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

RE: [evforum] Digest Number 713

Expand Messages
  • Harter, Nathan W
    If that is the case, Voegelin might here be building on the work of William James, whom he evidently admired. In any case, Voegelin often seems to be clearing
    Message 1 of 18 , Jan 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      If that is the case, Voegelin might here be building on the work of William
      James, whom he evidently admired. In any case, Voegelin often seems to be
      clearing underbrush at the boundary with psychology, although one rarely
      sees psychologists commenting on his work. Are there listservants familiar
      with a psychologist's assessment of EV?

      Nathan Harter

      -----Original Message-----
      From: evforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:evforum@yahoogroups.com]
      Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 3:41 PM
      To: evforum@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [evforum] Digest Number 713


      ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
      $4.98 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
      http://us.click.yahoo.com/Q7_YsB/neXJAA/yQLSAA/VHeqlB/TM
      --------------------------------------------------------------------~->

      There is 1 message in this issue.

      Topics in this digest:

      1. CW, vol 5
      From: "James Rovira" <jrovira@...>


      ________________________________________________________________________
      ________________________________________________________________________

      Message: 1
      Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 14:58:32 -0000
      From: "James Rovira" <jrovira@...>
      Subject: CW, vol 5


      I've been slowly reading CW, vol. 5 and just finished the essays "Experience
      and Symbolization in History" and "On Henry James' _Turn of the Screw_."
      "Experience and Symbolization in History" does indeed address many of the
      questions raised by some discussions on this forum, but still leaves some
      questions open, including some fundamental ones I was trying to identify and
      articulate in previous posts.

      What I'm really interested in right now is Voegelin's description of the
      closed personality in his Turn of the Screw essay. Seems like there was
      some discussion of this on this forum not too long ago, but I hadn't read
      the essay yet so couldn't engage the conversation. It seems to me that the
      closed personality is one that has arrogated to himself/herself the role of
      creator by reducing the cosmos to the individual psyche. Am I on the right
      track here?

      Jim





      ________________________________________________________________________
      ________________________________________________________________________


      In consideratione creaturarum non est vana et peritura curiositas exercenda;
      sed gradus ad immortalia et semper manentia faciendus.
      -St Augustine De vera religione
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Yahoo! Groups Links




      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    • Robin Seiler
      David Tressan and I, a psychiatrist and a psychiatric social worker respectively, have delivered papers at EVS meetings that reflected on Voegelin s work. My
      Message 2 of 18 , Jan 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        David Tressan and I, a psychiatrist and a psychiatric social worker
        respectively, have delivered papers at EVS meetings that reflected on
        Voegelin's work. My 1999 paper compared Voegelin to Donald Winnicott, one
        of the most important psychoanalytic theorists whose work has given
        psychotherapists a way of reflecting on experiences of transcendence and
        their key role in psychic openness. As far as I know, no monographs on
        Voegelin have been published by members of the mental health professions.

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Harter, Nathan W [mailto:Nwharter@...]
        Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 2:39 PM
        To: 'evforum@yahoogroups.com'
        Subject: RE: [evforum] Digest Number 713


        If that is the case, Voegelin might here be building on the work of William
        James, whom he evidently admired. In any case, Voegelin often seems to be
        clearing underbrush at the boundary with psychology, although one rarely
        sees psychologists commenting on his work. Are there listservants familiar
        with a psychologist's assessment of EV?

        Nathan Harter

        -----Original Message-----
        From: evforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:evforum@yahoogroups.com]
        Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 3:41 PM
        To: evforum@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [evforum] Digest Number 713


        ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
        $4.98 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
        http://us.click.yahoo.com/Q7_YsB/neXJAA/yQLSAA/VHeqlB/TM
        --------------------------------------------------------------------~->

        There is 1 message in this issue.

        Topics in this digest:

        1. CW, vol 5
        From: "James Rovira" <jrovira@...>


        ________________________________________________________________________
        ________________________________________________________________________

        Message: 1
        Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 14:58:32 -0000
        From: "James Rovira" <jrovira@...>
        Subject: CW, vol 5


        I've been slowly reading CW, vol. 5 and just finished the essays "Experience
        and Symbolization in History" and "On Henry James' _Turn of the Screw_."
        "Experience and Symbolization in History" does indeed address many of the
        questions raised by some discussions on this forum, but still leaves some
        questions open, including some fundamental ones I was trying to identify and
        articulate in previous posts.

