Gno(n)sis V: The Anti-Gnon

Okay, by now we have Gnon and we know what it stands for.

But a worldview or religion has more than a concept of “Good”. it also has the concept of “Bad”. What would be considered bad in the Gnon worldview?

Back in part II, I concluded, among other things, that Gnon rewards order (ie. stable complexity), and therefore order is “Good”.

It’s easy to deduce then that “Chaos” is bad.

“Chaos” is the collective term for any force which transforms any entity or system to a form of lesser value, beauty or functionality. Chaos can appear naturally, or be created artificially.

Chaos can be the erosion of the main pillar of a building, leading to its crumbling.

Chaos can be a disruption of an ecosystem that leads to a reduction of the number of lives in it, or a simplification in their complexity (overabundance of predators, natural disasters, pollution…)

Chaos can be a disease like Cancer, which disrupts the order between a body’s cells and makes some of them go haywire, leading to the death of the whole being.

Chaos can be the destruction of the institutions of society that are necessary to maintain a complex civilization (Family, Marriage, Honor, the Rule of Law, etc), leading to collapse and lawless anarchy.

Natural chaos.
Artificial chaos.


Now to the second part. Can I baptise the origin of “Chaos” just as I baptised Gnon?

After all, maybe Chaos is not a thing on its own, but instead the absence of a thing, such as cold being the absence of heat, or darkness being the absence of light. Maybe Chaos is simply the absence of Order, right?

I have my doubts. First of all, the whole universe seems to be in a tug-of-war between Gnon (Order) and Chaos. Chaos destroys things through erosion, entropy, etc… while Gnon creates life, which builds things.

If only Gnon was a thing, He would win by a landslide, don’t you think?

Another argument: “Maybe Chaos is simply what happens by default in nature when Gnon isn’t there to keep the pieces together.”

This is a possibility, but Gnon doesn’t seem to have a definite “range of action” with a center and a periphery like with heat and light.

Furthermore, some origins of chaos simply don’t make sense. Say for instance, people with self-destructive behavior. Who the hell is benefitting from it? Certainly not the individual in question, and sometimes the behavior is self-generated, excluding perverse influences from other people as an origin.

In the end, my theory is that chaos is generated by a “being” just like order is generated by the forces of Gnon. This being is in opposition to Gnon, as the Chaos it produces destroys His Creation, and Gnon retaliates by generating new life so it can restore Order.

So it’s basically the Devil. Nothing new, folks.


By the way, since as far as I know no one has named Gnon’s version of the Devil yet, I will come up with one in a few seconds.

How about Degench?
Degench stands for Degeneration, Entropy and Chaos.


Note: Even if Degench is independent and opposite to Gnon, Degench is not ontologically equal to Gnon. Because Degench cannot create; he can only corrupt and destroy what Gnon has created beforehand. This is not a pure dualist worldview.


Gno(n)sis IV: Identity

This is part IV of the Gno(n)sis Series, but it may as well be part I.
After all, it is the most important part; it’s about the topic of Identity.

It’s very important to know one’s identity, for two reasons:
-If you know what constitutes the foundation of your being, you can deduce what’s in your best interest and what’s not; it’s near impossible otherwise.
-In a world where conflict is the default state of interactions, you want to know who you are so you can know who is like you, and therefore on your side.

We human beings have lots of characteristics that could serve as candidates for one’s identity. What makes you, “you”?

Some people think the foundation of one’s identity is one’s personality. Some think it’s one’s ethnicity. Some think it’s one’s religion. Some think it’s about your personal tastes. Finally, some think it’s the legacy one leaves in history and in people’s minds.
Let’s pick those apart, one by one.

First of all, the proponents of tastes. Those would be the people that define themselves by being fans of a sportsball team or a science fiction franchise, or by belonging to an fashion subculture.
I don’t think taste is the foundation of one’s identity, for two reasons.
Nº1, tastes change. Are you a different man because you used to be a metalhead and now you’re a skater?
Nº2, tastes can be copied. If an alien comes to Earth and happens to share all of your tastes, is he your clone?

