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

Re: Mani & The Manicheans this Sunday on Coffee, Cigs & Gnosis!!!

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    Because Dr BeDuhn was actually one of my big teachers on the historical front I am actually interested to hear this interview... and also what impression he
    Message 1 of 21 , Oct 27, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Because Dr BeDuhn was actually one of my big teachers on the
      historical front I am actually interested to hear this interview...
      and also what impression he makes on others here. Any report
      volunteers? Much of what he teaches directly is actually in
      opposition to the stance presented in the brief outline of this
      interview. Very curious!

      PMCV

      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "miguelconner"
      <miguelconner@...> wrote:
      >
      > It's M-M-M-Mani and the Manicheans (played to Elton John's `Benny &
      > The Jets')
      >
      > Manichaeism was the only global Gnostic religion ever, extending
      from
      > the Atlantic Ocean to central and southern Asia. Persian,
      Mongolian
      > and Chinese kings even made it a state religion (one claimed Mani
      was
      > the avatar of Lao-Tze). It lasted for a thousand years and
      survived
      > until the 15th century, yet it is perhaps the least known variety
      of
      > Gnosticism today. Manichaeism was also the biggest threat to the
      > Catholic Church in its early history, as well as a competitor to
      > several Eastern faiths in Asia. But the guys with swords tend to
      > always win over the pacifists. We revisit the origins, history,
      and
      > theology of this most unusual catholic Gnosticism.
      >
      > Jason BeDuhn, author of `The Manichaean Body: In Discipline and
      > Ritual' & Associate Professor of Religious Studies
      > Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion
      > Northern Arizona University joins `Coffee, Cigarettes & Gnosis'
      this
      > Sunday, October 29, at 3 PM PST/5 PM CST/6 PM EST at
      > Freethoughtmedia.com. Just click the `ON AIR' button under the
      banner.
      >
      > Topics Discussed:
      >
      > --The extraordinary life of the Prophet Mani, including his passion
      > and execution because of an orthodox priesthood (does the story
      ever
      > change?)
      > --The cosmology, tenets and rituals of Manichaeism, as well as how
      it
      > was able to compete with so many different religions across the
      world.
      > --How the Roman Catholic Church not only exterminated Manichaeism
      but
      > also co-opted several of its traditions (confession, priesthood
      > celibacy, and more).
      > --Saint Augustine, the ex-Manichean, and his ability to interbreed
      > Christian and Manichean theology that changed the Church forever.
      > --Evidence that it was perhaps the Manicheans who absorbed the
      classic
      > Gnostics and not the persecution of the early Church.
      > --The reasons why there is so little known of Mani and his
      religion in
      > these modern times.
      > --Dispelling the fable that Manicheans (like all other Gnostics)
      were
      > world-haters by glancing at their sublime scriptures and wisdom.
      > --Evidence for and against the Manicheans influencing the Bogomils
      and
      > Cathars of the later Middle Ages.
      >
      > And much more.
      >
      > Next week we deal with the divine feminine in Judaism and one of
      the
      > most important Kabbalist tomes—The Zohar. Our guest is Daniel C.
      > Matt, best selling author of `God and The Big Bang', `The Essential
      > Kabbalah: The Heart of Jewish Mysticism' & `The Zohar: annotated &
      > explained'.
      >
      > This week's rebroadcast of `Coffee, Cigarettes & Gnosis' is show
      > #12—`The Matrix Revolution'. We deal with Gnostic-themed movies
      such
      > as `Fight Club', `The Truman Show' and others, as well as some
      modern
      > Gnostic writers like Carlos Castaneda and Philip K Dick. Show
      starts
      > at 3 PM Eastern on Sunday.
      >
      > Abraxas
      >
    • Miguel Conner
      Really? I would say that 70% of the promo was taken directly from the interview. He did say that new evidence in Egypt is changing many scholar s views on
      Message 2 of 21 , Oct 27, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Really?  I would say that 70% of the promo was taken directly from the interview.  He did say that new evidence in Egypt is changing many scholar's views on Manichaeism.

        Hope you catch it.  BeDuhn was a great interviewee.

        Miguel

        pmcvflag <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
        Because Dr BeDuhn was actually one of my big teachers on the
        historical front I am actually interested to hear this interview...
        and also what impression he makes on others here. Any report
        volunteers? Much of what he teaches directly is actually in
        opposition to the stance presented in the brief outline of this
        interview. Very curious!

        PMCV

        --- In gnosticism2@ yahoogroups. com, "miguelconner"
        <miguelconner@ ...> wrote:
        >
        > It's M-M-M-Mani and the Manicheans (played to Elton John's `Benny &
        > The Jets')
        >
        > Manichaeism was the only global Gnostic religion ever, extending
        from
        > the Atlantic Ocean to central and southern Asia. Persian,
        Mongolian
        > and Chinese kings even made it a state religion (one claimed Mani
        was
        > the avatar of Lao-Tze). It lasted for a thousand years and
        survived
        > until the 15th century, yet it is perhaps the least known variety
        of
        > Gnosticism today. Manichaeism was also the biggest threat to the
        > Catholic Church in its early history, as well as a competitor to
        > several Eastern faiths in Asia. But the guys with swords tend to
        > always win over the pacifists. We revisit the origins, history,
        and
        > theology of this most unusual catholic Gnosticism.
        >
        > Jason BeDuhn, author of `The Manichaean Body: In Discipline and
        > Ritual' & Associate Professor of Religious Studies
        > Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion
        > Northern Arizona University joins `Coffee, Cigarettes & Gnosis'
        this
        > Sunday, October 29, at 3 PM PST/5 PM CST/6 PM EST at
        > Freethoughtmedia. com. Just click the `ON AIR' button under the
        banner.
        >
        > Topics Discussed:
        >
        > --The extraordinary life of the Prophet Mani, including his passion
        > and execution because of an orthodox priesthood (does the story
        ever
        > change?)
        > --The cosmology, tenets and rituals of Manichaeism, as well as how
        it
        > was able to compete with so many different religions across the
        world.
        > --How the Roman Catholic Church not only exterminated Manichaeism
        but
        > also co-opted several of its traditions (confession, priesthood
        > celibacy, and more).
        > --Saint Augustine, the ex-Manichean, and his ability to interbreed
        > Christian and Manichean theology that changed the Church forever.
        > --Evidence that it was perhaps the Manicheans who absorbed the
        classic
        > Gnostics and not the persecution of the early Church.
        > --The reasons why there is so little known of Mani and his
        religion in
        > these modern times.
        > --Dispelling the fable that Manicheans (like all other Gnostics)
        were
        > world-haters by glancing at their sublime scriptures and wisdom.
        > --Evidence for and against the Manicheans influencing the Bogomils
        and
        > Cathars of the later Middle Ages.
        >
        > And much more.
        >
        > Next week we deal with the divine feminine in Judaism and one of
        the
        > most important Kabbalist tomes—The Zohar. Our guest is Daniel C.
        > Matt, best selling author of `God and The Big Bang', `The Essential
        > Kabbalah: The Heart of Jewish Mysticism' & `The Zohar: annotated &
        > explained'.
        >
        > This week's rebroadcast of `Coffee, Cigarettes & Gnosis' is show
        > #12—`The Matrix Revolution'. We deal with Gnostic-themed movies
        such
        > as `Fight Club', `The Truman Show' and others, as well as some
        modern
        > Gnostic writers like Carlos Castaneda and Philip K Dick. Show
        starts
        > at 3 PM Eastern on Sunday.
        >
        > Abraxas
        >




