The Nag Hammadi Scriptures (book)

History rhymes: it moves in cycles of growth, destruction and then further growth; we see intense conflict followed by loving peace, leading to complacency and the withering of what brought the beauty and success to begin with, only to give birth to something greater. Another common historical rhyme is that each age has a wealthy establishment which attempts to suppress information or people that threatens its control: Emperors, Tsars and tycoons. Any serious student of world history, mythology and ideas knows these things to be true.                                                                                                              

The Nag Hammadi Scriptures have captured the imagination of seekers around the world because their story and content exemplify the points raised above. In brief, they represent a type of Christianity that flourished between approximately 70 AD to 400 AD but ceased to exist thereafter. They are called gnostic which generally means a direct knowledge of the truth. However, while they are diverse and defy being pinned down by a single word, these texts were lumped into a single category when a significant second century Catholic bishop named Irenaeus equated the term heretic with the word gnostic as part of the early attack on this style of Christian thought. 

The maniacal siege on these Greek-Egyptian mystics reached its crescendo in 367 AD when Athanasius, the Archbishop of Alexandria, called for all texts outside of those acceptable to the political-religious establishment to be stolen and burned on the grounds they were heretical. Elaine Pagels’ succinct and important work The Gnostic Gospels does a great job in outlining the forces at play during the period. The indications are that once the great purge started the monks living in St Pachomius, in modern day Egypt, buried the Nag Hammadi collection for individuals to find in a more receptive period. 

Flash forward to 1945. The second world war is complete, and the collective mind is ready for an opening of consciousness. The Nag Hammadi Scriptures were accidentally discovered by bandits on the run after avenging their father’s murder. When digging for soft soil to use as fertilizer they hit upon the red earthenware jar containing the texts. After attempted black market transactions, and subterfuge of various forms, the newly discovered Scriptures exploded into centres of learning in the 1960s. It was certainly the best time for them to arrive on the scene, as authority was being questioned in all directions, and people were becoming increasingly interested in cross-faith learning. 

The Crown Jewel of the Nag Hammadi collection is in my opinion the Gospel of Thomas. This text is dated by experts, such as Helmet Koester, as being compiled in approximately 140 AD but written down and taught from between 50 AD to 100 AD. He suggests the Gospel may be even earlier than the four New Testament Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Upon reading the Gospel of Thomas, one notices two things: firstly, the intensely philosophical nature of the sayings, with some reading as if they were right out of the works of Plato; secondly, an occasional similarity to the ideas found in Buddhism. There is a school of thought that the Christians who followed the Gospel of Thomas interacted with Buddhist and Vedic scholars more broadly. It was around this time that trade routes between the Greco-Roman and the far East were beginning to flourish. Elaine Pagels notes that Hippolytus a Greek Christian wrote about Brahmanism in 235 AD. 

To learn more about the Gospel of Thomas, my suggestion is you read or listen to it. Part of the charm of the text is how direct it is: you feel as if Jesus is talking straight at you due to it consisting of a series of wisdom sayings rather than being in the narrative form of the New Testament Gospels. Some of my favourite sayings from the text are: 

“Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you.” 

"The Pharisees and the scholars have taken the keys of knowledge and have hidden them. They have not entered nor have they allowed those who want to enter to do so. As for you, be as sly as snakes and as simple as doves.” 

“Jesus said, "If they say to you, 'Where have you come from?' say to them, 'We have come from the light, from the place where the light came into being by itself...If they say to you, 'Is it you?' say, 'We are its children, and we are the chosen of the living Father.' If they ask you, 'What is the evidence of your Father in you?' say to them, 'It is motion and rest.'" 

We are at another point of time where information is considered dangerous. This time the establishment acts within an international corporate, umbrella structure as outlined by the work of historian Carroll Quigley. I don’t agree with all the Nag Hammadi Scriptures, just like I don’t believe in all theories outside of what the establishment approves. Yet, to label and target anyone that thinks creatively or different to the norm is as foolish and dangerous now as it was in the early centuries of the Roman-Christian empire. 