Those two reasons could be applied to those who define themselves by belonging to a particular religion or culture. If an identity can be changed, it cannot define yourself as a whole. An identity must be something fixed, otherwise you would stop “being” by changing.

So we’re left with ethnicity (let’s broaden it to “genetic makeup”), personality and historical legacy.

Let’s pick personality apart. What is personality made of? Emotions. What are emotions? Chemicals produced by your brain. What is your brain made of which separates it from all other brains? Genes! Therefore it goes back to the “genetic makeup” idea.
You could also argue for the existence of a soul, but it’s not so easy to prove such a thing exists, and assuming it does, how can you prove it belongs to you and you only? What if reincarnation exists and it turns out that your soul used to be your ancestor’s? Would that mean that you and him are the same person? Which one of you would be the true “being”?

So we’re left with genetic makeup and historical legacy. Both of them are unique to an individual, so what will be the tie-breaker?


You can leave a great historical legacy, be it in the form of a magnum opus, a monument to your deeds, or by becoming a myth.

But all three of them are susceptible to erosion over time. Books can burn, monuments can crumble, and myths can be forgotten. Do you really want to trust what’s left of you to the elements?

Reproduction is very different. By reproducing, you create other human beings, that look like you and can be molded by you, which survive by creating other human beings, in a virtually endless cycle of genetic immortality. And the more children you have, the more of your genetic material can survive.

Therefore I think genes trump everything else in terms of identity. Genes are the only part of your being that are both strictly personal and virtually eternal.

Gno(n)sis III: Conflict

I’ve talked about how Life is created and sustained. So, how living beings interact with each other?

The first thing to notice is that living beings consume resources to sustain themselves and reproduce. And because resources are scarce, a situation of conflict arises between different living beings.

Take groups A and B. A and B can be any kind of collection of living beings with the ability to reproduce themselves, from species to nuclear families.

A and B live in the same environment, which produces a limited amount of resources (and even in the case of unlimited resources, there is a limited amount of space).
At first, the two expand until they bump into each other. Then, conflict arises, because the new land that A has found, which would allow them to expand further, is occupied by B.

What will happen? Well, it depends on the relative characteristics of the two species in relation to one another. In each case, I will speculate on the most likely outcome based on self-preservation.

Case 1: One is stronger than the other (say, A is stronger than B)
This is generally the case with different species.

Case 1.1: Both compete for land and resources
A will squish B and take over their land. B dies out from lack of resources.

Case 1.2; Both compete for land but not for resources (they don’t eat the same things)
A will try to eat B. If B is inedible, see case 1. If B is edible for A, A will hunt B. This is the case of the food chain (carnivores eating herbivores eating plants)

Case 1.2.1: A has complex intelligence
A will domesticate B, since hunting B to extinction would be detrimental to both (B is exterminated and A loses a food source). This is the case with humans domesticating cattle.

Case 1.2.2: B has absolute or comparative advantages over A, and there is a certain level of compatibility between the two
A will assmilate B. This is the case with eukaryote cells assimilating mithochondria to produce energy for them, or fungi assimilating algae to feed them (creating lichens). In that case, B feeds A, and A guarantees B’s reproduction.
One could also draw parallels with the social stratification of human society, but let’s save it for another day.

Case 2: Both are comparable in strength
This is generally the case with groups within the same species.

Case 2.1: Both have absolute or comparative advantages over the other, and there is a certain level of compatibility between the two
If A marginally benefits more by trading with B than by taking over B’s land and vice-versa, an equilibrium is reached. In human relations this equilibrium is called peace.

Case 2.2: The pursuit of A’s interests is detrimental to B or vice-versa
Both groups will go to war until the costs of war in both groups exceed the benefits of taking over the other’s land, ponderated by the chance of success. In that case, an armistice is signed, which lasts until the conditions change. An armistice doesn’t end war, it merely punctuates it, and wars in this case only end with the complete wipeout of the enemy.