        What I'm really interested in right now is Voegelin's description of the
        closed personality in his Turn of the Screw essay. Seems like there was
        some discussion of this on this forum not too long ago, but I hadn't read
        the essay yet so couldn't engage the conversation. It seems to me that the
        closed personality is one that has arrogated to himself/herself the role of
        creator by reducing the cosmos to the individual psyche. Am I on the right
        track here?

        Jim





        ________________________________________________________________________
        ________________________________________________________________________


        In consideratione creaturarum non est vana et peritura curiositas exercenda;
        sed gradus ad immortalia et semper manentia faciendus.
        -St Augustine De vera religione
        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Yahoo! Groups Links




        ------------------------------------------------------------------------





        In consideratione creaturarum non est vana
        et peritura curiositas exercenda; sed gradus
        ad immortalia et semper manentia faciendus.
        -St Augustine De vera religione
        Yahoo! Groups Links
      • tresan
        Thank you, Robin, for calling to mind our Voegelin offerings as psychologists. I have long noted that psychology has not plumbed the Voegelinian depths but I
        Message 3 of 18 , Jan 2, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Thank you, Robin, for calling to mind our Voegelin offerings as
          psychologists. I have long noted that psychology has not plumbed the
          Voegelinian depths but I think, though, that his thought and work may
          be too difficult for psychologists and psychoanalysts to collate in
          depth with their practices and understanding (their lives?), at least
          at this time in history. After all, we are just exploring the
          operations and justifying the reality of subjectivity and the attempts
          have veered off into neurobiology and relational theories, and so we do
          not yet know either how to frame heuristically or what to do
          therapeutically with the fragile entente between the sensate world and
          the ineffable, that age-old problem remaining to be rediscovered by
          psychology which still eschews metaphysics although Jung lets himself
          dwell among these matters, albeit unsystematically and uncommittedly.
          Besides, Voegelin did not work within ongoing and consciously committed
          dyadic and confidential frameworks over the many years that
          characterize so many analyses so that what he knew more collectively he
          might have spoken of in terms of personal manifestations and
          derivatives as they constellate within those dyads and their
          metaxy-like fields. Psychologists have to make that leap themselves, no
          small bound if authentically appreciated in its relevance. (Proof of
          Voegelin's ineptness, or rather inexperience, in translating ideas into
          convincing clinical material may be seen in his passages regarding
          R.D. Laings' patients in The Eclipse of Reality.) For those who look
          deeply into him, though, what Voegelin has to offer psychology is a
          treasure trove beyond imagination. I recently drew from his influence
          in great measure in writing an attempt to make the notion of
          consciousness and the transcendent somewhat palatable, or at least
          possible, to the postivistic mind of psychology. My paper in two parts,
          presented at a conference in 2002, may be found in the Journal of
          Analytical Psychology, 49:2 and 49:3; 2004. Blackwell Publishers,
          London. (Available on line in PDF.) The title is in itself a
          sous-entendu tribute to Voegelin: 'This new science of ours. A more or
          less systematic history of consciousness and transcendence.' There is
          no doubt for me that the quantum expansion of my horizons through
          Voegelin has been unique in my 30 years as an analyst and in my life
          and that psychology is the poorer for not having discovered him. My
          debt to Voegelin the psychologist is great and ongoing.

          David Tresan

          On Jan 1, 2005, at 7:13 PM, Robin Seiler wrote:

