Written for Dr. R. Glasberg’s GNST500 class.

In his book, Science, Politics and Gnosticism, Eric Voegelin analyzes the origins, effects and pervasiveness of an ancient belief system, Gnosticism. More interesting, however, is how he applies it modern philosophical and political movements. According to Voegelin, we live in an age of science that was only accelerated in the western world by many of the political and philosophical movements we’ve studied in class (Voegelin 5). However, even so, civilization is still required to come to grips with the existence of essentially two dichotomous approaches to political thinking and philosophy that extend as far back as the ancient Greeks: philosophie, as an attempt to establish and uncover a larger transcendent system of effect with which to analyze and understand the world (In a sense what he means by ‘science’) (18) and Gnosticism, a belief system categorized by explaining the disorder of the world through man’s alienation from the supposed glorious world of his origin (9). Science (And I use this term throughout in the sense Voegelin does; in other words, as a belief in an underlying order that is ascertainable through human device) is used to seek the underlying truth of opinions  (doxa), while Gnosticism is essentially doxa that believes the current state of the world is due to man’s flungness (Comparable to Heidegger’s Geworfenheit) and that transcendence of this alienation is only possible through the abolishment of the current order and the establishment of the gnostic’s prescribed future utopia (10). However, as Voegelin notes, the effect of destroying the existing order is not, in fact, the establishment a new and more parsimonious one, but rather, just a creation of further disorder (12). As such, I seek to answer that the problem with critiques of “false consciousness” has mainly to do with the fifth reason, that “the critiques were themselves false (in the sense of inauthentic) representations of the internal and generated addictive and ultimately destructive substitutes for an authentic relationship with the internal world.” I will attempt to explain this using a Voegelinian critique while looking at the modern environmental movement through the work of Robert Heilbroner. In doing so, I hope to demonstrate Voegelin’s argument that “the spiritual disorder of our time, the civilizational crisis which everyone so readily speaks, does not while have to be borne as an inevitable fate; that, on the contrary, everyone possesses the means of overcoming it in his own life.” (22)

But first, some definitions

Since we’re dealing primarily with a discussion of consciousness, an ontological definition of it and related terms is necessary. In short, I will use the term “consciousness” to refer to the sum of a single human cogito, ostensibly divided into what has been called the “Internal” and the “External” in class. To use Voegelin’s terms, these are the spirit (“pneuma” or Internal-facing reality) and soul ( “psyche,” or External-facing reality) respectively (Voegelin 11). As such, the term “Pneumopathogenic” is used to indicate a deep-seated alienation or disturbance in an individual’s soul, or even that of an entire society — in short, a spiritual disconnectedness from the world (101). As beheld by the gnostic man, “through his psyche (“soul”) he belongs to the order, the nomos, of the world; what impels him toward deliverance is the pneuma (“spirit”) (11). The labor of salvation, therefore, entails the dissolution of the worldly constitution of the psyche and at the same time the gathering and freeing of the powers of the pneuma” (11).
As a work of Political Science, Voegelin’s work is concerned with the correction of pnemopathology within society; that is, the re-establishment of spiritual order order by deconstructing doxa through therapeutic analysis (23). This is not to be taken in terms of human laws and regulations—rather, as Voegelin discusses, in trying to allow one to orient their soul towards the more transcendental natural order that Plato and Aristotle sought and thus open it to the good (18). In its primary concern with ontological being, “science” differs from Gnosticism in that the former is more concerned with the alignment of human endeavour with nature and the latter is an impassioned struggle by the Internal/pneuma to transcend the External/psyche (19).  As such, Gnosticism is concerned with the belief that the current system is inherently disorganized and must in some capacity be destroyed or altered to allow a new era — with gnosis, knowledge, being the chief tool by which this transformation is accomplished (11). Agnoia, ignorance, must be eliminated as it is the chief cause of this disorder (11).
With consciousness now defined, we turn to the problem of “false consciousness.” While the gnostic belief is that agnoia is the cause of these false consciousnesses, Voegelin defines it more ontologically. Moreover, all false consciousness seeks to construct a world that is simply not there (12). This is done through a prohibition of questioning. In particular, Voegelin studies Marx, Hegel and Nietzsche to demonstrate gnostic authors who have conducted an extensive “intellectual swindle,” wherein the author intentionally disregards some crucial ontological aspect in order to allow the construction of this false consciousness before then refusing to answer any comments directed toward its ontological basis in that capacity (20). This allows Man to create himself and disconnects him from the transcendent order of being, effectively causing what Voegelin calls the Murder of God (31).