        Visit http://thegodabovegod.com/ and become part of the new Renaissance of Gnosticism and Truthseeking.


        Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.

      • pmcvflag
        Hey Miguel ... from the interview. He did say that new evidence in Egypt is changing many scholar s views on Manichaeism. Hope you catch it. BeDuhn was a
        Message 3 of 21 , Oct 28, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Hey Miguel

          >>>Really? I would say that 70% of the promo was taken directly
          from the interview. He did say that new evidence in Egypt is
          changing many scholar's views on Manichaeism.

          Hope you catch it. BeDuhn was a great interviewee.<<<

          I hope to catch it as well. It should be very interesting.

          As for the new evidence, I am guessing you mean the Kellis (aka
          Ismant el-Kharab) finds?

          Anyway, I wonder if perhaps Dr BeDuhn softened his explinations for
          the sake of accessibility. I understand there is a limit to what one
          can talk about in the short span of a radio show. Or heck, maybe he
          has changed his mind about some things. I will be curious to find
          out. Let me try to explain further what I meant when I stated that
          it seemed to me that much of the intro you presented didn't seem to
          reflect what he teaches in his class. Perhaps this could spark some
          conversation that would convince others to listen to the program as
          well, and read the book.

          >>>--The extraordinary life of the Prophet Mani, including his
          passion and execution because of an orthodox priesthood (does the
          story ever change?)<<<

          In his class Dr BeDuhn raised serious questions about the actuality
          of the execution account, favoring instead the account that has him
          passing away in prison.

          >>>--Dispelling the fable that Manicheans (like all other Gnostics)
          were world-haters by glancing at their sublime scriptures and
          wisdom.<<<

          I once considered Manichaeans to be a form of "Gnosticism". It is Dr
          BeDuhn that convinced me otherwise. Actually, I was resistant to the
          recategorization, but I found Dr BeDuhn's arguments compelling...
          and in fact more recent scholars like Dr King seem to have similar
          views on the matter. I does point out some of the problems with the
          categorization in a vague way in the Manichaean Body, but in his
          class he was much more explicit.

          Well, those are just a couple of specific points. Of course, one
          does expect a greater level of caution to be presented in a
          university history class (and his class on Manichaeism was a higher
          level course) than in casual conversation, so I inderstand that part
          of what I may be pointing out could relate to that caution and a
          matter of technicalities that may seem less important in the
          interview setting. Questions like whether it is accurate to state
          that the Catholics "extermintated" the Manichaeans when they
          actually continued in the east for some time may essentially be a
          non-issue when the basic effect still stands.

          You all know by now that I am anal about such things *lol*.

          PMCV
        • Scott Hutton
          Jumping in to this delightful discussion, I decided to go see the other guys are saying.So I hit the Catholic Encyclopedia, where it is said with a straight
          Message 4 of 21 , Oct 28, 2006
          • 0 Attachment

            Jumping in to this delightful discussion, I decided to go see the other guys are saying.

            So I hit the Catholic Encyclopedia, where it is said with a straight face that once Mani's cosmology is known, there is little else to learn and that the Manichaeans are Gnostics in that the believe in liberation through knowledge.

            I don't know about the Manicheans but that is exactly what your garden variety gnostic is NOT into.� That person is into knowing, which is an event far diffferent from knowledge.

            Jeesh.� Trust that bunch to trot out a mangled description of another spiritual current and expect no one to notice

            Scott Hutton.






            --- On Sat 10/28, pmcvflag < no_reply@yahoogroups.com > wrote:
            From: pmcvflag [mailto: no_reply@yahoogroups.com]
            To: gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 17:29:18 -0000
            Subject: [Gnosticism2] Re: Mani & The Manicheans this Sunday on Coffee, Cigs & Gnosis!!!














            Hey Miguel

            >>>Really? I would say that 70% of the promo was taken directly
            from the interview. He did say that new evidence in Egypt is
            changing many scholar's views on Manichaeism.

            Hope you catch it. BeDuhn was a great interviewee. <<<

            I hope to catch it as well. It should be very interesting.

            As for the new evidence, I am guessing you mean the Kellis (aka
            Ismant el-Kharab) finds?

            Anyway, I wonder if perhaps Dr BeDuhn softened his explinations for
            the sake of accessibility. I understand there is a limit to what one
            can talk about in the short span of a radio show. Or heck, maybe he
            has changed his mind about some things. I will be curious to find
            out. Let me try to explain further what I meant when I stated that
            it seemed to me that much of the intro you presented didn't seem to
            reflect what he teaches in his class. Perhaps this could spark some
            conversation that would convince others to listen to the program as
            well, and read the book.

            >>>--The extraordinary life of the Prophet Mani, including his
            passion and execution because of an orthodox priesthood (does the
            story ever change?)<<<

            In his class Dr BeDuhn raised serious questions about the actuality
            of the execution account, favoring instead the account that has him
            passing away in prison.

