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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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.