Report Blog Entry
Hi all. I was doing some reading on Gnostic writings, and it occured to me how strikingly resemblant the Gnostic order of man is to Freud's concept of Id, ego, and superego. I find this all to be very intruiging, and though there is a sparse number of Gnostics/Gnostic-acquainted people on Spacehey, I was wondering what everyone's thoughts on this was.
"They conceive, then, of three kinds of men, spiritual, material, and animal . . . The material goes, as a matter of course, into corruption. The animal, if it make choice of the better part, finds repose in the intermediate place; but if the worse, it too shall pass into destruction. But they assert that the spiritual principles which have been sown by Achamoth, being disciplined and nourished here from that time until now in righteous souls (because when given forth by her they were yet but weak), at last attaining to perfection, shall be given as brides to the angels of the Saviour, while their animal souls of necessity rest for ever with the Demiurge in the intermediate place. And again subdividing the animal souls themselves, they say that some are by nature good, and others by nature evil. The good are those who become capable of receiving the [spiritual] seed [and becoming pneumatic]; the evil by nature are those who are never able to receive that seed [and become hylic]." -- Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I. 7, 5
I also feel confused on whether or not the terms Hylic and Sarkic are synonymous; some writing and internet sources indicate them to be, but the same number of that suggest otherwise. I've tried to dig into it, but I found hardly any answers. What's Spacehey's thoughts on this all?
Comments
Displaying 1 of 1 comments ( View all | Add Comment )
SantMat
Ah yes, the three kinds of people in the world according to the Valentinians. Have always thought of that as being quite accurate. We have the pneumatics ("spiritual", from Greek πνεῦμα, "spirit"), the psychics and the hylics ("matter", materialists). Psychics are sort of the in between with some belief in supernatural possibilities, and people following one religion or another. Mystics in the world are few but followers of religions are many. I put pneumatics in the mystics category, those who are knowers, experiencers, in addition to whatever their intellectual beliefs might be.
My only concern with what might be said in old Gnostic texts is over the question of who has a soul. If some of those folks were espousing the view that not everyone has a soul or the same kind of soul, I would disagree, believing that everyone has a soul, is a soul incarnate. If they are saying that people are stuck at the level of the five senses and the outer material world, or are attached to various theological ideas but don't experience the things they believe (God, heavens) and so it's all just abstract theory to them, then I do agree with that. Gnostics weren't anti intellectual and had lots of ideas, but their goal was to experience, to know. One begins with faith but then moves on to gnosis.
I believe animals also have souls, which is one of the reasons why I'm vegan. The gnostics were veg or vegan also. See the last verses of the Nag Hammadi book, The Prayer of Thanksgiving.