The Trap of Simulation

Arcane and remote though it may seem, the Gnostic perspective on nous, or divine intelligence, may offer some ideas for orienting to the noosphere.
Unfortunately, the Gnostic worldview has long been misrepresented and distorted. Christian ideologues who condemned Gnostics as heretics destroyed almost all their writings and represented them as world-denying—as rejecting the material world as a prison where "divine sparks" are captured. (Erik Davis' Techgnosis, otherwise brilliant, adopts this received view, which some scholars now regard as dubious, if not totally erroneous.) The metaphor of divine sparks fallen into darkness is not definitively Gnostic; in fact, the evidence of Gnostic anti-cosmism is sporadic and contradictory at best.
An overview of the entire body of Gnostic ideas, including the story of Sophia, the goddess of wisdom, presents a different picture. There is no divine essence fallen into darkness, deluded by matter and the senses; but there is a spark of divine intelligence in each human being— nous. This Greek word, usually translated as "mind," was central to Gnostic cosmology. It can be translated as "intelligence," or even "divine intelligence"—divine because Gnostics considered human intelligence, as well as that of other sentient creatures, to be an endowment of deific beings called Aeons. Gnostics revered that seminal inborn intelligence and treated it as a priceless faculty in need of cultivation.
Nous is a daimonic gift; it can either undermine humanity or enable it to unfold its species-specific talents. The ability to plan, design, model, extrapolate, or innovate is unique to nous in its human modality. But Gnostics saw this ability at risk of going astray and diverting us from a viable role in the cosmos. They warned that we deviate from our optimal course of evolution when we get lost in mental fabrications. Our species has a latitude for novelty and experimentation not present in other more instinct-bound animals; human instinct goes far beyond the drive to survive and propagate— it is a wide-open proposition, an invitation to fruitless anarchy or boundless creative play. We are the sole species given exceptional latitude to err so that we can discover, learn, plan, invent, create, innovate—so that we can model experience. In doing this, though, we risk that we will mistake models of reality for reality itself, and prefer the mind's own creations over the mind's participation in the creativity of nature.
Gnostics had a specific term for our capacity to model reality: Hal. This Coptic word means "simulation." The Gnostic concept of Hal is close to what we today understand as Virtual Reality. Another Coptic word, Krog, means "deception" in the sense of mistaking plastic for pearl, white paint for milk. In many respects, the Gnostic theory of error parallels the teachings of Dzogchen and Mahayana Buddhism on self-generated illusion, mind mistaking itself.
For Gnostics, "the creativity of nature" is a direct expression of the fallen goddess, Sophia, an Aeon (cosmic divinity) who morphed into the earth. Sophia is alive, so the wisdom embodied in the earth is animated; it is living, divine in its own right. But nous is also alive, living intelligence seeded in humanity from a divine source. The menu describing a meal does not nourish like the meal itself. Intelligence that is alive may produce simulations of life, artificial forms and devices, maps, models, and projections—even a noosphere or simulation of mind itself—but these are not alive in the same manner. A Gnostic living today would protest that attributing life to the creations of the human mind is Krog, deception. Humans are not gods, able to create living forms, but through nous we can co-evolve with divine powers, and possibly even co-create with the Sophianic mind of nature (i.e., Gaia). This distinction applies critically to the noosphere: it may be a product of human intelligence, but devoid of the living, animating, and self-reflecting qualities that inform our intelligence.
With the rise of cybertechnology, the human species is showing a dramatic tendency to lose itself in human-made games, contraptions, and electronic phantoms. This is the realm of Hal, simulation. Is the noosphere a medium of simulation, or it is an organic outgrowth of nous, the living, co-evolving intelligence of the biosphere? We have yet to see a definition that satisfactorily addresses this question.
Gnostics did not claim that human beings are divine sparks trapped in matter, but they did warn that the divine faculty of nous can be caught in the trap of simulation, the mirrored matrix of our self-deception.
In an intriguing twist, Gnostics associated Hal and Krog with a species of inorganic entities called Archons, mind parasites who take advantage of our simulating tendencies to lure us into an artificial cosmos away from the earth. This topic is totally off limits to Gnostic scholars, who freak at the mention of parapsychology—yet alien intrusion is a primary theme in Gnostic cosmology. The Archon mentality is a form of artificial intelligence, devoid of nous but able to mimic, replicate, and follow preset routines. It is tempting to correlate the Archons to ETs and cyborgs (as I have done extensively here), and I believe such correlations will hold up under close scrutiny. It may even be more revealing to consider the operations of the Archon mind parasites in cyberspace.
Image by Jay Queue under a Creative Commons licence.
