Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Welcome to Yahoo Groups.

An extension to your real life group of friends, interests and communities.
What's new : see video
Attention: Starting December 14, 2019 Yahoo Groups will no longer host user created content on its sites. New content can no longer be uploaded after October 28, 2019. Sending/Receiving email functionality is not going away, you can continue to communicate via any email client with your group members. Learn More

8608Re: [evforum] Jayne Svenungsson on Eric Voegelin and Joachim de Fiore

Expand Messages
  • Richard Bishirjian
    Dec 15, 2017
      Good to learn that you are based in Brazil. 

      I just finished a bit of research on traditionalists in Spain introduced by Francis Graham Wilson. There is much to learn from Spanish history from the Reconquista to the Spanish Civil War and what that can tell us about the future of American democracy.

      One element in Spanish history is anti-clericalism that led to deaths of priests and confiscation of church property several times. The military was anti-clerical until Franco and assisted the introduction of French revolutionary ideas. 

      I wonder if there are parallels in Brazilian history?
       
      Dick Bishirjian
      757 362 3145



      On Friday, December 15, 2017 10:08 AM, "victorbruno@... [evforum]" <evforum@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


       
      Thanks for the kind words, Dick.

      I think that Voegelin's remarks on Gnosticism were one of his major contributions and his most popular by far. At least for me, it was a great formative influence and I wonder if I ever wrote anything on political philosophy that did not make a mention of it. As Mr. Wagner said earlier, he later claimed that his attention on Gnosticism eclipsed other subjects such as magic, which is true. But the following happened with me: When I started to study Gnosticism, a natural interest on magic, occultism, Hermeticism and what not flowered, and this has been my interest ever since. I think, as I guess Voegelin did, that one cannot understand the nature of modernity without considering the enormous neo-pagan undercurrent in today's mentality.

      Now, you made an interesting observation. I don't know Prof. Voegelin's German students, but I guess that the American interest on his studies on Gnosticism are a matter of sensibility. For comparison's sake, there was in the last few years a major Voegelinean break out here in Brazil, where I'm based, and his research on Gnosticism is now hugely popular. (Prof. Olavo de Carvalho--who I believe is a member of this forum--was a major player in Voegelin's entrance in Brazil.)

      A final note: Of course I need to study more, as it seems. I don't know how, but I attributed The Gnostic Religion to HUv Balthazar when it obviously was written by Hans Jonas. I must be tired.


      ---In evforum@yahoogroups.com, <cmpintl@...> wrote :

      Thank you Victor and Fritz for a very intelligent exchange. 

      Voegelin's classic analysis of modern gnosticism is still of interest. My analysis of this subject published in 1978 is online in chapter ten of my history of political theory.  

      I wonder if there are any forum members still teaching this subject. 

      Gerhart Niemeyer offered a course on "Modern Ideology" that influenced many of us. And I taught s course  modeled on his in a classroom setting and in an Internet course on that subject. 

      I have the impression that this subject was more appreciated by his American students than with his German students.
       
      Dick Bishirjian
      www.academydl.com
      757 362 3145





      On Thursday, December 14, 2017 7:36 PM, "victorbruno@... [evforum]" <evforum@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


       
      Dear Mr. Wagner,

      Thanks for your welcoming words! I was hoping that no one would see that I am a freshman in the forum.

      Apart from that, I appreciate your comments. Funny that you mentioned Matthias Reidl work, because in the original Facebook post he actually answered. He mentioned that in his Companion to Joachim of Fiori there is a discussion on Voegelin and Fiore. Reidl claims that Voegelin--although he had not the easy access to Fiore's works as we have--, he had first-hand knowledge of the main works of Fiore in 16th-century copies (such as the Liber de Concordia) and read some minor works through compilations from the experts of the field in his time. Also, as you said, Balthazar's works were a huge influence on his work (I wasn't familiar with Prometheus, I thought his main influence was The Gnostic Religion), as were Mircea Eliade's insights on religion.

      As I said in the original post, I didn't read Ms. Svenungsson's work entirely--but neither I need. However, I think her remark on Voegelin are ill-thought and irresponsibly. How can she presuppose that he never read any of Fiore's work? Did she visited his library?

      At any rate, despite my irritation with her lack of knowledge on Dr. Voegelin, at least it inspired me to do some research on Fiore and perhaps write something on the subject.

      Warmest regards.


      ---In evforum@yahoogroups.com, <fjjwagner@...> wrote :

      Welcome to the evforum, Mr. Bruno!

      I do not think Voegelin relied on Karl Löwith to supply him with his ideas, though he admired him. Voegelin once related he got his idea about modern gnosticism from Balthazar’s Prometheus, but later felt that the emphasis on gnosticism in his The New Science of Politics (1952) ignored other factors such as neo-Platonism, magic and millenarianism (See the detailed analytical table of contents for the NSP  (reproduced in Vol 5 of the Collected Works, where the NSP is now found [of course it is still available as an individual volume from U. of Chicago Press and elsewhere]: http://fritzwagner.com/ev/cw/cw_5_contents.html).  
      Mathias Riedl explored Joachim of Fiore’s writings as far back as the EVS meeting at San Francisco in 2001 and might still offer the best interpretation of what the Franciscan Prior was actually trying to do.

      You might wish to listen to Voegelin’s own words. He notes that studies of Gnosticism date at least back to the work of Ferdinand Christian Baur’s Chistliche Gnosis of 1835. Voegelin’s noteworthy comment: “. . . Gnosticism and its history [is] a vastly developed science and [the idea] of interpreting contemporary phenomena as Gnostic phenomena is not as original as it may look to the ignoramuses who have criticized me for it.”  This is in the taped Autobiographical Reflections. You can listen to it at Part 1o here: https://voegelinview.com/voegelin-audio/  Perhaps this last comment remains valid even today.  You might also find Voegelin’s remark on sources interesting: http://www.fritzwagner.com/ev/gnosticism2_source_materials.html

      You can find a broad assortment of Voegelin quotes by topic here: (http://www.fritzwagner.com/ev/eric_voegelin_table_of_contents.html) or by volume (http://www.fritzwagner.com/ev/eric_voegelin_subject_contents_by_volumes.html)

      Good luck,

      Fritz Wagner



      On Dec 14, 2017, at 9:36 AM, victorbruno@... [evforum] <evforum@yahoogroups.com> wrote:



      Friends, is anyone here familiar with Jayne Svenungsson's work DIVINING HISTORY: PROPHETISM, MESSIANISM AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SPIRIT? I was looking for something on Google and stumbled upon the attached quote on Voegelin's reading of Joachim de Fiore.



      The author is implying that Voegelin did not read Fiore's works, and therefore carelessly labels him as an "early anarchist" (Svenugnsson's words). I would like to bring Ms. Svenungsson's reading of Voegelin to question. If my memory serves me well, I recall that Voegelin rebukes Fiore on his Gnostic pretense to signal the third and final 




    • Show all 7 messages in this topic

    See more posts from Richard Bishirjian