Neo-Gnosticism

Post Reply
Occult Forum Archive
Magister
Magister
Posts: 287885
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am

Neo-Gnosticism

Post by Occult Forum Archive »

Original post: Submeta

There are many, many groups around today who use the term "Gnostic" in their self-description, or title. And yet, "Gnostic" seems to be a term defined by academics ("ugg") pertaining to certain religious sects in antiquity.

So, I suppose to use the term "neo-Gnostic", or simply "Gnostic", in a way that is valid, one must present a system of mysticism or sorcery that conforms to the ancient Gnostics to some degree, in certain ways.

What ways, to what degrees? Who would qualify in modern times when describing themselves as "Gnostic"?

Occult Forum Archive
Magister
Magister
Posts: 287885
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am

Neo-Gnosticism

Post by Occult Forum Archive »

Original post: pmcv

Submeta

I thank you very much for the observation. I am not sure why you would say "Ugg" to the academics *pout*, but I think you make an observation that is hard to understand for many, but quite a good subject for conversation.

Many here may be surprized to know that I am not so strict on how people wish to use this term as I may seem in here. Honestly, I think anyone who wishes to call themselves "gnostic" has a right to do so. Samael's followers do so, some Thelemites do so, followers of Sylvia Browne (the poppular psychic) do so.

The "Academic" terms I offer may not always be accepted be well known, like terms such as "eisegesis", but maybe they are useful to some. Let me offer another set of terms that will make some people yawn, but may actually be useful to others..... they are "etic" and "emic".

Emic definition is how a person or group defines themselves. I have known people (personally) who define themselves as "Christian". However, some of these people could care less for "Jesus". In fact, I am thinking of a particular person who hates the religion of "Jesus" and uses the term "Christian" to talk about himself as a practitioner of supposed "Greek Mysteries". These are essentially his own definitions that he supposes to be related to etymological origins of the word "christ".... but they DO have historical origins that many people would not understand

In a way he is right, and I do not argue his right to define himself how he wishes. By the same token, I don't deny the right of the followers of Sylvia Browne, Thelemites, or the followers of Samael, to call themselves "gnostic". They have thier own meanings of the word, they are all completely different from each other, but they have thier rationalizations for what the term outlines.

Emic definition is valid, and I don't deny any group thier right to use the term how they wish. I will uphold the right of any group to outline themselves how they see fit, BUT.... I will also point out that thier definitions are "emic".... not technical or traditional.

The form of definition called "etic", on the other hand, is one outlined by critical outlines.... externally. It can conform to poppular outlines (such as the fact that most people would not understand "Christian" in the way my anti-Jesus friends do), but more essentially an "etic" definition is outlined by a set of semantic properties that can be scientifically dealt with objectively..... from the outside. That is to say... an academic definition

Sometimes an "etic" and an "emic" defiinition can be in agreement, but the point here is that academically a person who studies religion accepts ANY definition, but also tries to understand if that definition is very specifically applied internally, or is something that can have meaning in a wider context.

Ok, I know that sounds overly technical. Consider this though.... there is no relation between some of the groups that call themselves "Gnostic" and other groups using the same name. NO relation.... NONE. The name is absolutely arbitrary on it's own, and in that situation the very term "Gnostic" is useless as a defining quality for people who are looking at what the heck one would be talking about by using the term.

Here is where those academicians (ugh!) come in. The word "Gnosticism" was invented by them, in the same way that "neanderthal" was invented by them. Did the neanderthals call themselves "neanderthals"? OF COURSE NOT. This is an ETIC definition. Emically we may say "I am a neanderthal, I love beer and sex and I don't care about clothes or home design". Well, in truth the historical Neanderthals may have cared very much for these things, but we all know what is meant...... emically..... by this statement. We may even use a poppular term "that guy is a neanderthal", meaning he has no manners or respect for women. In this case I don't think anybody would argue the destinction between the etic or emic definition. We should know that in fact the neanderthals, as they are technically defined, were a bit more advanced than some of the people who gain thier name in the modern satyrical outline.

So, this forum is dealing with the "etic", that is to say, the technical, definition of Gnosticism.

