Gene, this is an interesting review, but I'm not sure that 'Gnosticism' is a good or correct way of categorizing the beliefs that Gray seems to espouse. Eugene Webb, someone who knew Voegelin personally, has a great essay on this: 'Voegelin’s 'Gnosticism” Reconsidered.'
Voegelin thought (and I think you even mentioned this in a comment on here) that he would have to reevaluate his thought on Gnosticism given light of new historical findings.
In light of these recent findings, Eugene Webb seems to think (and I'm curious as to what you think about this) that Voegelin should be read as someone found profound patterns of consciousness that led to spiritual and social disorder. Of course, this does not make Voegelin any less interesting and profound. I would say that my continued reading of him and the study of his thought is perhaps the high point of my philosophical journey so far.
I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Gene, this is an interesting review, but I'm not sure that 'Gnosticism' is a good or correct way of categorizing the beliefs that Gray seems to espouse. Eugene Webb, someone who knew Voegelin personally, has a great essay on this: 'Voegelin’s 'Gnosticism” Reconsidered.'
ReplyDeleteVoegelin thought (and I think you even mentioned this in a comment on here) that he would have to reevaluate his thought on Gnosticism given light of new historical findings.
In light of these recent findings, Eugene Webb seems to think (and I'm curious as to what you think about this) that Voegelin should be read as someone found profound patterns of consciousness that led to spiritual and social disorder. Of course, this does not make Voegelin any less interesting and profound. I would say that my continued reading of him and the study of his thought is perhaps the high point of my philosophical journey so far.
"but I'm not sure that 'Gnosticism' is a good or correct way of categorizing the beliefs that Gray seems to espouse."
DeleteNo: Gray is a *critic* of Gnosticism! And Gray is the one using the term: I didn't pick it.
Ahh right. Yeah I see that now.
ReplyDelete