Comments on: A new gnosticism?

By: Gnostic & Psychedelic Conversations - Pop Occulture Blog

Gnostic & Psychedelic Conversations - Pop Occulture Blog — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 21:40:27 +0000

[…] 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

tim boucher — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 20:07:17 +0000

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

Scott Wells — Mon, 12 Jun 2006 01:16:21 +0000

Argh!

By: chutney

chutney — Mon, 12 Jun 2006 01:02:57 +0000

Scott, scratch what I said about Paul. Not there at all.

By: James

James — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 18:10:15 +0000

Hey, speaking of gnosticicsm and conspiracy theories, it's on the Internet so it must be true.

By: chutney

chutney — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 17:48:00 +0000

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

Scott Wells — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 16:37:19 +0000

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

chutney — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 14:44:08 +0000

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

Scott Wells — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 05:01:50 +0000

Little wonder then that there has been a re-enchantment with Pauline theology in the Christian edge in the UUA?