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.
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas -- unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
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
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