Egodeath | Why was the false Literalist story of Christian origins supported by the ruling elites, but the other, gnostic, esoteric story vigorously suppressed? To maximize the elites' degree of coercive control over the widest population; to try a little to justify their tithing scam - - the other story overthrows the financial, political, cultural domination of the elites.Even more generally: why does the official (false) literalist *type* of history help the ruling elite? Why does the (true) gnostic/esoteric *type* of history hurt the ruling elite? Why (in the beginning and later) was literalist false history beneficial to the ruling elite, and why was the gnostic true history harmful to the ruling elite?
- How has the ruling elite benefitted by Literalist false history?
- How would the ruling elite not have benefitted had the gnostic true history been admitted or promoted?
- Are there some types of Literalist false history that would have harmed the ruling elite?
- Are there some types of gnostic true history that would have benefitted the ruling elite?
*Must* the ruling elite promote the kind of Literalist false history it did?
Do things *necessarily* group as follows? Why do things necessarily group as follows?
Do things *necessarily* group as follows? Why do things necessarily group as follows?
- Literalist false history, the dominance of the ruling elites (oligarchic)
- Gnostic true history, the non-dominance of the ruling elites (democratic)
- Why do literalist false history and oppressive oligarchy go hand in hand?
- Why do gnostic true history and democracy go hand in hand?
Loyalty of the led and controlled -- the coerced -- by those who desire to be the leaders and controllers -- the coercers -- is a main concern of the coercers. In politics the whole problem was how to coerce people into supporting you.
Gnostic esoteric Christianity as such didn't provide an opportunity for coercers to insert themselves and organize people into an organized body of the coerced -- literalist Christianity, with its false history of Jesus handing exclusive authority to Peter then to the bishops/popes, did provide such an opportunity to systematically coerce people into an organized, powerful social-political-religious force.
Why does literalism offer political power that gnostic esotericism doesn't? Because of the networked mass unity of the form of religion, and exclusive concentration of power at the top of a hierarchy. What rulers want is widespread uniformity of system, throughout the social-political-religious culture, and exclusive concentration of power and authority at the top of a hierarchy.
Literalist false history enabled such networked uniformity and such oligarchic, systematically coercive power concentration. Gnostic esoteric Christianity, because of its democratic distribution of authority and proliferation of variations -- each community creating their own largely isolated version of the religion -- was useless at setting up networked uniformity, and was useless for the exclusive hierarchical concentration of power.
Gnostic esoteric Christianity as such didn't provide an opportunity for coercers to insert themselves and organize people into an organized body of the coerced -- literalist Christianity, with its false history of Jesus handing exclusive authority to Peter then to the bishops/popes, did provide such an opportunity to systematically coerce people into an organized, powerful social-political-religious force.
Why does literalism offer political power that gnostic esotericism doesn't? Because of the networked mass unity of the form of religion, and exclusive concentration of power at the top of a hierarchy. What rulers want is widespread uniformity of system, throughout the social-political-religious culture, and exclusive concentration of power and authority at the top of a hierarchy.
Literalist false history enabled such networked uniformity and such oligarchic, systematically coercive power concentration. Gnostic esoteric Christianity, because of its democratic distribution of authority and proliferation of variations -- each community creating their own largely isolated version of the religion -- was useless at setting up networked uniformity, and was useless for the exclusive hierarchical concentration of power.
3 comments:
One of the first lesson for independent thinking
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/07/the-brain-on-trial/8520/
If personalized medicine is a victim of exhorbitant costs and complexity in the opening stages of peak medicine - such prohibitively complicated and expensive criminal defense doesn't stand a chance.
The interests of individual depotentiated social units are of no consequence to the accelerating system of networked uniformity - and - antithetical to the exclusive hierarchical concentration of power. Criminals are criminals because of their individual moral failings and defects, and incompatibility with the normative standards of the monoculture.
Post a Comment