          >
          > David Tressan and I, a psychiatrist and a psychiatric social worker
          > respectively, have delivered papers at EVS meetings that reflected on
          > Voegelin's work. My 1999 paper compared Voegelin to Donald Winnicott,
          > one
          > of the most important psychoanalytic theorists whose work has given
          > psychotherapists a way of reflecting on experiences of transcendence
          > and
          > their key role in psychic openness. As far as I know, no monographs on
          > Voegelin have been published by members of the mental health
          > professions.
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: Harter, Nathan W [mailto:Nwharter@...]
          > Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 2:39 PM
          > To: 'evforum@yahoogroups.com'
          > Subject: RE: [evforum] Digest Number 713
          >
          >
          > If that is the case, Voegelin might here be building on the work of
          > William
          > James, whom he evidently admired. In any case, Voegelin often seems
          > to be
          > clearing underbrush at the boundary with psychology, although one
          > rarely
          > sees psychologists commenting on his work. Are there listservants
          > familiar
          > with a psychologist's assessment of EV?
          >
          > Nathan Harter
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: evforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:evforum@yahoogroups.com]
          > Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 3:41 PM
          > To: evforum@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [evforum] Digest Number 713
          >
          >
          >
          > There is 1 message in this issue.
          >
          > Topics in this digest:
          >
          > 1. CW, vol 5
          > From: "James Rovira" <jrovira@...>
          >
          >
          > _______________________________________________________________________
          > _
          > _______________________________________________________________________
          > _
          >
          > Message: 1
          > Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 14:58:32 -0000
          > From: "James Rovira" <jrovira@...>
          > Subject: CW, vol 5
          >
          >
          > I've been slowly reading CW, vol. 5 and just finished the essays
          > "Experience
          > and Symbolization in History" and "On Henry James' _Turn of the
          > Screw_."
          > "Experience and Symbolization in History" does indeed address many of
          > the
          > questions raised by some discussions on this forum, but still leaves
          > some
          > questions open, including some fundamental ones I was trying to
          > identify and
          > articulate in previous posts.
          >
          > What I'm really interested in right now is Voegelin's description of
          > the
          > closed personality in his Turn of the Screw essay. Seems like there
          > was
          > some discussion of this on this forum not too long ago, but I hadn't
          > read
          > the essay yet so couldn't engage the conversation. It seems to me
          > that the
          > closed personality is one that has arrogated to himself/herself the
          > role of
          > creator by reducing the cosmos to the individual psyche. Am I on the
          > right
          > track here?
          >
          > Jim
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > _______________________________________________________________________
          > _
          > _______________________________________________________________________
          > _
          >
          >
          > In consideratione creaturarum non est vana et peritura curiositas
          > exercenda;
          > sed gradus ad immortalia et semper manentia faciendus.
          > -St Augustine De vera religione
          > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
          > -
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
          > -
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > In consideratione creaturarum non est vana
          > et peritura curiositas exercenda; sed gradus
          > ad immortalia et semper manentia faciendus.
          > -St Augustine De vera religione
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > In consideratione creaturarum non est vana
          > et peritura curiositas exercenda; sed gradus
          > ad immortalia et semper manentia faciendus.
          > —St Augustine De vera religione
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • Robin Seiler
          Hi, David, Good to hear from you! I would like very much to read your article. Can you send the PDFs to me as e-mail attachments? I can also visit the UMD
          Message 4 of 18 , Jan 3, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi, David,

            Good to hear from you! I would like very much to read your article. Can
            you send the PDFs to me as e-mail attachments? I can also visit the UMD
            library and copy them.

            I agree that most therapists would not understand Voegelin, but some may be
            able to without much of a reorientation or retooling. I gave Stephen
            Gilligan, a psychologist who I have trained with, a copy of my 1999 paper,
            and he liked it very much, although he did not have comments. Ditto for a
            former supervisor who has a fairly different clinical orientation. Among my
            therapist friends, those whose spirited element is strong have often gotten
            into some form of contemplative practice and worked out a way of integrating
            contemplative awareness into their lives and work, but they generally do not
            have either the inclination or the background to study the work of someone
            like Voegelin. A monograph on his work targeted at therapists would be
            useful. It would be great, too, the professional schools started routinely
            adding an elective on Philosophy of Psychology or Social Work, etc., and
            some articles introducing Voegelin were available and could be assigned.
            Some of his short papers and lectures, e.g., "In Search of the Ground" from
            1965, are quite accessible, too. Unfortunately, there are probably few who
            could teach such courses from an adequate point of view. I have thought
            about trying to find somewhere in DC where I could do so but am not ready to
            do that yet. I once gave a conference presentation on the depth of the
            psyche that drew heavily on Voegelin's interpretation of the Presocratics,
            and the attendees, many of whom meditate, were fascinated. So the situation
            is not completely hopeless, in my opinion.