Submeta, to deal with your question directly. To be absolutely technical there is no such thing as "Gnosticism" today. However, I am not a person who writes off the movement as something "dead".

Etically, "gnosticism" is a group of specific sects that, while dead, had a specific outline of beliefs that actually survive to this day. The way we can outline that definition without forgetting the origin of the term, is to stick with those groups that make an attempt to understand the historical groups. This outline can be broken down on a few specific levels......

-Cosmogeny: In the beliefs of Gnosticism, the spiritual realms and the universe came into existance via a specific mehcanism.

-Cosmology: there are also certain outlines as to what the spiritual and physical universe looks like.

-Soteriology: there is a very specific outline as to how salvation is gained.

-Contextual (cultural) backdrop: there is a specific lingo used to communicate these ideas in such a way that differentiates it from other similar movements such as Hermatism and Neopythagorianism.

If one wishes to discover what modern movements really fit the definition of "TRADITIONAL" Gnosticism, besides the added attribute of "era".... they only need to look at the outlines presented above. A true Neognostic reflects the beliefs of the movement called "Gnosticism" as it is etically defined. A "Neognostic" is one who tries to re-awaken these beliefs out of conviction for thier correctness.

Let me also point out though that according to some there are original Gnostic sects still in existance (maybe Mandaeans). If that is true, one COULD be "Gnostic" in the original meaning of the term. If not, there are also eras of Neognosticism, as well as occult movements that are related more or less so, influenced to a greater or lessor degree, that exist today. We could talk about just how much Thelema (as Crowley talked about it, rather than the original Thelemic outline he stole from), Wicca, or other groups, may have been influenced by "Gnosticim" (etically speaking).

Maybe I just confused the point *lol*

PMCV

Occult Forum Archive
Magister
Magister
Posts: 287885
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am

Neo-Gnosticism

Post by Occult Forum Archive »

Original post: Submeta
I am not sure why you would say "Ugg" to the academics *pout*

Oh, that's another thread--and a boring one at that!
there is no relation between some of the groups that call themselves "Gnostic" and other groups using the same name. NO relation.... NONE

Well, that's a pretty strong statement. I would say that there are certainly relationships of "similarity", in the least. I'm aware that academics define 'Gnostics' as ancient sects, and since there's no demonstrable ancestral relation between any modern mystical movements and the ancient Gnostics, in a strict sense no one today is a Gnostic.

Still, applying certain "academic rigours", it is true that many today use the term "Gnostic" to mean a philosophy, rather than a group of people from antiquity and their philosophies. If we apply the "meaning is use" principle supported by many linguists there ought to be an identifiable philosophical thread available for comparison.

So, I'd say that it makes sense to identify the "philosophy of Gnosticism" as opposed to the stricter "sects of Gnostics" or simply "Gnosticism" and since many use the term loosely today, one could call this philosophy "neo-Gnosticism".

More generally, one could identify "Gnostic elements" such that modern groups could have elements of their philosophy that approximate those held by the Gnostics.

I imagine that your list would work well, and one could examine a modern mystical or sorcerous system and delineate points of contact in terms of Cosmogeny, Cosmology and Soteriology. So, we seem to agree on the whole except that I don't see where the "cultural backdrop" would apply as you describe it. Choice of terminology doesn't seem that relevant when analysing philosophical similarities.

Occult Forum Archive
Magister
Magister
Posts: 287885
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am

Neo-Gnosticism

Post by Occult Forum Archive »

Original post: pmcv

Hey Submeta

Actually, I agree with you on all counts. Technically there is no such thing as a "Gnostic" today (and that was actually one of my earliest posts on this forum), but yes there are groups that do have similarities in certain areas.

My point was not to say there are no groups that can be compared closely, or loosely, with traditional Gnosticism, but that there are groups that take the name arbitrarily with no understanding of what Gnosticism is, technically speaking. I suppose you are right that any of these groups, and indeed ANY group, can be demonstrated to have some similarities.... so in that sense my wording is overly strong.

Tammy Baker talked about Jesus...... Valentinus talked about Jesus. That is a similarity.

