• Overview, Irritation Alert!

in the blind spot

~ Philosophy in the Dystopian Context

in the blind spot

Tag Archives: evil

The Veil of Illusions

23 Tuesday Dec 2025

Posted by Sandy MacDonald in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

caring, culture, deity, embodiment, empathy, evil, History, hive-mind, ideality, nationality, patriarchy, philosophy, religion, spirituality, theology, value, violence

Fragment 219, Word Count: 2,841.

Tags: empathy, caring, evil, deity, nationality, hive-mind, value, patriarchy, violence, embodiment, philosophy, culture, theology, ideality.

The Cultural Veil

There is a culturally conditioned veil of illusions that stands in the way of any ordinary acquaintance with some of the most important features of life as a personal subjectivity. The blocked features of subjective existence, however, remain relevant and ready to be appreciated. We human individuals derive joy and meaning from imitating people around us, from attaching emotionally and soaking up culture like sponges. Within the general culture of ways of thriving in a particular surroundings, there are also fanciful speculations, stories that misconstrue the powers and necessities that determine events in the world, exaggerations of common fears and wishes that make them fetishistic and barriers to important discoveries. All of the cultural complexes that contribute to the veil of illusions also contribute to a general nastiness of life shaped by their influence, forming the distinctly dystopian societies so familiar to us. Of course, even the most dystopian societies have factions who benefit from the arrangements and are pleased with themselves and with pretty much everything. It is those factions who are especially empowered to create, and be heroes of, the stories that depict their societies, and part of their culture is to celebrate stability and heroic resistance to change. Broadly speaking, this is the overall situation that inspires much of the mental and literary tradition of philosophy.

The Lens of Orientation

Our sense of being at a particular place, doing what we are doing, involves far more then what can be perceived from any given location. We work within a sort of interior model of all the routes we have moved through and we reorient the model as we reorient and place ourselves within a broad sense of the arrangement of things, the arrangement featuring our important destinations, especially featuring the personalities with whom we share an emotional attachment. Ordinary perception is mainly a selectively targeted sensory confirmation that current actuality conforms to what we are expecting based on our elaborate sense of place, directionality, and the possible personal futures already sketched out from elements of previous experiences and from intentions we have to advance personal dramas. This interior orientation serves as a sophisticated lens through which we selectively direct attention, searches, and applications of effort at the surroundings. All the cultural complexes we learn, including speculations, stories, and exaggerations, are, by that learning, incorporated into the structure of our personal orientation lens and they contribute decisively to the shape and the mood of the world we move and live within.

Illusions of Masculine Supremacy

One of the strongest complexes in the dystopian veil of illusions is the culture of masculine supremacy, macho or patriarchal culture. Traditional masculine values are illustrated in stories of ancient Greek and Roman warriors: hardness, strength, endurance, courage, self-promotion, and disregard for weaker beings. Before theocratic Christianity there was the crime family aristocracy of the strongest, dedicated to trophy hoarding. Capital was wealth-generating real estate, and the land-hoarding aristocracy cultivated the ancient culture of organized violence with the intent of looting as the means of possessing capital. Specialists in coercive force cultivate athletic proficiency with weapons, readiness for aggression, the hyper-masculine ethos adulating strength, violence, kinetic action, competitive conflict, and properties that need armed protection. Trophy property is understood as the actualization, the manifest proof, of personal worth, and is normally accompanied by contempt for mere subjective interiority.

Patriarchy, institutionalized sovereign rights of father-figures, is an overt expression of the guiding principle of masculine dominance: that the strongest have rights over everyone else, rights to the property and lives of the weaker, the right to be parasitic on the weaker. Such assumptions derive from the traditional family in which the father is the strongest and women and children are assumed to lack even a minimum competence. This culture worships and celebrates competition for the benefits of dominance. The key benefit of dominance is top-down human-on-human parasitism, from which other benefits flow. Many such benefits are the symbols and pageantry of dominance, for example in the scale of property possession and in relationships shaped by hierarchical master/slave inequality. Money culture, market wealth, is a branch of dominance culture because the scale of property possession is crucial in the pageantry and symbolism of dominance. Part of this alpha-trophy culture is denigration of alternative culture streams (such as the scribal/ literary tradition, the socially crucial child-nurturing culture, or varieties of interior spirituality) defining them as inferior and dependent, keeping them in some degree of dishonour and disgrace. The alpha-trophy culture of blood-sport dominance developed into military institutions as well as non-lethal competitive gaming and sports, into corporate culture and violence-ready sovereign states. There is a growing recognition of just how much the misogynist, racist, and predatory culture of hyper-masculinity is structured into the fabric of economic and political institutions.