The Murder of God

“How were we able to drink up the sea? What did we do when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns?” [...] Are we not wander through an infinite nothingness? [...] God is dead! God will stay dead!” (Voegelin 61)

So goes Friedrich Nietzsche’s “The Madman,” in which a lunatic in search of God goes to the market to find him. Instead, he finds only atheists, to which he reaches the conclusion that Man has killed God, and must now take his place (62). Voegelin goes into this symbolism quite extensively and the resulting pneumopathy it creates. Starting initially with the gnostic derivation of the Judaic golem legend, we watch how the myth progresses from a cautionary tale about the impossibility and danger of Man becoming God, to one in which it becomes possible, to Nietzsche’s proclamations of God’s death.
According to Voegelin, gnosticism is “parousiastic” (Or, being chiefly concerned with the transformation of the world through action into a utopian paradise) and is defined by its aim of “destroy[ing] the order of being, which is experienced as defective and unjust,” where humanity must use its “creative power to replace [the existing transcendent order] with a perfect and just order.” (53) Regardless of how an order of being is to be understood, however, it remains something not under man’s control; for the new order to be plausible, the “givenness” of the old one must be destroyed (54). In short, Man kills God when he attempts to explain divine work as the work of Man; as Voegelin notes, “It does not suffice [for the gnostic thinker] to replace the old world of God with a new world of Man: the world of God itself must have been a world of Man, and God a work of Man which can therefore be destroyed if it prevents man from reigning over the order of being.” (54)
Thus, in tracing the history of the Golem legend, Voegelin identifies this conflict as that between God and the will to power of magic (57). Initially seen in the Cabbala, the story follows Jeremiah and Ben Sira as they use a magical operation to construct a being similar to the modern notion of a “Frankenstein”; however, as the golem comes to life, it crosses out the first letter of the Hebrew word for “Truth” (“emeth”) printed on its forehead, leaving only “meth,” or “death.” It then dies (57). The legend then changes and progresses to incorporate more magic elements over the centuries, such that the phrasing on the golem’s forehead turning from “God is truth” to “God is dead”; further, while the golem kills itself in the first incarnation of the story, by the 13th century, the legend has changed to allow the golem to continue living after its birth (58). As such, the creation of the golem is a prelude to the death of God, for if Man can achieve the fundamental act of creation which defines God, the latter is unneeded (59).  Thus, by Nietzsche, the legend has become such that Man can not only kill God (i.e., change the order of being); it is his responsibility (64).
As Voegelin notes, the nature of a thing cannot be changed; to alter the nature of a thing is to destroy it (65). Thus, by killing God and becoming “Superman,” Man also kills Man (64). This can result in revolutionary practices in which the agnoic classes are purged; Voegelin gives the example in Marx’s Kritik der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie where Marx details the transference of history from one of religion and theology to one of law and politics (67). The result is a critique, of which “its subject is its enemy, which it seeks not to refute, but to annihilate. [...] It no longer acts as an end in itself, but only as a means. Its essential emotion is indignation; its essential task is denunciation.” (67)  Voegelin’s point with this section is roughly that this death of God results in humans conducting grave atrocities against other humans because those of a particular belief consider themselves elevated and transcending the natural order as a result; the example he gives is of Marxism leading the Stalinist purges (67).

