6466Re: Hi Flag
- Aug 13, 2002Actually, as a footnote, Will, when "gnosticism" was coined, there
was originally no "Big G" vs. "small g." Again, that has seemed to
be a later development as an attempt to differentiate between
historical gnosticism and a modern usage of the word to identify
modern trends not specific to historical gnosticism.
--- In gnosticism2@y..., lady_caritas <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In gnosticism2@y..., "wilbro99" <wilbro99@y...> wrote:
> > I guess my question is this (for any and all who would care to
> > answer): How do I upgrade my small g to a Big G?
> Willy, I might also ask what constitutes a "Big G." We do know
> ("Big G") Gnosticism was a modern term coined to identify a
> Judeo/Hellenic syncretistic phenomenon in a fluid milieu of the
> antiquities. Many members of various sects didn't even refer to
> themselves as "Gnostic." For instance, if their theology involved
> Christology, they might have just called themselves "Christians."
> Ah, so we see how many winding paths that particular label has
> traveled. Even though I am not fond of labels, they are necessary
> times. Calling myself a Gnostic basically means that I feel
> simpatico with the worldview of many so-called Gnostics of the past
> even though Ernst would assuredly remind me of differentiating
> between etic and emic viewpoints. ;-)
> >Do I have to accept
> > the points I reject as gospel?
> No, of course not. Hoeller has just outlined a guideline.
> what is "Gnostic" is of continuing interest to scholars and
> alike. There is no "gospel truth" or rigid dogma such as found in
> orthodoxy, but OTOH Gnosis doesn't operate in a vacuum. This is
> a historical phenomenon of "anything goes." That is what is
> particularly appealing to me personally. Most people accept
> that "Big G" Gnostic sects of the late antiquities had a
> that involves Gnosis. IOW, Gnosis ("Big G") finds its context
> Gnosticism. And exploring historical Gnosticism (and related
> and its modern-day relevance and applications is what we like to do
> in this group. We all have some strong opinions to be sure, but we
> realize that this is an esoteric, inner, intuitive individual
> even within the context of Gnosticism, a path that also requires
> critical thinking, but not an outside, authoritative doctrine
> of "gospel" laws and superimposed "beliefs" of others that should
> blindly accepted.
> Klaus Schilling (Post #6463) has made a list of Gnostics who didn't
> support all 12 points from Hoeller's article. Does that make them
> wrong or not Gnostic? Not necessarily. However, there might be
> others who might not agree with Klaus' evaluation, let alone the
> groups he includes in his list. For instance, many scholars and
> laypersons alike don't agree that Marcion was Gnostic. He appears
> Klaus' list as not agreeing with several points, a few that you in
> fact do find to be agreeable, Will. Yes, he lived within the time
> period in question. Yes, he shared a similar cosmology with other
> groups. But, there remains a question as to whether he accepted
> function of Gnosis in his soteriology.
> >What intrigued me about the "Lost
> > Sheep" sight was the layout of the myth itself. Am I to take the
> > at face value or is it only allegory? If I take the myth at face
> > value, must I not take the Judeo-Christian God at face value,
> > not as they take it?
> Well, first of all, this sermon you provided should not be fully
> accepted at face value or allegorically due to inaccuracies and
> superficial treatment by the author. There is in fact not just one
> Gnostic myth. To be sure, some might believe in a literal
> however, in contrast to a modern tendency to literalize mythology,
> would suggest that Gnostic myth is mostly viewed as allegorical.
> you read further about Gnosticism and delve into some actual
> scripture, you will see the necessity to try to set aside
> preconceptions regarding particular vocabulary, etc. (such as
> the "good," "evil" discussion we've been having).
> >To return to the above quote about Jung, and my
> > enquiry boils down to this question: What distinguishes
> > "interpolation" from "appropriation," and why isn't #10
> > itself? Of course, the list itself could be suspect, in which
> > am not lower case gnostic at all. I come in peace! ----willy
> Hmmm, so, Will, is Gnosticism merely a form of depth psychology?
> something different? :-)
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>