            >>>--Dispelling the fable that Manicheans (like all other Gnostics)
            were world-haters by glancing at their sublime scriptures and
            wisdom.<<<

            I once considered Manichaeans to be a form of "Gnosticism" . It is Dr
            BeDuhn that convinced me otherwise. Actually, I was resistant to the
            recategorization, but I found Dr BeDuhn's arguments compelling.. .
            and in fact more recent scholars like Dr King seem to have similar
            views on the matter. I does point out some of the problems with the
            categorization in a vague way in the Manichaean Body, but in his
            class he was much more explicit.

            Well, those are just a couple of specific points. Of course, one
            does expect a greater level of caution to be presented in a
            university history class (and his class on Manichaeism was a higher
            level course) than in casual conversation, so I inderstand that part
            of what I may be pointing out could relate to that caution and a
            matter of technicalities that may seem less important in the
            interview setting. Questions like whether it is accurate to state
            that the Catholics "extermintated" the Manichaeans when they
            actually continued in the east for some time may essentially be a
            non-issue when the basic effect still stands.

            You all know by now that I am anal about such things *lol*.

            PMCV










            No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
            Make My Way your home on the Web - http://www.myway.com

          • pmcvflag
            Hey Scott, welcome to the conversation. ... other guys are saying. So I hit the Catholic Encyclopedia, where it is said with a straight face that once Mani s
            Message 5 of 21 , Oct 28, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Hey Scott, welcome to the conversation.

              >>>Jumping in to this delightful discussion, I decided to go see the
              other guys are saying. So I hit the Catholic Encyclopedia, where it is
              said with a straight face that once Mani's cosmology is known, there
              is little else to learn and that the Manichaeans are Gnostics in that
              the believe in liberation through knowledge.<<<

              Part of what would be at issue here is whether or not it is
              essentially "Gnosis" or "Praxis" that Manichaeans viewed as the
              primary soteriological force. According to Dr BeDuhn's book it is
              correct action, not "gnosis", that was the primary means of
              salvation/liberation, and "gnosis" served to help one come to
              understand this correct action. The difference with the Gnostics (as
              they are categorically imagined), then, was that they believed that
              Gnosis in and of itself was salvation, and correct action would be a
              sort of side effect.

              >>>I don't know about the Manicheans but that is exactly what your
              garden variety gnostic is NOT into. That person is into knowing,
              which is an event far diffferent from knowledge.<<<

              When we talk about the Gnostics as they are more technically defined,
              namely the Sethian or Valentinian forms, we see a number of attributes
              within the concept of "Gnosis". Some Sethian texts, for instance, talk
              about an understanding of cosmology as a central element of Gnosis.
              The Gospel of Thomas talks about hermeneutics as a key function. We
              can talk about knowing and knowledge in arbitrary terms, of course,
              but in the end we always must keep in mind the concept of Gnosis as we
              see it in historical Gnostic groups. The problem that is often debated
              (and validly debatable) is just how the Manichaean concept of gnosis
              relates or fails to relate to the Sethian or Valentinian notion of the
              word.

              On another front, there is no question that Manichaeans use some
              similar lingo and cosmology with the definitive Gnostic groups. One
              aspect of that cosmology, though, seems nearly opposite. Gnostic texts
              generally see the universal flaw as being caused by division and
              seperation from the spiritual source. In other words, duality is a bad
              thing. Manichaeans, on the other hand, describe a setting in which the
              flaw in the universe was caused not because of duality, but because of
              a mixing of the dual forces that should naturally be kept apart. In
              Manichaean thinking the world is a sort of machine for sorting out the
              dual elements back into their rightful opposites (the world having a
              positive function). Gnostics, on the other hand, present the world as
              a flawed creation by an ignorant Demiurge.

              My point is that on the surface they two movements do have many
              striking similarities, but careful reading of the text also presents
              some differences that are so core that they raise the issue of the
              very categorical attributes that define "Gnosticism". Debating one
              side of that or the other is often a matter of how far one wishes to
              stretch that term.

              PMCV
            • Miguel Conner
              Hi, Actually, mixing the interview I just noticed that BeDuhn does mention that Mani died in prison before any torture. I got ahead of myself while doing
              Message 6 of 21 , Oct 28, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi,

                Actually, mixing the interview I just noticed that BeDuhn does mention that Mani died in prison before any torture.  I got ahead of myself while doing side-research.

                And you're right-- we couldn't go too in depth in 45 minutes.  How Gnostic or Gnostic-at-all really wasn't touched upon.  I've still got a lot to cover on the show before I get into the deeper layers of Gnosticism or what is Gnosticism proper.   I know that Karen King will more than likely appear in the Spring, after she has recovered from surgery, so I'll tackle the issue then.

                As far as any 'extermination', BeDuhn simply referred to it as 'The Catholic Church using the power of the State to compete with Manichaeism'.  Many ways one can read that but I think it points to the obvious.

                Miguel


                pmcvflag <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                Hey Miguel

                >>>Really? I would say that 70% of the promo was taken directly
                from the interview. He did say that new evidence in Egypt is
                changing many scholar's views on Manichaeism.

                Hope you catch it. BeDuhn was a great interviewee. <<<

                I hope to catch it as well. It should be very interesting.

                As for the new evidence, I am guessing you mean the Kellis (aka
                Ismant el-Kharab) finds?

                Anyway, I wonder if perhaps Dr BeDuhn softened his explinations for
                the sake of accessibility. I understand there is a limit to what one
                can talk about in the short span of a radio show. Or heck, maybe he
                has changed his mind about some things. I will be curious to find
                out. Let me try to explain further what I meant when I stated that
                it seemed to me that much of the intro you presented didn't seem to
                reflect what he teaches in his class. Perhaps this could spark some
                conversation that would convince others to listen to the program as
                well, and read the book.

                >>>--The extraordinary life of the Prophet Mani, including his
                passion and execution because of an orthodox priesthood (does the
                story ever change?)<<<

                In his class Dr BeDuhn raised serious questions about the actuality
                of the execution account, favoring instead the account that has him
                passing away in prison.

                >>>--Dispelling the fable that Manicheans (like all other Gnostics)
                were world-haters by glancing at their sublime scriptures and
                wisdom.<<<

                I once considered Manichaeans to be a form of "Gnosticism" . It is Dr
                BeDuhn that convinced me otherwise. Actually, I was resistant to the
                recategorization, but I found Dr BeDuhn's arguments compelling.. .
                and in fact more recent scholars like Dr King seem to have similar
                views on the matter. I does point out some of the problems with the
                categorization in a vague way in the Manichaean Body, but in his
                class he was much more explicit.