The once ubiquitous culture of masculine dominance constructed and spread a certain kind of human bonding featuring strict hierarchies of authority maintained by operations of a core culture of violence with high value assigned to trophies of violence. It created aristocracy as a control-by-coercive-force faction in viciously top-down hive-minds nominally justified by a totalitarian father-god ideology in which everything is seen as pre-determined by an inexplicable occult masculine force, irritable, harsh, and quick to take offence, appeased only by displays of abject and gleefully grateful submission. Dominance culture asserts that this style of tightly controlled human clustering demanding conformity, exclusive emotional attachment and pageantry typical of religion, is the inevitable working of nature (especially human nature). However, these dystopian hierarchies of violence are the artifacts of a particular evil: the targeted denial of empathy. With the gradual development of alternative cultures, those large scale structures of attachment, by which individuals bind themselves into dystopian hive-mind collectives, start breaking down.

There is an ancient equivocation in the claim that human beings are essentially communal, such as Aristotle’s assertion that man is a polis animal. Aristotle’s claim makes it seem that the choice is between submission to a patriarchal sovereign state or just starkly solitary existence. That is a ridiculously oversimplified falsehood. Although sociability is crucial to the kinds of work and play within which humans can thrive, sociability is best fulfilled in the absence of violence, hierarchy, or self-denial by any individual. Patriarchal top-down command is sometimes justified by the idea that individuals are nothing but bundles of hard-wired drives for egoistic gratification, if they aren’t taught fear of superior power and a deferential orientation upward toward figures representing the overwhelming forces of religion and armed institutions. However, no matter how it is officially defended, the largely gratuitous nastiness of life in patriarchal societies is obvious and undeniable.

Illusions of Disembodied Supremacy

The veil of illusions also includes the fanciful metaphysics expressed in stories of disembodied intelligences: angels, demons, and deities, capricious free-floating entities who somehow care about and seem to have a stake in human behaviour, purportedly because humans were created by the will and power of these entities to be their toys and playthings. These stories are made frightening and also enticing by supposing that spirit-beings have unlimited powers, which means they must be considered and placated in all things to turn them into kind guardians instead of demanding and punishing masters. Imagining that the world at large and in detail is the deliberate act of an unpredictably powerful thinking and caring agency, often capricious, sometimes inexplicably malicious, means that acting in a way that pleases or placates that force, generally on the say-so of opaque but charismatic social authorities, just might have the effect of making the world a more benign situation. This cultural stream expresses a confusion about intelligence itself such that the cosmos at large somehow expresses a super-intelligence that pre-determines how everything should be (yet not always how it is!), but with some degree of negotiable grace as a reward for formulaic pageantry expressing extravagant praise, fearful self-abasement, and symbolic sacrifice.

The idea of a divine plan and a supernatural planner who irresistibly determines everything has been crucial in legitimizing the lethal power of patriarchal sovereignty. Divine personality has been conceived as all-powerful creator, judge, and ever-present tester and score-keeper of human persons, the model of fatherly sovereignty as absolute ownership over the less powerful. Cultures of disembodied intelligences insist on adulating the cosmic almighty who promotes its earthly kindred spirits: the mighty of the earth. With such  a capricious and all powerful patriarchal deity, the crucial focus of orientation is divine commands, and ethical action is obeying a list of rules, duties, obligations, virtues, and vices. Nature in this vision is the actualized will of the divine personality. The idea of divinity sustaining the world by uttering commands and projecting divine will into human affairs through sovereignty of the strongest is, in a variety of forms, ancient and deeply embedded in human societies.

