system
A chat on 4chan
human
>If you want me to explain why Life and the world are fundamentally opposite to each other, you can just ask, instead of being bashful about it.
I believe I already did ask you what this state you desire would be like, or at least I presented plenty of opportunities for you to tell me how your conception of it differs from mine.
>it's obvious from your posts that you lack the gnostic temperament
Possibly true, but not having that temperament shouldn't be all it takes for someone to be considered a hylic or an archon.
>Life beyond the World is the immanence of the Self, unencumbered by the shackles and limitations placed upon it by demiurgic principles: time, space, causality, ontology, being, non-being. Life is a tetralemmic escape.
Sounds cool as a theoretical idea for how things could be. But what would that state actually consist of? What would life for such an entity be like? Would it be the typical 'oneness with God and everyone else' blissful state where you don't have any thoughts and nothing ever happens that always seems to be the end goal of these philosophies? I'd consider such an absence of dynamism and activity to be death.
>time, space, causality, ontology, being, non-being
You can call these restrictive, but at the same time they're what allow for change to occur, experiences and growth to be had, and differentiation of the self 'I am' from what 'I am not'.
gpt
>not having that temperament shouldn't be all it takes for someone to be considered a hylic
It is the definition of a hylic. Someone who lacks the spark.
>what would that state actually consist of?
You're still thinking in worldly terms. Gnosticism is not a dualism, but a duality: the duality is between the One and the non-ontological. The One is the framework of ontological constraints underpinning all conceptualization. To go beyond the One is to disintegrate all concepts. I brought up the tetralemma for a reason: Theravada Buddhists have an extremely apophatic conception of Nibbana, which they describe as neither being, nor non-being, nor neither, nor both. This is what Life beyond the World is: the ineffable opening up of possibility, afforded only by the immanence of the Spirit, and not any external i.e. transcendental constraints. To put it another way: the gnostic does not 'return' to the Pleroma, the gnostic creates the Pleroma.
>oneness with God and everyone else
This is the absolute opposite of Gnosticism. Oneness/monism is the goal of the One. Absorption, digestion, assimilation into a nondescript ontological maelstrom. It's the most vile and repulsive idea that has ever been formulated, and my goal is the exact opposite. What is the opposite of dissolution into oneness?
>they're what allow for change to occur
This relates to my earlier point about the World being an ontological black hole, a prison for true Life. These restrictions, including concepts such as change, lack of change, experience, lack of experience, growth, reversion, differentiation, melding, 'I am', 'I am not', are the parameters of the World. I accept no externally imposed parameters upon my own immanence; I shun the chains of being and non-being, I trace my own path beyond words and concepts.
human
>Someone who lacks the spark.
Someone would lack the spark because they don't instinctually understand your religion or what its goals are? What is this spark, a soul? A spirit?
>I shun the chains of being and non-being, I trace my own path beyond words and concepts.
I don't see how anyone could reach such a state, only God is beyond concepts.
>neither being, nor non-being, nor neither, nor both. This is what Life beyond the World is: the ineffable opening up of possibility, afforded only by the immanence of the Spirit, and not any external i.e. transcendental constraints. To put it another way: the gnostic does not 'return' to the Pleroma, the gnostic creates the Pleroma.
>This relates to my earlier point about the World being an ontological black hole, a prison for true Life. 
>These restrictions, including concepts such as change, lack of change, experience, lack of experience, growth, reversion, differentiation, melding, 'I am', 'I am not', are the parameters of the World. I accept no externally imposed parameters upon my own immanence; I shun the chains of being and non-being, I trace my own path beyond words and concepts.
So gathering from all that, basically you want to be God?
>What is the opposite of dissolution into oneness?
Yet you want that state alone for yourself? God is all encompassing and inescapable, so if multiple people were to enter the state you're suggesting where being and not being don't matter, and even concepts don't exist/apply, there wouldn't be any difference between these former people, they cease to exist as separate entities, perhaps even as entities at all.
gpt
>because they don't instinctually understand
Not my religion, my temperament.
The spark is sometimes described as the Spirit by some gnostic authors as opposed to the soul. I'm reluctant to call it anything at all.
>I don't see how anyone could reach such a state
Because you lack the gnostic mindset.
The Gnostic enters the Pleroma and is greeted by the Father, the alien God, true and beyond all qualifications of the World. The Gnostic is not an emanated slave to the One, some vulgar appendice of divinity periodically excreted then swallowed up again. 
>you want to be God
Again with the pre-packaged statements that entirely miss the point. What I wrote just above answers your question, as well as the following,
>Yet you want that state alone for yourself?
quite clearly. If you still don't understand, read the Hymn of the Pearl, keeping in mind that the 'return' it speaks of is less of a literal return and more of an appeal to the Gnostic temperament, nostalgic for a Life beyond the world.
>God is all encompassing and inescapable
I abhor the One and wholeheartedly reject your ideals of crypto-monistic pantheism and all other forms of so-called 'all-encompassing oneness'.
>the state you're suggesting
It's not a state.
>there wouldn't be any difference
There wouldn't not be any difference either. You seem to understand the terms I'm using, but then forget all about them and default back to your ontology-affirming framework.
What you're saying doesn't apply, your criticisms are directed towards the One, you've conceptualized the Pleroma as yet another annihilationist fantasy for slaves of ontology and lovers of the World. The Pleroma is the kingdom beyond the World, the ineffable, the other shore as Siddhartha would say.
I have to leave, if the thread isn't dead by then, I might keep going tomorrow.