More directly though, if we look specifically at the attributes that outline "Gnosticism", some groups that actually call themselves "Gnostic" don't fit. Sylvia Browne surely has SOME similarity with the Sethians, but not on the important points this forum is intended to deal with.

On the other hand, you are also right (and I have said this myself here as well) that any group, occult system, etc., can be on topic here if we are genuinely attempting to compare/contrast it with the beliefs of the historical Gnostics.

"Gnosticism" as I have been arguing on another thread here, is (as you say) very closely nitted with a philosophical system (though it cannot be relagated only to the philosophy). However, I do have to disagree with you on one point.... terminology.

True, the terminology is not the point of the system, but if a person does not know the terms they probably don't understand the philosophy as much as they would like to think they do. In order to understand the ideas, one has to read the sources.... and to do that one has to have some concept of terms that may not be explicitly outlined in all the texts being read.

Try, for instance, to explain how a computer works to a degree that would allow a person to build one..... now try to do that without using any specialized terms (not even making any up). There does come a point when you have to deal with what ROM is, or a CPU. Sure, you may choose to change the words you use, but if you don't come to the understanding BEFORE moving on, there is no guarentee that the person you are explaining this too is not getting a completely different picture, they may not even realize you are talking about a computer, but instead a cow ("something goes in one end, it is processed, it comes out the other" Being vague and then assuming we are talking about the same thing will not facilitate a genuine communication).

So yes, we SHOULD identify "Gnostic elements" I agree, but we should make sure we really understand what those elements are on the deep level that they are intended, rather than trying to reduce them and then equate them to anything that has a surface similarity.

WIthout all that, we would be unable to also deal with important differences.

PMCV

Occult Forum Archive
Magister
Magister
Posts: 287885
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am

Neo-Gnosticism

Post by Occult Forum Archive »

Original post: Submeta

Honestly, it's the distinct elements that I'd really like to get around to addressing. It's interesting, because there are differences between various Gnostic sects, and so it seems most reasonable to start with what those sects have in common and "subtract out" the differences. However, here I want to address something else that you've said and explain my earlier point:
True, the terminology is not the point of the system, but if a person does not know the terms they probably don't understand the philosophy as much as they would like to think they do. In order to understand the ideas, one has to read the sources.... and to do that one has to have some concept of terms that may not be explicitly outlined in all the texts being read.
I'll explain by example. Let's say we discover some "primitive" culture in Peru which has a religion that approximates Gnosticism very closely. The fact that they know none of the terminology nor have any knowledge of Gnosticism themselves is not so relevant in my opinion. They could still be said to be Gnostic, or perhaps "neoGnostic" (but what if their religion was as old as sand???) if their religion consisted effectively of an identical belief system and method of attainment.

By the same principle, Wiccan groups, Satanists, Thelemites, New Agers, etc can have Gnostic elements in their philosophies without any knowledge of Gnosticism.

Occult Forum Archive
Magister
Magister
Posts: 287885
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am

Neo-Gnosticism

Post by Occult Forum Archive »

Original post: pmcv

Let me address your points backwards, Submeta.

By the same principle, Wiccan groups, Satanists, Thelemites, New Agers, etc can have Gnostic elements in their philosophies without any knowledge of Gnosticism.

It is true that many of the specific practitioners may not have knowledge of the fact thier movements borrow from Gnosticism, but in many cases the influence is pretty direct. For instance, I think it is pretty much a matter of record that Crowley was interested in Gnosticism (though I would argue his understanding was a bit off) He even wrote a "Gnostic Mass". Just as Crowley gained the name "thelema" from another source (Rabelais), and other elements from other sources, I have no doubt that Gnostic elements we might find in Thelema are not accidental, but instead partial plagiarisms.

By the same token, Crowley, through Gardner, could have introduced the same elements to Wicca.

So then, the next question that would need to be dealt with is concerning how accurate these concepts are reproduced in these cases. Is it truely "Neognostic" or is it "Psuedognostic"? OR... is it simply a movement that does not seem to be Gnostic at all, but maintains some interest in it's for-runners?