                Well, those are just a couple of specific points. Of course, one
                does expect a greater level of caution to be presented in a
                university history class (and his class on Manichaeism was a higher
                level course) than in casual conversation, so I inderstand that part
                of what I may be pointing out could relate to that caution and a
                matter of technicalities that may seem less important in the
                interview setting. Questions like whether it is accurate to state
                that the Catholics "extermintated" the Manichaeans when they
                actually continued in the east for some time may essentially be a
                non-issue when the basic effect still stands.

                You all know by now that I am anal about such things *lol*.

                PMCV




                Visit http://thegodabovegod.com/ and become part of the new Renaissance of Gnosticism and Truthseeking.


                Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Yahoo! Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone call rates.

              • pmcvflag
                Hey Miguel ... still got a lot to cover on the show before I get into the deeper layers of Gnosticism or what is Gnosticism proper. I know that Karen King
                Message 7 of 21 , Oct 29, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hey Miguel

                  >>>How Gnostic or Gnostic-at-all really wasn't touched upon. I've
                  still got a lot to cover on the show before I get into the deeper
                  layers of Gnosticism or what is Gnosticism proper. I know that
                  Karen King will more than likely appear in the Spring, after she has
                  recovered from surgery, so I'll tackle the issue then.<<<

                  That should be interesting as well. I have not had a chance to meet
                  or speak with Dr King, but our friend here Thomas L. was in her
                  class. She is one of the more hardline deconstructionists of the
                  Gnosticism category, and I think some of her textual criticism is
                  first rate.

                  Also, our mod, Gerry, attended a seminar with Dr Ehrman some time
                  ago and found it... er... interesting ;) Most of his previous
                  material hadn't been so much about Gnosticism, per se, but more and
                  more of it is. In one recent introduction to a book he mentions how
                  he had previously been an evangelical, and his study of history
                  totally turned his view on its head. Any thoughts of upcoming
                  interviews with him?

                  PMCV
                • Miguel Conner
                  I talked briefly to Ehrman. He is going to be in Europe for the next two seasons, so I won t be able to get him on also in the spring. Happens to a scholar
                  Message 8 of 21 , Oct 29, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I talked briefly to Ehrman.  He is going to be in Europe for the next two seasons, so I won't be able to get him on also in the spring.  Happens to a scholar who scores a best seller.  They travel a lot!

                    Miguel


                    Visit http://thegodabovegod.com/ and become part of the new Renaissance of Gnosticism and Truthseeking.


                    Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music Unlimited Try it today.
                  • pmcvflag
                    Miguel and all ... SO, I did catch it... did anyone else here do so? Anyone have thoughts or comments about the interview, or about the subject? Questions?
                    Message 9 of 21 , Oct 30, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Miguel and all

                      >>>Hope you catch it. BeDuhn was a great interviewee.<<<

                      SO, I did catch it... did anyone else here do so? Anyone have
                      thoughts or comments about the interview, or about the subject?
                      Questions? Criticisms? Debate points?

                      I did notice a few things about the interview. I noticed how Dr
                      BeDuhn seemed to concede the term "Gnosticism" for the sake of the
                      interview, but vascilated between drawing the line and trying to make
                      a concerted effort to use the term in a more popular way.

                      I was also aware of his considerably more diplomatic presentation of
                      various authors' method of popularizing Gnosticism, and the resulting
                      information as it really relates to subject at hand. The point about
                      accentuating certain popular attributes is a nice way of questioning
                      the validity of those attributes and reliability of the picture those
                      authors are presenting. If one wished to state that more simply they
                      could say that many popular efforts are unfortunately based on gloss
                      and spin.... but I am a bit more blunt than most ;)

                      I was a little disappointed that Dr BeDuhn danced past the issue of
                      the funtion of gnosis in Manichaean thought vs the function in
                      Gnostic thinking, since it is so core to the issue of what the
                      category of "Gnostic" is meant to communicate. I do, however,
                      understand that simply going with the flow may have been easier
                      considering the shortness of the interview and perhaps the fact that
                      the audience was likely to be new to the subject. Of course, in this
                      forum we try to go a bit deeper into this kind of issue. Even in this
                      forum it has sometimes been difficult to convey for some people that
                      the Gnostic concept of "Gnosis" is different from the Catholic
                      concept of "gnosis", because when people see the word they tend to
                      automatically assume a whole host of connections.

                      I have often argued that the Manichaean concept of "gnosis", is far
                      closer to the orthodox Christian (especially Catholic) usage than to
                      the Gnostic one. However, I leave that open to discussion and debate.

                      PMCV
                    • lady_caritas
                      ... make ... I m not sure he actually conceded, PMCV, because he did point out differences and similarities between Manichaeans and earlier Gnostics, allowing
                      Message 10 of 21 , Oct 31, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Miguel and all
                        >
                        > >>>Hope you catch it. BeDuhn was a great interviewee.<<<
                        >
                        > SO, I did catch it... did anyone else here do so? Anyone have
                        > thoughts or comments about the interview, or about the subject?
                        > Questions? Criticisms? Debate points?
                        >
                        > I did notice a few things about the interview. I noticed how Dr
                        > BeDuhn seemed to concede the term "Gnosticism" for the sake of the
                        > interview, but vascilated between drawing the line and trying to
                        make
                        > a concerted effort to use the term in a more popular way.



                        I'm not sure he actually conceded, PMCV, because he did point out
                        differences and similarities between Manichaeans and earlier
                        Gnostics, allowing the listener to at least begin a process of
                        examining this subject of categorization. Possibly his primary focus
                        of the interview could have been to give general information about
                        Mani and the Manichaeans for an audience of varied backgrounds, as
                        you point out, and not get too specific in an academic way about
                        categorization. In fact I don't remember the actual
                        word "Gnosticism" being used all that much in the interview. Yet use
                        of terms like "gnostic movement" or "gnostics" or "antecedent
                        gnostic" would seem to show a predilection for a specific category
                        for comparison in his view.

