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

5851Re: [GTh] Re: Gnosticism

Expand Messages
  • Scott Rhodes
    Aug 5, 2003
      From: "Mike McLafferty" <mikemclafferty@...>
      Reply-To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 11:04:38 -0700
      To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
      Subject: [GTh] Re: Gnosticism

      I haven't read King yet, but Michael Allen Williams went further in his
      essential book, _Rethinking "Gnosticism": an argument for dismantling a
      dubious category_, Princeton: 1996, (0-691-01127-3):

      Just thought I'd share a pip from this great book. It's a quote from our
      dear tragically lost treasure, Ioan Culianu:

      "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 to learn soon, however, that I was a naif 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, Rilke, Proust, Joyce, Musil,
      Hesse, and Thomas Mann were gnostic. From very authoritative interpreters of
      Gnosis, I learned further that science is gnostic and superstition is
      gnostic; power, counter-power, and lack of power are gnostic; left is
      gnostic and right is gnostic; Hegel is gnostic and Marx is gnostic; Freud is
      gnostic and Jung is gnostic; all things and their opposite are equally

      Thanks for the valuable lead Mike.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 18 messages in this topic