            Many are the days when I thank God that I ended up, quite by chance, at the
            University of Virginia and studied with Dante Germino, who taught us about
            Voegelin's work in every political theory course he taught, invited him to
            lecture at the campus, and assigned his works where appropriate. As with
            you, my life and work would be very different without the horizons
            Voegelin's work opened for me.

            It would be nice to see you this year at the APSA, which will be here in DC.
            I have committed to write a paper on the poetry of Mary Oliver for a panel
            that Charlie Embry has organized, and am still reading. Hope all is well.

            Best wishes,

            Robin
          • Robin Seiler
            My apology to listserve members for the previous post, meant to be a private e-mail to David Tresan.
            Message 5 of 18 , Jan 3, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              My apology to listserve members for the previous post, meant to be a private
              e-mail to David Tresan.
            • stromthy4
              List members interested in Voegelin & psychology might want to look up two books by a fellow Voegelinian, Eugene Webb: The self between : from Freud to the new
              Message 6 of 18 , Jan 3, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                List members interested in Voegelin & psychology might want to look
                up two books by a fellow Voegelinian, Eugene Webb:

                The self between : from Freud to the new social psychology of France
                / Eugene Webb
                Seattle: University of Washington Press, c1993

                Philosophers of consciousness : Polanyi, Lonergan, Voegelin, Ricoeur,
                Girard, Kierkegaard
                / Eugene Webb
                Seattle: University of Washington Press, c1988

                - D. Simlik
              • wabash_ckb
                In addition to the books by Webb, which are well worth reading, I would like to call attention to a book I ve written called The Genealogy of Violence. It
                Message 7 of 18 , Jan 3, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  In addition to the books by Webb, which are well worth reading, I
                  would like to call attention to a book I've written called The
                  Genealogy of Violence. It addresses the task of understanding the
                  psychology of violence, drawing primarily on Kierkegaard and Girard,
                  and secondarily on Voegelin. Voegelin was very influenced by SK. In a
                  sense, EV's basic perspective on the human being existing in relation
                  to the divine source of life is an elaborate development of the basic
                  ideas of SK's psychology. In my view, EV is the most important
                  philosopher in the 20th C., and Karl Barth is the most important
                  theologian. Barth, like EV, was also deeply influenced by SK. Guess
                  who is the most important philosopher-theologian in the 19th C., in
                  my opinion ...

                  Charles Bellinger
                • stromthy4
                  Mr. Bellinger wrote: In my view, EV is the most important philosopher in the 20th C., and Karl Barth is the most important theologian. Barth, like EV, was
                  Message 8 of 18 , Jan 3, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Mr. Bellinger wrote: "In my view, EV is the most important
                    philosopher in the 20th C., and Karl Barth is the most important
                    theologian. Barth, like EV, was also deeply influenced by SK. Guess
                    who is the most important philosopher-theologian in the 19th C., in
                    my opinion..."

                    Interestingly, there was an article in the Journal of the History of
                    Ideas 64.4 (2003) 619-637, by Benjamin Lazier, titled "Overcoming
                    Gnosticism -- Hans Jonas, Blumenberg, and the Legitimacy of the
                    Natural World", in which Lazier argues that Barth was a Marcionite
                    Gnostic (and that, indeed, Barth thought of himself as something of a
                    Marcionite, cf. The Epistle to the Romans, tr. Edwyn C. Hoskins
                    (Oxford, 1933), 13 !). I tend to agree, and see in both Barth and
                    Kierkegaard a bit of an over-zealous leaning toward transcendence
                    perhaps out of balance with the Tension, and perhaps indebted to the
                    pneumopathological tendencies Voegelin saw in Luther?