J. G. Bennett on Gurdjieff (book)

There are two ways in which the ascension (spiritual liberation) argument typically occurs. The first is that humans were once grand or at least at a relatively decent level of peace and stability, but have fallen, and to ascend is to take our rightful place by being and acting in accordance with our designed nature (leaving aside the question of the designer). The other is that we act in alignment with the lowly state we are by nature, and ascension is rising above our lot. Gurdjieff sits in the second category, with the general purpose of human life being to act as an energetic resource for planetary forces in the same way as sheep and cows are resources for humanity; however, just as some animals may avoid capture for food and materials or death by another animal, an individual human may escape their bondage by separating psychologically from the herd.   

Gurdjieff states that human beings are in a type of hypnosis, with the added suggestion that this is by design:   

"It must be realized that the sleep in which we exist is not like ordinary sleep but is rather a kind of hypnosis, a hypnotic state that is continually maintained and enhanced…One would think that there were forces that derive some use or profit from keeping us in this hypnotic state and preventing us from seeing the truth…."

He then follows this point with an analogy comparing humans to sheep held in obedience by a magician so as not to run away from their slaughter; however, unlike sheep, humans as a collective are held in a psychological rather than a physical state of bondage. Yet this hypnosis is not unusual or limited to our epoch, but is the standard state of affairs, because if we collectively wake up to the reality of our existence we would cease being of use to those we serve.   

The human element of the control structure, including the groups that operate the financial and political systems on Earth, does not play a role in the classic exposition of his work In Search of the Miraculous written by P. D. Ouspensky. This account of Gurdjieff’s teachings, from where the above quote derives, avoids analysis of the human power structures as its primary point is that cosmological forces control human destiny, including the lives of the wealthy and powerful. This is not to say that there is not a small group that hold the majority of assets, but this does not really matter because that group is also powerless and are simply puppets acting out scripts like the rest of us.   

For Gurdjieff, the heavenly bodies such as Earth, Saturn and the moon are living, energetic entities that are evolving and use human energy for their own purposes; they are our natural rulers (and in some cases predators to use a biologically analogy) which manipulate us energetically via our psyche for their growth and development. Wars, mass catastrophic events, and any forms of intense social division and conflict facilitate the release of energy the moon feeds off. He tells us:  

"The influence of the moon upon everything living manifests itself in all that happens on earth. The moon is the chief, or rather the nearest, the immediate, motive force of all that takes place in organic life on the earth. All movements, actions, and manifestations of people, animals, and plants depend upon the moon and are controlled by the moon…Man, like every other living being, cannot, in the ordinary conditions of life, tear himself free from the moon."

Life on Earth, to Gurdjieff's mind, evolves in relation to the needs of Earth and the moon. He describes how conscious lifeforms, such as humans, act as fine sensory devices which Earth uses for its interactions with other planets, and provide energetic sustenance for planetary forces, most significantly the moon. Gurdjieff notes that everything sets free a certain amount of energy at its death and this is attracted to the moon as through a huge electromagnet, bringing to it energetic sustenance required for its growth.    

We see how plants consume air and water and are then eaten by animals who would not survive without plants; and animals are eaten by other types of animals (including humans). Yet we do not believe humans are food for a more powerful living entity: i.e. we provide no functional role in the advancement of life, but believe ourselves to be the apex of the food chain. Gurdjieff’s student and interpreter J. G. Bennett suggests the commonly accepted idea that humans do not serve such a purpose is hubris, and that the planets are clear examples of the large, and sophisticated forces that could take on this role: ‘it would be absurd to suppose that whereas all nature is connected through the transformations of energy, man alone should somehow stand outside this universal law.’  Yes, when we die our bodies are integrated back into life, but worms and soil could survive without our flesh, but humans and animals could not survive without plants, so according to standard thought, we have no essential purpose within the chain of life.   