The Public Execution of God: Mass Gnostic Movements

It is to the question of modern mass gnostic movements, however, that Voegelin turns his attention in the second half, his essay entitled “Ersatz Religion.” He conducts an Aristotelian analysis that looks at several philosophical and political movements in order to isolate their gnostic components, with intent of establishing the extent of the effects these intellectual and political movements have on action by the masses. While he tangentially looks at Progressivism, Positivism, Marxism, Psycho-Analysis, Communism, Fascism and National Socialism in his book, for illustrative purposes I will use Robert Heilbroner’s An Insight Into The Human Prospect to discuss the pneumopathy inherent in one of the larger mass movements of our time — that of Environmentalism. This is not to classify any person who recycles as a gnostic thinker or as being pneumopathic, or to overstate the effects of Heilbroner’s work on modern environmental thinking; far from it, I intend rather to demonstrate the gnostic traits which have attached themselves to this broader scientific and political discussion and are thus contributing an undue amount of pneumopathic anxiety to society. Consequently, the goal is the “therapeutic application of reason” to demonstrate that it’s not so much that these global problems are insurmountable, so much as that our obsession with revolutionary belief systems prevents us from intelligently looking at the situation we’re in and ameliorating it in an appropriate fashion.
To begin, Voegelin gives six characteristics of ancient gnostic movements that shape the gnostic attitude. The first is that the gnostic is dissatisfied with his situation (Voegelin 86). This alone doesn’t define it; everyone occasionally despairs about their lot in life. However, this condition is needed for the others (86). In Heilbroner’s work, this becomes apparent in his initial assumption: that modern humanity is skeptical of its ability to survive into the future (Heilbroner 158). He is so convinced of this assumption that he feels no need to provide evidence of it, assuming this inherent pneumopathy afflicts nearly everyone (Heilbroner 12). We will return to this later; for now, suffice to say that anxiety acts as a fundamental characteristic of the modern human in Heilbroner’s work.
The second is a belief that the world is intrinsically poorly organized; that is, that it is inherently wicked and evil (Voegelin 86). Voegelin contrasts this with the view that the order of things is inherently good, just we humans are inadequate and unable to understand and appreciate it fully (87). However, the gnostic thinker is unwilling to accept responsibility for this wickedness; it must be intrinsic to the world (87). In much the same way, Heilbroner paints humanity as doomed, failing radical transformation. The progressive effects of climate change, the then-seemingly perpetual danger of nuclear war, the failure of the middle-class to pass on its values — all of these are seen as factors that lessen the “hope of Man.” (Heilbroner 13) Humanity is perhaps even doomed if we do not face the challenges he indicates in the coming years with radical action; never is it considered that the radical change he argues for would perhaps cause even greater problems down the road, through displacement and unrest by totally upending the existing order of things (Instead of, perhaps, through the more-likely process of gradual multilateral change).
Thirdly, the gnostic thinker believes that salvation from this inherently disordered/wicked/whathaveyounot world is possible (Voegelin 87). This is, in a sense, the motivating rationale for Gnosticism; were this transcendence (“salvation”) not possible, no action would be necessary. In much the same way, while a dire pessimism underlines Heilbroner’s work insomuch that he is hesitant to believe humanity will come together and solve multilateral issues like global warming, he offers several glimpses of hope towards the end of the book. If humanity returns to a more primitive state, it can perhaps avoid annihilation (Heilbroner 158). According to Heilbroner, the progression to the more primitive post-industrial society is humanity’s one salvation from the enormous terrors he has portrayed, which is to say that the path forward to the Third Realm, the post-anxiety society discussed below (163).
