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

Occam's razor and revisionist chronology

Expand Messages
  • Michael Hoffman
    ... Some theorists of revisionist chronology assert that the Arabs preserved the astrognosis writings for 300 years less than claimed by the established
    Message 1 of 11 , Oct 6, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Michael wrote:
      >> The Hermetic astrology of around 250 CE is similar to that of the
      >> Renaissance. The New Chronology postulates that the years 600-900
      >> didn't exist; that would help explain this similarity, this apparent
      >> intact, wholesale leap of mystic astrology across the supposed long
      >> divide from the Roman era to the Renaissance era.


      Mike wrote:
      >A more likely explanation is that the Renissance Astrologers studied
      >Ptolomy and those of the classical era, and based their teachings on
      >them. Don't forget Occam's razor. The Arabs, for one culture, had
      >preserved those writings.


      Some theorists of revisionist chronology assert that the Arabs preserved the
      astrognosis writings for 300 years less than claimed by the established
      chronology.

      I am only beginning to study the New Chronology theory.
      http://www.egodeath.com/newchronology.htm It's almost all in German at this
      point -- I am just beginning to scope it out, looking for English webpages and
      machine-translating the German webpages. I'm also just beginning to study the
      history of mystic astrology. I know little about the history of Roman to Arab
      to Renaissance history and transmission of texts. If I knew anything more, I
      would write it, insofar as it's on-topic.

      I'm learning Western Esotericism studies; I am currently making a $180
      decision whether to order the remaining issues for my Gnosis magazine
      collection before they are shredded for good.

      I am extremely interested in the theory of paradigms. Paradigms are
      everything; everything depends upon interpretive frameworks for organizing
      data and asking questions. Nevertheless, I'm not a radical relativist; I
      think good sense leads the way, even though there's no formally clear basis
      for "good sense".

      Occam's razor is paradigm-dependent. The orthodox Christian assessment is
      that Occam's razor dictates concluding that literalist Christianity came
      first, and then Gnostic Christianity came second. Radical scholarship makes
      an assessment that Occam's razor dictates concluding that Gnostic Christianity
      came first, and then literalist Christianity came second.

      From the literalist Christianity paradigm, some three hypotheses are involved
      in the orthodox Eusebian history, while some fifteen hypotheses are involved
      in the Radical assertion of the priority of gnostic Christianity. From the
      point of view of the Radical paradigm, one's model of history is far simpler
      and more plausible and sober if one accepts the priority of gnostic
      Christianity, with literalist Christianity as a later, deviant, degenerated
      form driven by power-mongering hierarchy-builders.

      Incommensurable paradigms result in argument about which paradigm has the
      fewest hypotheses; in the end, it may amount to a beauty contest, an aesthetic
      judgment call.


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