                    D. Simlik

                    --- In evforum@yahoogroups.com, "wabash_ckb" <wabash_ckb@y...> wrote:
                    >
                    > In addition to the books by Webb, which are well worth reading, I
                    > would like to call attention to a book I've written called The
                    > Genealogy of Violence. It addresses the task of understanding the
                    > psychology of violence, drawing primarily on Kierkegaard and
                    Girard,
                    > and secondarily on Voegelin. Voegelin was very influenced by SK. In
                    a
                    > sense, EV's basic perspective on the human being existing in
                    relation
                    > to the divine source of life is an elaborate development of the
                    basic
                    > ideas of SK's psychology. In my view, EV is the most important
                    > philosopher in the 20th C., and Karl Barth is the most important
                    > theologian. Barth, like EV, was also deeply influenced by SK. Guess
                    > who is the most important philosopher-theologian in the 19th C., in
                    > my opinion ...
                    >
                    > Charles Bellinger
                  • wabash_ckb
                    ... the ... I don t view SK and Barth as gnostics. I m familiar with the best scholars who have written on SK and Barth, and I ve never heard of Dr. Lazier
                    Message 9 of 18 , Jan 5, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In evforum@yahoogroups.com, "stromthy4" <stromthy4@y...> wrote:
                      >
                      > (Oxford, 1933), 13 !). I tend to agree, and see in both Barth and
                      > Kierkegaard a bit of an over-zealous leaning toward transcendence
                      > perhaps out of balance with the Tension, and perhaps indebted to
                      the
                      > pneumopathological tendencies Voegelin saw in Luther?
                      >
                      > D. Simlik
                      >
                      I don't view SK and Barth as gnostics. I'm familiar with the best
                      scholars who have written on SK and Barth, and I've never heard of
                      Dr. Lazier before.
                    • Owen Jones
                      I don t wish to sound overly dogmatic on this point, but there is a concept in Orthodoxy known as the mind of the Fathers. It s not that one has read and
                      Message 10 of 18 , Jan 5, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I don't wish to sound overly dogmatic on this point, but there is a concept in Orthodoxy known as "the mind of the Fathers." It's not that one has read and understands the fathers formally, but that one looks at things the same way as the Fathers. It presupposes a certain type of noetic illumination. I say that because I think you would find in the case of both Barth and K., they both did the best they could absent the "mind of the Fathers." That the Orthodox judgment on both is that they are straining, without the proper equipment, and yet are admired for what they did accomplish. One Orthodox monk wrote, for example, that K. was Orthodox in every way except for a lack of joy. It is clear to me that Barth is straining to develop a credible Biblical method that is neither fundamentalist/literalist, or entirely mythic. This is not a problem throughout most of Orthodoxy, which understands that we experience and represent God symbolically. In neither case would an Orthodox
                        person describe Barth or K. as heretics in any formal sense, since there is no context for that.

                        If Voegelin believed that he had discovered Reason as the classical experience, it stands to reason that there is a specific experience or specific range of experiences that the Fathers acquired, without which, one is shooting blanks in the dark.

                        btw, there are a couple of interesting works recently applying the teachings of the Desert Fathers to modern psychology.


                        wabash_ckb <wabash_ckb@...> wrote:

                        --- In evforum@yahoogroups.com, "stromthy4" <stromthy4@y...> wrote:
                        >
                        > (Oxford, 1933), 13 !). I tend to agree, and see in both Barth and
                        > Kierkegaard a bit of an over-zealous leaning toward transcendence
                        > perhaps out of balance with the Tension, and perhaps indebted to
                        the
                        > pneumopathological tendencies Voegelin saw in Luther?
                        >
                        > D. Simlik
                        >
                        I don't view SK and Barth as gnostics. I'm familiar with the best
                        scholars who have written on SK and Barth, and I've never heard of
                        Dr. Lazier before.





                        In consideratione creaturarum non est vana
                        et peritura curiositas exercenda; sed gradus
                        ad immortalia et semper manentia faciendus.
                        �St Augustine De vera religione



                        ---------------------------------
                        Yahoo! Groups Links

                        To visit your group on the web, go to:
                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evforum/

                        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        evforum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                        __________________________________________________
                        Do You Yahoo!?
                        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                        http://mail.yahoo.com

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • James Rovira
                        I ve read Barth but it s been too long. I have, however, been reading Kierkegaard recently. I think we need to distinguish between his ideas and his
                        Message 11 of 18 , Jan 5, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I've read Barth but it's been too long. I have, however, been reading
                          Kierkegaard recently. I think we need to distinguish between his ideas
                          and his personality, especially since Kierkegaard carefully constructed
                          pseudonymous characters for his major philosophical works. I don't know
                          how Kierkegaard "personally" related to the tension. I think, in terms
                          of personality, he's very difficult to pin down. I completely
                          understand the point of view that would describe him as lacking joy, and
                          given his father's demeanor it's not hard to see where that comes from.
                          But he also needs to be seen as a person who, as a young man, very much
                          enjoyed spending money on books, food, drink, entertainments, and
                          society and who, as a man approaching middle age, had lost his entire
                          family except for his brother (and they weren't exactly close),
                          ostracized himself from most of his friends, and abandoned an engagement
                          of marriage for reasons he never seemed to really work out for himself
                          in very specific terms. Truthfully, he felt married to Regine Olson for
                          the rest of his life after the broken engagement and willed all his
                          property and possessions to her. Her husband would not allow her to accept.