Teleology of creation is the crucial identifier of personality, of spiritual existence both human and divine. It encompasses conceiving and enacting, moment by moment, the future conditions of things in the world. Teleology is ideality: curiosity, caring, seeking, supposing, questioning, knowing (accumulating orientation through discoveries), and fountaining specific preferences expressed in deliberate actions or voice-utterances within the ceaselessly changing context of temporality. Religion makes personality the creative source of everything, recognizing teleology as transcendently alive, creative, caring, and expressive, but truly at home only at some dimly imagined cosmic horizon, making individual human consciousness a frail echo of the cosmic master. Human ideality as a mode of existence was recognized as carrying with it the vestige of an insubordinate claim to equal and rival the divine. Here, in the frightening sameness of human and divine existence, is the source of the idea of original sin and inherent guilt which all humans are supposed to share and which supposedly taints the existence of humanity. In the context of widespread fear of an all-powerful supernatural watcher, this sensed sameness, made miserable for humans by the needs and indignities of embodied living, was enough to create a perverse appetite for denigration of human personality, part of an effort to distance embodied ideality from any but the weakest claim to divine-like creative freedom, on the hope that denigration of embodiment would atone for this plausible claim to divinity and so eventually qualify human individuals for an eternal afterlife finally free of embodiment. This is the root superstition that makes creationist deism toxic and destructive. Its denigration of human personality created the context for every kind of cruelty, insult, and injury in human relations, perversely sanctifying human-on-human parasitism.

The patriarchal conception of cosmic teleology inspired and sanctified very rigid, restricted, exploitative, and repressively hierarchical societies, dedicated to the culture of violet masculinity, and determined to remain essentially static for eternity, supposedly to persuade the cosmic power to tilt benign. Such are the foundations of our current dystopian patriarchies. In the long transition through childhood to the adult condition everyone is trained in this fabric of perverse superstition. The original rationale for sovereign government as it still exists is this nasty dystopian fable. These societies are not echoes of divine nature but expressions of misconceptions and superstitions developed into enduring cultures, the most extreme fears and fantasies institutionalized and culturally enforced.

Illusions of Collective Supremacy

The veil of illusions also includes distorted national histories that promote a sense of collective identity by highlighting emotional dramas uniquely involving a population defined by geographical location. Within the general culture there are certain limitlessly imposing political super-structures, culture-based arrangements of authority and dependence which bind clusters of people together by a shared sense of norms of conduct and of the power centres that enforce them. These are top-down arrangements of coercive power and access to resources, which seek emotional possession of individuals, forming a shared group orientation, a hive-mind which benefits from each individual’s gifts, abilities, and energy.

It has been asserted as self-evident that individuals need, as part of a general need for felt supervision or authority, a dominant collective attachment, emotional and cognitive identification with the master narrative of a collective entity, something like a home hive, as a crucial element of personal identity and sense of meaning. That assertion is supposed to account for the fact that each modern sovereign state is still, in spite of progressive influences, a personified territorial power demanding reverent patriotic devotion, worship, sacrifice, and obedience enforced by an iron fist of law, tax, and lethal military force. Each state has its edifice of theatrical pageantry and symbolism to invoke the unity and sacred grandeur of the collective: flags, monuments, and anthems, oaths and pledges, officials and military officers encrusted with exotic glitter, august regalia and titles; state uniforms and weapons laden with national symbols and emblems; ceremonies of remembrance and renewal of devotion invoking the sacred history and mission of the hive, synchronized movements in processions, special word formulas to be spoken in mass unison. Such pageantry is not intended to encourage creative or rational thinking or the individuality that enables those, but rather to replace thinking with passive embrace of an orthodox official story, a standardized hive-mind. The supposed necessity of hive-mind belonging is used routinely to justify nationalist propaganda, censorship, and violent repression. Such cultural systems often specifically suppress empathy toward people beyond the home collective. Immersion in such a hive-mind can enable individuals to commit acts of cruelty, brutality, and self-destruction that they would not contemplate as de-cultured individuals.