Fourth, and how Gnosticism differs from Christianity, its contemporary, is in a belief that this transcendence is possible through a historical reformation of society (Voegelin 87). Christianity believes that this transcendence from the apparent wickedness of the world occurs through grace after death (87), while, to give a gnostic example, Marxism believes that the utopian Socialist worker state will occur through dialectical materialism, or the back and forth of industrial influences dictated by material desires (88). This emphasis on historical progress is one aspect that differentiates it from what Voegelin considers more scientific studies such as Economics, insomuch as the latter seeks to study Capitalism in a neoclassical sense that views it as a result of inherent forces. In this view, Heilbroner argues for a gnostic mentality wherein history is shaped as a result of anxiety; again, this is discussed later on in the section on axiologically and teleologically-comprised gnostic mass movements. In short, Heilbroner composes a tripartite view of history divided into  pre-industrial, contemporary and post-industrial eras (Heilbroner 160). This is as gnostic in conception as Marx’s dialectical materialism or Comte’s view of Positivist progress.  Let’s continue…
Fifthly, to add to the last point, gnostic thinking believes that this historical change is not a natural phenomenon, but rather, must be enacted through human endeavor (Voegelin 87). Neither God nor nature will produce this historical change; it must be done by people (87). Heilbroner, while skeptical of whether it will ever come to pass, believes that the transformation of society into a more balanced post-industrial one will be wrought by either human activity, or our lack thereof (Heilbroner 163).
Sixth and lastly, the prescription for this change is gnosis; knowledge (Voegelin 87). If it is possible to cause a historical change that will result in a more satisfactory change, the gnostic must seek it (88). To do this, knowledge of the historical process is needed. This thus results in the gnostic formulas for self and world salvation and the willingness of the gnostic to come forth as a proliferator of knowledge, or, to use Voegelin’s word, “prophet.” (88) Heilbroner very much acts as this prophet of doom in “The Human Prospect.” Not only does he provide the potential outcomes of this gnostic process of history, he also provides the knowledge of the historical process leading to these outcomes via the text of his book. While I could get into particular examples, a particular section in the “Final Reflections” chapter will have to suffice for the extent of this discussion:
“These are all necessarily prophetic speculations, offered more in the spirit of providing some vision of the future, however misty, than as a set of predictions to be ‘rigorously’ examined.
[...] What we do not know, but we can only hope, is that future man can rediscover the self-renewing vitality of primitive culture without reverting to its levels of ignorance and cruel anxiety. It may be the sad lesson of the future that no civilization is without its pervasive ‘malaise,’ each expressing in its own way the ineradicable fears of the only animal that contemplates its own death, but at least the human activities expressing that malaise need not, as is the case in our time, threaten the continuance of life itself.” (Heilbroner 163-164) In this segment, Heilbroner not only admits to the prophetic nature of his speculations, but also clearly outlines the belief that both Internal and External elements of the human experience may be more fully achieved (Or rather, able to achieve at all) only through a process in which industrial societies are abolished and primitive post-industrial ones are achieved.

