Re: The Old & New Inquisition against the Gnostics this Sun on CCG!!!
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
> BTW Lady Cari, when you talked about Couliano being mentioned in the
> interview I meant to post this as the probable quote...
> "Once I believed that Gnosticism was a well-defined phenomenon
> belonging to the religious history of Late Antiquity. Of course, I
> was ready to accept the idea of different prolongations of ancient
> Gnosis, and even that of spontaneous generation of views of the
> world in which, at different times, the distinctive features of
> Gnosticism occur again.
> I was soon to learn however, that I was a naïf indeed. Not only
> Gnosis was gnostic, but the Catholic authors were gnostic, the
> Neoplatonic too, Reformation was gnostic, Communism was gnostic,
> Nazism was gnostic, liberalism, existentialism and psychoanalysis
> were gnostic too, modern biology was gnostic, Blake, Yeats, Kafka
> were gnostic . I learned further that science is gnostic and
> superstition is gnostic Hegel is gnostic and Marx is gnostic; all
> things and their opposite are equally gnostic."
> The funny part is, I have had people actually use this quote to
> counter something I have said thinking that Couliano was being
> serious. They thought he was advocating an uncritical usage
> of "Gnosticism" and saying it really WAS all these things. I would
> like to dream that people don't abuse our words this way... but...
Yes, naïf indeed! Ya know, before our initial venturing into the Internet all those years ago, I'm sure that I would NEVER have believed that people could actually understand such a clear and reasonable statement as advocating the very opposite of what the author intended. Unfortunately, we've seen it happen too many times.