Great post on fantastic planet about the question of literal truth vs metaphorical meaning vs internal psychological perception of spiritual signs, messages, and entities.

He starts off by pointing out that a common question people ask about gnostics is whether they "really" believe entities like the Demiurge and archons exist, or are these just considered metaphors to help us conceptualize the world?

Although it's all well and good to say "oh, he's just a mythological symbol," or "oh, well, you don't *have* to believe in the literal Demiurge to be a Gnostic," doing so discounts one of the more appealing mythological aspects of Gnosticism from the get-go. If someone is interested in Gnosticism but doesn't want anything to do with the Demiurge or the Archons, they might have a difficult time of it, because discussing Gnosticism but avoiding these concepts would be like discussing gardening without using the word "water." Sure, it's possible, but what a huge pain in the ass!

He goes on to suggest that whether something is "real" or not in an external sense is less relevant than what we do with it.

The healthiest approach may be the shamanic, or Jungian Gnostic approach, which are, at their heart, almost Taoist. ...

For instance, suppose, while taking communion, that one senses the presence of the Holy Spirit. There are a few approaches to this experience that might help illustrate what I mean. The spiritual person might accept, fully and completely, that the Holy Spirit exists as an external entity and is descending from the skies into the wafer. The "rational" person might consider the experience as a psychological state resulting from the atmosphere of ritual. Which is correct? Who cares? What's it *MEAN*? Whether it was ACTUALLY the Holy Spirit or whether it was an internal psychological state is the wrong question! The correct question is: what are you going to do about it?

One sees a ghost in a hallway. Is it REALLY a ghost? Or, is it a trick of the light? Who cares? What are you going to do about it? How is it going to affect you directly? Do you believe it’s a physical ghost? Great! So how does that affect you? Do you believe it was a trick of the light? Fantastic! So what?

You're sick, and a shaman heals you. Did he contact spirits who healed you? Or, did the placebo effect kick in and create a psychological state in which your body could heal itself? Either way, so what?

I like this approach. For example, it makes immediate sense in the context of examining my dreams. Whether they were communicated by entities from outside my mind (a hypothesis I still entertain as possible), or the result of subconscious desires as Linknoid suggested, the result for me ends up being pretty much the same: I need to listen to these messages and take them seriously for my own good!

Ditto for the presence of spirit I "sensed" at the church's meditation room. If all it's doing is "turning on" some part of the nerve center in my brain, I need to spend time there so I can hone that area. If, OTOH, it's the Spirit of Sophia speaking to me, I need to hear that voice so I can absorb Her wisdom. Call it what you want, but the effect ends up being the same.