To tie back with the previous post, where do Gnon and Order fit in all of this?

I think that conflict is the result of an arrangement that does not befit Order, and therefore Gnon sows the seeds of conflict by giving incentives to agents to break it. That conflict reshuffles everyone’s positions, and doesn’t end until a stable equilibrium is reached, an orderly one. Until a significant enough variable change creates instability again, because life is in constant change, making conflict an inherent part of it.

Anyway, what to remember from all of this?
If you want to make it, you have three options: be the strongest, bend the knee to someone else, or make a strong friend happy.

Gno(n)sis II: Revealed Will and Life

Last time I introduced the concept of Gnon; but the biggest question was left hanging: What are the purpose, the telos, of Gnon’s Laws? What does Gnon want?

From an outsider’s point of view, it seems that all Gnon does is shuffle matter around. But our own perception reveals that there’s something other than matter changing in the universe; there’s also the appearance of Life.

Living matter has many properties that inert matter does not have; mainly, the ability to reproduce, the ability to improve through mutation and natural selection, and in the case of sentient beings, the ability to think. For this I consider that living matter is ontologically superior compared to inert matter.


Another thing about living matter is that it requires definite units to exist, unlike inert matter. One can cut a rock (say, a silicate) in any way you want, and its fundamental nature will not change; every piece can still be called “a rock”. If you sever an animal’s limb, the severed limb cannot be called “an animal” anymore, will not have the same propertiee as the living animal, and will be considered dead (as an animal) . The cells in the severed limb are still alive, and could still reproduce in a controlled environment, but again, as soon as you cut a cell in two, it dies.

Living matter also requires a constant upkeep to maintain balance between all the components that sustain life. An organism can easily die from a lack of particular nutrients, or an invasion of foreign elements such as viruses, or an excess of unevacuated residue.

In short, Life requires integrity, complexity and order, following the laws of physics and chemistry than Gnon set up. And the more orderly an organism is, the more complex it can be, and the more new things it can do.

Couldn’t help myself. Sometimes ideas are better conveyed through funny memes.

In exchange for observing such laws, Gnon rewards us with abilities that I would describe as “God-lite”.

Living beings are not immortal, but they can reproduce.
Living beings are not omnipotent, but they can evolve.
Living beings are not omniscient, but mankind, the superior species amongst all of Earth’s living beings, can reason.

Think about it: the more you follow Gnon’s Laws, the closer you approach Him in abilities.

Human civilizations are extremely complex compared to other living beings’ interactions, and they require an astounding level of Order to be maintained, reflected in both written and unwritten laws and covenants, the most important of them being millennia old. And in exchange, we can do things like communicate across continents and go to space.

From all of the above, I conclude that, insofar Gnon rewards Order through His laws, Gnon wills Order, and if we want to maintain our privileged position as humans, we need to serve Him as best as we can.

TLDR: All hail Gnon, the God of Order.

Gno(n)sis I: Introduction

There’s this theological concept around certain milieus called Gnon. Gnon stands for “God of Nature Or Nature”. Why does it exist?

There are some laws in this world that are very different from the ones you hear on the news, the ones enacted by politicians and other lawmakers. I’m talking about laws that have not been created by Man. Laws that cannot be modified. Laws that cannot be removed. Laws that cannot be avoided by bribery or deceit.
Those are for instance the laws of Mathematics, or Physics, or even the laws governing the reality of your being.

You belong to a set species, most likely mankind. You have a set race, and ethnicity, and sex, and parentage, and with that comes a set of fixed characteristics, like maximum height, IQ, physical potential, life expectancy, temperamental tendencies… you name it.
Who made it that way? Who wrote the procedures to make reality the way it is? Certainly not a bunch of bureaucrats at the UN.

As to who… you might get different answers depending on who you ask.