Axiological, Teleological, or Both? : Initial compositions of gnostic symbolism.

Having defined the chief characteristics of the gnostic attitude, Voegelin then turns to gnostic symbolism. He creates two groupings of symbolism, first using Ernst Troeltsch’s definitions of teleological and axiological components of the Christian idea of perfection to discuss three variations in symbolic theme gnostic movements encounter (Voegelin 89). “Teleological” is defined as being “related to the historical progress towards a goal,” while “Axiological” is “related to the state of the highest value, i.e., perfection.” (89) Continuing the discussion of Heilbroner above, I have now defined some of the characteristics of the gnostic attitude inherent in Heilbroner’s work. In the following discussion of gnostic symbolism, I hope to more firmly place The Human Prospect in the context of gnostic thinking.
The first group of symbolic derivations Voegelin talks about is that in which the teleological components are “immanentized,” or “made to appear as immanent.” (89) These gnostic symbols are chiefly concerned with the process through which the gnostic paradise will be brought about (90). He gives the example of Progressivism as one type of thinking that utilizes this symbolism, arguing that Kant’s idea of the historical perfecting of Man into a rational cosmological entity and Condorcet’s idea of progressive intellectuals accelerating humanity towards a perfect state demonstrate this (90). Heilbroner demonstrates this through his beliefs in how humanity will save itself — in the establishment of the post-industrial authoritarian state (Heilbroner 161). While he doesn’t explicitly establish a chronology for this process, all of the crises that he illustrates serve as a roadmap to either our salvation or damnation, thus immanentizing the teleological component.
The second, the axiological, characterized by those such as More, are concerned with creating symbolism related to the ideal state of the world (Voegelin 90). These usually demonstrate the negation of some particular problem with the world, with Hesiod’s “poverty, sickness, death, the necessity for work and sexual problems” being cited as the usual examples (91). Movements that use Axiologically-driven symbols often create incomplete notions of perfection that Voegelin refers to as ideals, with others creating entire pictures of utopian societies (91). Often, however, as Voegelin notes, they usually are unaware of the means to bring this society about (91). While Heilbroner does not necessarily portray grand utopias (Neither the decline of Man nor the post-industrial authoritarian regime sound very appealing), he instead builds an “ideal” of a post-anxiety world (Heilbroner 162). While the living conditions in either may be significantly worse than what we experience today, the one benefit will be that the teleological anxieties Heilbroner identifies will have been accomplished in some form or another—whether through their resolution by humanity or the dissolution of humanity itself, and thus the particular existential angst we feel may no longer be there.
The last category Voegelin talks about is what he calls “activist mysticism,” where both components, the teleological and the axiological, are immanentized together (Voegelin 91). The examples given are Comte’s Positivism and Marx’s Communism (92). In both, the formulation of the ideal society is present (An industrial societies comprised of managers and positivists or a free, classless society respectively) as is the means to bring this condition about (transformation into positivist man and communist superman, respectively) (91). While the above evidence is sufficient by its sum to clearly identify Heilbroner’s work as “activist mysticism” in the same capacity as Marx’s, it is moreover Heilbroner’s thesis which asserts this by asking “Is there hope for Man?” (Heilbroner 11)
Modern Man, as defined by Heilbroner, is beleaguered by a perpetual anxiety as to his future. According to Heilbroner, this anxiety is completely warranted, as a host of environmental and political problems will cause a complete transformation of society into a number of centrally-managed, authoritarian post-industrial ones of need (After the prerequisite death, destruction and mayhem, of course), failing the massive preemptive transformation outlined in his book (Heilbroner 24). The proof of his thesis? “I shall not defend [my proposition] by citing bits of evidence from books, articles, and the like. … I shall simply start by assuming the reader shares with me an awareness of an oppressive anticipation of the future.” (Heilbroner 12)
In doing this, Heilbroner does two things. Not only does he immanentize both the axiological and teleological components of the gnostic belief as per the above, but Heilbroner also starts the construction of an intellectual swindle while simultaneously laying down the framework for his own prohibition of questioning. In saying, “I assume the reader shares with me an awareness,” he tacitly assumes the majority of readers are apprehensive about the future, confirming the teleological urgency of his thesis while simultaneously painting those still questioning it as “a few perverse minds,” (Heilbroner 165) who must thus be disregarded so that the plan to a more ideal society can be advanced and the better of the two fates may be achieved (165).