An interesting part of Gurdjieff’s theory is that humans often go into a collective psychosis, which is caused by planetary influences. It is such influences that lead to wars, revolutions and other large, civil disturbances:  

"What is war? It is the result of planetary influences. Somewhere up there two or three planets have approached too near to each other; tension results. Have you noticed how, if a man passes quite close to you on a narrow pavement, you become all tense? The same tension takes place between planets. For them it lasts, perhaps, a second or two. But here, on the earth, people begin to slaughter one another, and they go on slaughtering maybe for several years. It seems to them at the time that they hate one another; or perhaps that they have to slaughter each other for some exalted purpose; or that they must defend somebody or something and that it is a very noble thing to do; or something else of the same kind. They fail to realize to what an extent they are mere pawns in the game."

A state of tension thus arises when there is an imbalance in the relations between the planets. The changes in the energetic balance throws humanity off kilter, which in turn leads to wars and other forms of collective madness, a state Gurdjieff calls “Solioonensius”. Gurdjieff points to the fact that in such periods humanity goes into a state of intense self-destruction, and begins to rip down society, including stabilising aspects that allowed it to reach a level we would call ‘civilisation’.    

In these periods, humanity also loses its self-preservation instinct, as the ideas that take hold of individuals override the usual handbrake on collective suicide. He vividly describes this state of collective psychosis as involving the unconscious actions of large amounts of human “machines”, driven by external influences, blindly intent of slaughtering each other, regardless of the negative impact on themselves. Alternatively, some individuals use such periods to work on themselves to overcomes the widespread sense of dissatisfaction which harasses all, and develop their psychological insight and strength. Such periods are a period of harvest where the wheat is separated from the chaff.   

Bennett notes that the two emotions that are uniquely human and which are heightened during such periods of wars and revolutions are hope and fear. These, he states, are deeply connected with the human understanding of life and death, and our knowledge that we are inevitably caught up in such a sequence. We know that things come to an end, and predict the birth of new events, all bringing unique waves of emotion. The moon thus creates situations on Earth where these emotions reach fever pitch, and use politicians, the media, religious groups, and revolutionary leaders for this purpose, although such groups may think they are in control of their actions and working towards noble goals, and are even willing to be martyred for the cause. 

Gurdjieff’s fascinating view of the human condition was first presented to an eager group of Russians leading up to and during WW1 and the Communist Revolution. Clearly, during the revolutionary fervour within Russia during this period, and the outbreak of war in Europe, a view of this kind would have been more easily accepted than in America during the 1990s; and, writing in the year 2022, it begins to have an intuitive appeal once again. However, it is entirely possible that our energy is also food for beings that exist outside the visual bandwidth that we operate. There is a great deal of existence that surrounds us of which we have no real idea what is going on, and the suggestion that we are being fed on by forces outside of our visual spectrum opens one’s one mind to a new and eery way of considering the human life, but a way of thinking the majority of people living in our scientific, materialistic era will reject. 

What Gurdjieff and Bennett point to is our arrogance, including the naïve belief that we have it all figured out, and have access to all levels of existence. It also reminds us of the powerful forces that surround us and the fragility of our rationality and our position in the cosmos. This is hard to accept for someone that takes pride in human advancement within the sciences and their own reason. Yet, if we are honest, we see chaos, dishonesty and madness in all directions. Perhaps the most foolish aspect of humanity is our inability to accept how weak and chaotic we truly are and that there are powers within the universe that influence us to do things we would rather not do. For a recent, scientific account this phenomena in practice, a book titled The Body Electric: Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life outlines a series of investigations into how planetary influences impact human behaviour, including psychiatric disturbances, and is worth turning to for those wanting to pursue the topic in more depth.    

Getting back to the original point of ascending from the matrix of control, Gurdjieff notes that liberation from our slavery entails systematically escaping the laws of the moon and other heavenly bodies, and working our way up towards a reality where less laws apply to us, many of which are unseen or unrecognised in everyday decision-making and action. The liberation we obtain from the control mechanisms within ourselves, such as compulsive thoughts and hateful emotions, is in fact liberation from cosmic influences that manifest within ourselves. It is in times when humanity is plunging into chaos and self-destruction that we are pushed to such a degree of discomfort that we make the great efforts required to obtain inner freedom, yet to do so we must first be aware of the trap set to prevent our flight.  