Of course, how the elements in question came to be reflected in the various movements is not the important point, so if you wish to disregard much of that previous observation it is ok. However, the one piece that does need to be dealt with is the accuracy of the philosophical points you pointed out when compared to that of Gnosticism. This brings me to your example....

Let's say we discover some "primitive" culture in Peru which has a religion that approximates Gnosticism very closely. The fact that they know none of the terminology nor have any knowledge of Gnosticism themselves is not so relevant in my opinion. They could still be said to be Gnostic, or perhaps "neoGnostic" (but what if their religion was as old as sand???) if their religion consisted effectively of an identical belief system and method of attainment.

First, I would want to be very sure that their ideas really do approximate those of Gnosticism. I wold not want to assume a similarity that may not actually exist. There are real world examples of this principle going over the edge.

For instance, lets take the case of Lady Drower and the Mandaeans. E. Drower was one of the early modern developers of the study of the Mandaeans. Initially she considered them to be a long lost remnant of the original Gnostics, an actual living fossil. Initially, many scholors jumped on the band wagon without question.

Unfortunately, as time went on, some problems came into focus. Drower herself recanted her position, stating that she was not an expert in the field of Gnosticism, only in the field of Arabic studies.... it was a friend (almost certainly Dr Quispel, though she does not name names) who made the equation (an equation that has not panned out as more info on these people has come to light).

OF course, there could be religious groups in the world that do have much in common with Gnosticism, even groups that have no historical connection. I only caution against being overly quick to assume the commonalities without testing them on a deep level.

However, I do understand that you were actually speaking figuratively with your analogy, so let me put this back into the context you intended. Pretend then that we DO discover another religion that hits all the basic qualification of "Gnosticism" without actually being one of those sects from late antiquities. Well then, sure, Neognosticism exists. Or, if you prefer to think about a group that may even be contemorary to, or predate Gnosticism..... then they would have to be "Semi-gnostic" I suppose ;)

So then, that would bring us to your first point..... bringing out those elements.

Honestly, it's the distinct elements that I'd really like to get around to addressing. It's interesting, because there are differences between various Gnostic sects, and so it seems most reasonable to start with what those sects have in common and "subtract out" the differences.

Would you then be accepting the elements I offered previously? Or, do you have others you would like to bring out in opposition with, or at least addition to, the previous elements? OR, should we start from scratch and hash it out together?

Which movements outside "Gnosticism" would you like to start with in this comparison?

Lastly, how sure are you that you and I understand these elements as they were intended by the original "Gnostics" well enough, as well as the elements of the other group, to do this comparison.

Not only must we have a very firm grasp of historical Gnosticism, we must have a very firm grasp on the beliefs of the modern group. How would you suggest we move on with this test you propose?

PMCV

Occult Forum Archive
Magister
Magister
Posts: 287885
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am

Neo-Gnosticism

Post by Occult Forum Archive »

Original post: Chaos Shaman
To be absolutely technical there is no such thing as "Gnosticism" today. However, I am not a person who writes off the movement as something "dead".

I think it is important that you define what â??something deadâ?? actually means to you, before you can say that technically there is no such thing as gnosticism today. For instance, to me, a dead movement would be one that had distanced itself from practice and technique, and instead had set in stone the complex historical aspects of a particular movement, without actually practising or talking about the techniques that were the basis of the movement in the first place. I would also say that a movement becomes dead the moment it ceases to grow and adapt; when it becomes set in stone if you like. If a movement does not grow and adapt, if it ceases to practically apply its own techniques, if historical inquiry becomes the sole avenue for investigation, if the veneration of historical â??factsâ?? becomes detached from practical use and adaptation, then the movement is effectively â??deadâ??.
Just as Crowley gained the name "thelema" from another source (Rabelais), and other elements from other sources, I have no doubt that Gnostic elements we might find in Thelema are not accidental, but instead partial plagiarisms.

