) is constant. I like to think that opens up the possibility of cataloging the contents of the Universe in a systematic way when considering Democritus atomicity principle. If one looks at it, our very fucking bodies are atomic models based around what, DNA and a birth place at a specific moment in time. That is what makes “us”, but our pneuma was breathed in by this divine fire IMO. Christianity also calls this bastardized version of the Divine Fire, the Holy Spirit.

I don’t really buy [in the video] the internal ability to change the external world through mind. What I do believe in however is our ability to effect change in reality through thought via action. Aristotlle’s First causation rule, which lead him as well as St Thomas Aquinas to the First Mover, which I call the flux of time. However, I DO believe 100% in the allegory of the cave. Just as our eyes have evolved to see what the sun has shed light on, our eyes are as if watching a movie played on a cave wall. The quality of the film is what we perceive to be reality, our eyes are our lenses and they only see what the sun wants it to see. Point is, I think a lot of early mysticism, self discovery, astronomy, realization of oneness, got started when people consumed things like mind altering substances Kykeon; no matter what they were, and came to realize different states of mind and points of view and considered that maybe the way they viewed the world was along one specific viewpoint. I’m not saying these were necessary to have these points of views, because apparently Aristotle denounced the Eleusinian Mysteries because of the inability to talk about what was involved in the mysteries by penalty of death. However, what was central to the story is the concept of the divine body [generally sacrament of some sort which represents the Earth] dying and resurrecting so that we may have life!


R: “JESUS was a radical nonviolent revolutionary who hung around with lepers hookers and crooks; wasn’t american and enver psoke englihs; was anti-wealth anti-death penalty anti-public prayer (M 6:5); but was never anti-gay, never mentioned abortion or birth control. never called the poor lazy, never justified torture, never fought for tax cuts for the wealthiest nazarenes. Never asked a leper for a copay; and was a long-haried brown-skinned homeless community organizing anti-slut-shaming middle eastern jew.”

When you have a lot of books written by a lot of different authors who claimed to have met the same man ( and no one bothers to compile it properly into a canon until a few hundred years later to find a commonality amongst it all (Constantine). I think you end up with modern day brainstorming session, where the end product is a highly polished and a popular product.

R: Jesus Seminar

yeah, I’ve been reading about Apollonius, I think Jesus Christo Myth is an epic cycle in the making. Similar to how the Greek’s viewed the larger than life Macedonians and Achilles. I wrote a huge blog/reddit entry on it, I was thinking it was worthy of a doctorate thesis. It’s all conjecture atm, but based on the ideas that were evolving around the time of Jesus

reminds me of the Gospel of Q, and how the Gospel of Thomas re confirmed a lot of teachings. However, this assembly… I’m not sure if it’s intentions were secular. It’s almost as if they are wishing to do their own nicean creed vs acknowledging it might be it’s own epic

The assembly was scholarly, as they sort of checked opinions at the door. Instead, they identified the areas of the four canonical gospels that likely derived from Q, observed the biases and aims of each of the canonicals, and then cross referenced them with existing texts, surviving non-canonical gospels, etc. More than a few of the scholars weren’t even “Christian” in any conventional sense, but were rather professors and research scholars (doctoral level) of new and Old Testament studies, broader religious studies, or even just archaeology and languages.

That’s cool, but I’m sure Constantine had a similar setup. Its just today you can’t exclude academics and history has been rife w edits. I really like there voting system, but trying to do an all secular study… That’s another thing. But idk I’m going to read it more, don’t worry. Its certainly going in my repertoire just like Josh McDowell

I’m going to a Pompeii exhibit at the Cali sci center today

R: I see your point about the Jesus myth. The important thing to consider is that it is deeply embedded in Jewish/Hebrew myth as well, as many of the accounts/gospels were fabricated BY Jews in order to advance their new sect of Judaism (not yet called Christianity). We see mirrorings Abraham’s life, Moses’ life, etc in many of the narratives that are overlaid upon the historical aspects.

I concur. Glad we can have a civil intelligent discussion. I’m still open to a historical Jesus myself but I’m trying to do it through negative inference

I’ve been using philosophy to posit testable theories that I try to model. My theory so far is so ambiguous its almost impossible to disprove… Which makes it a bad theory tbh, but I did put a test up, physical records other than word of mouth deed recording. But maybe that’s impossible. Maybe Rome just didn’t keep records that would be needed to verify

tbh, the Jesus Seminar is kind of what I’m doing right now on philosophy. i’m reading 3 to 4 PhD sourced treatises on early philosophy, and trying to find their commonality. I figure I’ll investigate fringe points and verify their validity. Similar in a way to negative inference. I’m trying to remove the inconsistencies, but I’m also expanding my sphere of context to include government, and political events at the times of these various ideas.

I think Roman Philosophy (which your book “Peter Singer, Writings on an Ethical Life” is more along the lines of) is post Greek philosophy, decline of metaphysical studies and focus on decline and religious meaning. Whether you buy that or not, what seems to have been transferred to Roman philosophy is Ethics [Stoicism primarily, but also Epicureanism, but also Eleatic ideas of non existence]… which speak strongly in Christianity.

I’m a bit off atm, but that was a mixed half intelligent response

forgive me, but the main ideas are there if I got the themes/contexts wrong

I meant to say stoic self denial is in Christianity. It’s a common theme that arose out of slavery. I find it more ethical form of thought, ironically; I see a connection with using Christianity as a tool for slaves to get them to accept their fate through self denial and things like the serenity prayer. So the very concept of stoic self denial is a double edged sword. It basically says, accept your fate, and love it because it could be worse.