Aristotle's Ethics (book)

A curious fact about the history of ethical theory is that the ancient Greeks did not have a word for happiness; it made no sense for them to speak about the final goal of human action as individual or general human happiness. The Greeks used the word eudaimonia, which is generally translated as flourishing. To flourish, in the eyes of Aristotle, is to fulfil one’s potential as a human being, or to be excellent at being what one truly is.                                                                                                                                                                                                            For Aristotle, in order to know what it means to flourish, it is essential to have a view of human nature. This means, that to know if an individual has flourished as a human, we must have a notion of what it means to be a human so we can determine what kind of things an exemplar human being would do. Aristotle believed that this answer had to be found in biology grounded in sound metaphysics. For example, by nature, human beings are social, so part of human flourishing will entail forming relationships with people, being trustworthy, and caring about others to a reasonable level.

Aristotle’s view was not that we perform a particular action because it is in line with some law outside of us, or because it will bring about a further state (such as a maximisation of human happiness: see Utilitarianism for such a theory). If the action itself is a manifestation of flourishing, then it is a ‘good action’. For Aristotle, the word ‘good’ only makes sense in relation to what the thing is: what its function is. A good knife is one that cuts well, and a good human is one that performs her biological functions well: i.e. is sufficiently social and uses her intellect to plan for the future yet avoid immediate threats.

This view of ethics is appealing because it does not rely on any speculative, eternal ethical laws. The other benefit is that it does not fall into the utilitarian trap of demanding that we act for the benefit of human happiness in general. I can see why I should act for the benefit of myself, or my close family and friends due to natural human sentiment: emotions and ideas springing from basic biological and psychological realities. In contrast, stating that I should act to enhance the happiness of all of humanity seems to stretch my concern for others to excessively abstract and unattainable levels: it becomes unnatural.

The problem facing Aristotle’s ethics is that it is unclear if it would produce the kind of individuals that we typically consider ethical. Looking back at history and around us today, human beings seem inclined to engage in relentless war and atrocity driven by fabricated divisions. Possibly, to flourish as a human is to aggressively dominate anyone outside of my immediate circle. On the other hand, sophisticated arguments can be made that due to the benefits that complex social networks provide to humans, honesty and concern for others are aspects of human flourishing. Quantum physics also indicates that a human being cannot be separated from their environment and other people, so selfishness is against our fundamental nature. 

For me, the appeal of this kind of ethics is that it is fundamentally tied to notions of human nature and can therefore change in accordance with a growing understanding of what human beings are. It can be used by those who are atheists or religious: the only difference is that the conception of what it means to flourish will differ in accordance with what we take humans to be: purely biological beings, or being with souls where connection with God is the highest kind of flourishing. In politics, it means that the final goal of state action is for as many people to flourish or "make the best of themselves" as possible and such behavior should be activity encouraged by the state.  

Erving Goffman on Stigma (book)

Erving Goffman established the groundwork for the analysis of the relationship between mental illness and social control in his classic texts Stigma and Asylums. For Goffman, humans live in, and emerge from, interconnected social networks; moreover, individuals within these social networks hold shared expectations about how people will act. Goffman notes that we do not merely expect individuals to live in accordance with these assumptions, but we demand that they do: "We lean on these anticipations that we have, transforming them into normative expectations, into righteously presented demands."  In this way humans transfer conventions or conveniences into implicit behavioural demands, and thereby regulate each other’s conduct.                                                                                                                                For Goffman, when we meet someone we assume that they are going to be a certain way. The group of attributes that we expect people to have constitutes their virtual social identity. On the other hand, the group of attributes that the individual reveals to us constitutes their actual social identity. Tension arises as humans do not only expect that the virtual and social identities of an individual match, but demand that they do.

To possess a stigma is to possess an attribute which is considered inferior to the set of attributes which people within a society expect other people to have:

"While a stranger is present before us, evidence can arise of his possessing an attribute that makes him different from others in the category of persons available for him to be, and of a less desirable kind…Such an attribute is a stigma, especially when its discrediting effect is very extensive; sometimes it is also called a failing, a shortcoming, a handicap. It constitutes a special discrepancy between virtual and actual social identity."