                        And Dr. BeDuhn (pronounced, if I understand correctly: "beh-doon")
                        did say early on in the interview that how Manichaeism is related to
                        the broader Gnostic movement is debatable. Even though he didn't get
                        into depth about the actual function of gnosis, he did bring out the
                        importance of this type of knowledge for both Manichaeans and earlier
                        Gnostics, involving the true nature of god and soul. Even though we
                        see syncretism, a few differences he pointed out included how in
                        Manichaeism a good god created the world, which distinctly varied
                        from the antecedent Gnostic world-maligned creation, and also the
                        Manichaeans' belief that non-humans, i.e., plants and animals have
                        souls, which is broader than most gnostic systems. We also see a
                        pantheism in Manichaeism in that everything has god in it; everything
                        is a mixture of good and evil, and there is a real affirmation of the
                        natural world, quite different from other gnostic systems. PMCV, in
                        this regard you also pointed out in a previous post (#12810) an
                        important difference concerning cosmology:

                        "Gnostic texts generally see the universal flaw as being caused by
                        division and
                        seperation from the spiritual source. In other words, duality is a bad
                        thing. Manichaeans, on the other hand, describe a setting in which the
                        flaw in the universe was caused not because of duality, but because of
                        a mixing of the dual forces that should naturally be kept apart. In
                        Manichaean thinking the world is a sort of machine for sorting out the
                        dual elements back into their rightful opposites (the world having a
                        positive function). Gnostics, on the other hand, present the world as
                        a flawed creation by an ignorant Demiurge."

                        All this said, there is still the issue of the function of Gnosis in
                        the system, as you also mentioned. And one could examine whether
                        Gnosis or rather Praxis is emphasized as the main soteriological
                        force.



                        > I was also aware of his considerably more diplomatic presentation
                        of
                        > various authors' method of popularizing Gnosticism, and the
                        resulting
                        > information as it really relates to subject at hand. The point
                        about
                        > accentuating certain popular attributes is a nice way of
                        questioning
                        > the validity of those attributes and reliability of the picture
                        those
                        > authors are presenting. If one wished to state that more simply
                        they
                        > could say that many popular efforts are unfortunately based on
                        gloss
                        > and spin.... but I am a bit more blunt than most ;)
                        >
                        > I was a little disappointed that Dr BeDuhn danced past the issue of
                        > the funtion of gnosis in Manichaean thought vs the function in
                        > Gnostic thinking, since it is so core to the issue of what the
                        > category of "Gnostic" is meant to communicate. I do, however,
                        > understand that simply going with the flow may have been easier
                        > considering the shortness of the interview and perhaps the fact
                        that
                        > the audience was likely to be new to the subject. Of course, in
                        this
                        > forum we try to go a bit deeper into this kind of issue. Even in
                        this
                        > forum it has sometimes been difficult to convey for some people
                        that
                        > the Gnostic concept of "Gnosis" is different from the Catholic
                        > concept of "gnosis", because when people see the word they tend to
                        > automatically assume a whole host of connections.
                        >
                        > I have often argued that the Manichaean concept of "gnosis", is far
                        > closer to the orthodox Christian (especially Catholic) usage than
                        to
                        > the Gnostic one. However, I leave that open to discussion and
                        debate.
                        >
                        > PMCV
                        >


                        Would you care to share your views further on this subject, PMCV?

                        One also could posit whether orthodox Christianity most likely
                        derived its concept of gnosis at least in part from Manichaeism, due
                        to the influence of Augustine. Apparently, Dr. BeDuhn currently is
                        working on the figure of Augustine regarding his use of Manichaeism
                        in Catholic material. Should be interesting.

                        BTW, I know it's Halloween, but perhaps some more spirited members
                        lurking in the shadows might want to question or comment more on the
                        interview or Manichaeism in general?

                        It appeared to me that Dr. BeDuhn really enjoyed this subject. He
                        particularly seemed to light up when discussing the Manichaean
                        positive view of world beauty (countering a reputation as "world
                        haters") and part of their affirmation of beauty as manifested in the
                        high value that Manichaeans placed on human art.


                        Cari
                      • pmcvflag
                        Hey Lady Cari ... differences and similarities between Manichaeans and earlier Gnostics, allowing the listener to at least begin a process of examining this
                        Message 11 of 21 , Oct 31, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hey Lady Cari

                          >>>I'm not sure he actually conceded, PMCV, because he did point out
                          differences and similarities between Manichaeans and earlier
                          Gnostics, allowing the listener to at least begin a process of
                          examining this subject of categorization. Possibly his primary focus
                          of the interview could have been to give general information about
                          Mani and the Manichaeans for an audience of varied backgrounds, as
                          you point out, and not get too specific in an academic way about
                          categorization. In fact I don't remember the actual
                          word "Gnosticism" being used all that much in the interview. Yet use
                          of terms like "gnostic movement" or "gnostics" or "antecedent
                          gnostic" would seem to show a predilection for a specific category
                          for comparison in his view.<<<

                          Well, what I meant by "concede" is that he was willing to use terms
                          like "other gnostics" when it was clear, as you point out, that he
                          was often drawing a destinction. I noticed that in most instances
                          when he mentioned the Gnostics first he clearly did not define
                          Manichaeans as part of this movement. He even went so far as to
                          explain how Manichaeans probably conciously borrowed Gnostic lingo
                          at a later date in the same way they borrowed Buddhist lingo.
                          However, when mentioning the Manichaeans first he sometimes talked
                          about their relation to "other gnostics" with what sounded to me
                          like a hint of hesitation. Perhaps that stood out to me because I
                          got the unabridged version *lol*, but I can say that in his lectures
                          it was not a matter of "other Gnostics".

                          I do like the term "antecedent gnostics" because it can imply a
                          connection without having to imply a cohesion. It allows for the
                          possibility that Manichaeans are related to the Gnostics without
                          actually BEING Gnostic.

                          >>>And Dr. BeDuhn (pronounced, if I understand correctly: "beh-doon")
                          did say early on in the interview that how Manichaeism is related to
                          the broader Gnostic movement is debatable.<<<

                          True, he did. And yes... Miguel, just for the record you pronounced
                          his name wrong (I have to rib you on that one *lol*).