                          The mature Kierkegaard tended to focus more on love and passion than on
                          joy, and in his pseudonymous works speaks of the tension, and reason, in
                          ways not too dissimilar from Voegelin. Kierkegaard's pseudonyms do,
                          however, carefully critique the pagan philosophers, and draw careful
                          distinctions between pagan philosophy and Christianity, which Voegelin
                          seems to rather carelessly and ahistorically collapse in essays such as
                          "On the Gospel and Culture." Where Voegelin sees the gospel as a
                          further differentiation of the symbols present in Plato and Aristotle,
                          Kierkegaard views pagan philosophy and Christianity as qualitatively
                          different. Kierkegaard does, however, prefer good old fashion paganism
                          to the dead Hegelian systematized Christianity of the Denmark of his
                          day. He would see someone abandoning that form of Christianity for
                          Socratic ignorance as an advance.


                          Jim Rovira

                          >(Oxford, 1933), 13 !). I tend to agree, and see in both Barth and Kierkegaard a bit of an over-zealous leaning toward transcendence perhaps out of balance with the Tension, and perhaps indebted to the pneumopathological tendencies Voegelin saw in Luther?
                          >

                          Owen Jones wrote:

                          >If Voegelin believed that he had discovered Reason as the classical experience, it stands to reason that there is a specific experience or specific range of experiences that the Fathers acquired, without which, one is shooting blanks in the dark.
                          >
                          >
                        • stromthy4
                          ... I didn t say I thought SK was a Gnostic, but rather that he had tendencies toward Gnosticism (remember, Voegelin found tendencies toward Gnosticism in the
                          Message 12 of 18 , Jan 5, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            In evforum@yahoogroups.com, "wabash_ckb" <wabash_ckb@y...> wrote:

                            > I don't view SK and Barth as gnostics. I'm familiar with the best
                            > scholars who have written on SK and Barth, and I've never heard of
                            > Dr. Lazier before.

                            I didn't say I thought SK was a Gnostic, but rather that he had
                            tendencies toward Gnosticism (remember, Voegelin found tendencies
                            toward Gnosticism in the Gospel of John even!).

                            As for Barth, his Hidden God does suggest something more than a
                            tendency.

                            According to Lazier, it was the German philosopher Hans Blumenberg
                            who "identified [Barth] as the leading "gnostic" of the period"
                            (i.e., the early 20th century).

                            I slightly misrepresented Lazier in the sense that he never
                            really "argues" that Barth was a Gnostic – though it is nevertheless
                            evident that he agrees with Blumenberg on this.

                            Lazier fleshes out Blumenberg's scope in which such a claim is to be
                            fit:

                            "In Legitimität der Neuzeit (Legitimacy of the Modern Age, 1966),
                            Blumenberg undertook what must count among the most ambitious
                            revisions of Western intellectual history ever ventured. Against a
                            rash of attacks on the modern age as an ill-concealed, secularized
                            derivative of an earlier Christian era, he stepped up in its defense.
                            He linked the emergence of the modern age—defined preeminently by
                            man's need for self-assertion, to act in the world—to a "second
                            overcoming" of gnosticism at the end of the Middle Ages. The gnostic
                            spirit he found revived by the nominalism and theological voluntarism
                            of late-medieval scholastic theology, a loose confluence of thought
                            centripetally bound by the black hole of the deus absconditus or
                            hidden god. Whereas gnosticism's first overcoming was Augustine's
                            work and but a partial success, its second, and for
                            Blumenberg "final" overcoming was the work of an ethos of human self-
                            assertion best instantiated by the scientific program of Francis
                            Bacon."