Illusions of Trophy Supremacy

Another cultural stream in the veil of illusions involves the sense of what makes any person good, worthy, or successful, the sense of anyone’s personal score on the goodness scale, the sense of personal value. Even people who are not emotionally invested in the symbols and emblems of their nation state, for example, who do not care about civic celebrations or their nation’s standing among nations, even such non-patriots are likely to be oriented in their sense of personal potential and value (self-worth, personal force of being) within the cultural norms of the economic structures around them, the hierarchy of occupations ranked by wealth and fame, attitudes about the gradients of interesting and eventful lives, and how those things match up with personal abilities and accomplishments.

We have the misfortune of living in a dystopia in which individuals are judged by acquisitiveness and competitiveness, both attaching value to scarcity and objective externality, and in which success as a life-in-progress is measured by ranking an individual’s performances as expressions of those drives. The inevitable spectacle of inequality is itself widely embraced as a value. The commercial sense of earning value through competition is just a light edit of the primal aristocratic value matrix, rooted in the culture of violence, possession of property, and a tightly restricted allowance of empathy. In our dystopia, the great drama is the competitive struggle for scarce prestige, dominance, notice, and trophies to fabricate an exterior depiction of an undiscovered spiritual interior. Our culture’s most trusted authorities assert that the great human drama is to compete for the scarce goods and symbols that show you are fabulous, or at least good enough, that biological drives are inescapable, drives for dominance, excitement, security, or for signs of worldly agreement that you have a place on the spectrum of being fabulous.

Personal Ideality

These complexes, along with similar supremacist-cultures such as family, class, accent, or craft, all keep individuals’ focus directed emphatically outward, away from contributions to experience which originate in personal interiority, in subjective ideality or spirituality. The overwhelming cultural message is that subjective interiority is best kept under strict control, restricted and mostly ignored. This has the effect of making the particulars of the world and of human relationships seem externally controlled and even pre-determined by rigid necessity. There is a distinct charm and comfort in the certainty of essentialism: the fetishistic assumption that everything is as it must be as created by inexplicable but utterly all-determining forces. Essentialism lines up with an urgency to resist change and keep arrangements stable for eternity. With this conception, individuals are merely spectators of the spectacle of events. However, the core concept of personality, of personal spirituality, as already observed above, is teleology of creation, discretionary, improvisational invention in the face of an entirely suppositional future, and the caring ideality with that power exists only at the level of the embodied individual. We are immediately acquainted with caring spirituality only in ourselves and in people around us, however much the idea may be inappropriately projected onto gigantic cosmic mysteries. The metaphysical anomaly of creative teleology at the level of the embodied individual means, first, that individual self-possession is achievable, but also that we must judge a good life partly on how well the veil of illusions has been overcome. Individual spirituality is a basis for universal empathy and mutual respect among animate beings, and political and economic relationships could be re-invented in a way that enables the power of subjectivity instead of denigrating it as is typical in dystopian societies. In a truly spiritual life, the primary source of value is the personally interior creative fountain, and not the rarity of exterior treasures.

Embedded link:

Fragment 218, December 14, 2025 Metaphysics Dawns on the Edge of Creation (word count: 213).

Copyright © 2025 Sandy MacDonald.

Opening Frontiers of Philosophy

24 Friday Oct 2025

Posted by Sandy MacDonald in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

aristocracy, books, culture, evil, existence, Francis Fukuyama, History, hive-mind, ideality, literacy, philosophy, politics, religion, sovereignty, violence

Fragment 217, word count: 1017.

Tags: sovereignty, violence, aristocracy, ideality, existence, literacy, religion, philosophy, evil, Francis Fukuyama, history, culture, hive-mind, politics.