Again plagiarism does not necessarily have the negative connotations you give it PMCV. Granted there is an ego issue regarding â??who thought of it firstâ?? and â??who said it fistâ??. However, practically, as human beings, we constantly assimilate and adapt others ideas in an effort to move forward, to learn techniques that are new to us, to understand and to â??evolveâ?? the past into a workable present. We do not simply wish to preserve a tradition; we wish to build upon it. If you think about it, everything we say has been said before, and without the ideas of others, we would have nothing to talk about and nothing to work with; the magick is in the reworking, not in the regurgitating. In this sense Crowley has done a lot for thelemic ideas (but little for thelemic tradition). He has brought the practice of magickal techniques to the fore, outside of a â??deadâ?? historical context; and in effect, has made these techniques and ideas themselves â??liveâ?? independently of the past.
We could talk about just how much Thelema (as Crowley talked about it, rather than the original Thelemic outline he stole from), Wicca, or other groups, may have been influenced by "Gnosticim" (etically speaking).
- PMCV

The word â??stoleâ?? here implies that you do not value the reworking of ancient ideas, and that you wish to preserve a tradition, rather than develop the techniques held within it. If you remember the idea that â??there is no original thoughtâ??, then innovators, tricksters and practitioners such as Crowley, who have kept magic alive and kicking thus far, might be more highly valued by you. If gnostic elements are used across occult practices, if they can be adapted and used practically by a variety of occult practitioners of the present, if people experiment with â??howâ??, as well as preserving ideological/historical â??factâ?? (if thatâ??s what seems important) then the original value of these techniques will not â??dieâ?? and gnosticism will grow and continue.

Occult Forum Archive
Magister
Magister
Posts: 287885
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am

Neo-Gnosticism

Post by Occult Forum Archive »

Original post: pmcv

Ok, Chaos Shaman, while I think you may have read overly much into my post at points, I also think you do point out some statements on my part that may be stated a bit overly accusitory. Good job. Let me then defend and concede with each case in turn.

Let me start with my own failure to communicate.....

The word â??stoleâ?? here implies that you do not value the reworking of ancient ideas, and that you wish to preserve a tradition, rather than develop the techniques held within it. If you remember the idea that â??there is no original thoughtâ??, then innovators, tricksters and practitioners such as Crowley, who have kept magic alive and kicking thus far, might be more highly valued by you. If gnostic elements are used across occult practices, if they can be adapted and used practically by a variety of occult practitioners of the present, if people experiment with â??howâ??, as well as preserving ideological/historical â??factâ?? (if thatâ??s what seems important) then the original value of these techniques will not â??dieâ?? and gnosticism will grow and continue.

Ok, you state this in response to my statement that Crowley "stole" from an original source for "Thelema". You are right to point out that the term "stole" is more than accusitory, it has an emotional context that could give my statement a sophism that I should be a bit embarassed to exibit. However, let me state my intended point a bit more clearly.... as well as something that I believe your response missed.

I pointed out very directly that "Thelema" is something that Crowley got from a specific fictional source (Rabelais). This is not a question of me giving or removing value to/from a reworking of an "ancient" (as you put it) tradition. Instead, I was talking about the fact that the notion comes from a later literary source. A person could have as easily taken thier term from Tolkien, or perhaps Swifts' Lilliput. Would you have accused me of disregarding reworking of "tradition" if I had demonstrated that a person calling thier order "the followers of Gulliver's Travels" had taken thier name from Swift? Granted, my term "stole" is stronger than I intended, but we are not talking about "tradition" here.... your observation does not put the source in it's correct context, in my view.

Again plagiarism does not necessarily have the negative connotations you give it PMCV. Granted there is an ego issue regarding â??who thought of it firstâ?? and â??who said it fistâ??. However, practically, as human beings, we constantly assimilate and adapt others ideas in an effort to move forward, to learn techniques that are new to us, to understand and to â??evolveâ?? the past into a workable present. We do not simply wish to preserve a tradition; we wish to build upon it. If you think about it, everything we say has been said before, and without the ideas of others, we would have nothing to talk about and nothing to work with; the magick is in the reworking, not in the regurgitating. In this sense Crowley has done a lot for thelemic ideas (but little for thelemic tradition). He has brought the practice of magickal techniques to the fore, outside of a â??deadâ?? historical context; and in effect, has made these techniques and ideas themselves â??liveâ?? independently of the past.

