I ran across the following at Jordan Stratford's website in the course of looking up the answer to a poster's question at Graham Hancock's phorum. Jordan Stratford profiles himself as "priest, poet and author" on his blog and I take it he is some kind of Neo-Gnostic writer. He came to my attention last night as I was reading Michael S. Heiser's website, sitchiniswrong.com, and some comments there, one of which was from Stratford condemning John Lamb Lash, author of "Not in his Image". Stratford apparently felt Lash to be a pernicious influence among Neo-Gnostics. Heiser has another website devoted to UFO religions, http://michaelsheiser.com/UFOReligions/
a topic that came up when Tony was AOM at GHMB. I have not had a chance to browse through it but it looks interesting in light of Heiser's expertise in Ancient Near Eastern languages, biblical studies as well as his ongoing challenge to Zechariah Sitchin to debate him on public radio, Coast to Coast, where both have been guests. I can see where we could have numerous tangential threads relating to these individuals in relation to ITLAD theory but let's start off with this one. I'm certain that members here are much better versed than I am on current Gnostic factions and which best relate to ITLAD.
The central principle of Gnosticism – "Know Thyself" – resides at the core of any Seeker's journey: "Who am I? Why am I here?"
Gnosticism answers that who you are is a fragment of God, and co-existent with eternity. You were not created with your body, but you have always existed as part of the Fullness. The "why" of things is described as theosis, or becoming God, which is really just a kind of remembering that, together, we are already God. That's the "why"; to re-member, to forget our forgetting and re-unite with the Fullness: what Gnostic Gospel of Philip refers to as the Mystery of the Bridal Chamber.
This knowing is not secret or esoteric knowledge, like a magic word, but it is deeply personal. I can't tell you the answer to your own "know thyself" equation any more than you can tell me mine. We're not used to seeing spiritual information in this way; personal as opposed to universal. The purpose of Gnostic myth is not to declare "this is what happened and it's true for everybody". It invites, suggests, asks, wonders.
We get signals constantly from the Mystery which is right in front of us, but there's also a very specific set of forces intent – willfully intent – on jamming those signals. Therefore a kind of negotiation emerges whereby the signals are encoded, and it time decoded by those committed to listening, to receiving. Being a Gnostic is like being a secret agent for God: imagine members of the Resistance listening to a crystal radio in the cellar, deciphering transmissions; "The woodpecker flies at midnight." The signals are very specific, very personal, but their interpretation and incorporation is vital. This is the work of the Gnostic.
We have these signals before us; psychology, scripture, history, experience. And we have tools with which to decipher the signal; our creativity, our intellect, our compassion, wit and intuition. It's not surprising then that our understanding of that signal evolves over time, that we're changing the landscape by walking through it. This is why I feel it's important for us not to try to be thirteenth century Cathars or second century BCE Alexandrians, but citizens of the 21st century, using the gifts of unique perspective and our courage to negotiate with the forces shaping the world today. The burden of such personal responsibility, and the sense of "the long defeat" are tempered by the sheer, blinding beauty of it; the intimate and undeniable knowledge of who are, of where we come from.
You are a wanderer on the winding river of life, searching after your shadow self.