(Introduction to blog, about 3 pages. Articles will be commentaries or “creative presentations”- check the line in parenthesis.)
PREMISE: There is a difference between right and wrong; good and evil.
Simply stated and scarcely present, self-regulated actions demonstrating knowledge of the premise develop before they are explained:
A baby “playing” on the floor, happy to have just the bit of blue blanket its chomped onto in its mouth. A grown-up walks in and steals the blanket from the infant with a gentle tug, forcing the baby’s fingers open enough to take the blanket away. The baby cries, registering that it was acted against, proving evil exists.
-Being is universal, and it is bound to matter formulating along laws of physics few even think are there; something makes us see taste, feel, read, think, and it is of sovereign principle, the world and all its parts is known only as it is dealt with subjectively by each person. In terms of raw field presence, looking at the above scenario as one system of existence, in all its dynamics:
“Being of a baby” and “being of the adult”, with some odd line forever preserved between the being of either body and the physical matter of both, along with governing dynamics of all matter of the surrounding -all accounted for. For the continuum of being in the system:
An infant lost to explain itself or the world in any intelligible way, because so much lies beyond its own mechanical grasp; its own body learned its parameters are finite -it learned it wasn’t its blanket- 8 weeks ago, then the adult, as drowned in the weight of the world as anyone (and apparently anti-baby), takes the blanket.
Being on the infant side of the spectrum reacted to show discomfort and unease; being on the adult side acted for whatever reason – the reason cannot matter when the the dynamic assessed is the field of the system itself. The baby’s crying demonstrates the physical fact of being recognizing a wrong.
There are two distinct paths for the baby as it develops into a full grown person. One imparts a spiritually sound ideal and the other is taught in general academic pursuits. Both paths are available to many, but no one is guaranteed exposure to both ways of framing the world in their developing years.
Readily apparent and sources of constant difficulty, spiritually sound ideals have been taught in ways according them conceptualizations fit for a devoted awareness, and because “to know in faith” is individual responsibility, when it comes to religion the inward, “operational goal” is to ensure faith will be found. The outward goal is to secure the process, and to ensure the “operational voice” religions present the world reflects the process they exist to secure, religion-specific sects were started.
GNOSTICS & “THE SPIRITUALLY SOUND IDEAL”
Using the example of the Brahmin (Priestly) Caste of Ancient India, who were in charge of fire sacrifice to Brahman (Universal Consciousness of Existence), when the practice was aligned to the religion of the region:
Internally, the Brahmin housed another sect, kept apart from the rest of the caste, the Upanishad, who practiced lived knowing, and a process started that became fundamental to the founding of Buddhism- groups of Upanishads agreed: “This “release”; this “union” is available to all, (not just through what a priestly caste makes available).” -So they left.
How can a religion ensure its internal reason to exist is preserved? It can be stated that all acts of religious devotion provide physical record of how well faith is expressed, because it is the acts of followers that attest to faith; to God’s presence. Still, if not enough demonstration meets the outside world, -when members are prone to be associated to the name of their Religion, people become susceptible to expressing their ideas of faith with the actions of belief.
Remedying this, providing the checks and balances needed to matters so remotely captured, there are religion-specific bodies of Gnostics. Forever exclusively concerned with maintaining a “useful union”, the Gnostic internally sees the religion they represent as its tradition -not even “their tradition”, and it is understood that the word “religion” does not class a “body of the faithful”; it is only a marker for the external view of the total endeavor. -To be in the right and acknowledge the wrong, until evil ends.
ACADEMICS &” THE INTELLECTUALLY SOUND IDEAL”
Strange lines develop when a purely academic person is asked to explain the difference between right and wrong. Their views are built upon views, and they often specialize in exceedingly tedious classifications of reason for one side or the other, -“if the concept of sides even exists”, they may say.
With the “Gnostic Model”, a process to ensure the perpetual, though never individually guaranteed success of the good is provided for within a framework of “universal right and wrong” communicated through spiritually sound ideals.
It is reasonable to expect a framework for universal checks and balances as they pertain to how knowledge is demonstrated, because institutions of education are responsible for preparing people to demonstrate knowledge. -To expect to uncover an Academic equivalent to the role the Gnostic serves.
If it is anything, reducing the whole mode of modern academic inquiry into centralizing a means to classify “what is intelligent”, the equivalent academia has to a Gnostic sect are its philosophers. Philosophers and the thinkers of the world, if they aren’t the “purely academics”, for the most part are people who live to assert the ideals of intellect without stipulating a need for monetary consideration. However the intelligence of the world presented by academia results from a global consortium of corporate, public, and private funding sources, so even the most honest of the intellectuals academia produces have their worldviews shaped by what decides their school’s bottom line. It is institutional. (Example: US Colleges and Universities require attendance be weighted in the grading system to make students show up, if the schools want Government funding though young adults can ace many if not all of their courses with long study sessions, good notes, and sparse attendance.)
Responsibly addressed and directly applied, it is for a lack of ethic. Without a universally delineated line for good and bad, the development provided for by education fails to assert right from wrong. Because the process of education adapts to climates “outwardly forming” -to the view of the individual student, it continually imparts shifting, even circumstance-specific attempts to define good and bad.
It is no wonder. A secondary premise: This IS existence. -It is the claimed province of Academia to know. Held to account for the facts of existence at its most-base is the school of physics, and the science of physics will openly admit:
“We do not know what sentience is. We do not account for the intent of sentient beings in our inquiry and, growing numbers among us are becoming convinced that nothing is physically real.”
(Scroll down, or blog Starts here: https://anewgnosis.com/2019/05/04/the-petition/ )