Comments on: A new gnosticism? http://www.makingchutney.com/2006/06/09/a-new-gnosticism/ One part facial hair. Two parts moxy. Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:03:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Gnostic & Psychedelic Conversations - Pop Occulture Blog http://www.makingchutney.com/2006/06/09/a-new-gnosticism/#comment-3408 Gnostic & Psychedelic Conversations - Pop Occulture Blog Sun, 18 Jun 2006 21:40:27 +0000 http://www.makingchutney.com/2006/06/09/a-new-gnosticism/#comment-3408 [...] Making Chutney has posted a summary with some questions for further discussion regarding my recent three part posts (I, II, III) on a grand unified conspiracy theory. Chutney focuses on hammering my thoughts into a neo-gnostic framework, which is interesting, but not strictly what I had in mind when I wrote it. [...] [...] Making Chutney has posted a summary with some questions for further discussion regarding my recent three part posts (I, II, III) on a grand unified conspiracy theory. Chutney focuses on hammering my thoughts into a neo-gnostic framework, which is interesting, but not strictly what I had in mind when I wrote it. [...]

]]> By: tim boucher http://www.makingchutney.com/2006/06/09/a-new-gnosticism/#comment-3407 tim boucher Sun, 18 Jun 2006 20:07:17 +0000 http://www.makingchutney.com/2006/06/09/a-new-gnosticism/#comment-3407 Hm, interesting take on all this. I'm personally not sure that I really am seeking a "new gnosticism" but some people I know definitely are: http://palmtreegarden.org/ And check out their blogs page for many more. For me, the value of gnostic thought is that its a method of turning things inside out conceptually - which is also the same value I find in Philip K. Dick. I don't consider it a theology so much as I consider it a *methodology*. You can change all the names and actors and relationships - and you should - and its in that act of changing, of modulating, of seeking where you find the value. Not in the particular machinations of the archons, or demiurge or whatever. I think all the questions you ask at the end of the post are exactly right. If you're doing this right, you should end up with more questions which lead to more questions which lead you to more questions, which eventually lead (after god knows how long) to what the philosophical skeptics called ataraxia, peace of mind through suspension of judgement, after having equally argued for and against all points. I have a bunch of other posts on "new gnosticism" which i mostly did last year when i was exploring it more actively: http://www.timboucher.com/journal/gnostic-essays/ And this is also a highly condensed introduction that covers a lot of the same ground: http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2005/12/29/what-i-learned-about-religion-in-2005/ Anyway, I'll post a link back to you on my blog so maybe other people will want to cross-pollinate and join in this discussion! Cheers! Hm, interesting take on all this. I’m personally not sure that I really am seeking a “new gnosticism” but some people I know definitely are:

http://palmtreegarden.org/

And check out their blogs page for many more.

For me, the value of gnostic thought is that its a method of turning things inside out conceptually - which is also the same value I find in Philip K. Dick. I don’t consider it a theology so much as I consider it a *methodology*. You can change all the names and actors and relationships - and you should - and its in that act of changing, of modulating, of seeking where you find the value. Not in the particular machinations of the archons, or demiurge or whatever.

I think all the questions you ask at the end of the post are exactly right. If you’re doing this right, you should end up with more questions which lead to more questions which lead you to more questions, which eventually lead (after god knows how long) to what the philosophical skeptics called ataraxia, peace of mind through suspension of judgement, after having equally argued for and against all points.

I have a bunch of other posts on “new gnosticism” which i mostly did last year when i was exploring it more actively:

http://www.timboucher.com/journal/gnostic-essays/

And this is also a highly condensed introduction that covers a lot of the same ground:

http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2005/12/29/what-i-learned-about-religion-in-2005/

Anyway, I’ll post a link back to you on my blog so maybe other people will want to cross-pollinate and join in this discussion! Cheers!

]]> By: Scott Wells http://www.makingchutney.com/2006/06/09/a-new-gnosticism/#comment-3364 Scott Wells Mon, 12 Jun 2006 01:16:21 +0000 http://www.makingchutney.com/2006/06/09/a-new-gnosticism/#comment-3364 Argh! Argh!

]]> By: chutney http://www.makingchutney.com/2006/06/09/a-new-gnosticism/#comment-3363 chutney Mon, 12 Jun 2006 01:02:57 +0000 http://www.makingchutney.com/2006/06/09/a-new-gnosticism/#comment-3363 Scott, scratch what I said about Paul. Not there at all. Scott, scratch what I said about Paul. Not there at all.

]]> By: James http://www.makingchutney.com/2006/06/09/a-new-gnosticism/#comment-3356 James Sat, 10 Jun 2006 18:10:15 +0000 http://www.makingchutney.com/2006/06/09/a-new-gnosticism/#comment-3356 Hey, speaking of gnosticicsm and conspiracy theories, <a href="http://holyoffice.livejournal.com/80533.html">it's on the Internet so it must be true.</a> Hey, speaking of gnosticicsm and conspiracy theories, it’s on the Internet so it must be true.

]]> By: chutney http://www.makingchutney.com/2006/06/09/a-new-gnosticism/#comment-3355 chutney Fri, 09 Jun 2006 17:48:00 +0000 http://www.makingchutney.com/2006/06/09/a-new-gnosticism/#comment-3355 Not just the hymns like Phil 2. The contention is that much of what we believed to be Paul's veiws (such as women keeping silent) is actually his quoting the congregation, followed by his correction of their views. The congregations would have known he was quoting them, so there is no "in a previous letter you said..." My first impression is that this is wishful thinking. But I'd need to see it in a book or two before I can pass judgement. It could certainly change Paul for me. Not just the hymns like Phil 2. The contention is that much of what we believed to be Paul’s veiws (such as women keeping silent) is actually his quoting the congregation, followed by his correction of their views. The congregations would have known he was quoting them, so there is no “in a previous letter you said…”

My first impression is that this is wishful thinking. But I’d need to see it in a book or two before I can pass judgement. It could certainly change Paul for me.

]]> By: Scott Wells http://www.makingchutney.com/2006/06/09/a-new-gnosticism/#comment-3354 Scott Wells Fri, 09 Jun 2006 16:37:19 +0000 http://www.makingchutney.com/2006/06/09/a-new-gnosticism/#comment-3354 By blockquotes -- I'm not familiar with Borg's assertion -- do you mean imbedded liturgical fragments in Paul's writings that his readers would have recognized liturgically? By blockquotes — I’m not familiar with Borg’s assertion — do you mean imbedded liturgical fragments in Paul’s writings that his readers would have recognized liturgically?

]]> By: chutney http://www.makingchutney.com/2006/06/09/a-new-gnosticism/#comment-3353 chutney Fri, 09 Jun 2006 14:44:08 +0000 http://www.makingchutney.com/2006/06/09/a-new-gnosticism/#comment-3353 Do I remember Marcus Borg saying that a good deal of Paul's letters are blockquotes? Any idea where I can get a copy of a "blockquoted" version? Do I remember Marcus Borg saying that a good deal of Paul’s letters are blockquotes? Any idea where I can get a copy of a “blockquoted” version?

]]> By: Scott Wells http://www.makingchutney.com/2006/06/09/a-new-gnosticism/#comment-3352 Scott Wells Fri, 09 Jun 2006 05:01:50 +0000 http://www.makingchutney.com/2006/06/09/a-new-gnosticism/#comment-3352 Little wonder then that there has been a re-enchantment with Pauline theology in the Christian edge in the UUA? Little wonder then that there has been a re-enchantment with Pauline theology in the Christian edge in the UUA?

]]>