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

Re: Old vs new

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    Hey Crispin I take you to mean that even though you doubt the abilities of modern people to modernize the system (due to some suspicion as to whether they
    Message 1 of 97 , Jul 10, 2006
      Hey Crispin

      I take you to mean that even though you doubt the abilities of
      modern people to modernize the system (due to some suspicion as to
      whether they actually understand the system as much as they claim),
      that you are not against the idea of modernization in and of itself.
      Is that correct?

      It seems we have a pretty even split then....

      0= The ancient Gnostic system would be hurt by attempts to
      modernize, causing it to loose its intended context or
      initiatory/communicative structure.

      3= Ancient Gnosticism needs no change (besides maybe words that can
      be better understood by the modern reader). <Crispin, Mike and Mike>

      3= The core meanings that we find in Gnosticism are the important
      point (a core assumption that we have not yet discussed), the system
      itself isn't important so the question of modernization is a given.
      <Tom, George, and Ken>

      0= Historical Gnosticism is only valid if modernized.

      I want to pose the same question to you that I posed to Ken. As
      different as your two stances seem, they both depend on the
      assumption of a core principle and the question of who is able to
      attain that core principle in some way. Indeed, that may be one of
      the primary elements underlying the whole question of modernization.

      You mention the "transformative" quality again, and I remember the
      discussion about that previously. I take it that to some extent you
      would posit this as the core that you would assume in this case?
      This seems to put you very much in line with what George seems to be
      saying, in spite of the fact that I think you are leaning towards
      the two Mikes in your intended vote.

      Here is another question for you all. Is it possible that the only
      difference between the two camps thus far represented in the vote
      (since no one seems to have taken either of the extremes I presented
      in the vote) is about interprative method rather than essential
      content? Or, let me put that more specifically; Is the difference
      between Ken and Crispin (or Tom and Mike) simply about who has the
      ability to read the meanings, or is there a difference in the core
      goal of the two stances?


      >>>>hello, PMCV, your questions seem to be addressing the
      "practice" of Gnosticism as opposed to modern
      "scholarly" notions regarding ancient Gnosticism.

      as i don't know what "modern standards" (didn't get the
      memo) to apply when assessing the modernization of
      Gnosticism i can only apply my own assumptions and
      preconceptions (sorry about that, mate, but i'll call it
      "my experience" in order to at least lend the illusion of
      being somewhat authoritative) to the question of why
      current Gnostic practice is "failing."

      in my limited experience it appears that "modern
      notions of Gnosticism" are all over the map of human
      imagining. the nearest thing to a consensus i can
      detect is a virtual "anything goes" approach that glibly
      tosses all manner of disparate "forms" into the cooking
      pot of modern (or maybe it would be more accurate to
      say "popular") Gnosticism. for me this is the
      trivialization of Gnosticism: for all intents and purpose
      a reduction of a mystical science to a banal set of "do it
      yourself" and "anything goes" aphorisms; an attitude
      of condescension (or outright hostility) to the
      application of intellectual discipline and an inordinate
      valuation of intuition and emotion ("feelings") as a sort
      of magical conduit to "the truth." it all seems rather
      meaningless to me when the inmates are running the
      asylum. not meaning to offend, but it does appear to
      be marked by an inordinate degree of gullibility and
      wish fulfillment (keep in mind that my exposure to
      "popular" Gnosticism has been limited to Yahoo
      discussion groups and one popular web site that
      purports to represent a modern Gnostic church, which
      did have the "virtue" of eschewing New Age incursions
      into its particular "system").

      as far as "modernizing" the ancient mystical discipline
      of Gnosticism i have no objection to that. but there is
      one major caveat as far as i can tell. and that is who is
      going to modernize it? or better, who has the capacity
      and genuine experience to modernize it? all i can say
      is that i have yet to encounter ANYBODY, despite
      many claims to the contrary, that has the genuine
      capacity and necessary experience to pull it off.
      Widad's Lebanese Gnostics (which may or may not be
      in actuality a disguised Sufic operation) are very
      interesting to me, but we know too little about them to
      say anything particularly meaningful about their
      validity as a genuinely transformative discipline or
      operation, much less describe them as a valid or
      effective modernization of ancient Gnosticism.

      [Widad, by the way, should be returning to the States
      in the next week or two.]

      imo, and it's not mine alone, there seems to be this
      glaring blind spot in the eyes of many of today's
      self-proclaimed Gnostics in regards to the rigid
      discipline and diligent effort today's scholars
      insist was part and parcel of ancient Gnosticism,
      and which is also consistent with genuine Sufism
      as it is practiced today. part of this attitude may
      be derived from popular infusions of Buddhist
      thought and attitudes regarding "effort"; partly from
      current cultural attitudes favoring instant
      gratification. it's somewhat tantamount to an
      individual whose mathematical abilities are at the
      high school algebra level rewriting the precepts of
      quantum mechanics in order to bring that
      discipline down to their own particular level of
      understanding. at a personal level they may well
      feel some vindication and a sense of
      accomplishment. fine and dandy. but do you want
      this person on the faculty of your university
      perpetuating their error?<<<<
    • pmcvflag
      Michael ... G/gnostic?
      Message 97 of 97 , Aug 20, 2006

        >>>How could one ever conceive of Garnerian Wicca being in the least

        Er... my point exactly.

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