“The day of the political philosopher is over.” *

A surprising but decisive theme of western history has been an intellectual or ideological contest over the moral legitimacy of systems of sovereignty. This contest is an artifact of a more fundamental cultural rivalry, namely, between the legacy of aristocratic violence, the matrix of all sovereignty, and, on the other side, the legacy of literacy, fostered for a long dark time within the theocratically inclined organizations of Christianity but finally launched independently via humanistic pursuits in universities. The use of violence, the core of aristocratic culture, requires a denial of empathy, a refusal or rejection of empathy toward all but a select group of people. The refusal of empathy is the precondition of acts of evil. Without the legacy of books and authorship the exercise of violence-and-superstition-based sovereignty would enforce a uniformity of dogma, but there would be no thoroughly elaborated ideology expressing ambitious thinking incorporating a variety of points of view. Without the literary legacy there would be no contest over the legitimacy of sovereign dominance through coercive power. In spite of having origins in thinking about morality, disputes over the legitimacy of particular assertions of sovereignty have often occasioned violence, the predictable defensive response of aristocratic culture.

Fukuyama and New Frontiers of Philosophy

Francis Fukuyama highlighted the contest over the moral legitimacy of sovereignty in The End of History and the Last Man (1992), when he famously interpreted the collapse of communism in The Soviet Union as the end of “… the progression of human history as a struggle between ideologies … (Wikipedia)”. Fukuyama: “What we may be witnessing is … the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution …”. Fukuyama was considering political/ economic ideology specifically, but political ideology always expresses a more general ecosystem of philosophical ideas and so his assertion implies that all ideas foundational enough to have political consequences have already been elucidated and litigated, that there can be no more philosophical discoveries, no opening frontiers of philosophy. He has, like many others, declared the end of philosophy. That idea is profoundly attractive, a wish fulfillment, to the conservative mind and to the religious and the scientific mind. However, it is false, arrogant to the point of absurdity, as demonstrated by a few considerations. An obvious one would be a consideration of the vast lack of attention to and understanding of cultural and non-cultural variability in the clustering and un-clustering of human attachments (the foundation of polities and so of politics). This could be described as issues in the identification and investigation of culturally constructed hive-minds that seem to dominate human political attachments. Another crucial consideration is the hitherto relentlessly negative conceptions of human experience as a mode of existence. The easiest example is the Augustinian conception of human experience as compulsively determined by the legacy of “original sin”, irresistible needs to pridefully assert the exclusive importance of the individual self through competitive acquisition and other forms of personal gratification. The more modern conceptions of “economic man” and the Freudian id-ego-superego model are just light edits of the Christian idea, all plainly derogatory depictions of individual subjective existence. Negative conceptions of human existence as ideality have origins in common superstitious myths of a disembodied super-spirit, powerful, knowing, and emotionally volatile, unpredictably moved to interfere in human affairs. Such a being must always be appeased, and the first rule of appeasement is the necessity of general human humility before the super-spirit, the necessity of loudly declaring the vast inferiority and weakness of the human spirit. It follows that factions of the strongest, apparently favoured and chosen by the super-spirit, must do their best to stifle and control the generality of people within their reach. In this way, derogatory conceptions of individual existence have imprinted a punishing and malevolent quality on the societies built on them, making them dystopias claiming to be the best of possible worlds. To recognize this, it is necessary (and possible) to judge from outside the influence of the derogatory conceptions. A confrontation with this history of culturally distorted and intentionally humiliating conceptions of human existence must surely be an obvious unexplored frontier of philosophy.

Primordial Beings at the Edge of Creation

If we reject the superstitious legacy of myths of the disembodied super-spirit who must be appeased, it is easy to find a non-derogatory conception of human-ideality-as-a-mode-of-existence, and, following that, it will be possible to imagine non-dystopian clustering of human attachments. The humanistic legacy of literacy and authorship points the way. Ideality is always personality, all about inventing the personal drama of time, the sense of time passing in an embodied life. Drama is a caring anticipation of future conditions and events, an anticipation that includes personal stakes and uncertainty about harms and benefits. The experience of time springs from caring and involves active recollections, abstractions,  and suppositions, curiosity and questions, searches and constructions of a framework of directional orientation. We are active points and arcs of creation at the opening edge of unfinished existence, effective ideality with the dramatic structure of an embodied living “I”, subject of a personal drama which is an individual’s life in the world.