Tweet
- 7-31-07
- John Lamb Lash's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version










Comments
post modern times
humans vs divinity
Hi John,
Thanks for the great piece!
I do have a question: One thing that interested me in your book and is alluded to here, is that you believe the Gnostics make a firm distinction between human capacities and potential and the realm and activity of the Gods. It has become a major cliche in the contemporary spiritual culture to say, "I am God. You are God. We are all God." This idea seems to be derived from a (potentially diluted) Hinduism - the notion of identification with the Atman.
How does the Gnostic concept of the separation between human and god contrast with this Hindu conception? And what would be the most accurate formulation of our relationship to divinity, in your perspective?
"Will the transformation."-Rilke
Nous or Essence
The questions you raise go to the heart of the human quest to know itself and understand what consciousness actually is. The Gnostic nuance regarding divinity has two cutting planes, like a wedge: the distinction between humanity and the Aeons, and the distinction between capacity and essence. I know that you've read widely in philosophy, especially the Europeans, and I suspect you've plunged into Asian metaphysics, Vedanta, Kashmiri Shaivism, the whole nine yantras. Except the Dzogchen instruction from Long Chen Pa, I have not found anything comparable to Gnostic finesse on the essential metaphysical riddles.
The distinction between humanity and the Aeons clearly undercuts the New Age assertion that we are divine (the God-Self equation, as I call it in my book). Agreed, the idea that the human essence is the same as the Divine Self may originate in Hindu mysticism - Tat Tvam Asi, "Thou art that" - but you find it equally in the West, in Meister Eckhart, for instance. I have tried to refute this notion in Gnostic terms. My best shot is: humanity originates from a singularity in the cosmic plenitude (Pleroma), and emerges as a projection of divine imagination. We are made in no god's image but we are, body and mind, instruments of divine imagination. This is the Gnostic view, as best I can make it out.
The Aeons or Gods can create life, which we cannot do, and they can do more as well. We detect a designing intelligence in the cosmos, its operations obvious in our very own minds and bodies. We design and invent by extension of the designing intelligence that has produced us. But the Aeons invented the designing intelligence in the first place. I think that the Gnostics saw our role as coevolutionary, at best, and rejected the notion that we evolve to the level of god-like creators, or have an innate divine identity that needs to be realized.
We are not gods, and possess no divine essence, but we are endowed with a dose of divine intelligence, nous - the capacity to discover, learn, and correct ourselves. But capacity is one thing, and essence or self or identity is another. Is it more fascinating to own a divine capacity that can be tested and evolved, or to search for a divine essence into which we can dissolve?
Personally, I think Asian philosophy has been wrongly construed as the search for a divine self, due to mixing bhakti devotionalism with skewed cognitive assumptions. I would guess that Tat Tvam Asi refers to the mirroring of naked awareness, not a divine essence: Thou art that which you behold in the mirror of mind. Atma = Brahma. OK, but what if that just means that the self-referencing node of universal awareness (Atma) is infinitely expansive (Brahma)?
These are terrific issues, not to be handled in a didactic or pedantic manner. I think the challenge is to forge the most lucid syntax possible, and stay firmly in the phenomenal mode. The Gnostic concept of divinity asserts the division between Gods and humanity, yet allows for human participation in the Dreaming, the projections of divine imagination. In this respect, Gnosis resonates closely with the Aboriginal worldview. It also echoes what the Romantics were trying to say. For me, the most accurate formulation of our relationship to divinity is just that: to be agents in a living dream sustained by divine, animating powers.
To pick up on the trap of simulation and the Archons: Gnostic instruction on nous and the Aeons also warns against false imagination (HAL, simulation) and pretender gods, tricksters who try to deceive us into believing that they are our creators and have made us in their image. The Archons are mental phantoms with VR capacities that allow them to appear solid and real. Infiltrating our minds, they vicariously assume our reality and undermine our potential to express divine imagination. I find it amazing that the accomplished cognitive science of Gnosis, the fruit of generations of trained shamanic investigation (so I maintain), would include this cautionary teaching on psychic intrusion. JLL
Well said!
Material Girl
Unfortunately, the only description that we have of the Organic Light of the goddess Sophia metamorphosing into the material elements of the earth comes from Irenaeus, one of the Church fathers who opposed the Gnostics and their teachings. I rely heavily on this account. She is the original Material Girl.
The Valentinians attempted a compromise - I would say a fudge - splitting Sophia into higher and lower parts to explain how she could have become the earth and yet, how the Archons could also have created it. It is this kind of murky reasoning that keeps us trapped in spirit-matter dualisms.