I think it gave rise to the golden rule though

this is exactly what i’m doing

I see a history of ideas with Christianity that preceded Christianity. Using logic, I subtract those ideas (negative inference) that preceded Christianity and look at the “noise” left over, that’s the real Christ.

not trying to find commonality 2000 years afterwards

First Citizen, Rome, Alexander the Great, Divine Providence, Foundation Myths

Divine Providence, Manifest Destiny, National Sovereignty

stem from Rome’s “1st Citizen” Doctrine

which has roots in the story of Troy and how supposedly Rome was founded by Aeneas, a Trojan prince fleeing Troy. Penned by Vergil in the Epic Poem the “Aeneid” penned between 29 and 19 BC.

Concept was, the founding of the nation of Rome by Aeneas was used as a backplot to Octavian/Augstus claiming divine ruling authority over Rome when Rome transitioned from a Republic to an Imperial form of government.

Very similar to a modern day saint creation story. A spin on deifying a patron or ruling authority. Creating a myth to justify one’s rule (sounds a lot like China, North Korea, Japan). Creating gospels to back it up. Athens had an issue where Alexander the Great proclaimed himself a deity as well.

What gets more interesting… is how the Trojan War [Epic Cycle] was used as a basis for various nations to war against each other. Persia, Alexander the Great, even the fall of Constantinople, and the founding of Rome have ideas based around the legends and myths that are passed down for generations and treated as gospel. Myths can be and are used to justify and shape actions. Very similar to how Islam and Israel split off from each other from common roots. Myths and legends are used to create schisms and people act on them. It might have been unintentional, but the stories bring on a culture of their own.

What’s sad about this though… is the gospel, or epic, Aeneid… was written and used to justify ones [Augustus] rule so quickly. There was no time for the story to develop. It was mainly acted upon. Almost to create a movement. Sounds like many modern day offshoots of practicing religions.

Rome, Greece, Christianity, Republic, Democracy and Today

Today I learned that the Roman Republic lasted for ~500 years up to Julius Caesar who introduced the concept of Imperator’s (which apparently is a natural consequence of a Republic, lack of cohesion due to a lack of a governing authorative figure, aka executive). Which ironically is around the same time frame of Christianity. ~46 BC

So Rome had coevolved a system of Republic that Greek had practiced, city states working in unison. Tbh, I’ve heard of many such city states, to include the Phoenicians. However, Rome had a Senate. I believe other Greek city states practiced various forms of non Democratic governments, but some governments did practice Democracy (Athens) and Sparta had a form of Democracy as well for the privileged citizens. I don’t believe Greece had practicing Senator’s.

Fast forward to Caesar…Imperator’s ruled as an executive authority over the Republic, eventually the Roman empire fell a few hundred years later; however, the East survived until the fall of Constantinople and their Emperor Constantine the XI in 1458, just prior to Spain’s expulsion of Islam from Spain which happened just before Columbus crossed the Ocean and started the colonies.

Christianity has this relationship with the Roman Republic. It was there at the birth of it’s shift from a Republic to an Empire, and was the only enemy of the Easy Byzantine’s empire enemy, the Ottoman’s. However, did not come to it’s help.

Some would argue that the United States revived some belief in the Roman Republic and Greek Athenian Democracies. However… I think history tends to get groups to convene and come to agree on things and guide a group’s decision for it’s continued well being. Native American’s have done so, and so has England with their merchants and House of Commons. The House of Lords resembles our Senate, and if you put it into perspective at how they become pushovers when an Imperator comes around… It’s just bureaucratic upper class playing with the system/status quo.

Looking back, it’s like a giant interwoven tapestry the United States shares by trying to revive certain forms of a government that our pilgrims share a history with themselves. I know it’s a stretch, but Rome/Greek Republic/Democracy dies but continues around the birth of Christianity in Empire form.

Fast forward to the fall of the Byzantine empire, you have Spain setting out new colonies and the pilgrims start pouring in from Europe. As the pilgrims escape across the Atlantic, they do so on the curtails of the end of the Byzantine Empire, of which Spain shares a common enemy with, the Turks. However, Spain and the Byzantine Empire were not friends from apparently and from what I’ve read, no one in the West cared about it’s fall.

The reason for this is because the schisms within Christianity, which ultimately lead to [Catholic] Spain not caring about [Orthodox] Constaninople’s fall. The split was concrete in 1204 during the 4th Crusade when Constantinople was sacked and it’s Senate never reconvened, the death of the great Roman Senate.

So at the fall of the Byzantine’s, you get [Christian] Spanish and European migrants heading to the America’s with their Roman [Catholic] ideas.

Ironic… The Roman Empire has carried Christianity, and Christianity carried elements of the Roman Empire and reestablished it in some current form…


Ramifications of Alexander the Great having been poisoned

Alexander the Great was the greatest military commander and would be King/Ruler of what could have been the Golden Age of Greece under the tutelage, guidance, and direction of Aristotle.

Unfortunately, his life was cut short at the age of 32.

Recent discoveries in science have suggested it was highly plausible he was poisoned.

So I started to ask myself. How would the world be today if Greece had lasted say another 500 years under the guidance of Alexander the Great? Would we have skipped the dark ages?

For one, I wouldn’t be around to contemplate it. However, to know that a lot of Aristotle’s work wasn’t even rediscovered until around 1000 AD has me thinking we got set back 1500 years.