Did Barbelith, the vision, exist in our timeframe before Grant Morrison invoked it in his comic? Is there any record of anybody else having the vision of the red circle and the line before it appeared in The Invisibles?
Whenever I search for info on Barbelith I always get info on The Invisibles. But Grant Morrison is well read and most of the esoteric things in the comic have a basis in ancient spirituality, the occult and documented shamanism. Does Barbelith, the red circle with the line, also have a documented past?
Whenever I search for info on Barbelith I always get info on The Invisibles. But Grant Morrison is well read and most of the esoteric things in the comic have a basis in ancient spirituality, the occult and documented shamanism. Does Barbelith, the red circle with the line, also have a documented past?
-
"He who seeks shall find..."
Thu, December 28, 2006 - 2:09 PMI always seem to answer my own questions recently... failing that Wikipedia does the trick!
"In The Invisibles, Barbelith is the name of the "placenta" for humanity; a satellite-like object located on the dark side of the moon. It recurs throughout the story as a supernatural moon seeming both intelligent and benign. Barbelith's role is like that of a placenta in that it connects the hologram of our subjective reality to the realm outside of our space-time, the domain of the magic mirror, and helps humans to realize their true nature beyond the subjective concept of "self".
Prior to contact with Barbelith, most characters undergo some sort of trauma or intensity- an alien abduction or shamanic initiation, for example. A sort of cosmic "stoplight" is also present in some instances, though also seems to precede any sort of contact with the "healthy" dimension of The Invisibles binary-based paradigm; the realm of the Invisible College.
The word first appeared on a sign post in House of Heart's Desire, a short story published in 1989 within the pages of A1.
***
A1 - Book 3
ISBN 1-871878-90-X
The House of Hearts Desire, Grant Morrison and Dom Regan
***
It has also cropped up in other comics Morrison has written. Doom Patrol #54 in particular goes into more detail.
Grant Morrison describes its origins as follows: "The word 'BARBELiTH' is derived from a dream I had when I was about 20 or 21 and coincided with my first structured 'magical' experiences and a minor nervous breakdown (in the dream, BARBELiTH was the name of some higher dimension or alternate reality)."
Barbelith also has obvious origins in VALIS, a sort of information-satellite for humanity in the Phillip K. Dick novel of the same name.
***
VALIS is a 1981 science fiction book by Philip K. Dick. The title is an acronym for Vast Active Living Intelligence System, Dick's gnostic vision of one aspect of God. VALIS is the first book in an unfinished trilogy that (together with his thematically related final novel) represents Dick's last major work before he died. As Dick's Radio Free Albemuth is actually an earlier version of Valis, it is not included as a component of this trilogy.
VALIS is a part of Dick's unfinished VALIS trilogy of novels:
* VALIS (1981)
* The Divine Invasion (1981)
* The Owl in Daylight
***
What does Barbelith mean?
From Barbelith
Barbelith is a reference from the Grant Morrison comic book, The Invisibles. In the comic, it's first explained as a mysterious satellite hidden behind the Moon... but it gets much weirder from there. Grant Morrison claims the word came to him in a dream.
Grant has - on occasion - claimed that it was meant to mean 'alien stone', where barb would refer to barbarian or outlander (which rather goes against the Ancient Greek origins of the word as 'those weird foreign people who make weird noises like BAH BAH when they're talking'). He's also said that etymologically it has more to do with 'bearded stone' (cf. the Gnostic Christ who appears to Dane MacGowan in the comic and says 'I am the hidden stone and break all hearts...')
In any case, it sounds cool and seems fraught with significance but is ultimately of uncertain meaning, which means it's up for grabs.
***
KP puts in his tuppence - THIS is what I was looking for... Although it claims that it is pehaps merely a synchronistic event (read meaningful coincidence) that there is an early sect of Gnostic Christians called Barbelognostics I intuit that there is more than a coincidence between what was described as "the placenta for humanity" and barbelo who reprsents "the highest Godhead in its female aspect."
***
Barbelith and Barbelo of the Barbelites
There were also, perhaps synchronistically, a sect of early Gnostic Christians known as Barbelognostics (www.bookfx.net/books/gnostic/b.htm), so called for their reverence for Barbelo (www.enemies.com/html/artga...s_04.html), the first, feminine emanation (www.kheper.auz.com/topics/G...ion.html) of the distant Godhead.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia (www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm):
"This Gnostic figure, appearing in a number of systems... remains to a certain extent an enigma. The name barbelo, barbeloth, barthenos has not been explained with certainty. In any case she represents the supreme female principle, is in fact the highest Godhead in its female aspect. Barbelo has most of the functions of the ano Sophia as described above. So prominent was her place amongst some Gnostics that some schools were designated as Barbeliotae, Barbelo worshippers of Barbelognostics. She is probably none other than the Light-Maiden of the Pistis Sophia, the thygater tou photos or simply the Maiden, parthenos. In Epiphanius (Haer., xxvi, 1) and Philastrius (Haer., xxxiii) Parthenos (Barbelos) seems identical with Noria, who plays a great role as wife either of Noe or of Seth. The suggestion, that Noria is "Maiden", parthenos, Istar, Athena, Wisdom, Sophia, or Archamoth, seems worthy of consideration."