                          >>>Even though he didn't get into depth about the actual function of
                          gnosis, he did bring out the importance of this type of knowledge
                          for both Manichaeans and earlier Gnostics, involving the true nature
                          of god and soul.<<<

                          Which was interesting because even in his book he talks about how
                          the importance and function of this type of knowledge in the
                          Manichaean system is often based on a questionable reading of the
                          text (Body, pg 98, last section).

                          >>>All this said, there is still the issue of the function of Gnosis
                          in the system, as you also mentioned. And one could examine whether
                          Gnosis or rather Praxis is emphasized as the main soteriological
                          force.<<<

                          Yes, exactly. I know it is a big debate, but a very important one
                          when considering what it is that makes something "Gnostic".

                          >>>Would you care to share your views further on this subject, PMCV?
                          <<<

                          Well, yes I would *lol*. However, I would like to see others offer
                          some views first so that it is open to wider conversation.

                          >>>BTW, I know it's Halloween, but perhaps some more spirited members
                          lurking in the shadows might want to question or comment more on the
                          interview or Manichaeism in general?<<<

                          Oh yeah! I forgot it is Halloween. I guess I should get back to
                          errands before people start knocking on the door! I do hope others
                          chime in on this conversation though.

                          >>>It appeared to me that Dr. BeDuhn really enjoyed this subject. He
                          particularly seemed to light up when discussing the Manichaean
                          positive view of world beauty (countering a reputation as "world
                          haters") and part of their affirmation of beauty as manifested in the
                          high value that Manichaeans placed on human art.<<<

                          Indeed. In fact, I always had the impression the Gnosticism wasn't
                          quite so interesting to him. Manichaeans seem to be his passion, and
                          he proudly claims to be a "Mani maniac" *lol*.

                          PMCV
                        • Melissa McIntyre
                          Since I am a new member to the group, I don t know what interview or discussion you are pertaining too, but I would be interested in knowing more about it, so
                          Message 12 of 21 , Nov 1, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Since I am a new member to the group, I don't know what interview or discussion you are pertaining too, but I would be interested in knowing more about it, so that I can comment on it. 
                            Melissa
                            lady_caritas <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                            --- In gnosticism2@ yahoogroups. com, pmcvflag <no_reply@.. .> wrote:
                            >
                            > Miguel and all
                            >
                            > >>>Hope you catch it. BeDuhn was a great interviewee. <<<
                            >
                            > SO, I did catch it... did anyone else here do so? Anyone have
                            > thoughts or comments about the interview, or about the subject?
                            > Questions? Criticisms? Debate points?
                            >
                            > I did notice a few things about the interview. I noticed how Dr
                            > BeDuhn seemed to concede the term "Gnosticism" for the sake of the
                            > interview, but vascilated between drawing the line and trying to
                            make
                            > a concerted effort to use the term in a more popular way.

                            I'm not sure he actually conceded, PMCV, because he did point out
                            differences and similarities between Manichaeans and earlier
                            Gnostics, allowing the listener to at least begin a process of
                            examining this subject of categorization. Possibly his primary focus
                            of the interview could have been to give general information about
                            Mani and the Manichaeans for an audience of varied backgrounds, as
                            you point out, and not get too specific in an academic way about
                            categorization. In fact I don't remember the actual
                            word "Gnosticism" being used all that much in the interview. Yet use
                            of terms like "gnostic movement" or "gnostics" or "antecedent
                            gnostic" would seem to show a predilection for a specific category
                            for comparison in his view.

                            And Dr. BeDuhn (pronounced, if I understand correctly: "beh-doon")
                            did say early on in the interview that how Manichaeism is related to
                            the broader Gnostic movement is debatable. Even though he didn't get
                            into depth about the actual function of gnosis, he did bring out the
                            importance of this type of knowledge for both Manichaeans and earlier
                            Gnostics, involving the true nature of god and soul. Even though we
                            see syncretism, a few differences he pointed out included how in
                            Manichaeism a good god created the world, which distinctly varied
                            from the antecedent Gnostic world-maligned creation, and also the
                            Manichaeans' belief that non-humans, i.e., plants and animals have
                            souls, which is broader than most gnostic systems. We also see a
                            pantheism in Manichaeism in that everything has god in it; everything
                            is a mixture of good and evil, and there is a real affirmation of the
                            natural world, quite different from other gnostic systems. PMCV, in
                            this regard you also pointed out in a previous post (#12810) an
                            important difference concerning cosmology:

                            "Gnostic texts generally see the universal flaw as being caused by
                            division and
                            seperation from the spiritual source. In other words, duality is a bad
                            thing. Manichaeans, on the other hand, describe a setting in which the
                            flaw in the universe was caused not because of duality, but because of
                            a mixing of the dual forces that should naturally be kept apart. In
                            Manichaean thinking the world is a sort of machine for sorting out the
                            dual elements back into their rightful opposites (the world having a
                            positive function). Gnostics, on the other hand, present the world as
                            a flawed creation by an ignorant Demiurge."

                            All this said, there is still the issue of the function of Gnosis in
                            the system, as you also mentioned. And one could examine whether
                            Gnosis or rather Praxis is emphasized as the main soteriological
                            force.

                            > I was also aware of his considerably more diplomatic presentation
                            of
                            > various authors' method of popularizing Gnosticism, and the
                            resulting
                            > information as it really relates to subject at hand. The point
                            about
                            > accentuating certain popular attributes is a nice way of
                            questioning
                            > the validity of those attributes and reliability of the picture
                            those
                            > authors are presenting. If one wished to state that more simply
                            they
                            > could say that many popular efforts are unfortunately based on
                            gloss
                            > and spin.... but I am a bit more blunt than most ;)
                            >
                            > I was a little disappointed that Dr BeDuhn danced past the issue of
                            > the funtion of gnosis in Manichaean thought vs the function in
                            > Gnostic thinking, since it is so core to the issue of what the
                            > category of "Gnostic" is meant to communicate. I do, however,
                            > understand that simply going with the flow may have been easier
                            > considering the shortness of the interview and perhaps the fact
                            that
                            > the audience was likely to be new to the subject. Of course, in
                            this
                            > forum we try to go a bit deeper into this kind of issue. Even in
                            this
                            > forum it has sometimes been difficult to convey for some people
                            that
                            > the Gnostic concept of "Gnosis" is different from the Catholic
                            > concept of "gnosis", because when people see the word they tend to
                            > automatically assume a whole host of connections.
                            >
                            > I have often argued that the Manichaean concept of "gnosis", is far
                            > closer to the orthodox Christian (especially Catholic) usage than
                            to
                            > the Gnostic one. However, I leave that open to discussion and
                            debate.
                            >
                            > PMCV
                            >

                            Would you care to share your views further on this subject, PMCV?

