Thank you for your discussion of Gnosticism and Arianism, dear BroJoeK. Very interesting! [I reject both.]
Mainly, I use the term "gnosticism" as Eric Voegelin defines it. Gnosticism is
...a type of thinking that claims absolute cognitive mastery of reality. Relying as it does on a claim to gnosis in the sense of immediate apprehension or vision of truth without the need for critical reflection, Gnosticism considers its knowledge not subject to criticism.... Gnosticism may take a transcendentalizing form (as in the case of the gnostic movement of late antiquity) or immanentizing forms (as in the case of Marxism, Comte's positivism, and other modern movements that seek radical intramundane fulfillment of human beings and society. — "Glossary of Terms," Eric Voegelin, Autobiographical Reflections, 2006; p. 160f.[Voegelin has a habit of stating his terms succinctly and exactly. That can take a little getting used to.]
As you may know, Voegelin was a philosopher of history and politics. His interest in gnosticism as a source of the modern-day "political religions" was particularly acute. His eight-volume History of Political Ideas is chock-full of in-depth studies of leading gnostics in history, from e.g., Hermes Trismagistus, Joachim of Fiore; Conte, Marx, Hegel, Jung, etc., etc. His Modernity Without Restraint details the types of personal and social disorders that manifest when gnostic ideas become dominant in the culture.
As they are today. I'll tell you this, dear BroJoeK: Once you see the gnostic "pattern," you tend to see it a lot nowadays — in academe, in the media, in the institutions; in the street movements; e.g., OWS.
Most obnoxious is the practicing gnostic's habit of forbidding questioning. The gnostic perpetrators are well aware that if their "systems" are subject to critical analysis, they would quickly deconstruct on the non-foundation of their own illogic. Voegelin says that Hegel — whom he praises as a very great genius and master of classical philosophy — was very aware of this danger. But he got around it masterfully:
"In conversations with Hegelians, I have quite regularly found that as soon as one touches on Hegelian premises the Hegelian refuses to enter into the argument and assures you that you cannot understand Hegel unless you accept his premises."Talk about circular, solopsistic thinking!
If I understand correctly, what really flips out spirited irish is her recognition that gnostic systems have a nasty habit of "bumping off God." Such a thing, right there, could only be a "magical operation."
A magical act requires at least a suspension of what we'll call First Reality — if not its outright cancellation — on the part of its observer in order to be successful. WRT the "death of God," this is exactly what Nietzsche, Hegel, and Marx invite you to do. And they tell you just how easy it is to "kill God": Just decide that "God" is only a concept; that is, an abstract construction of the human mind. Then, just abolish the "concept." Ergo, "God is dead" — at least for you....
It's a pretty banal little "trick"; but a whole lot of people fall for it nowadays.
I could go on, but probably should put a sock in it for now. Suffice it to say I see plenty of Gnostics in American public life today, starting with the Obama Administration, which promises a new order of social justice and human happiness; and a new Heaven on Earth that eradicates all the ills of the human condition and satisfies the deepest needs of mankind — by enclosing man's God-given liberty and eschatological future within the steely bonds of State control, not to mention the necessary total sacrifice of the life of the mind involved in this trade-off....
Obama is the "new messiah," dont'cha know???
Thank you so very much for writing, BroJoeK!
...a type of thinking that claims absolute cognitive mastery of reality. Relying as it does on a claim to gnosis in the sense of immediate apprehension or vision of truth without the need for critical reflection, Gnosticism considers its knowledge not subject to criticism.... Gnosticism may take a transcendentalizing form (as in the case of the gnostic movement of late antiquity) or immanentizing forms (as in the case of Marxism, Comte's positivism, and other modern movements that seek radical intramundane fulfillment of human beings and society. — "Glossary of Terms," Eric Voegelin, Autobiographical Reflections, 2006; p. 160f.
Was there something wrong with "hubris"?
boop quoting Vogelin:
If I've ever seen that term, "immanentize the eschaton" before, it surely fell into a memory black-hole... ;-).
The idea is familiar, of course, since it is the claimed goal of liberal ideology.
So now I "get" that "Gnosticism" is simply a term of derision thrown at our "immanitizers" liberals.
Fine.
But in the annals of smack-down terms, "Gnosticism" has got to be one of the least effective.
Nobody even knows what the word means, much less how it might apply to our materialistic socialistic-liberals.
And for us to accuse liberals of wishing to bring about "heaven on earth" seems to me less a put-down than underhanded compliment.
And most people don't "get" the underhanded part.
Furthermore, if the term "Gnosticism" can refer to anything modern, it must surely be some form of modern "spiritualism", and yet our liberl-socialism is self-avowedly based on Marx's dialectic materialism.
And indeed, isn't unrelenting materialism the great sin decried by everyone including the new Pope?
Yes, I "get" the part about "Gnosticism considers its knowledge not subject to criticism.... " and that is one claim made by anti-evolutionists against science.
But the problem described is one common to all of human nature: once we have settled a question in our own minds, we may not always wish to revisit the process of exactly how we got there.
Nevertheless, all such scientific processes are available for study, somewhere.
So if, somewhere along the line, your Eric Voegelin ran into some particularly obtuse Marxist professors, that doesn't prove their entire materialistic ideology is somehow ironically based on Gnosticism.
Do you see my point? How can you with straight-face accuse a materialist of being Gnostic? Doesn't compute.
Indeed, if you accuse your dialectical-materialist professor of being too "Gnostic", meaning "spiritual", might not the good professor take that as a compliment?
Sure, I "get" that you need a term of derision to label opponents with, but to me at least, "Gnostic" doesn't fill the bill.
Why not use something simpler, more direct, like, oh, say: "dufus"?
Works for me.