**************************************************************************************************************************
It's all very confusing, but then ancient spirituality always is. Over the centuries or millenia the lines frequently get blurred between fact and fiction, myth and legend, especially when you begin to realise that time just smudges the blur, the lines were blurred already. -
-
Why the lost gospel makes sense - By Christopher Hitchens
Wed, January 17, 2007 - 7:51 PMI don't normally mind offending holy men, but I can remember feeling absolutely aghast at the injured look that spread across the fine features of the Coptic Archbishop of Eritrea as we sat in his quarters in Asmara in 1993. Was it true, I had asked him, that in the Coptic Christian tradition Judas was considered to be a saint? He jumped like a pea on a hot shovel and, when he had regained his composure, demanded to know how I could possibly have heard such a wicked rumor. Nothing more profane could be imagined than this perversion of the Easter story. (Looking back, I think I may have misunderstood something I read in Graham Greene.)
Nonetheless, the idea of a sacred Judas always seemed rational to me, at least in Christian terms. The New Testament tells us firmly that Jesus went to Jerusalem at Passover to die and to fulfill certain ancient prophecies by doing so. How could any agent of this process, witting or unwitting, be acting other than according to the divine will? It did seem odd to me that the Jewish elders and the Romans required someone to identify Jesus for them, since according to the story he was already a rather well-known figure, but that was a secondary objection.
Now we have, recovered from the desert of Egypt, a 26-page "Gospel of Judas," written in Coptic script about 300 years after the events it purportedly describes. This fragment may or may not be related to the "Nag Hammadi library"—a collection of gospels, including those of Thomas and Mary Magdalene, that were unearthed near an ancient Egyptian monastery in 1945. Sometimes known as the "Gnostic" texts, they are the ones that were rejected as noncanonical when the early church made its vain attempt to standardize Christian dogma. Given how many discrepancies there are between the four remaining Gospels of the New Testament, one can almost sympathize with Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria, who in an Easter letter in the fourth century tried to boil down the number of approved books to 27.
The Judas gospel puts legend's most notorious traitor in a new light—as the man who enjoyed his master's most intimate confidence, and who was given the crucial task of helping him shed his fleshly mortality. And you can see why the early Christian fathers were leery of such texts. This book has the same cast but a very arcane interpretation. Right before Passover, as the disciples are praying, Jesus sneers at their innocence. Only Judas has guessed the master aright—and has discerned that he comes from the heavenly realm of the god "Barbelo." In the realm of Barbelo, it seems, earthly pains are unknown and the fortunate inhabitants are free from the attentions of the God of the Old Testament. Jesus himself is descended in some fashion from Adam's third son, Seth. With Judas' help, he hopes to guide the seed of Seth back to the realm of Barbelo.* (Is it possible that C.S. Lewis always had a copy of this esoteric text in one of his wardrobes? Or perhaps it fell into the hands of the Heaven's Gate sect-maniacs, as they castratedly awaited the satellite that lurked behind the comet?)
I don't think any summarizing sentence on all this could be more wrong than the one written by Adam Gopnik in the latest New Yorker. He states:
The finding of the new Gospel, though obviously remarkable as a bit of textual history, no more challenges the basis of the Church's faith than the discovery of a document from the nineteenth century written in Ohio and defending King George would be a challenge to the basis of American democracy.
Can Gopnik not discern the difference between George III and Benedict Arnold, let alone the difference between a man-made screed and a series of texts sometimes claimed to be inerrant and divinely inspired? But never mind these trifling failures of analogy. The Judas gospel would make one huge difference if it was accepted. It would dispel the centuries of anti-Semitic paranoia that were among the chief accompaniments of the Easter celebration until approximately 30 years after 1945, when the Vatican finally acquitted the Jews of the charge of Christ-killing. But if Jesus had been acting consistently and seeking a trusted companion who could facilitate his necessary martyrdom, then all the mental and moral garbage about the Jewish frame-up of the Redeemer goes straight over the side.
Remember that Christians are supposed to believe that everybody is responsible for the loneliness and torture of Calvary, and for the failure to appreciate the awful blood sacrifice until it was too late. In living memory, the Catholic Church invoked the verses where the Jews called for this very blood to be, not just upon their own heads, but upon their every succeeding generation. (This sinister fable occurs in only one of the four authorized Gospels, but it was enough—and Mel Gibson recently coined himself 40 million pieces of silver by attempting to revive it.)
Now ask yourself, why did the church take so long to exculpate the Jews as a whole from the collective and heritable charge of "deicide"? It ought to have been simple enough to determine that the Sanhedrin of the time, whatever it may have done, could not have bound all Jews for all eternity. The answer is equally simple: If Christianity had to excuse one group of humans from everlasting blood-guilt, how could it avoid excusing them all? Two millennia of stupidity and cruelty and superstition dissolve in an instant when we notice that even some early believers were shrewd enough to see though the whole sham. On this weekend of official piety, let us all therefore give thanks for our deliverance from religion, and raise high the wafer that summons us to the wonders and bliss of the faraway realm of Barbelo and brings us the joyous and long-awaited news that Judas saves.*
*Correction, April 13, 2006: This article originally and incorrectly identified a legendary realm discussed in the "Gospel of Judas" as "Barbelo," which is actually the name of a god said to inhabit it. The place should have been identified as the "realm of Barbello." Click here to return to the corrected sentences.
From - www.slate.com/id/2139781/ -
-
Re: Why the lost gospel makes sense - By Christopher Hitchens
Wed, February 28, 2007 - 12:57 PMHi guys!
Is anybody out there a member of Barbelith who could invite me in? I'd really appreciate it.
Thanks!
-
Re: Why the lost gospel makes sense - By Christopher Hitchens
Fri, June 8, 2007 - 9:43 AMAll these posts have contained some very cool and new info for me.
Thanks.
IK
-
-