Voegelin then talks about a second group of symbols that run through all gnostic movements. The first is that of the Third Realm; in this, history is divided into three phases: the ancient past of knowing, the contemporary present and the utopian future—the Third Realm (Voegelin 94). This can be seen in the humanist division of history into ancient, medieval and modern, Turgot and Comte’s Theological/Metaphysical/Positive Science, Hegel’s division via freedom (despotic antiquity, aristocratic  semi-freedom and modern total freedom), Marx and Engel’s communist phases (primitive communism, bourgeois class and then classless), and Schelling’s Petrine, Pauline and Johannine phases of perfect Christianity (93). Heilbroner defines this through his discussion of short and long-term issues, such that human history is subjugated to threats. In the present or Second Realm, the then-ominous Cold War and the proliferation of nuclear weapons were his greatest concern, followed by “The ubiquitous use of drugs, the extreme sexual relaxation, the defiantly unconventional modes of dress, [and] the unprecedented phenomenon of ‘dropping out,’ especially among the children of the most successful classes.” (Heilbroner 13)  The Second Realm also includes the long-term threats such as climate change, which he goes on to discuss more fully in the second chapter (47). As such, the First Realm, while not explicitly invoked, is constructed through the ideal of the pre-industrial (i.e., pre-anxiety) society, which then becomes translated into the Third Realm of the post-industrial (i.e., post-anxiety) society.  While he does not ever construct a true “utopian” society in his book, Heilbroner’s axiologically immanentized Third Realm consists of a world where we have either succumbed to or triumphed against the threats presented in his book, and in doing so, have developed a more natural equilibrium with the planet (161).
The second is the appearance of a leader who will help the people to the third age (Voegelin 95). This originated with Joachim and was later adopted by other people (95). More recently, however, this has appeared less in the form of a single individual and more in the more modern conception of the “superman.” (96) Both Nietzsche and Marx are given as being primary examples of where this thought began (96). Originating in Goethe’s Faust, it is also seen in the works of Condorcet and Comete (96). Instead of in older sectarian gnostic movements where the leader was one who had taken in the substance of God and thus transformed themselves, these more secular comparisons involve man realizing that God is the projection of the human soul into the “beyond” and dispelling that notion so that he or she is able to reincorporate this divine substance into oneself and thus become a superman able exist outside of institutional bonds and obligations (96). In a sense, gnosis acts as an enabler to achieve itself via the Murder of God described above. In the work of Heilbroner, this is seen in the post-industrial (“Atlantian”) Man, an individual part of a transcendent collective mass who is aware of the issues of our times and working to change them. Agnoic (Ignorent, pre-transcendence; “Promethian” ) Man is defined as pneumopathic, apprehensive and angry at the future, unwilling to change in an effort to “let the drama proceed to its finale, let mankind suffer the end it deserves.” (Heilbroner 164) In constructing these two archetypes (And thus my naming of them), Heilbroner uses the Greek myths of Prometheus and Atlas to define the “spirits of the ages: the former, in arguing that Man’s ambition to “steal the fire from the heavens,” the latter in creating a shared sense of global responsibility and action (164). Interestingly, in doing this, Heilbroner continues the gnostic Murder of God discussed by Voegelin in the first part of the book in exactly the same way Marx and Hegel did. By reducing the myth of Prometheus to one of a revolt against God, the original meaning of the text, wherein Prometheus is declared mad by Hermes for revolting against the transcendent order, is lost (Voegelin 36). Instead, one emerges in which Man is told to reject the gifts of Zeus through gnosis (36). While Heilbroner actually uses this in a negative capacity to denote those with agnoia, the Atlantian Man is not much different; moreover, Promethian Man is aware of the issues plaguing our time but is ignorant of how to work to fix them, while Atlantian Man is aware of the issues and is also in possession of the gnosis required to get there (Heilbroner 164).
Third is the symbol of the prophet, the one who creates the gnosis (Voegelin 97). In this sense, as gnosis becomes more modern, the intellectual replaces the prophet, the one with the knowledge of the path to salvation who must create awareness so that the leader may emerge (97). That said, the leader and the prophet can often be inseperable, as Voegelin argues with Comte, and Marx to a lesser extent (98). In writing and publishing The Human Prospect, — despite his claims to the contrary — Heilbroner is acting in this capacity. The entirely speculative nature of the book seems to confirm this. By acting as this supposed-conduit of public perception as he does with his thesis, Heilbroner accepts his role as the harbinger of doom.
The last prevalent symbol in gnostic thinking is the free community of autonomous men in the Third Realm (98). Here Voegelin gives the example of the Joachim’s autonomous community of monks and Marx’s classless worker’s society, though he argues that Democracy also uses this symbolism somewhat (99). Although neither of Heilbroner’s futures are particularly appetizing, both in some capacity result from the transformation to the biologically-neutral post-industrial society. While Heilbroner asserts that either powerful, authoritarian nation states or anarchy will emerge as a result of this process (160), both result in a release of the gnostic reader from the confines of the anxiety plaguing contemporary society.