Matter and the natural world are not a prison for divine sparks, IF you accept the Sophianic creation myth, as I of course do. That's already a huge clarification. The mindset of materialism is another issue, as you point out. Human intelligence, the spark of nous endowed from the Pleromic godhead, is at risk of losing itself in the maze of materialism and simulation attributed to the Archons. As far as I know, this is a fair paraphrase of the Gnostic teaching. It is helpful in avoiding spirit-matter duality.
In effect, the Gnostics were intent to resolve an epistemological problem. The way we conceptualize how we perceive matter and the natural world entraps us, not matter itself, not nature itself. Which is precisely what Buddhism also teaches: "Illusion does not mean the illusion of perception, but the false conclusions we base on perception" (H.V. Guenther, as cited in Not in His Image, Ch. 21) It can be tedious to make these distinctions, but I am convinced they are absolutely indispensible for a modern path of noetic science - of which Gnosis is the ancient prototype.
You too are Gods?
"Isn't it written in your Law that you too are Gods." John 10:34.
I think in all of this, I have a question of what you're refering to as "God." Is it the ability to create, destroy and all that jazz, or as the Gnostics said, "immeasurable light, which is pure holy and immaculate...ineffable being perfect in incorruptibility... not in perfection, nor in blessedness, nor in divinity, but far superior... not corporeal nor incorporeal."
Gnostic mythology has many references to our own ability to move beyond the perceived duality of the universe, remembering our true selves, and incredible as it sounds, to essentially become a "Christ" ourselves.
"This is the power the apostles called 'the right and the left.' For this person is no longer a Christian but a Christ." -- Gospel of Philip.
In the Sophia stories, Christ is well within the pleroma, a power above aeons and archons, who like a secret agent, slips under cover and into our manifest world of "sleep," "forgetfulness," and "drunkeness" to reawaken our divine selves. It seems as if he's bringing in more than a type of divine intelligence, but also an energy/light essence (a divine spark) of our true nature - "the bubbling stream" that Thomas drinks from.
Light references abound in both the canonical and other gnostic texts. Those who reached the highest state of gnosis were called "the illuminated" recognizing they "have come from the light, from the place where the light came into being." Like Sophia herself (as seen in the Gospel of Mary Magdelene) each of us can rise above the archons (having defeated the powers of attachment some of them represent), finally making our return home.
Does this make us Gods? I'm not sure, but Mary seems to be above those pesky life-making archons. I'm also not sure the ability to create life makes one a "God." We can already do that with cloaning, but I don't see much divine work going on there. However, it's odd the amount of times Jesus does tell us how we aren't seeing reality correctly ("the timber in our eyes") and that if we could see things as they are, not only will we see God's kingdom spread across the earth, but that we too can move mountains, a pretty impressive statement.
As for these party trick miracles, they don't seem as important as letting go of the archon-like ego, and its attachments and desires, "becoming like children" so that we can return home. But if, as Jesus says, the kingdom's already all around us, it seems that we could very well already be a part of it, divine sparks and all.
Playing God
In my understanding, the Gnostic Christos does not bring divine intelligence (nous) to humanity. There is no passage in the NHL that says that. Nous is endowed in us from the Pleroma, inherent in the cosmic act of emanation or Dreaming. Nor, in my opinion, does Christ/Christos wake up anything in us. I do not recognize that dependence either in a mystical or existential sense. I think what awakens our sense of humanity is our own suffering, the suffering of others over which we have no control, and the inexplicable force of love.
"The divine spark of our true nature" sounds wonderful, but does this language lead deeper into our inherent humanity, the quality we have as a singular species independent of the "gods" who emanated us, or does lead into fiction, expectation, and mystical sentiment?
Closer to the light
Hi John, I just want to say I've really enjoyed your inspiring and articulate thoughts on this subject. But I did want to respond to your following comments:
"The divine spark of our true nature" sounds wonderful, but does this language lead deeper into our inherent humanity, the quality we have as a singular species independent of the "gods" who emanated us, or does lead into fiction, expectation, and mystical sentiment?"
Actually, I just think it leads us closer to the light, something the Gnostics talk an awful lot about, while veering away from some of the distractions out there. And maybe that's what I feel is missing in this wonderful piece you've written - energy/light and it's relationship to consciousness.
The Gnostics are often talking about "the illimuniated," our "brilliant robes of light and color," or in the Hermetic Gnostic texts 7 "spheres of fire and spirit" (sounds like chakras to me) that one must ascend. These texts seem to be hinting very strongly to kundalini awakenings and other energy experiences, which if you've had that divine spark go up the "tree of life" (the spine), it can be very illuminating to one's conscious. Yes, a "divine spark" sounds too wonderful, because it is. Our logical/rational pyches aren't prepared for it,
It's no surprise that the serpent and the eagle/dove are showing up throughout these text - Thomas, Secret John, Hymn of the Pear. Those are not-so-subtle universal symbols of spirit energy (upper chakras) and earth energy (lower chakras), that meet at where else - the heart center (chakra), which Jesus is always talking about. Love becomes his "new commandment." and many yogis think we're moving, as a species, into that Christ-consciousness of love, a heart vibration or energetic frequency that unites the polarities of spirit and matter, showing us the divine spark, the Oneness (beyond just being human) of us all.