The possession of this undesirable attribute leads society to ‘turn away’ from the individual, as they are rejected by people in blatant or subtle ways: 

"The stigmatised individual is asked to act so as to imply neither that his burden is heavy nor that bearing it has made him different from us; at the same time he must keep himself at that remove  from us which ensures our painlessly being able to confirm this belief about him."

It is noteworthy that, for Goffman, an individual may meet the expectations of other people in nearly every possible manner, yet due to one significant aberration be rejected:

"an individual who might have been received easily in ordinary social intercourse possesses a trait that can obtrude itself upon attention and turn those of us whom he meets away from him, breaking the claim that his other attributes have on us. He possesses a stigma, an undesired differentness from what we had anticipated."

For example, an individual upon entering social interaction might appear to all as normal, but once stuttering manifests as part of the individual’s actual social identity, he moves down the abstract ladder of normality into the subterranean category of abnormality.

To Goffman's mind, humans live by a set of behavioural norms and expect other people to do the same: we unconsciously incorporate an idealised notion of how humans should be, and measure those we meet in relation to it. This ideal incorporates body shape, size, health, life plans, speech patterns, sexual tendencies, and all other aspects of human existence. This would imply that the majority of humans, if not all, would be stigmatized, as the set of social expectations is extremely rigorous and therefore impossible to meet. Goffman was aware of this point and notes that stigma is a matter of degree and everyone will experience it to a  certain extent throughout their lives. However, he differentiates those who will experience a more severe and protracted rejection from their peers, noting: 

"the lifelong attributes of a particular individual may cause him to be type-cast; he may have to play the stigmatized role in almost all of his social situations, making it natural to refer to him…as a stigmatized person whose life-situation placed him in opposition to normals."

Therefore, while a western women living temporarily in Saudi Arabia might experience a sudden, yet transitory, reduction in her value in response to the social values of her new habitat, a little person has an undesirable trait which is consistent and explicit.

The second key aspect of Goffman’s theory is that the stigmatization occurs within the individual herself. Individuals with undesirable traits come to feel that they are undesirable in an objective sense. A process of self-stigmatization therefore occurs as individuals validate the social expectations of the society in which they live, and accept that not existing in accordance with them makes them second-class citizens: the standards he has incorporated from the wider society equip him to be intimately alive to what others see as his failing, inevitably causing him, if only for moments, to agree that he does indeed fall short of what he really ought to be. Shame becomes a central possibility, arising from the individual’s perception of one of his own attributes as being a defiling thing to possess. Self-loathing and role-playing is then taken up by the stigmatized individual as he begins to act in a manner deemed suitable for someone of his claimed inferior status.

The third key aspect of Goffman’s theory is the notion that stigma can be of the invisible or visible type. The nature of one’s disability impacts the extent of the stigmatization that occurs and how the individual acts in relation to the stigma. Mental illness, is more on the invisible side of the spectrum, and therefore, presents stigmatization of a type different to other more visible handicaps; although, mentally ill individuals often display symptoms, albeit often in a less obvious form than other kinds of difference. The key point for Goffman is that those with invisible stigmas can hide them from the population and “pass” as normal. The strategy for dealing with stigma surrounding mental illness will therefore take this factor into account, as the question emerges whether trying to pass as normal is a form of self-stigmatization.

Goffman’s work set the foundation for the study of stigma. However, it has various drawbacks. Firstly, he primarily dealt with how individuals categorised as mentally ill were sent to mental hospitals as the primary form of discrimination, which in turn allowed for additional discrimination and reinforcement of the inferiority of the patient through the actions of the psychiatrists and the structures of the institutions. With the process of deinstitutionalisation that occurred throughout the second half of the twentieth century, the stigmatization of the mentally ill is no longer best evaluated through an examination of mental hospitals, but instead within the community, where the majority of mentally ill persons live. Moreover, Goffman did not deal extensively with the question of whether the labelling of an individual as mentally ill is what leads to her rejection from society, or whether it is the behavioural traits and subconscious beliefs which are said to constitute the illness that leads to ostracism. 