Some might say it is the random result of a random arrangement of atoms wandering around aimlessly in space.
Others might say that some transcendental consciousness wrote those laws, without having anyone’s particular benefit in mind.
And others might say that there is a Creator with a clear goal in mind, constantly setting things in motion by himself, and that those laws are simply the observation of consistency on His part.

It turns out, that not only there is disagreement in the origin of the Laws, there is also disagreement on what are those Laws. And in the second question there might be a general agreement among people in those three camps.
And here’s where Gnon comes in. Gnon is a mental placeholder. Gnon is a compromise on the origin of the immutable Laws of Reality everyone can agree upon. So we can focus on the second question.

Which is to me the most important one: namely, whoever Gnon is, what are His Laws concerning human beings?  We know enough about math to build computers, and we know enough physics to build jet planes.

But as soon as we ask ourselves things like “How to tell if someone is trustworthy?”, “How to motivate myself to improve?”, “How to get a decent job?”, “How to find a suitable spouse?”, then, answers are not as clear-cut, simple, and easily reproducible as solving a complex equation.

Don’t you think something’s wrong? How come people seem to have the hardest of times finding out about the most essential Laws of Human Behavior, the ones that govern our day-to-day livelihood, the ones that our ancestors spent the most brainpower on?

I have a theory.
What if, as soon as someone observes some patterns and derives a Law from them, they hide it from others, because it gives them an exclusive advantage?
What if they try to sell other people the exact opposite of what they know is true, just to maintain that advantage forever?

Stay tuned.

BTW, here’s a great take on Gnon by Spandrell. See if you like it.

On normies, part 3: What?

(Part 2Part 1)

There is only one question left: is being a Normie worth it?

First of all, one must recognize that the Normie life is simple and easy. All food tastes good (with enough MSG, that is), all movies are at least entertaining, you can have your favorite sportsball team as a cheap and effortless substitute for a purpose in life, and you get to avoid all kinds of uncomfortable feelings (guilt, worries about the future, existential dread…) And of course, you get an endless supply of validation from your peers.

If you are a woman from anywhere except the first decile of sex appeal, life is great from your late adolescence until your late twenties. Men have it harder at first, but with a minimal amount of work and social skills, life gets better in your thirties.

But being a Modern Normie is not all sunshine and rainbows. Not even within the average lifespan.

Because Normies do not think for themselves. they automate their behavior, like a Chinese room computer. And this means, other people are giving them inputs. And those other people may have their own agenda. An agenda that doesn’t have to include the Normie’s well-being.

And so, Normie life starts showing its drawbacks over time.

Remember the popular chick who got blasted by all flavors of Chad week after week? She is now thirty-five, her youth has faded away and no makeup can hide it, her tits are sagging, her STD-ridden vagina looks like a turkey carved with a power drill and her bondless sex craze has left her mentally damaged and unable to love. And she still has more than half of the average lifespan to live.

Remember the nice guy that always did a good job at what he was told to do? He slaved away his best years trying to pay back his college loans, because Mom and Dad wanted him to have a degree. He also ended up marrying the chick above, and she divorce raped him as soon as she had her first child. He doesn’t even know whether that child is really his, but he is too much of a wimp to ask for a paternity check.

Remember the career woman that performed so well at college and even got promoted to an executive position? Lured by the you-go-grrl attitude of her peers, she cast away every source of long-term happiness a woman can have for money and the status given to her by a business suit. Now she’s old; makeup and surgery can fool the guy in the above paragraph for a night, but that’s about it. She’s alone in her expensive apartment, which she barely sees anyway because she’s always working. Her relationship with her family has strained, as she was too busy to see them. She cannot have any children, but hey, having a nanny raise someone else’s children can still fool her biological clock.

Remember the pothead who couldn’t be bothered by anything in the world? Weed has baked his brain at 30, which guarantees that he will not be able to work anywhere else but at the same soul-crushing retail jobs he has always worked in for the rest of his life. He gets by thanks to alcohol and entertainment, and always tells himself that everything is going all right. And if something goes wrong at his job, hey, there’s welfare! That will never run out… right?