You start with this from the same point.... but you assume I give "plagiarism" more negative context than I actually do. I do say "Partial" plagiarism (for the record) with the intent of pointing out that while many "thelemites" may not be aware of the sources for Crowley's works, I don't think Crowley himself wished such an ignorance of his plagiarisms.... though I don't know for sure.

However, you do raise a very important point concerning the way ideas grow. Frankly, I am not always sure ideas are "evolving". In fact, sometimes I think they devolve. An idea can start from one principle intent, and loose all it's depth as it becomes popular. This is NOT the "ego issue" you imply about who said it first, but a deeper ego issue about who said it more deeply. The illusion of "building" on a tradition is more often about reducing a tradition to it's lowest common attributes.

What Crowley sometimes did was not to make techniques live independant of the past they came from, but to make them up and tell people they had some source in the past that they actually never had.

Now, I do need you to understand.... I am not saying such a thing is wrong, I am only questioning those who wish to try to connect that subject to the one that is our focus here. If you cannot tell me how Thelema is connected to traditional Gnosticism, then the point is already invalid here.

I think it is important that you define what â??something deadâ?? actually means to you, before you can say that technically there is no such thing as gnosticism today. For instance, to me, a dead movement would be one that had distanced itself from practice and technique, and instead had set in stone the complex historical aspects of a particular movement, without actually practising or talking about the techniques that were the basis of the movement in the first place. I would also say that a movement becomes dead the moment it ceases to grow and adapt; when it becomes set in stone if you like. If a movement does not grow and adapt, if it ceases to practically apply its own techniques, if historical inquiry becomes the sole avenue for investigation, if the veneration of historical â??factsâ?? becomes detached from practical use and adaptation, then the movement is effectively â??deadâ??.

Ok, this last point is really the one that has importance to this forum because it deals with the very definition of "Gnosticism". Let me point out to you, then, that the defition of "Gnosticism" actually deals not only with the specific outline I presented earlier, but also an era (late antiquities). This means that if a group that is IDENTICAL in beliefs with early Gnostic groups jumps up in the 1500s, it is not technically "Gnosticism". This, in turn, means that outside the 'late antiquities', there is no such thing as "Gnosticism". What I state after that though, is that I don't agree with that technicallity. While I understand and agree with the fact that "Gnosticism" is a term invented by academicians, I think the direct outline of the system can be extended beyond the era outlined technically.

BUT, let me point out that while I think you may have misunderstood my point there, I also think you bring up another point that is important and valid..... which is whether or not these modern movements actually reproduce the intent of the original movements.

Now, I do get the impression that you may have a very relativistic notion of that, but you would have to proove that Gnostics held that relativistic view if you wish to demonstrate that "Thelema" is a genuine continuation of the ideal, rather than a devolution or maybe something that simply borrows some Gnostic flavor.

Interesting subject.....

PMCV

Occult Forum Archive
Magister
Magister
Posts: 287885
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am

Neo-Gnosticism

Post by Occult Forum Archive »

Original post: Submeta

I'd like to avoid a black and white categorization where neo-gnosticism becomes some sort of badge of honer. More useful I think is delineating Gnostic characteristics so that other modern movements my be evaluated in terms of Gnosticism and related thereto.

In another thread, two "streams" of historic Gnosticism are mentioned:
SETHIAN

-Non Christian (Using inverse Jewish mythology)
-Demiurge is negative
-Revelation in primordial times (Seth or Adam)
-Soteriology given by Seth
-Heavy emphasis on cosmos (detailed cosmologies)
-Baptism is emphasized in initiation


VALINTINIAN

-Christian
-Demiurge isn't negative (ambivalence)
-Revelation now (new adam, creation, reality, comes with Christ)
-Soteriology given by Christ/Logos (which isn't always the same as Jesus)
-Little interest in Cosmos
-Bridal Chamber is the higher initiation (baptism being a lesser emphasis in the text)
I'd like to suggest that some items ought to be subtracted off the more general list so that an "intersection" of the two develops as a core, and a union as a realm of possibility. Here's my take on that.

Either Christian or inverse Christian ontology of the archons would be appropriate. For a looser fit, any Pagan ontology ought to work.