                            [And, Lazier later quotes Blumenberg as indirectly referring to the
                            crisis theologians -- of whom Barth was king -- of the early 20th
                            century]:

                            "The very people who were attempting to restore the radicalness of
                            the original religious distance from the world and to renew
                            theology's declarations of transcendence "dialectically" could see in
                            the massive evidence of the manifestation of the world
                            as "worldliness" the advantage of its unmistakable character of
                            immanence. What is foreign to the world, and appears to it as the
                            paradoxical demand that it give itself up, was supposed to withdraw
                            itself, in a new distinctness, from the entanglement and camouflage
                            in which, perhaps for the sake of demonstrable success, it had become
                            falsely familiar and acceptable. A theology of "division," of crisis,
                            had to be interested in making clear the worldliness of the world
                            rather than in overlaying it with the sacred. That is what gave the
                            use of the term "secularization" its specific theological pathos."

                            I consider fruitfully provocative Lazier's and Blumenberg's
                            suggestions that Barth's "Hidden God", and the starkness of division
                            between the saeculum and transcendence which that entails, are in
                            effect not so much a "modern Gnosticism" (which Voegelin notes tries,
                            unlike ancient Gnosticism, to immanentize transcendence) but rather a
                            type of retro-ancient Gnosticism in its utter denigration of the
                            Cosmos and of the mystery of its partial sacredness.

                            - D. Simlik
                          • pightle2000
                            Those who are interested might want to look up the comparisons of Voegelin and Blumenberg by Stephen McKnight and Henrik Syse. These are in English. I guess
                            Message 13 of 18 , Jan 6, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Those who are interested might want to look up the comparisons of
                              Voegelin and Blumenberg by Stephen McKnight and Henrik Syse. These
                              are in English. I guess there may be other work on the subject too.

                              Rhydon Jackson
                            • wabash_ckb
                              ... division ... tries, ... a ... I m not sure what Barth s Hidden God means. I have read his Church Dogmatics and I can report confidently that he
                              Message 14 of 18 , Jan 6, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In evforum@yahoogroups.com, "stromthy4" <stromthy4@y...> wrote:

                                >
                                > I consider fruitfully provocative Lazier's and Blumenberg's
                                > suggestions that Barth's "Hidden God", and the starkness of
                                division
                                > between the saeculum and transcendence which that entails, are in
                                > effect not so much a "modern Gnosticism" (which Voegelin notes
                                tries,
                                > unlike ancient Gnosticism, to immanentize transcendence) but rather
                                a
                                > type of retro-ancient Gnosticism in its utter denigration of the
                                > Cosmos and of the mystery of its partial sacredness.
                                >
                                > - D. Simlik

                                I'm not sure what Barth's "Hidden God" means. I have read his Church
                                Dogmatics and I can report confidently that he emphasizes that God is
                                not hidden because He has revealed himself in Christ. That is Barth's
                                message from top to bottom, left to right. Barth's critique of and
                                resistance against (gnostic) Naziism is just as strong as if not
                                stronger than EV's.

                                Similarly, Kierkegaard has been described by one of his ablest
                                interpreters, Bruce Kirmmse, as "the most anti-fascist thinker in the
                                modern world." I affirm that statement strongly.

                                Charles Bellinger
                              • stromthy4
                                ... Church Dogmatics and I can report confidently that he emphasizes that God is not hidden because He has revealed himself in Christ. Marcion s Hidden God, so
                                Message 15 of 18 , Jan 7, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Mr. Bellinger wrote:

                                  > I'm not sure what Barth's "Hidden God" means. I have read his
                                  Church Dogmatics and I can report confidently that he emphasizes that
                                  God is not hidden because He has revealed himself in Christ.

