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
> 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
> 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
> 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.