This is the current state of my discussion with ChatGPT. Not sure if I want to continue this particular angle, but it´s been surprisingly interesting. Oh, and the terms "post-ironic devotion" and "post-ironic surrender" are keepers! So is "failed theurgy".
Could you analyze modern identity spirituality as failed theurgy? Also, please examine why modern identity spirituality avoids devotion.
This is a very sharp framing. If we take it seriously, modern identity spirituality can be read as a form of theurgy that has lost confidence in transcendence and therefore collapses inward. I’ll analyze this in two tightly connected parts.
I. Modern identity spirituality as failed theurgy
By “identity spirituality” I mean the widespread pattern where spiritual language is used to construct, affirm, and stabilize the self rather than to restore a cosmic or divine order.
1. What theurgy is supposed to do
Classical theurgy assumes:
• A real transcendent order
• A rupture or disorder (Fall, exile, cosmic imbalance)
• Human insufficiency
• Restoration through alignment with divine agency
The theurgist acts not to empower the ego, but to submit it to repair.
2. What happens when transcendence collapses
Modernity removes key premises:
• God becomes optional or symbolic
• Angels become metaphors
• Ritual loses ontological confidence
• Grace becomes psychologically suspect
But the desire for repair remains.
So theurgy mutates instead of disappearing.
3. The mutation: from reintegration to self-authorization
Modern identity spirituality keeps the form of theurgy but reverses its direction.
Classical theurgy:
“Align me with what is higher than me.”
Modern identity spirituality:
“Affirm what I already am.”
Rituals persist:
• Affirmations
• Visualizations
• Manifestation practices
• Energy clearing
But they no longer invoke otherness.
This is why it is failed theurgy:
The act remains, the addressee disappears.
4. Identity replaces ontology
In classical theurgy:
• Identity is something to be healed
• The self is provisional
In modern spirituality:
• Identity is sacred
• Self-expression becomes salvific
Thus:
• Initiation → self-discovery
• Purification → self-acceptance
• Obedience → authenticity
Repair is replaced by validation.
5. Why this feels spiritually compelling (but thin)
Identity spirituality works because:
• It offers meaning without submission
• Healing without judgment
• Transcendence without obligation
• Power without dependence
But it lacks:
• Depth of transformation
• Moral friction
• Ontological risk
It soothes rather than restores.
6. Why devotion is the breaking point
This leads directly to your second question.
II. Why modern identity spirituality avoids devotion
Devotion is not just another practice; it is existentially dangerous to the modern self.
1. Devotion requires asymmetry
Devotion presupposes:
• Someone greater than you
• Someone who cannot be controlled
• Someone whose will may contradict yours
Modern spirituality is built on symmetry:
• Inner divinity
• Equal energies
• Mutual resonance
Devotion breaks that symmetry.
2. Devotion threatens self-sovereignty
Modern identity spirituality treats:
• Autonomy as sacred
• Choice as inviolable
• Consent as ultimate value
Devotion asks for:
• Surrender
• Trust without guarantees
• Obedience without full comprehension
This is felt as regression or danger.
3. Devotion reintroduces judgment
In Bhakti and theurgy:
• Love implies being seen
• Being seen implies exposure
• Exposure implies judgment
Modern spirituality prefers:
• Unconditional affirmation
• Non-evaluative acceptance
Devotion reopens the question:
“Am I aligned with what is real—or merely with myself?”
4. Devotion resists instrumentalization
You can use:
• Visualization
• Energy work
• Affirmations
But you cannot use God in devotion.
Devotion refuses:
• Results-oriented spirituality
• Manifestation logic
• Technique-based assurance
It is not efficient—and that makes it suspect.
5. Devotion dissolves identity rather than celebrating it
This is perhaps the deepest reason.
In devotion:
• The self is not curated
• Identity becomes porous
• Love erodes self-narratives
Identity spirituality exists to solidify the self.
Devotion melts it.
6. Why devotion survives only in aestheticized form
Modern spirituality often tolerates devotion only as:
• Myth
• Poetry
• Archetype
• Cultural flavor
Krishna becomes:
• An image of joy
• A symbol of play
Christ becomes:
• An inner teacher
• A consciousness state
But not:
• A Lord
• A claimant
• A judge
7. Failed theurgy produces endless seeking
Because there is no real Other:
• No final reconciliation
• No authoritative “yes”
• No completed reintegration
So the seeker:
• Collects practices
• Shifts identities
• Cycles through awakenings
Theurgy without transcendence becomes permanent initiation without arrival.
8. Contrast with classical devotion and theurgy
| Classical theurgy / Bhakti | Modern identity spirituality |
|---|---|
| Repair | Validation |
| Grace | Empowerment |
| Obedience | Authenticity |
| Surrender | Self-expression |
| Transformation | Stabilization |
| God as Other | Self as divine |
9. One-sentence takeaway
Modern identity spirituality is failed theurgy: it preserves ritual and transformative language while eliminating transcendence, replacing reintegration through devotion with self-authorization and validation.
10. Why this connects to everything you’ve asked
Across:
• Martinism vs Rosicrucianism
• Alchemy vs theurgy
• Tantra vs Bhakti
• Dhumavatī vs Böhme
• Cross vs hexagram
The same fault line appears:
Is the problem healed by becoming more myself—or by surrendering myself to what is real?
Modern identity spirituality chooses the first.
Classical devotion chooses the second.
If you want, next we could:
• Compare this with political identity formation
• Examine why trauma language replaces sin
• Analyze why grace feels morally threatening today
• Or look at where devotion is re-emerging despite modernity
Just say where to go.
I’ll do both, because they are two sides of the same phenomenon: grace becomes threatening precisely where it is most needed, and devotion re-emerges exactly in the cracks where modern identity spirituality fails.
