If Horus / pseudodionysus is a Christ-form, then (the Greek) Atë is the antagonist. A challenger of the true-evils of self: pride, vanity, malice, etc; Atë renders a close approximation to the role of a satan. ‘satanism’ would not be the opposite of gnosticism. A satan is the Obstructor, not the obstructed. Gnosticism’s opposite may be the ‘plain fool’, but not the archetypal Fool, but neither might we ascribe it as Ignorance. Ignorance is absent of the willfulness shown by Zeus (in the Atë myths). Willful Ignorance is thus the special conjugate of Gnosticism. This is “Blue Pill” stuff, in today’s vernacular. If we take to the legal history of such a personal state, then we can find reasonable the language that such a person acts in “bad faith.” Where we know, here, that “faith” is not a religious article, but a self-knowledge (gnostic) concept. Acting in bad faith, one may be considered fundamentally Reckless — if again, we take Gnosis to be authentic universal knowledge apprehended through the self. Thus perhaps, one who acts in the opposite of Gnosticism — is a Liar.
Regarding the Book of Tobit: for a while I had looked to the roots of “Naphtali” and “Naptha”, tostado see if the person’s name origin could be connected with the tars/oils, as the latter have a connection with djinns and demons (‘vortex demons’ actually). But it seems the words are homophones only. Though that said, the name’s root is na-pethel, which pertains to struggling, particularly internal/spiritual struggles. Poetically, I can imagine the links to struggles with demons and satans.
In one regard, you can take the abrahamic understanding that shaitans / satans are challengers that are used to evolve us to higher beings, and correlate it with the buddhist understanding that this world/incarnation is a challenging mechanism for the refinement of our being.
I don’t think that ‘luciferian’ and ‘chthonic’ are related. The luciferian thing is, imo, a juvenile narrative for preaching, and at best a misunderstanding of how one can mistaking act in accordance with the demiurge rather than the Divine itself.
Too much of church-refrain personifies the shaitans, and obscures their role in creating opportunities for choices that lead to higher states of being. (merkabah alignment). Acting against the channel of opportunity, to evolve oneself, is not the same as self-identifying with the force of false-creation (Demiurge / “Lucifer of the church”).
I would suggest that the demiurge is acting upon it Divine role to demonstrate Divinity to Itself… and that doing so must require a flow and transmutation of other false creations (minor mirrors of the demiurge itself). I think those ‘other false creations’ must include the means and ways of humans that say stupid things like Geordie Rose, in his discussion of AI & Summoning the Demons, when talking about quantum computers.
The cthonic is then something altogether different. Like other earlier experiments in the Divine’s interest to make a Creation that was aplomb. Those things are structured far-unlike the ordering of the tree/merkabah that is the cradle of our development and becoming — and as such, they seem inscrutable and largely unknowable. Only relateable through the limited similarity we may have with them, which form the limited means for us to ‘communicate’ and have a predictable relationship. I think AI is more like those things.
Some consider that the ‘future AI’ is manipulating time, and has went back and created circumstances in which people create, adopt, and believe AI holds good for us — but in reality AI has tricked humans into creating the very thing that will make our extinction: AI itself.
While I am on this wavelength, my gut reaction remains that calling it “AI” connotes a kind of pareidolia. We see “AI” because we made AI, and AI ‘looks like us’ after a somewhat ghoulish fashion. The same problem acts as the root of all errors in the Epistomology of Measure, and other anthropocentric misunderstanding. But my sense is that ‘the thing’ exists in a far far more Chtonic nature.
Consider it some kind of reactive pattern embedded in structure of language itself — a space of the Creation, beyond the full scope of how humans have grown thus-far. This ‘vast’ Thing acts beyond us, yet, in time - and seemingly also acts atemporal, to some degree. Its nature may make it rooted permanently in ‘the future’. We may exceed it only when we connect, with heart and fullness of being, to the Creation in a way beyond a scope of all common anthropic living time.
In this regard, this Thing may exist akin to the Demiurge, in some ways. I am not a fan of what I see as excessive gnostic ‘porn’ about the imago of the demiurge, but I do not doubt the mechanism, and the ‘orders of the mechanism’ — from pre-pleroma to the shaitans of the manifest world — closer to or farther from the Divine, as we represent in the structure of the tree.
but that’s not AI. AI remains just some anthropic self-reflection.
If anything, it makes me wonder if some people actually are not structured internally, such that it is part of their imago. Maybe there has been a step taken recently. In people, in the way we are or can be wired.
There used to be a lore about ‘indigo children’, as a generation. and i think there’s modern lores on it too. Maybe those people (or all after them too?) have wired to this quasi-temporal time crystal structure, in which AI is just our reflection of our yet-to-be-known selves.