Self-Reliance (book)

Ralph Waldo Emerson always struck me as cutting to the heart of human weakness: the tendency to ignore the advice coming from our hearts due to the desire to obtain the approval of other people. We are here for a reason, and it is our intuitive voice that will guide us towards our rightful destiny, not the judgements or demands of other people: “What I must do is all that concerns me, not what the people think.”                                                                                                                                                                          Many of my favourite writers talk about the importance of trusting our intuition, and the messages and feelings that support it and which we can pick up on when our eyes are open and our minds are alive. Each of these writers emphasises a different aspect of this. For example, Florence Scovel Shinn wrote extensively on following the leads that one's higher self provides in practical affairs: “The Divine Plan unfolds through following intuition.” Emerson also implores one to listen to that voice within, because for him it is where greatness and genius reside. Of this Emerson notes:

“Trust thyself: every heart vibrates to that iron string. Accept the place the divine providence has found for you, the society of your contemporaries, the connection of events. Great men have always done so, and confided themselves childlike to the genius of their age, betraying their perception that the absolutely trustworthy was seated at their heart, working through their hands, predominating in all their being.”

Without listening to the intuitive voice within, we will be led down a path designed for another; most often because our doing so is for their psychological or practical benefit not ours. Moreover, when this happens the universe will conspire to get us back on our rightful track with a violence that could have been avoided if we had only trusted what we knew to begin with. Just ask yourself how many times you thought or even exclaimed out loud, ‘I knew I should have done that,’ or, ‘I had a feeling not to do that.’ In these situations we ignored our higher self and its intuitive leads; we violated our purpose to appease the crowd. 

The main issue preventing us from becoming great is, for Emerson, conformity to social demands. Yet, this conformity is rooted in a lack of courage to go with what we know is true. When we lack faith in ourselves we go along with the crowd even when we know deep down they are wrong. History is full of lessons where the crowd got things terribly wrong, and when people stand down from their convictions due to a lack of courage, society inevitably crumbles or turns into something extremely evil. On this Emerson notes:

“Whatever you do, you need courage. Whatever course you decide upon, there is always someone to tell you that you are wrong. There are always difficulties arising that tempt you to believe your critics are right. To map out a course of action and follow it to an end requires some of the same courage that a soldier needs. Peace has its victories, but it takes brave men and women to win them.” 

The lack of courage to do what we know in our hearts is right can spring from a lack of self-belief, fear of future hardships, and perhaps the worst of all – an excessive concern for what people think about us. There is nothing more psychologically crippling than a great concern for what others think about you. Emerson however tells us over and over again, if we cannot overcome this, we cannot achieve greatness or come anywhere near it. He points to the many examples of historic heavyweights that were ridiculed and persecuted by their peers:

“Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.” 

Just as Emerson was inspired by the examples of those preceding him, we can turn to Emerson himself as another example of this trend. When researching his work for this piece, I was surprised to discover that his wonderful essay On Nature was at first poorly received, and only read by a small group of his friends and associates. Furthermore, after giving a speech at Harvard Divinity School Emerson was banned from coming back after the crowd was mostly insulted by his interpretation of the Scriptures. It is worth considering that if you are presenting ideas that you know in your heart are true, and are being persecuted for doing so by society at large, you are potentially on the cusp of greatness. Keep pushing through, because eventually the dam will break, and you will be flooded with the waters of success and refreshed by a life of purpose. 

Notwithstanding the above point, Emerson also warns us not to lose our divine spark in the imitation of the great people that came before. It is in the transcendence of past ideas, events and minds that the history-shapers of today emerge. He cuts to the point, exclaiming: 

“There is a time in every man's education when he arrives at the conviction that envy is ignorance; that imitation is suicide; that he must take himself for better, for worse, as his portion; that though the wide universe is full of good, no kernel of nourishing corn can come to him but through his toil bestowed on that plot of ground which is given to him to till. The power which resides in him is new in nature, and none but he knows what that is which he can do, nor does he know until he has tried.”

Yes, we learn from history that the masses will try to cut down any flower that bursts through the weeds and begins to bloom too brightly. We can learn a great deal from past writers, painters, musicians and shamans, but our star can only shine when it is truly our own – when its light emanates from within.