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

Re: Shedding New Light on the Buddha of Light

Expand Messages
  • ernststrohregenmantelrad
    Before we go with other matters let me tie up the loose ends ... emic? ... Again, I think he is confusing here the concept of emic vs etic and subjuctive and
    Message 1 of 74 , Jul 1 6:04 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Before we go with other matters let me tie up the loose ends

      --- In gnosticism2@y..., hey_market <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      > Quite simply, there is no such thing as a truly etic viewpoint. Doesn't
      >exist. That's the essential problem here. The etic is always tinged with
      >the emic. After all, where does the etic derive from other than the
      emic?
      > At best, the etic is a collective emic.
      >

      Again, I think he is confusing here the concept of emic vs etic and
      subjuctive and objective observation. As I stated emic and etic deals with
      insider vs outsider. If pharse life "The etic is always tingerd..." suggest
      this misunderstanding of sujective vs objective observation. There is
      indeed truely etic view point. Of course we are one way or another always
      an outsider at something. I am not a Hindu so my understanding of Hindu
      religion will be always be etic no matter what (unless I convert). The thing
      is one could be objective or subjective in etical matter and be subjective
      or objective in emical matter. It is not always emic=subjective and etic=
      objective. And here in lies his mistake.

      Let me take example from language again. you will see a group of tourists
      and they mutter something. You don't understand the meaning but you
      hear them say something and that something sounded like "konichiwa"
      Now unless you are an insider you can not be for a certain that that
      means "hello" in Japanese. So as an insider you will know exactly that
      word meant but as an outsider you could only infer and speculate what
      the word meant. (You could infer from the way these tourists acted like
      bowing and shaking hands to you as they said this word). From the
      speculating bit one could be subjective etically as one can see. Your etical
      obserbation could be colored by your own bias. This is what puts HM in
      confusion because he equate that with emic. Etic with speculative bias is
      NOT emic it is JUST etic with speculative bias (ON HIS PART). So when
      PMCV and HM talk about Manichaeism it is and ONLY be from etic point of
      view. There is no emic because both of these gemtilmen are NOT
      Manichee. The greve mistake made by HM is to let his bias color his
      argument. Which is nothing wrong everyone has his opinon and his own
      take on things but what I'm object to is his insitance that his speculation
      based upon his bias from etic data is emic.

      His arguement here is "Gnosis" is emical thing. well, yes but it is one thing
      to have your personal gnosis and then turn around and say "oh by the way
      Manichaean had it too based upon MY experience." Well, what ever you
      say but don't take as the definative on what REALLY MANICHAEANS
      BELIEVED. You never know you are an outsider. The question that brought
      up is is Manichaeism gnostic? I think HM is only projecting his bias on the
      specualtion.


      > Indeed, for "practical purposes" one can make distinctions between
      > the two, because it works and it clarifies or edifies, but one must
      > always be careful. In fact, one must be especially careful when
      > attempting to butt in with etic understanding of essentially emic
      > matters, such as gnosis. It's simply a matter of using the wrong tool
      > (one that's imperfect to begin with)
      >
      > You see the difference?
      >

      first of all it really makes sense more if HM would replaced the word emic
      with subjective and etic with objective. Wrong tool in this case, in my
      opinion falls on him.. And plus what he doing is exactly what he's
      preaching to tell everyone to avoid. In his understanding of Manichee HM
      is "attempting to butt in with etic understanding (observation of an
      outsider) of essentially emic matters (what of Manichee insider who no
      longer exist)"



      > There are occasions when the etic just doesn't work, and it doesn't
      > work with essentially emic content. And might I add that the nature
      > of existence is essentially emic, so one must always be careful.

      the nature of YOUR existence is essentially emic TO YOURSELF. The rest
      is pure etic. Some one else's nature of existance from your view point is
      ALWAYS ETIC. Again emic doesn't mean subjective and etic doesn't
      mean objective neccessary

      > In the end, it's a questino of epsitimology, isn't it? It's a
      > question of what one knows (who could deny that about gnosis?) And
      > the etic viewpoint simply cannot know gnosis.
      >

      One's gnosis doesn't give you an insite into other's emic pont of view. Of
      course etic can't know gnosis. That is NOT its function.

      > And to the extent that it can get a glimpse of it, the etic must rely
      > on the emic, in which case, it is increasingly less etic.
      >
      No what he's mistaken here is again not emic but specualtion color by his
      own bias on etic.

      > And yet, it may continue to insist that it is etic, in which case it
      > exposes itself as increasingly pretentious and effectual, and thereby
      > makes an ass of itself.

      conjucture, speculation are all etic if they are subjected to subjective bias
      nevertheless. Seeing that as emic is the cause of redicue.

      Again I think this whole thing would averted if HM realized the proper
      understanding of the terms.
    • Coraxo
      Thanks Felis; Revelations 2:[17] He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the
      Message 74 of 74 , Jul 5 12:53 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Re: [Gnosticism] Re: Shedding New Light on the Buddha of Light Thanks Felis;

        Revelations 2:[17] He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

        This troubling passage in the Apocalypse of John of Patmos makes sense in CON-TEXT with what is known of the Valentinian teaching of the name.

        Corax Bin Al-Ghorab Abu Gharib Al Maghribi

        From: "Enheduanna" <argot@...>


        Re: [Gnosticism] Re: Shedding New Light on the Buddha of Light

        Coraxo wrote:

        > How do we in fact know that Christ informs the understanding of someone?

        I just came across an interesting reflection on this with reference to the
        Valentinian concept of the Name:

        http://www.cyberus.ca/~brons/name.htm

        "As noted in Dawson (1992), Thomassen (1993), and Zyla (1996) the Name is
        closely identified by Valentinus with 'bold speaking' or 'free speaking'
        (parhesia). This notion of 'bold speech' as a characteristic of the presence
        of the Name seems to be derived from the New Testament. In the book of Acts,
        speaking boldly, healings and miracles are all said to be produced by the
        presence of the Name (Acts 4:29-30). According to Valentinus, the Father's
        "free act of speaking is the manifestation of the Son" (Valentinus Fragment
        2). He goes on to say that the Son visits the heart of the individual in
        order to purify it. Similarly, in his account of the creation of human
        beings, the presence of the Name within Adam is said to produce 'bold
        speech' which frightens the angels(Valentinus Fragment 5). Just as the
        Father expressed himself boldly in the Son, so the Son expresses himself in
        "bold speech" within the individual person. As Zyla (1996) states, "Through
        the sacrifice of Jesus, gnosis of the Father was gained and can be passed on
        through parrhesia (bold speech)". Gnosis of the Name produces "bold speech"
        in the individual.

        "Valentinus attributes inspired speech to the presence of the Name. The Name
        causes the individual to "utter sounds superior to what its modeling
        justified" (Valentinus Fragment 1). According to Marcus, inspired speech
        results from being joined to one's bridegroom angel (Irenaeus Against Heresy
        1:13:3). This further confirms the thesis that the angel is identical with
        the name. The experience of gnosis is the reception of one's angel/name
        which is a particular instance of the Son/Name. "





        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        gnosticism2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

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