                                  Marcion's Hidden God, so extremely transcendent that He had nothing
                                  to do with this evil Creation of the evil Demiurge, could
                                  also "reveal Himself in Christ". And, although the resultant logical
                                  contradictions such a revelation entails were easily detected and
                                  lampooned by Tertullian, the evidently otherwise intelligent Marcion
                                  could persist in his beliefs. History is replete with intelligent
                                  people believing in untenable contradictions -- or at least in
                                  refusing to see them for what they are, indications of the
                                  paradoxical mystery of reality, and instead asseverating them to be
                                  apodictic propositions. Whether Barth then was trying to have his
                                  cake of a Deus Absconditus utterly cut off from an evil Cosmos while
                                  eating his God in Christ whose revelation also logically entails a
                                  Good Creation [albeit one not so Good that it is not in dire need of
                                  being saved], I would not presume to assert, though I would suggest
                                  it as a possibility. As to his laudable repudiation of Nazism, that
                                  too can be done within a gnostic framework -- namely, that of an
                                  ancient gnosticism (anti-cosmic transcendence) vs. a modern
                                  gnosticism (anti-transcendent immanentization); though again, I would
                                  only suggest this as a possibility, hinted at by the extremity of
                                  Barth's radical disjunction of immanence and transcendence.

                                  - D. Simlik
                                • wabash_ckb
                                  ... while Barth did not believe that the cosmos is evil. He said the exact opposite in vol. III/3 of the Dogmatics. Mr. Simlik, it isn t clear to me if you
                                  Message 16 of 18 , Jan 7, 2005
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In evforum@yahoogroups.com, "stromthy4" <stromthy4@y...> wrote:
                                    > cake of a Deus Absconditus utterly cut off from an evil Cosmos
                                    while

                                    Barth did not believe that the cosmos is evil. He said the exact
                                    opposite in vol. III/3 of the Dogmatics.

                                    Mr. Simlik, it isn't clear to me if you have read books by Barth or
                                    only things about him. Can you clarify this point and perhaps back up
                                    your comments on Barth with specific references to his writings?

                                    I apologize to list members for the digressive nature of this thread,
                                    but I'm seeking to bring together SK, KB, and EV in a productive
                                    conversation, and Mr. Simlik seems to want to do the opposite.

                                    Charles Bellinger
                                  • Frederick Wagner
                                    It is assumed that no one on this listserve would set out to hamper a serious discussion. We must assume, given the limitations of the medium, that slights
                                    Message 17 of 18 , Jan 8, 2005
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      It is assumed that no one on this listserve would set out to hamper a
                                      serious discussion. We must assume, given the limitations of the
                                      medium, that slights are inadvertent and no disrespect intended.

                                      Members will please try to remember to convert Digest headings
                                      to topical headings so later seekers may find the messages without
                                      too much difficulty.

                                      Fritz Wagner

                                      On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 00:06:01 -0000, wabash_ckb wrote:
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > --- In evforum@yahoogroups.com, "stromthy4" <stromthy4@y...>
                                      > wrote:
                                      >
                                      >> cake of a Deus Absconditus utterly cut off from an evil Cosmos
                                      >>
                                      > while
                                      >
                                      > Barth did not believe that the cosmos is evil. He said the
                                      > exact opposite in vol. III/3 of the Dogmatics.
                                      >
                                      > Mr. Simlik, it isn't clear to me if you have read books by
                                      > Barth or only things about him. Can you clarify this point and
                                      > perhaps back up your comments on Barth with specific references
                                      > to his writings?
                                      >
                                      > I apologize to list members for the digressive nature of this
                                      > thread, but I'm seeking to bring together SK, KB, and EV in a
                                      > productive conversation, and Mr. Simlik seems to want to do the
                                      > opposite.
                                      >
                                      > Charles Bellinger
                                      >
                                    • stromthy4
                                      ... Mr. Simlik, it isn t clear to me if you have read books by Barth or only things about him. Can you clarify this point and perhaps back up your comments on
                                      Message 18 of 18 , Jan 8, 2005
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In evforum@yahoogroups.com, Mr. Bellinger wrote:

                                        "Mr. Simlik, it isn't clear to me if you have read books by Barth or
                                        only things about him. Can you clarify this point and perhaps back up
                                        your comments on Barth with specific references to his writings?"

                                        As it has been some time since I read the Church Dogmatics (as well
                                        as the "Table Talk", and "The Translation Of Eleven Chapters Of Die
                                        Protestantische Theologie Im 19. Jahrundert"), and as it would be
                                        some time before I get around to consulting them for these purposes,
                                        I will bow out of this discussion, and apologize for any unprofitable
                                        furcations I might have caused in my sincere wish to raise
                                        interesting suggestions.

                                        - D. Simlik
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.