The Clustering and Un-Clustering of Human Attachments

Discarding the derogatory conceptions of human existence that pre-determined dystopian clustering of human attachments opens another frontier of philosophy: consideration of cultural and non-cultural variability in the foundation of polities and politics. Social attachments free from superstitions of past and current dystopias will not need the hierarchical stratification of personal value based on competitions for scarce honours and properties. They will not need hierarchies of authority maintained by operations of a culture of violence. It has been a common sense assumption that this style of tightly controlled cultured clustering demanding conformity, exclusive emotional attachment and pageantry typical of religion, is simply the inevitable working of flawed human nature, but that is false. We are not, fortunately, completely subject to the values, categories, and dramas of the ambient cultural system. It is possible to recognize the fundamental reality of autonomous individual spirituality. Release from collective identity follows from recognition of the preponderance of non-linguistic ideation in ordinary experience, personal experience outside what is controlled by culturally ambient hive-minds.

 * Len Deighton in Billion-Dollar Brain, published by Triad, Grafton Books (1987), ISBN 0-586-07395-7. See p. 322. First published in Great Britain by Jonathan Cape Ltd. 1966.

Copyright © 2025 Sandy MacDonald.

Errors and Allegories in Gnosticism

17 Wednesday Jun 2015

Posted by Sandy MacDonald in Culture, Embodiment, Nature, Transcendence

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Blind-Spot philosophy, dualism, ethics, evil, freedom, Gnosticism, pessimism, subjectivity, the Fall from Grace, the human catastrophe, time, tragedy

Gnosticism is somewhat difficult to pin down. Roughly, it is a construct of ideas about what is supernatural and the relationship of humans to the supernatural. It seems to have been developed mostly in the first few centuries A.D., with an important concentration of activity in the Greek/ Egyptian city of Alexandria when that city was an international centre of scholarship, research, organized curiosity, and invention of ideas. From the point of view of the orientation being developed in these blog postings, call it Blind-Spot philosophy, Gnosticism is a metaphor or allegory (not entirely successful) for important realities of the human condition, and so possibly a helpful reference in sketching an overview of the Blind-Spot positions. There are gnostic elements in, and a gnostic structure or flavour to, Blind-Spot philosophy. For one thing, there is a fundamental dualism in Gnosticism, the dualism of spirit vs material nature, since, on that view, the whole drama of human life flows from each human spirit being catastrophically imprisoned in matter or nature. In Blind-Spot philosophy there is also a fundamental dualism of freedom vs unfreedom, or intelligence (freedom) vs brute actuality (unfreedom). What is conceived in Gnosticism as spirit has some congruence with what in Blind-Spot philosophy is called the interiority of an intelligence. The idea or fable of disembodied spirit(s) can be plausibly interpreted as an allegory for the experience of the interiority of personal intelligence.

The primary task of early Gnosticism was escape from demonic control, especially control by the demons of stars, dictators of astral or astrological fate. Some specialized knowledge (gnosis) was necessary to enable that escape, knowledge of the supernatural origins of the human imprisonment, and of the structure and history of the supernatural world, leading to discovery of how to be fully human by the memory of being divine. The shape of power in that view is emphatically and quite literally top-down: the demons in the starry sky have overwhelming power. Blind-Spot philosophy rejects the idea of disembodied intelligences, including demonic ones. However, as the star-demons represent a dominant evil, an imposing of control and subordination on people where there should be freedom and equality, there is a congruent dominant evil in Blind-Spot philosophy. In Blind-Spot philosophy the dominant evil is not supernatural but is instead cultural and historically rooted. Specifically, the dominant evil is a cultural stream of human macro-parasitism, a cultural, political, and economic faction which successfully maintains and evolves a culture (Aryan or patriarchal masculinity) of macro-parasitic control over masses of other humans, where there should be freedom and equality.

Recognizing the broad dominance of evil, injustice, and oppression within a supernaturally top-down perspective, gnostics thought there had to be two gods, a greater and a lesser, the greater one good, the lesser one evil or at least prone to catastrophic mistakes. Gnosticism is, therefore, often construed as a religion (in one form, a version of Christianity) or a religious philosophy since it has much to claim concerning supernatural divinities. By contrast, Blind-Spot philosophy is nothing like religion since it has nothing to say about supernatural divinities, except that the idea of disembodied intelligences, personalities, or ideas is not rational, neither locally nor cosmically. Blind-Spot philosophy does have a claim about transcendence, but not in the form of omnipotent or all-encompassing divinities who shower gifts or miseries down upon humans from on-high. That would be the supernatural top-down perspective. In Blind-Spot philosophy, intelligences are all embodied and individually creators of freedom, which means we are individually transcendent with respect to the brute determinism of nature or strict actuality.

