Occam's razor and revisionist chronology
- Michael wrote:
>> The Hermetic astrology of around 250 CE is similar to that of theMike wrote:
>> 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.
>A more likely explanation is that the Renissance Astrologers studiedSome theorists of revisionist chronology assert that the Arabs preserved the
>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.
astrognosis writings for 300 years less than claimed by the established
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
-- Michael Hoffman