The "moral" status of the Demiurge is irrelevant, but there is a Demiurge or at least a seperation between the material universe and that which lies beyond or outside of it. Outside lie the aeons and the Bythos from which they originate. I believe that the structure here is fundamental.

I'd prefer to subtract out the notion of "revelation". This may be incorrect, but in my opinion revelation is so fundamentally vague that it doesn't really serve a function. I'd be interested to hear opposing opinions.

While the rituals of baptism and the bridal chamber are historically significant, it wouldn't seem that they would be important to analyizing the philosophical structure of a modern movement in relation to Gnosticism. What both of these rites demonstrate is a degree of stress upon initiation which is significant for a modern analysis.

I'm also of a mind to subtract out the Cosmos as a relevant consideration.

So, regardless of Gods, angels demons or the like there is a hierarchy of presences, intelligences or unfolding realms which originate from the Demiurge, which is in turn seperate from a "higher realm" where the aeons are seen to originate from the Bythos. A neo-gnostic movement would stress some form of enlightenment where such things were "seen", felt or apprehended rather then understood through an intellectual understanding. Finally, initiation is prominant.

I'd further add that the difference between the material world, the Demiurge, the aeons and the Bythos provides a fundamental structure that a neo-gnostic movement ought to be analogous to in a way that is effectively equivalent. I think this along with a stress on enlightment or "gnosis" is are the aspects that are most fundamental. Less essential in my opinion are the hierarchy of archons etc and the initiatory approach.

Part of these preferences are based on my own intuition rather then scholarship (I'm always wary of things like "scholarship"--"get thee behind me Jehovah!").

Occult Forum Archive
Magister
Magister
Posts: 287885
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am

Neo-Gnosticism

Post by Occult Forum Archive »

Original post: pmcv

Hey Submeta, well that is quite a good repost.... but I have to offer a few objections (or perhaps I simply misunderstood you anc you can make the point more clear).

I'd like to suggest that some items ought to be subtracted off the more general list so that an "intersection" of the two develops as a core, and a union as a realm of possibility. Here's my take on that.
I wonder if in fact you mean that perhaps some items should be taken of the more SPECIFIC lists (of Valentinian and Sethian) so that they will fit the more general lists (of "Gnosticism")? If so, then we agree, if not, then I have no idea what you mean.

Either Christian or inverse Christian ontology of the archons would be appropriate. For a looser fit, any Pagan ontology ought to work.

If by "Pagan" you mean anything "non-Christian" then this absolutely does NOT work. If by Christian vs "inverse Christian" you mean to imply a specific cosmology that crosses the boundries, fine, but niether are truely an ontology. This whole segment threw me a little, but I think I know what you mean to say (correct me if I am confused). While the specific statement you offer could be used to imply that all cosmologies are really the same undernieth, perhaps what you really mean there is that any directly emenationionist outline that has a prime sources expressed as an apophatic principle could be compared to the paradigm we are taling about? Let me know if I missed your point.

The "moral" status of the Demiurge is irrelevant, but there is a Demiurge or at least a seperation between the material universe and that which lies beyond or outside of it. Outside lie the aeons and the Bythos from which they originate. I believe that the structure here is fundamental.

I agree, but I get the impression that you are breaking it into two destinctions rather than the intended three... once again, let me know if I misunderstand you. There IS a destinction between the kenoma and the pleroma, and then again the same petween the pleroma and the Bythos. The fundemental seperation is not two part, it is three part.... and that is important.

I'd prefer to subtract out the notion of "revelation". This may be incorrect, but in my opinion revelation is so fundamentally vague that it doesn't really serve a function. I'd be interested to hear opposing opinions.

Hmmmm, interesting point. The question here is not whether you and I agree, but whether you and I agree with "Gnosticism". Fact is, in Gnosticism there is a notion of "revelation", but it is quite specific (and it is in opposition to that notion of revelation offered by Kabbalah, IMHP). Can you perhaps add to this point so that it will be more clear in conversation?

While the rituals of baptism and the bridal chamber are historically significant, it wouldn't seem that they would be important to analyizing the philosophical structure of a modern movement in relation to Gnosticism. What both of these rites demonstrate is a degree of stress upon initiation which is significant for a modern analysis.

