Revelatory Commentary & Conclusion

As Douglas Lockhart says in his book Jesus the Heretic, “Today, what further complicates issues is that subjective, introspective behavior is not held in any great regard. Instead, it is known to produce all sorts of aberrations. But such behavior can produce startling results if one is disciplined.” He goes on to discuss how Socrates too detested second-hand truth—it was better to self-destruct in dialectical argument. He did not accept someone else’s truth as his own, though “a truth that was in some sense universal, grounded in divine truth itself” is worth reviewing.

I would agree with Lockhart’s statement: “In the [later Sethian] texts, earlier experiences of a psycho-spiritual nature are literalized; in the early texts, these same experiences are more accessible.”

Lockhart is referring to the later pseudo-Neoplatonic works such as Allogenes,  ZostrianosThe Three Steles of SethMarsanès, and others. Do I feel my Refinement exercise would qualify as a subjective experience that I’m attempting to objectivize?  I do not believe so as I’m not going off into some far off land and reporting my findings, but rather I’m applying my revelations to the very Apocryphon itself. This exercise has allowed me to live the mythology in order to better understand what is meant at its very core. I’d call this exercise Epinoia-in-Action.