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

6468Re: Hi Flag

Expand Messages
  • wilbro99
    Aug 13, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Cari from #6465: "Willy, I might also ask what constitutes a "Big G."
      We do know that ("Big G") Gnosticism was a modern term coined to
      identify a Judeo/Hellenic syncretistic phenomenon in a fluid milieu
      of
      the late antiquities. Many members of various sects didn't even refer
      to themselves as "Gnostic." For instance, if their theology involved
      a
      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 at 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. ;-)"

      Cari, again you fill the table before me in such a way that I must
      return for seconds and beyond. I'll take it paragraph by paragraph. I
      had never heard of the words etic and emic before my visit to this
      site; learn something new every day as they say. I have found many
      different notions on what that word pair means, but the common one
      seems to be this, from the following site:

      http://personal.bgsu.edu/~edwards/tag3.html

      "One of Pike's other contributions to linguistic theory is his
      distinction between emic and etic viewpoints. Pike coined the terms
      from the endings of the words, phonemic and phonetic. The "emic" view
      is the perspective of the insider, the native, and is
      concerned with the contrastive, patterned system within a universe of
      discourse; the "etic" view of a unit is the perspective of the
      outsider who looks for universals and generalizations. The "emic"
      view
      is the view we expect from a participant within a system;
      the "etic" view is the view we expect of the alien observer."

      At once, I see a differentiation that brings another level of meaning
      to the differentiation, one that parallels Kierkegaard's
      differentiation between subjectivity and subjectivity, and
      exemplifies
      what I see as the apparent difference between you and Ernst. If
      gnosis
      is in fact fact, then another meaning of the term insider must
      adhere.
      This new meaning contains universals and, in effect, allows
      communication through another channel, as it were. We could call it
      the simpatico channel.

      There is something universal, call it an inner light, if you will, in
      deference to the group I find myself in, which I would call Presence,
      that can be come upon that allows the particulars to communicate
      of/through it. If, at the depths of psychology, so called, there is
      this silver thread that runs us all through, and connects us in the
      spiritual-more deference, why then I would say Gnosticism is a form
      of
      depth psychology. ----willy-nilly
    • Show all 22 messages in this topic