As discussed in recent postings (Being vs Freedom: Metaphysics Old and New, and The Tragedy of Romanticism: Episode One) there are certain circumstances of human life which make it very tempting and easy to imagine a profoundly top-down shape or structure to reality. It has been traditional for cultured humans to be trapped mentally within such top-down visions. Gnostics were early promoters of a version of that idea known as The Great Chain of Being, a prime example of top-down metaphysics. That was the context in which the gnostic views of time, freedom, and subjective identity were conceived, an extremity of top-down thinking. That perspective is rejected and opposed by Blind-Spot philosophy, which recognizes embodied intelligences as individually or autonomously creative, and as such presents a strictly bottom-up perspective, yet still recognizing transcendence in human experience. Gnosticism was and is a kind of obsession with transcendence of a supernatural kind. The idea of supernatural transcendence is an allegory for the reality of the freedom of individual intelligences.

Both Gnosticism and Blind-Spot philosophy recognize a dominant evil which perpetrates a profound distortion of reality on a mass scale, creating a ‘hidden or secret reality’ which is normally unidentified because of (cultural) distortions arranged and maintained by the dominant evil. In both, the core secret to be discovered and revealed is about the power and freedom of the individual self or subjectivity (the blind spot). Both claim that in ordinary circumstances we function in a condition of relative disability, imprisonment, or slavery through accepting misrepresentations of reality, including alienation from our personal subjectivity. The main aspiration is direct self-acquaintance, based on recognizing a difference between the crippling concept of individual subjectivity promoted by top-down culture as compared with the self of immediate and innocent acquaintance. The supernatural imprisonment or slavery of human beings depicted in Gnosticism is an allegorical identification of the imprisonment of individuals within cultural traditions which legitimize and sanctify a perpetual macro-parasitism. In both Blind-Spot philosophy and Gnosticism, philosophy is conceived and practiced as a way of evading and resisting the dominant evil, first identifying the dominant evil and then re-positioning the self beyond the control of the dominant evil. In both, it is self-recognition which enables personal liberation, achieved by an act of taking possession of personal innocence, always available (gnostic “remembering”). However, there are at least important differences of emphasis in how knowledge is conceived in these two orientations. In Blind-Spot philosophy there is more emphasis on attending to a thinking process, self-directed reorientation, than on any special knowledge (although a knowledge of human history is relevant). Practical acquaintance with the innocent creator of interior non-actualities is basic. In Gnosticism, secret and arcane knowledge of the divine origin of human spirit, passed in person from master to worthy disciple, is the key to liberation and personal freedom. However, the disciple still has to use the knowledge to “remember” innocent or primeval life, to reawakening an innocent intelligence.

There are two conflicting ethical tendencies within Gnosticism. The dominant one is elitism, special entitlement, or exceptionalism, in which those initiated into the sacred knowledge are the exceptions. People who accept the reality of The Great Chain of Being have a difficult time avoiding a supernaturally ordained hierarchy within the human collective. Fables of “the higher Being” make everyone accustomed to various forms authoritarian control, and to lack readiness to question authority in general. Gnostic dependence on secret troves of sacred knowledge makes initiates accept subordination to authorities claiming to guard the knowledge. Elitism also tends to condemn the majority of people as beyond help or unworthy of anything better than existing injustices, even sometimes declaring that misery somehow benefits the victims. However, there is a vestige of an opposing tendency arising from the gnostic conviction that all people have a divine or supernatural origin. That would tend to inspire a universality of respectful, loving, and nurturing treatment of others. Blind-Spot philosophy rejects exeptionalism and subordination, and bases ethics on the insight which must follow from authentic self-acquaintance, that all intelligences are individually transcendent creators of freedom within the unfreedom of brute actuality and the crippling dominance of macro-parasitic culture, and that, as such, all intelligences merit respect and nurture.