                            One also could posit whether orthodox Christianity most likely
                            derived its concept of gnosis at least in part from Manichaeism, due
                            to the influence of Augustine. Apparently, Dr. BeDuhn currently is
                            working on the figure of Augustine regarding his use of Manichaeism
                            in Catholic material. Should be interesting.

                            BTW, I know it's Halloween, but perhaps some more spirited members
                            lurking in the shadows might want to question or comment more on the
                            interview or Manichaeism in general?

                            It appeared to me that Dr. BeDuhn really enjoyed this subject. He
                            particularly seemed to light up when discussing the Manichaean
                            positive view of world beauty (countering a reputation as "world
                            haters") and part of their affirmation of beauty as manifested in the
                            high value that Manichaeans placed on human art.

                            Cari




                            The Dragon Speaks......Listen.


                            Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail.

                          • lady_caritas
                            ... or discussion you are pertaining too, but I would be interested in knowing more about it, so that I can comment on it. ... Welcome, Melissa! The
                            Message 13 of 21 , Nov 1, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Melissa McIntyre <oakraven71@...>
                              wrote:
                              >
                              > Since I am a new member to the group, I don't know what interview
                              or discussion you are pertaining too, but I would be interested in
                              knowing more about it, so that I can comment on it.
                              >
                              > Melissa


                              Welcome, Melissa! The discussion thread begins here, if you'd like
                              to catch up at our website:
                              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosticism2/message/12805

                              The interview with Dr. BeDuhn was about Mani and the Manichaeans and
                              aired this past Sunday at Free Thought Media. I don't know if Miguel
                              is planning on a rebroadcast of the interview, but purchases of
                              interviews are available for a small fee at that website (*not*
                              affiliated with Gnosticism2 group, BTW), usually around a dollar,
                              only if you're interested.
                              http://www.freethoughtmedia.com/

                              Feel free to just ask questions or comment on Mani or Manichaeans in
                              general, too, if you'd like.

                              Cari
                            • Miguel Conner
                              Hi, Well, I think it s safe to say that there is always going to be some cross-pollination between competing religions. And the fact the father of Christian
                              Message 14 of 21 , Nov 1, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hi,

                                Well, I think it's safe to say that there is always going to be some cross-pollination between competing religions.  And the fact the father of Christian theology, Saint Augustine, was, in a sense, playing both sides of the field.  Hopefully, Professor BeDuhn will come out with his new work on Augustine in the near future.

                                Miguel

                                pmcvflag <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                                Miguel and all

                                >>>Hope you catch it. BeDuhn was a great interviewee. <<<

                                SO, I did catch it... did anyone else here do so? Anyone have
                                thoughts or comments about the interview, or about the subject?
                                Questions? Criticisms? Debate points?

                                I did notice a few things about the interview. I noticed how Dr
                                BeDuhn seemed to concede the term "Gnosticism" for the sake of the
                                interview, but vascilated between drawing the line and trying to make
                                a concerted effort to use the term in a more popular way.

                                I was also aware of his considerably more diplomatic presentation of
                                various authors' method of popularizing Gnosticism, and the resulting
                                information as it really relates to subject at hand. The point about
                                accentuating certain popular attributes is a nice way of questioning
                                the validity of those attributes and reliability of the picture those
                                authors are presenting. If one wished to state that more simply they
                                could say that many popular efforts are unfortunately based on gloss
                                and spin.... but I am a bit more blunt than most ;)

                                I was a little disappointed that Dr BeDuhn danced past the issue of
                                the funtion of gnosis in Manichaean thought vs the function in
                                Gnostic thinking, since it is so core to the issue of what the
                                category of "Gnostic" is meant to communicate. I do, however,
                                understand that simply going with the flow may have been easier
                                considering the shortness of the interview and perhaps the fact that
                                the audience was likely to be new to the subject. Of course, in this
                                forum we try to go a bit deeper into this kind of issue. Even in this
                                forum it has sometimes been difficult to convey for some people that
                                the Gnostic concept of "Gnosis" is different from the Catholic
                                concept of "gnosis", because when people see the word they tend to
                                automatically assume a whole host of connections.

                                I have often argued that the Manichaean concept of "gnosis", is far
                                closer to the orthodox Christian (especially Catholic) usage than to
                                the Gnostic one. However, I leave that open to discussion and debate.

                                PMCV




                                Visit http://thegodabovegod.com/ and become part of the new Renaissance of Gnosticism and Truthseeking.


                                Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.

                              • Miguel Conner
                                Doh! I should have asked him how to pronounce his name since I m the eternal autodidact! Oh well, you d be surprised at how many guest mispronounce Miguel
                                Message 15 of 21 , Nov 1, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Doh!  I should have asked him how to pronounce his name since I'm the eternal autodidact!  Oh well, you'd be surprised at how many guest mispronounce 'Miguel' during interviews.

                                  Miguel

                                  pmcvflag <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                                  Hey Lady Cari

                                  >>>I'm not sure he actually conceded, PMCV, because he did point out
                                  differences and similarities between Manichaeans and earlier
                                  Gnostics, allowing the listener to at least begin a process of
                                  examining this subject of categorization. Possibly his primary focus
                                  of the interview could have been to give general information about
                                  Mani and the Manichaeans for an audience of varied backgrounds, as
                                  you point out, and not get too specific in an academic way about
                                  categorization. In fact I don't remember the actual
                                  word "Gnosticism" being used all that much in the interview. Yet use
                                  of terms like "gnostic movement" or "gnostics" or "antecedent
                                  gnostic" would seem to show a predilection for a specific category
                                  for comparison in his view.<<<

                                  Well, what I meant by "concede" is that he was willing to use terms
                                  like "other gnostics" when it was clear, as you point out, that he
                                  was often drawing a destinction. I noticed that in most instances
                                  when he mentioned the Gnostics first he clearly did not define
                                  Manichaeans as part of this movement. He even went so far as to
                                  explain how Manichaeans probably conciously borrowed Gnostic lingo
                                  at a later date in the same way they borrowed Buddhist lingo.
                                  However, when mentioning the Manichaeans first he sometimes talked
                                  about their relation to "other gnostics" with what sounded to me
                                  like a hint of hesitation. Perhaps that stood out to me because I
                                  got the unabridged version *lol*, but I can say that in his lectures
                                  it was not a matter of "other Gnostics".