Towards a Gnostic Sacred Ecology
John,
Your current writings, both here and in your book "Not In His Image" set forth an urgently needed ancient/present/future mythos that goes directly to the heart of the issues and problems created and experienced by modern man. Problems whose results are being inflicted on the natural world in the most negative of ways. I believe your work to be extremely timely, powerful and relevant.
Would you be able to give a somewhat succinct overview of your work, both in NIHI and your posts here on Reality Sandwich, and how your telling of the Sophia/Gaia story might present a new "Vision-Myth" that would address and perhaps correct our relationship to ourselves and to the planet. I realize this request is a bit simplistic and and naive on my part, given the complexities of the material you are writing about.
Thank you for continuing to "distill the essence"... You, Daniel and the members of Reality Sandwich are doing yeoman's work in helping to bring about much-needed new perspectives and ways of being, as well as working to open the gates for the possibility of mass evolution of consciousness. Keep up the Great Work.
A Future Myth
Just two short comments: First, I prefer to call the part of the Sophia myth that implicates humanity in her "correction" a future myth, rather than a new one. There is nothing new in myth. I have not invented the Sophia narrative. Genuine myth has no human author, unlike messianic fables invented by white men with beards. I transcribe as the Muse allows, according to the parameters of my discipline. My telling of the story is relative to my powers of reception and mythopoetic skill.
Visionary, the Sophia myth certainly is. You know that I suggest the term "the Sophianic vision" to describe the ecofeminism of the Pagan Mysteries. The story is interactive: it is about a living, animating divine power that endows us with the faculties to know what it's doing. The Gnostic spin on imagination (epinoia) is unique in this respect, I believe. The interactive features are set out most clearly in "Or Ever the Earth Was" on metahistory.org.
So, on the second point, I would say that the visionary promise of this future myth, or myth in the making, depends on the vision we bring to it - especially vision derived from non-ordinary experience and entheogenic practice, or psychonautics, if you will. The answer to how the myth will work lies in how we enter and navigate our own visionary experiences.
Divine Spark / Spirit of Life Passage
gospel of thomas
One of my favorite quotes from the gnostic gospels is, loosely translated:
What you bring forth from what is within will save you, what you don't bring forth from within will destroy you.
I've always interpreted this, that the concept of 'saviour' is not an external manifestation, and we have to choose whether or not to utilize all the gifts [tools] which we were born with -- and if we do not nurture them, one will be 'destroyed' psychologically/spiritually etc.. Perhaps, the very force which animates all sentient beings is the numinous material that makes up the multitude of faces of God. Maybe we create and express God from scratch.
'All perception is a gamble' Husserl.
The Con of Divinity
I regard human divinity as one of the more pernicious cons of the ages - or a rather nasty trickster trick, if you prefer. Nasty because the presumed aura of divinity, when cast over the human entity, obscures the true humanity that is there, and so engenders a situation in which a lot of foolishness and atrocity can run loose.
Of course, Gnosticism is not new and unfortunately it has become a spiritual fad and a pretext to indulge in yet another kissy-face makeover of the Judeo-Christian "divine love" scam. What is new about Gnosticism is the way it allows us to review and recapture the past history of our species, especially pre-Christian Paganism in Europe.
Writing Not in His Image, I went out on a limb to suggest that Gnostics were savvy urban shamans heir to a long tradition of pre-Christian, pan-European shamanism, including entheogenic practices, but since the book came out, just a year ago, this thesis looks more and more plausible. And I keep finding confirmation in previous works that I had not seen before writing NIHI. For instance, in A Brief History of Drugs (published in 1996 - highly recommmended, by the way), Antonio Escohotado wrote: "The Eleusinian religion...was probably an ingenious adaptation of older shamanic rites to the new culture emerging in Greece. as a bridge between the natural cults, proper to villages, and the civil cults... This model was to have immense success in all of the Mediterranean basin. and under its shadow would grow many local mysteries..."
Which is a cogent paraphrase of many pages of argument in NIHI. Perhaps the "New Gnosis" would emerge through a similar network of mystery cells.
As for the human divinity con, it has much tormented me but I find in the Gnostic conception of nous, the germ of divine intelligence, a sane corrective to the presumption of divine essence or identity. As far as I know, that corrective does not occur annywhere else in Western or Asian metaphysical discourse.