In this case I think we truely disagree. The system of initiation is not something that can be remoed from the definition in this case. If we are to talk about a modern movement in relation to Gnosticism, we must consider whether the understanding that was passed on in certain rites are being passed on today. You may be correct in saying that the specific rite itself need not be reproduced, but the MEANING and LESSON of the rite has to be reproduced, otherwise the system itself is broken.

So, regardless of Gods, angels demons or the like there is a hierarchy of presences, intelligences or unfolding realms which originate from the Demiurge, which is in turn seperate from a "higher realm" where the aeons are seen to originate from the Bythos. A neo-gnostic movement would stress some form of enlightenment where such things were "seen", felt or apprehended rather then understood through an intellectual understanding. Finally, initiation is prominant.

I'd further add that the difference between the material world, the Demiurge, the aeons and the Bythos provides a fundamental structure that a neo-gnostic movement ought to be analogous to in a way that is effectively equivalent. I think this along with a stress on enlightment or "gnosis" is are the aspects that are most fundamental. Less essential in my opinion are the hierarchy of archons etc and the initiatory approach.

While I believe you make some good points, I also believe you state a basic misunderstanding by equating "Gnosis" with "enlightenment". Without that destinction I think what you present would better fit the term "psuedo-Gnostic" or at least "semi-Gnostic" rather than "Neo-gnostic". The problem is this.... within the very term "Gnosis" as it is meant by the historical Gnostics, is a cosmological outline. Gnosis, itself, is a realization of that cosmological outline. When you present an ontological assumption, like you have, the destinction becomes MORE direct rather than less so. It may be true that the specific hierarchy of archons, etc., are not so important, but the NOTION of archons (how and why they exist) is not something we can toss.

I also think it is false that a true "Neo-Gnostic" movement would be so quick to to make such an absolute seperation between a "feeling" and an intellectual understanding, since I feel this is NOT in line with traditional Gnostic thinking. I will give my evidence if you wish.

PMCV

Occult Forum Archive
Magister
Magister
Posts: 287885
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am

Neo-Gnosticism

Post by Occult Forum Archive »

Original post: Submeta

PMCV, I think this simple principle ought to add some clarity. Where different strains of Gnosticism are in disagreement, I tend to want to eliminate whatever thing is under consideration as irrelevant.

On the other hand, with what remains, there is a "looser fit" I believe. What I mean is that if another path is "structurally identical", if not traditionally identical, then it has a valid claim relatively speaking. Perhaps it is not so pure, but I can live with that. ;)

Occult Forum Archive
Magister
Magister
Posts: 287885
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am

Neo-Gnosticism

Post by Occult Forum Archive »

Original post: pmcv

Ok Submeta, that is fair enough... and it is basically what I figured you were saying. However, I kind of hoped you would go a bit further and actually tell us what you feel those attributes are which the strains hold in common. Perhaps that sounds like a daunting task, so perhaps I will start the process and you can at least help me?

Ok, so you mentioned the two basic strains, let's start by putting them together. Where do they agree? Let's do it in the same order.

We can throw out the "Christian" (as etically defined anyway) element, but we are left with a Biblical one in both cases. We can throw out the degree of negativity exibited, but agree that there is still a certain lack of positivity.... and in both cases the demiurge is still present. We can disregard the historical personage of the revelation, but the spiritual personage is the same. Same is true with the soteriological function of that revelation. The interest level in the cosmos changes, but the structure is essentially the same in both cases. The ritual structure has different emphasises, but seems to have similar structures. SO, here is what I see just in dealing with these destinctions;

Combined similarities....

- Biblical/Platonic mythological base
- Demiurge based cosmogeny
- Revelation with specific hermeneutic implications (mythologically based)
- Soteriology stemming from mythological structure into a specific salvific comprehension
- Essential cosmological structure
- Essential initiatory structure.

Here we have a basic outline of only those attributes that seperated the over all strains removed. This does not provide us with full definition yet, but I guess there is no need to go further unless we can agree on these as attributes.

What do you think? Any questions, comments, or disagreements?

PMCV

Post Reply

Return to “Gnosticism”