Normies have the same drives as animals. First, they want to eat, they want to fuck, they want to be entertained. And secondly, because humans are social animals, they want social status.

Hedonistic impulses exist for a reason. Without hunger, we would starve even if surrounded by food. Without a sex drive, we would die without descendants. The problem arises when people focus on satisfying their impulses at the expense of the goal. The best example would be the consumption of junk food; it is way less nutritious (and ultimately unhealthy) than normal food, but the chemicals inside overdrive your sense of hunger.

Status seeking is not bad in itself, quite the opposite in fact, as it has traditionally been the best way to secure a high-quality mate in all social animals. But in a sick society, status stops being a means to a goal to become a goal in itself; a goal which is like a thirst that can never be quenched. You can eat too much and be full. You can get bored of entertainment. Hell, you can even get bored of sex, if you have too much of it!

But you can never have enough status. In fact, as soon as a high-status person stops caring about status, it gets stolen by someone else! Because status is zero-sum.
And so, you start to sacrifice things of real, long-term worth for it.


My conclusion is succinct: Being a Normie has become antithetical to living a fulfilling, purposeful life. Don’t be one.

Don’t waste your youth pursuing destructive hedonism.
Don’t follow people’s commands just to be nice and get along.
Don’t get fooled by the trappings of status and social approval.
Don’t waste your life just because you still get by.

Is it hard? Of course; self-awareness is the Curse of Man.
It is also what raises it above animals.

On normies, part 2: How?

In Part 1 I introduced the concept of the Normie. In this part, I will  analyze the modern Normie lifestyle.

What are the characteristics of the modern Normie?

Modern Normies are likely born to a now-divorced couple or a single mother. They spend some time in daycare before going to Elementary school, which is followed by High school. They generally go to college and study a ROI-negative degree, which will likely leave them with a pile of debt they will start paying with low-grade jobs.

Sometimes they manage to get themselves a well-paying job, in which case they enter the age-old hamster wheel of Keeping Up with the Joneses… So they’ll get into debt to buy the latest car (or two) or a crammed apartment in a hip neighbourhood. They won’t have kids because they like expensive vacations too much… or maybe they’ll have one at 35 if their parents are not satisfied with a dog.

They all think themselves to be “above average” with the “average” being their Dunbar environment. They also believe youth is somehow not related to age (“30s are the new 20s”, then “40s are the new 30s”) because they wish they were young forever.

They love “relatable”memes, like the ones starting with “When you do X” or “Remember when X happened?”, because it gives them a sense of belonging. Normies crave belonging. This is why they spend their lives on social media. They are Kaczynski’s “Oversocialized”.

They also believe that irony/sarcasm/cynicism equals intelligence, for some reason. So they love it.

Their relationship with the mass media is schizophrenic: On one hand, they believe the bullshit spouted by newspapers, talk shows, pop culture idols and Hollywood movies. When an individual or a group is praised or demonized in the media, they immediately assimilate that opinion as if it had always been their own, even if they were told the exact opposite a week ago. But in contrast to the Zealot (ie, the activist) who immediately kickstarts a campaign to eliminate dissent, the Normie never thinks about the repercussions of ideas in their own lives. Ideas to them are mere shibboleths to parrot, mere Pavlovian bells they react to. They can be blatant walking contradictions, and never notice it. That’s why they make the best hypocrites.

Modern Normies come in many flavors: Wagies, Soyboys, Roasties, Hipsters, Chads, Stacies… They might have different preferences in their free time (Soyboys play video games and watch the latest sitcom, Chads go to parties and watch sportsball), and they might have different positions in the status hierarchy. But they all belong to the same hierarchy.

With all being said, is being a Normie worth it? What are the wages of normiedom? What are the opportunity costs? This and more in the final post of this series.