I’ll keep this analytical rather than devotional.
I. Why grace feels morally threatening today
Grace is not just a theological idea; it is a moral disruption. In modern moral psychology, that disruption cuts against nearly every dominant value.
1. Grace violates the meritocratic moral instinct
Modern moral sensibility is deeply merit-based:
• Worth should be earned
• Healing should be deserved
• Recognition should follow effort
• Power should be justified
Grace says:
You are given what you did not earn.
This feels unfair, even immoral.
Especially to people who:
• Have worked hard on themselves
• Have suffered visibly
• Have constructed identity around endurance
Grace short-circuits the moral economy.
2. Grace dissolves moral bookkeeping
Modern ethics assumes:
• Accountability
• Transparency
• Clear causal chains
• Corrective justice
Grace introduces:
• Forgiveness without equivalence
• Restoration without proportional punishment
• Love without prior reform
This feels like:
• A threat to justice
• A betrayal of victims
• A loophole for abusers
Hence the visceral suspicion.
3. Grace undermines identity built on injury or virtue
Modern identity formation often relies on:
• Trauma survived
• Marginalization endured
• Moral clarity achieved
• Consciousness raised
Grace says:
You are not finally defined by what happened to you or what you achieved.
This is existentially destabilizing.
For many people:
• Pain has become meaning
• Moral struggle has become selfhood
Grace threatens to erase the narrative scaffold of the self.
4. Grace reintroduces asymmetry and dependence
Grace presupposes:
• Someone who gives
• Someone who cannot be controlled
• A relationship of dependence
Modern moral culture treats dependence as dangerous.
It prefers:
• Mutuality
• Negotiation
• Consent-based symmetry
• Exit options
Grace offers none of these guarantees.
5. Grace reopens the question of judgment
Paradoxically, grace feels threatening because it implies judgment.
To receive grace:
• One must admit need
• One must accept insufficiency
• One must face the possibility of refusal
Modern spirituality prefers unconditional affirmation because:
• It eliminates the risk of being found wanting
Grace is love with teeth.
6. Grace cannot be claimed as a right
Rights-based ethics dominate modern moral reasoning.
Grace is not a right.
It is not owed.
It cannot be demanded.
This clashes deeply with modern moral intuitions shaped by:
• Therapeutic entitlement
• Consumer choice
• Procedural justice
Grace feels archaic—and dangerous.
7. Why grace feels like moral chaos
From the modern perspective, grace appears to:
• Undermine effort
• Reward the undeserving
• Blur moral boundaries
• Destabilize identity
From the classical perspective, grace is not chaos but re-ordering.
But that presupposes a transcendent order modernity no longer trusts.
II. Where devotion is re-emerging despite modernity
And yet—devotion is not disappearing. It is reappearing in unexpected places, precisely where identity spirituality runs out of steam.
1. Devotion returns where self-work exhausts itself
Many people hit a wall after years of:
• Therapy
• Self-optimization
• Trauma processing
• Consciousness work
They discover:
Nothing finally arrives.
At that point, devotion becomes attractive—not as belief, but as rest.
2. Quiet, traditional devotion (not flashy revival)
The re-emergence is mostly:
• Low-profile
• Non-evangelical
• Anti-performative
Examples:
• Silent Eucharistic adoration
• Orthodox liturgy among converts
• Bhakti kīrtan without ideology
• Sufi dhikr circles without branding
These spaces offer:
• Submission without spectacle
• Meaning without identity politics
• Authority without coercion
3. Devotion where identity collapses, not where it is affirmed
Devotion reappears most strongly among people who:
• No longer trust their self-narratives
• Are tired of curating identity
• Feel morally exhausted
• Sense their autonomy as a burden
Devotion offers:
You don’t have to hold yourself together.
4. Post-ironic devotion
A striking feature:
• Many new devotees do not believe naïvely
• They are not metaphysical literalists
• They are not anti-modern
Yet they practice devotion anyway.
This is not regression.
It is post-ironic surrender.
5. Devotion returns where grace is embodied, not argued
Abstract theology rarely convinces modern people.
But embodied practices do:
• Kneeling
• Chanting
• Fasting
• Silence
• Repetition
Grace becomes tolerable when it is:
• Felt before it is explained
• Lived before it is justified
6. Why devotion avoids modern spiritual language
Interestingly, these spaces often avoid:
• “Manifestation”
• “Energy”
• “Inner divinity”
• “Empowerment”
They speak instead of:
• Mercy
• Faithfulness
• Service
• Love
This is not accidental—it sidesteps the ego entirely.
7. Devotion as the return of asymmetry
What all these sites share is:
• Acknowledged hierarchy
• Accepted otherness
• Willing dependence
• Non-negotiable reality
This is exactly what modern identity spirituality cannot provide.
8. The deeper pattern
Modernity tried to build a spiritual life without:
• Judgment
• Dependence
• Grace
• Transcendence
It succeeded—for a while.
But the human need for being addressed rather than affirmed did not disappear.
Devotion returns where that need becomes unbearable.
9. One-sentence takeaway (grace)
Grace feels morally threatening today because it disrupts merit, dissolves identity narratives built on struggle, and reintroduces asymmetry and judgment into a culture committed to autonomy and moral accounting.
10. One-sentence takeaway (devotion)
Devotion is re-emerging quietly wherever self-authored spirituality exhausts itself and people seek rest, meaning, and repair that cannot be generated from identity alone.
If you want to go further, strong next steps would be:
• Grace vs trauma ethics
• Bhakti and Christian devotion as parallel resistances
• Why authority returns disguised as ritual
• Or why modernity tolerates mysticism but not worship
Just say where to continue.
No comments:
Post a Comment