                                  I do like the term "antecedent gnostics" because it can imply a
                                  connection without having to imply a cohesion. It allows for the
                                  possibility that Manichaeans are related to the Gnostics without
                                  actually BEING Gnostic.

                                  >>>And Dr. BeDuhn (pronounced, if I understand correctly: "beh-doon")
                                  did say early on in the interview that how Manichaeism is related to
                                  the broader Gnostic movement is debatable.<< <

                                  True, he did. And yes... Miguel, just for the record you pronounced
                                  his name wrong (I have to rib you on that one *lol*).

                                  >>>Even though he didn't get into depth about the actual function of
                                  gnosis, he did bring out the importance of this type of knowledge
                                  for both Manichaeans and earlier Gnostics, involving the true nature
                                  of god and soul.<<<

                                  Which was interesting because even in his book he talks about how
                                  the importance and function of this type of knowledge in the
                                  Manichaean system is often based on a questionable reading of the
                                  text (Body, pg 98, last section).

                                  >>>All this said, there is still the issue of the function of Gnosis
                                  in the system, as you also mentioned. And one could examine whether
                                  Gnosis or rather Praxis is emphasized as the main soteriological
                                  force.<<<

                                  Yes, exactly. I know it is a big debate, but a very important one
                                  when considering what it is that makes something "Gnostic".

                                  >>>Would you care to share your views further on this subject, PMCV?
                                  <<<

                                  Well, yes I would *lol*. However, I would like to see others offer
                                  some views first so that it is open to wider conversation.

                                  >>>BTW, I know it's Halloween, but perhaps some more spirited members
                                  lurking in the shadows might want to question or comment more on the
                                  interview or Manichaeism in general?<<<

                                  Oh yeah! I forgot it is Halloween. I guess I should get back to
                                  errands before people start knocking on the door! I do hope others
                                  chime in on this conversation though.

                                  >>>It appeared to me that Dr. BeDuhn really enjoyed this subject. He
                                  particularly seemed to light up when discussing the Manichaean
                                  positive view of world beauty (countering a reputation as "world
                                  haters") and part of their affirmation of beauty as manifested in the
                                  high value that Manichaeans placed on human art.<<<

                                  Indeed. In fact, I always had the impression the Gnosticism wasn't
                                  quite so interesting to him. Manichaeans seem to be his passion, and
                                  he proudly claims to be a "Mani maniac" *lol*.

                                  PMCV




                                  Visit http://thegodabovegod.com/ and become part of the new Renaissance of Gnosticism and Truthseeking.


                                  We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes to Yahoo! Groups.

                                • pmcvflag
                                  ... the eternal autodidact! Oh well, you d be surprised at how many guest mispronounce Miguel during interviews.
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Nov 2, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    >>>Doh! I should have asked him how to pronounce his name since I'm
                                    the eternal autodidact! Oh well, you'd be surprised at how many guest
                                    mispronounce 'Miguel' during interviews.<<<

                                    LOL, yeah, but I bet I have it worse. My last name is Nygren... and I
                                    am trying to remember the last time somebody actually said it right.

                                    PMCV
                                  • pmcvflag
                                    Hey Miguel ... some cross-pollination between competing religions.
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Nov 2, 2006
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Hey Miguel

                                      >>>Well, I think it's safe to say that there is always going to be
                                      some cross-pollination between competing religions.<<<

                                      Very true. Especially when the religions in question are already a
                                      bit syncratic (or ecclectic, as the case may be). Still, it is even
                                      true of the "orthodox" religions, though many practitioners would
                                      like to believe otherwise.

                                      >>>Hopefully, Professor BeDuhn will come out with his new work on
                                      Augustine in the near future.<<<

                                      Yes. BTW, for those who may be interested Dr BeDuhn also wrote a book
                                      on New Testement translation called "Truth in Translation", you can
                                      get it on Amazon (plug). It may sound off topic, but I have some of
                                      Dr BeDuhn's own translations of New Testement texts, and it would
                                      shock many people how much more Valentinian Paul sounds (or maybe I
                                      should say how like Paul some Valentinian texts sound) when he is
                                      translated in a way that maintains words like "pleroma" the way they
                                      did with the Nag Hammadi texts in English.

                                      PMCV
                                    • Michael Leavitt
                                      Gee, I didn t know you were Vietnamese, common name there.
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Nov 2, 2006
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Gee, I didn't know you were Vietnamese, common name there.

                                        pmcvflag wrote:
                                        >>>> Doh! I should have asked him how to pronounce his name since I'm
                                        >>>>
                                        > the eternal autodidact! Oh well, you'd be surprised at how many guest
                                        > mispronounce 'Miguel' during interviews.<<<
                                        >
                                        > LOL, yeah, but I bet I have it worse. My last name is Nygren... and I
                                        > am trying to remember the last time somebody actually said it right.
                                        >
                                        > PMCV
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                      • pmcvflag
                                        Hey Mike ... Unless I am mistaken, I believe the name you may be thinking of is Nguyen. My name, Nygren, is Swedish. PMCV
                                        Message 19 of 21 , Nov 2, 2006
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Hey Mike

                                          >>Gee, I didn't know you were Vietnamese, common name there.<<

                                          Unless I am mistaken, I believe the name you may be thinking of is
                                          Nguyen. My name, Nygren, is Swedish.

                                          PMCV
                                        • Michael Leavitt
                                          Forgot the :-) again.
                                          Message 20 of 21 , Nov 3, 2006
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Forgot the :-) again.

                                            pmcvflag wrote:
                                            > Hey Mike
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >>> Gee, I didn't know you were Vietnamese, common name there.<<
                                            >>>
                                            >
                                            > Unless I am mistaken, I believe the name you may be thinking of is
                                            > Nguyen. My name, Nygren, is Swedish.
                                            >
                                            > PMCV
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.