Conclusion: A Flight To Safety or From Reason?

Above I have used the criteria specified in Voegelin’s Science, Politics and Gnosticism to demonstrate the gnostic tradition inherent in the work of Robert Heilbroner. In doing so, I have also elucidated Voegelin’s critique of many of the philosophers we’ve taken in this class. I once again return to my thesis, in which I talk about the creation of false consciousness and the issues inherent in the critiques thereof.
This year, we have explored many modern critiques of what we have defined as “false consciousness,” or the lack of authenticity felt in the world by many people. In about 5,000 words, I have essentially argued that there are two ways to look at the world: either that there’s an inherent order that one may study and align oneself with, or one may ignore this inherent order and create a new humanistic one. In a sense, Voegelin is arguing that so long as we expect deliverance, we will continue overreacting instead of finding intelligent, measured alternatives wrought through collaboration and multi-level discussion.
If globalization has caused any particular anxiety in the human condition (At least in North America), it is towards how we perceive our impact on the environment. These concerns are not unfounded; the 20th century is littered with incidents when the smartest people in the most developed countries on Earth have caused enormous damage due either to negligence or a lack of awareness of the effects of technology on the biosphere. As scientists continue to become progressively more concerned about the impact of Carbon Dioxide gas on the atmosphere, the necessity for action becomes increasingly more apparent. Yet, efforts so far have not been radical: existing national governments have been a driving force in decreasing industrial and commercial emissions through broad legislative action, and more and more individuals are defying Heilbroner’s pessimistic view of human action to reduce their consumption on a personal level. To be sure, Heilbroner’s Promethian Man does in some capacity exist; however, these individuals in the broader, sleeping public will only be awakened to these issues through a sensitive, level-headed discourse that does not make them appear as criminals merely by enjoying a better quality of life than their parents. We need intelligent, reasoned measures that will solve these issues — not induce panic. While perhaps a more thorough awareness of the belief system many of these critiques (and even much of the false consciousness itself) are based in may not provide an adequate path forward to overcoming these issues, at the very least we can reduce some of the pneumopathy paralyzing collective action towards doing so.
Is the modern Environmentalism movement a gnostic one? This is perhaps one of the more important questions of our time; on one hand, we are presented with a Pascal’s Gamble-style scenario wherein we are presented not only with a “black hole” possibility that seems utterly inevitable, but on the other, we are expecting massive social change in order to prevent this supposed environmental apocalypse. While there is a significant consensus amongst environmental scientists that climate change is being accelerated by human carbon dioxide emissions, where there is far less consensus is in how these emissions can be reduced. It is to this latter question which I direct this analysis of Gnosticism, insomuch that empirical climatological research is an inherently scientific endeavour; it is only in the interpretation of these results (and the remedy for action) that the gnostic element rises. Nowhere is reasoned and intelligent debate more needed than with regards to this most grave of questions, which threatens to greatly reorganize society unless we respond swiftly, potentially causing our own massive reorganization in the process. Yet at the same time, the sheer weight and enormity of this task is perhaps one of the most paralyzing and stultifying aspects of the postmodern existence; perhaps much of our hesitation to pursuing action with regards to climate change is due to the perception that we are having an inherently gnostic worldview forced upon us, whether valid or not.

Works Cited:

Heilbroner, Robert L.. An Inquiry Into The Human Prospect. 3rd. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1980. Print.
Voegelin, Eric. Science, Politics & Gnosticism. 2nd. Henry Regnery Company, 1968. Print.