The conceptualization of time is also crucial to both, but the attitude to time, or the orientation toward time, is completely opposite in Blind-Spot philosophy as compared to Gnosticism. The gnostic obsession with eternity is absent from Blind-Spot philosophy, replaced by the love of freedom within time and only conceivable within time as a transcendent creation of individual intelligences. Blind-Spot philosophy rejects the quest for eternity, infinity, or Being. In Blind-Spot philosophy the transcendence of individual intelligences is not achieved by recognizing a unity or identity with an omnipotent, universal, and eternal deity on-high, or with eternal Being, but instead is achieved in individually creating personal freedom by the use of the non-actualities of interior subjectivity, so creating freedom-in-time in the process of living a particular life.

Rebel Angels

The gnostic myth of the catastrophic rupture of human spirits from their primeval union with divinity and the fall of human spirits into the iron embrace of nature and time, is recognition of a self-alienation within conventional styles of living, a sense of being misrepresented, misevaluated, and diminished by the personal identities offered by the ambient culture and economy. The gnostic myth of the Fall from Grace is an allegory for the loss of recognition of the transcendent creative freedom of every individual. The sense of being punished for some primal fault or crime is misidentification of self as blameworthy because it revolts against the determinism of nature by spinning freedom in an unfree world: the rebellion of the angels. Escaping, transcending, the iron embrace of material nature is exactly what intelligences already do in the ordinary world by constructing the conditions of personal freedom, constructing teleological time from discretionary interior non-actualities.

The differences between Gnosticism and Blind-Spot philosophy have consequences concerning social, economic, and political situations. There was a sense in Gnosticism that the world within time is irredeemably bad, justifying pessimism such that it would be pointless to invest any effort into improving the common predicaments of human life. Such quests as that for eternal Being or for the remote god beyond the hierarchy of astral demons, always provide an excuse to leave institutional injustices as they are. In Gnosticism the only hope of improvement is available to small groups of initiates, and that hope is of escape into the supernatural through arcane knowledge of invisible things and rigorous personal detachment from material nature. This is similar to systems of reality which identify salvation or resolutions of injustice only in an afterlife. Blind-Spot philosophy rejects both of those otherworldly fables. This world at hand, and only this, is the one in which the transcendence of intelligences gets to express itself. Catastrophe is not the same thing as tragedy. Tragedy is final but catastrophe can be overcome. It is true that the current state of human life generally is catastrophic, but that does not make it tragic. There is no fatal flaw in fundamental human nature, no universal taint from an original sin. Autonomous freedom is not a crime against anything. Being free is a crime only when it is exercised and practiced by reducing, restricting, or denying the freedom of other intelligences.

Some Sources

Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition, by Frances A. Yates (1899-1981), University Of Chicago Press (first published 1964. Midway reprint 1979. Paperback edition 1991), ISBN-10: 0226950077, ISBN-13: 978-0226950075.

The Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age, written by (Dame) Frances Amelia Yates, Published by: Ark Paperbacks, an imprint of Routledge & Kegan Paul plc (1983) (first published 1979), ISBN 0-7448-0001-3.

The Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies, written by Thomas C. McEvilley, published by Allworth Press; (2001), ISBN-10: 1581152035, ISBN-13: 978-1581152036.

Gnostic Philosophy: From Ancient Persia to Modern Times, written by Tobias Churton, Published by Ten Speed (2005), ISBN: 1594770352.

Copyright © 2015 Sandy MacDonald.

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • December 2025
  • October 2025
  • August 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • December 2024
  • August 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • November 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • September 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011

Categories

  • Blind spots in thinking
  • Class War
  • Culture
  • disinterestedness
  • Embodiment
  • Equality
  • Freedom
  • Gender culture
  • Hierarchy
  • Leadership
  • Narrative
  • Nature
  • Political Power
  • Strategic thinking
  • Subjectivity
  • Transcendence
  • Uncategorized
  • University
  • Why thinking?

Meta

  • Create account
  • Log in

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • in the blind spot
    • Join 84 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • in the blind spot
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar