Jump to content

Talk:Gnosis/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Needs Rewrite

The bulk of the current article doesn't focus on the topic. It needs sections on the classical Greek and the English meanings, and use in the contexts of: ancient philosophy (Plato) and religion (gnosticism and hermeticism), and contemporary uses in E Orthodoxy and popular culture. The biases/arguments around gnosticism and religion need to be removed. They don't serve the encyclopedic purpose, and there are specific entries for gnosticism, et al. IMHO Metagignosko (talk) 09:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I find your comments intriguing. I would love for the whole article to be re-written and or copyedited. The issue is the subject has so much more then just the occult connotations to it. Since it is a word with an ethnic understanding and therefore and ethnic history. Also why no mention of modern politics? Say the use of the word to mean "cult like" or the false amoral, conmen type technics and or knowledge, which would be along the lines of Eric Voegelin. Since he stated that this was how he perceived that gnosis was bad or evil by how so many people used it to ego trip and manipulate other "lesser" people.

LoveMonkey (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Needs Updates

This article is mostly just a list of things. It does not go into real detail, and it would be nice if we could expand on it a lot.PhoenixSeraph 03:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Current Perspective

The section Current Perspective doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me. I removed a NPOV problem, but it still feels somewhat biased. It could use a lot of rephrasing and emphasis that this is just one perspective. I'd also like to know how all these terms that are used relate to the term "Gnosis" as most understand it. --Tydaj 15:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're right; this whole section reads like an introduction to a half-hour "Secrets of the Mystics" late-night TV show. I don't see any quick way to NPOV it — maybe just nuke the whole thing? Frjwoolley 15:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I salvaged what seemed useful. --Tydaj 22:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Video games

Does anyone else think that the video game Section should probablly be included as part of the influences on modern culture section, or is there a good reason for it being included as a seperate section? Nom Déplûmes 18:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Either way, Xenosaga probably doesn't need to be mentioned twice. Cool game, but someone should decide whether the Gnosis are monsters or aliens. 207.69.137.206 13:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

There should be more

There is much more information on this word from all angles that should be linked to here. I think that this should be a disambig page and there should be external articles about bunches of other stuff. --24.239.174.223 05:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Changed then to than

I changed a few thens to thans... its a pet peeve of mine. Darthmowzy 07:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed Comment on St John

I removed the comments on St John because there would be extensive quoting to the article from each of the Gospels and letters where the word gnosis would or could be used. The article here appears to be a summary. I think the article could have such an extensive list of quotes but maybe in another section and not in the summary introduction. LoveMonkey 13:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Modern disciples of Aleister Crowley

I question the neutrality of the link to Peter Koenig's page in the section 'Influences on contemporary culture'. Surely there is a better link than this one, (is a link really nessessary here?). Griguthul 17:16, 25 April 2007

Pronunciation

Can someone type up or record the way you say gnosis? It would inmprove the article. Jac roeBlank 18:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

A questionable item.

I removed this from the "influence on contemporary culture" section:

  • Millions of non-English speakers, associate Gnosis with the movement started by Samael Aun Weor.[1] This tradition is now becoming known in English, largely through the efforts of publishers such as Glorian Publishing.

I cannot comment on the truth of this paragraph, but it certainly reads to me like an advertisement. When I went and looked at the article about this fellow, I saw that the entire article has POV and verifiability problems, which only makes me more suspicious of this bit. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 21:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Voegelin

Why can Eric Voegelin not be mentioned or at least linked off of the article? Why are editors edit warring and attempting in appearance to invalidating his work? LoveMonkey (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I find the very essence of Voegelins comments examplefied in the actions of editor Langdell. Notice that no form of criticism is to be allowed against gnosis? Voegelin clearly did not and would not have allowed the dialect (discourse) to be censured. Why is Langdell posting false information, as speculation on people and their motives. False Knowledge as history. False knowledge as being equal to and more important then the work of Eric Voegelin. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


Arbitration request

Hello. This is a note for the editor I am requesting for arbitration.

This article, Gnosis, is about spiritual knowledge (the meaning of the word gnosis) as it is understood in two different spiritual traditions of the Eastern mediterranean. One of these traditions is Orthodox Christianity and the other is a tradition that is today called 'Gnosticism', an umbrella term for several traditions united by a common theological perspective (see article Gnosticism). Gnosticism has existed throughout Egypt, the Near East, Persia and Iraq from a time before the Christian era.

During the early history of Christianity the church was in conflict with the Gnostic sects (because they were so popular) and there was a veritable propaganda war on both sides. When Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire the gnostic sects were persecuted and their writings were destroyed. For many centuries what passed as knowledge about the gnostic sects was largely anti-gnostic propaganda from the church. During the course of the twentieth century scholars began to try to see gnosticism within its own terms and not as the church wished to present it, namely, as simply erroneous heresy. One of the pioneering scholars in this was Hans Jonas (a professor at the New School for Social Research in New York City) whose book, The Gnostic Religion, was the most authoritative general work on gnosticism from the late fifties to the early nineteen eighties.

The dispute for which I am requesting arbitration is that the above editor, User: LoveMonkey, (with whom I am in dispute) is a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church and has been consistently attempting to write this article from one perspective, namely, that of Eastern Orthodoxy. As such, his contributions have tried to diminish the integrity and authenticity of the spiritual knowledge of gnosticism as against the 'true' and correct knowledge of Orthodox Christianity. This is against Wikipedia's NPOV policy and is disrupting my organised efforts to develop the article in a balanced way. Things came to a head when I posted a section ('Gnosis according to Hans Jonas'; see article) from Jonas' book called 'The Nature of Gnostic Knowledge'. The User:LoveMonkey then posted under the title of this section a link to Eric Voegelin, a man who has tried in his writings to associate Gnosticism with Nazism. My contention is that even if the editor wishes to create a link to Eric Voegelin this is not the place to do it. This article is about the concept and use of the word gnosis not the relationship between gnostic theology and political ideology. Each time I removed the offending link he replaced it without even attempting to give an explanation. I politely requested that he at least explain why he was putting the link there. His excuse is that Voegelin wrote Jonas a letter (that is what the link is actually to) but when you read that letter you will see that it has absolutely nothing to do with this article. Langdell (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell, you can not leave out Eric Voegelin just because you do not like his views on Gnosticism. Voegelin is notable, and has published on the subject of Gnosticism. Leaving out a notable source would violate NPOV. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I welcome the arbitration. Thing is that much of what is being posted by Langdell is not considered valid. He even in this post has posted very ignorant and greatly distorted hyperbole. Now the talkpage of this article is not the place to post a request for arbitration for one. Now just to clarify just how inaccurate the statements that Langdell makes I will address just a few. Let me say that these historical distortions and complete fibrations are unethical and unethical behaviour is not to be tolerated. Let alone be the point of view that motivates the behaviour of an individual. Langdell comments are riddled with false knowledge. To try and make the incorrect statements Langdell has made and wants to add to the article can only be justified by stating that they are arguments not from evidence but data that is validated as a point of view.

For starters edit warring is not the same thing as collaborating. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell wrote
This article, Gnosis, is about spiritual knowledge (the meaning of the word gnosis) as it is understood in two different spiritual traditions of the Eastern mediterranean.

LoveMonkey response.
Gnosis can not be two traditions and then be twenty. Which is it, how many sects of gnostics are you talking about? Are the Neoplatonic, Ebonites- gnostics? Don't Orthodox Christians called themselves "gnostics"? Is gnostic the ancient word for mystic since the word Mysticism had a different ancient meaning then the modern one culturally in use now? Why is Langdell not addressing these dialections as they are pertinent to the article? Instead he is POV pushing and edit warring that there is a rather rosey and uncritical form of discourse (dialects) on gnosis and gnosticism. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell wrote
During the early history of Christianity the church was in conflict with the Gnostic sects (because they were so popular) and there was a veritable propaganda war on both sides. When Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire the gnostic sects were persecuted and their writings were destroyed.

LoveMonkey response.
False knowledge on par with the nonsense called the Burning times and the Constantinian shift. POV is not history. This above response is as completely ignorant and incorrect a set of fallacies as one could ever possibly imagine that someone completely misinformed about history could make. Events in history maybe open to interruptation, but that interpretation can not actually change and or remove that certain events called history actually occurred. If people died the event of their actual passing is not open for debate. The conflict between the various splinter groups, sectarians or cults that used gnosis to justify their unethical slander (fabricating text and calling people of the church community collective liars about Christ) and amoral behaviour did not happen in the 4th century after Christianity was first made legal in 313 AD (Edict of Milan) and then made the state religion of the Eastern Roman Empire which occurred in 381AD under Theodosius I (it was alittle later for Roman in the West (see Charlemagne). The conflict between the "gnostic" cults and the christian community came when the christian religion was still illegal, let alone the state religion- between c. 100 AD and 250AD respectfully. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell wrote
Many centuries what passed as knowledge about the gnostic sects was largely anti-gnostic propaganda from the church.

LoveMonkey response.
False Knowledge and a POV fallacy (as much of what Langdell has posted is at best interpretation and opinion). Scholars to this day still use the "anti-gnostic" authors to validate what they teach about gnosticism at the academic level. An excellent example is the work and courses of John D Turner at Nebraska State. I can give examples. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell wrote
During the course of the twentieth century scholars began to try to see gnosticism within its own terms and not as the church wished to present it, namely, as simply erroneous heresy.

LoveMonkey response
False Knowledge and Hyperbole. Langdell can find no great convergence on what Saint Irenaeus stated about False Gnosis in his work by the same title and what was found in the Nag Hammadi. Nor can Langdell state that Saint Irenaeus' work is no longer worthy of historical study. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell wrote
One of the pioneering scholars in this was Hans Jonas (a professor at the New School for Social Research in New York City) whose book, The Gnostic Religion, was the most authoritative general work on gnosticism from the late fifties to the early nineteen eighties.

LoveMonkey response
False Knowledge, Mr Langdell is obviously misinformed. He makes no mention that Hans Jonas' work is based on the work of the "antignostic" sources he tries to discredit. Hans Jonas work that Langdell mentions was published before the works of the Nag Hammadi were available -Hans Jonas The Gnostic Religion [2]. So again can Langdell clarify this double standard with something along the lines of evidence rather then it being simple a point of view? Is John D Turner's work (hint he is one of the Nag Hammadi translators) less valid then Hans Jonas' work? If so why? And who says so? Why no mention of John D Turner? Let alone other scholars in the field of historical study that would be neutral or critical of "the gnostics" say John M. Dillon. Why no sourcing of your general edits Langdell? Why no mention of modern scholars of Gnosticism for you position? Why is Hans Jonas OK for inclusion and not Voegelin considering - From 1982-1983 Jonas held the Eric Voegelin Visting Professorship at the University of Munich. Is it possible you do not know their work and that is why you are not quoting it? If so why are you editing and edit warring on a subject that you are not more completely informed about? LoveMonkey (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell wrote
The dispute for which I am requesting arbitration is that the above editor, User: LoveMonkey, (with whom I am in dispute) is a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church and has been consistently attempting to write this article from one perspective, namely, that of Eastern Orthodoxy.

LoveMonkey's response
False Knowledge, not assuming good faith and conjecture, Eric Voegelin was not and is not part of the Greek Orthodox Church which I am a part of. Nor is Eric Voegelins work taught or offically embrace by the Orthodox community. Nor have I used exclusive Christian sources, since my section on the Neoplatonic philosopher Plotinus is about a source that isn't even Christian. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell wrote
As such, his contributions have tried to diminish the integrity and authenticity of the spiritual knowledge of gnosticism as against the 'true' and correct knowledge of Orthodox Christianity.

LoveMonkey's response
False Knowledge and speculation about my motives and intentions. Again why are scholars not allowed to be noted in the article. Why is what is now contained in the article strictly up to Langdell's discretion? I am not Eric Voegelin. He was a famous scholar and his work is widely influential in the areas of political science and cult studies. He headed departments at various Universities why is he not allowed a mention in an article he is considered a scholar on? Why is Langdell being critical of me and not focusing on this speficially? 18:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell wrote
This is against Wikipedia's NPOV policy and is disrupting my organised efforts to develop the article in a balanced way. Things came to a head when I posted a section ('Gnosis according to Hans Jonas'; see article) from Jonas' book called 'The Nature of Gnostic Knowledge'.

LoveMonkey's response
Ha this is a POV interpretation of the the NPOV policy. Langdell provides a "scholar" whos work is no longer considered valid in academa because they based their work on being speculative about what the anti-gnostic sources were being biased of. Problem is Jonas work the work that Langdell insists is definative, was written before Hans Jonas ever read one page of the Nag Hammadi library. Also too Langdell is not collaborating but rather is edit warring. Langdell has contributed very little so far when it comes to sourcing the contributions Langdell added. This while edit warring to remove reference to a very well known and creditaled Professor who actually interacted with Hans Jonas. Langdell should have know this and obviously did not. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell wrote
The User:LoveMonkey then posted under the title of this section a link to Eric Voegelin, a man who has tried in his writings to associate Gnosticism with Nazism. My contention is that even if the editor wishes to create a link to Eric Voegelin this is not the place to do it.

LoveMonkey's response OK so I just added a small section. Why did Langdell instigate arbitration instead of collaborating to be inclusive. Why is something critical of gnosis not allowed in this article? I mean this is not the only thing out there that is negative that I could add and it would be completely fair according to wiki policy to do so. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell wrote
My contention is that even if the editor wishes to create a link to Eric Voegelin this is not the place to do it. This article is about the concept and use of the word gnosis not the relationship between gnostic theology and political ideology. Each time I removed the offending link he replaced it without even attempting to give an explanation.

LoveMonkey's response
False knowledge and POV this article is about gnosis. Under Langdell's interpretation the article on an obsure word that is on loan from Greek would only contain theological interpretations. There are a vast amount of problems with that. But I will be brief. One Voeglin uses the word gnosis just like Hans Jonas does and Voegelin based his work on the word and its theological use on the words entire pedigree. Voegelin's work is only political in the sense that religious cults are also organizations. "Political" here is interchangeable with organizational. Langdell is distorting Voegelin. Langdell is giving a POV interpretation of Voegelin. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell wrote
time I removed the offending link he replaced it without even attempting to give an explanation. I politely requested that he at least explain why he was putting the link there. His excuse is that Voegelin wrote Jonas a letter (that is what the link is actually to) but when you read that letter you will see that it has absolutely nothing to do with this article.

LoveMonkey's response
Distortion and conjecture. To the contrary I posted here on the talkpage a request to clarify with Langdell what the issue was. Langdell did not engage and instead edit warred and then sought arbitration. It is quote shameful that Langdell would boast as such in light of the actual evidence of my posting on this talkpage. As for the excuse. It is more that just a letter it is that Jonas chaired his seat which is validated in the source Langdell is delittling. Also the content of the letter clarifies that indeed Voegelin based to work to some extent on Jonas'. But to listen to Langdell and Langdell's POV one would have no idea of this and Langdells POV or opinion would be in the article rather then evidence and academic sources. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Informal mediation

Hello LoveMonkey and Langdell, could I suggest that you have a look at the Fringe theories guideline, which could be pertinent to this case? Essentially, if the Eric Voegelin view of Gnosticism is considered to be 'fringe', as defined by the guideline, then it would imply the section probably shouldn't be included. Regarding the 'see also' link, usual practice is to either include a section about a topic or include a 'see also' link, but not usually to include both. PhilKnight (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well Voegelin was a Stanford professor as well as a Professor at Munich and Louisianna. So if wikipedia wants to label him someone who taugh "Fringe theories" I guess that I can contact those Universities and ask them why Wikipedia has labeled one of their Professors and his courses "fringe theory". Let alone (as is the Case with Louisianna) that they have an entire department dedicated to his work and research. As a mattter of fact I think I'll do that. I think that is a great idea. WOW William F Buckley was teaching fringe theory. Louisanna State University has a Voegelin Research Center. Hey note the picture on the mainpage [3] which has Louisiana State University President William L. Jenkins, Professor Theodore R. Weber of Emory University, and Professor G. Ellis Sandoz, Jr., Director of the Eric Voegelin Institute at Louisiana State University on the mainpage wow LSU prez making fringe. LOL! wikipedia just keeps trying to destroy its credability at every turn. WOW. At least Voegelin had to submit to peer review unlike other sources in this article say- Norelli-Bachelet, Patrizia. "The New Way, Volumes 1 and 2". Summary. Patrizianorellibachelet.com. Retrieved on 2007-09-17. I wondering if there is a reliable source that labels Voegelins theories as fringe. Are any of the other sources in this article people with degrees. I mean mine have theology degrees at least. Hans was a Professor but like I posted he held a Voegelinny position.

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering by the same standard would Professor Mary Lefkowitz's work be considered fringe? How about Professor Zahi Hawass? LoveMonkey (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello Phil, thanks for your input. The problem with the Eric Voegelin section (posted as 'Gnosis according to Eric Voegelin' in characature of the section that I posted above called 'Gnosis according to Hans Jonas') is that it does not belong in this article. Voegelin was a political scientist who believed totalitarianism to be a product of people who were profoundly alienated. He noted in his earlier writings that there is some similarity between the dogmatism of totalitarian ideology and the dogmatism of religion. He then read Hans Jonas' book on Gnosticism which discusses the role of alienation as the starting point for mystical striving, the yearning to return home. Gnostic literature uses such metaphors. He then by various leaps and bounds decides that Gnosticism is elitist and believes that (and I am now going to quote verbatim from the current Wikipedia article on Eric Voegelin)
"the world and humanity can be fundamentally transformed and perfected through the intervention of a chosen group of people (an elite), a man-god, or men-Gods, supermen, newmen, who are the chosen ones that possess a kind of special knowledge (like magic or science) about how to perfect human existence. This stands in contrast to a notion of redemption that is achieved through the reconciliation of mankind with the divine, or through the action of the Judeo-Christian God (through the God-man) or even Greco-Roman gods (see Sethianism and Neoplatonism and Gnosticism). Thus Marxism qualifies as 'gnostic' because it purports that we can establish the perfect society on earth once capitalism has been overthrown by a special group of people, the "proletariat". Likewise, Nazism is seen as 'gnostic' because it posits that we can achieve utopia by attaining racial 'purity', once the master race has freed itself from the parasitic influence of the racially inferior and the degenerate."
Now, there are some interesting characteristics of this passage. Firstly, during its formation, Christianity believed that "the world and humanity can be fundamentally transformed and perfected through the intervention of a chosen group of people (an elite), a man-god, or men-Gods, supermen, newmen, who are the chosen ones that possess a kind of special knowledge (like magic or science) about how to perfect human existence." Interesting. Christianity believes that there was a God-man, a manifestation of God in human form, whose presence on the earth marked a rite of passage from one phase of human existence to another 'higher' existence. This is attested by St. Athanasius in De Incarnatione Verbi. In this work Athanasius tells us that Jesus Christ came onto the earth to regenerate not only all humanity but all creation which had become corrupted. Jesus entrusted the work unfinished at his passing from this world to apostles who would be ministers of God and continue the work of redeeming all humanity. The work of salvation goes on until all matter is redeemed - a state called apocatastasis. This is a standard doctrine of Eastern Orthodoxy. Jesus Christ and his apostles and priests serve the function of restoring man to his original vocation to know God and indeed to become God in other words to be 'fundamentally transformed and perfected through the intervention of a chosen group of people'. Now those who are redeemed, namely the saints, possess knowledge and by this I mean spiritual knowledge (gnosis). If they did not possess spiritual knowledge they could not be ministers. A person who is fully deified knows things that the unredeemed do not know. Does it not follow that the more completely we have united with God, the more knowledge, grace, wisdom, love and other attributes we possess in greater abundance? Saints are important because they have realised God. The communion of saints is the church and that is an elite of God-realised men. So, it is interesting that these words applied to Gnosticism also apply to Christianity. Continuing with the quotation we then read:
'This stands in stark contrast to a notion of redemption that is achieved through reconciliation of mankind with the divine, or through the action of the Judeo-Christian God (through the God-man)'
The interesting thing about this statement is that the gnostics did very much seek (and achieved) the 'reconciliation of mankind with the divine' (those who have achieved this are called pneumatics, a word meaning 'spiritualised') but not through the action of a Judaeo-Christian God. With the phrase Judaeo-Christian God, there is an assumption that the Gnostics regarded the God of the Christians as the same as the God of the Hebrews. Well many gnostics believed that Jesus Christ was not a manifestation of the God of the Hebrews (whom they regarded as a demi-urge and not the supreme being) but was a manifestation of the true supreme being.
So, Voegelin's claims that the gnostics were fundamentally different from the Christians turns out to be unfounded. Christianity is no less utopian than gnosticism and is full of eschatology. And indeed was it not in part the 'totalitarianism' of the church herself which gave rise to both the Reformation and the eighteenth century Enlightenment. The church put Galileo in prison for the rest of his life for being truthful. That is the behaviour of a totalitarian state. To question official dogma was to commit heresy and put one's life in danger. People were burned at the stake for having their own theological views that were different from that of the church's. That looks to me like life in a Communist state.
Why pick on the gnostics? Because it is an ancient tradition started by the fathers of the church in order to secure the predominance of Christianity. You win such a war by means of propaganda which means that you distort the reality about your opponents and you demonise them. We did it to the Germans during two world wars, we are currently doing it to the Muslim world. The Romans did it to the Christians. The User:LoveMonkey keeps going on about how the Gnosis of the gnostics is religio-philosophical knowledge and not the God-knowledge of the saint but there is no evidence to support this thesis except sheer prejudice on the part of those whose historic goal has been the marginalisation of the gnostic groups. If you read Hans Jonas you will see that his description of gnosis within gnosticism follows that of any normal mystical school. There are indeed striking parallels with Indian religions such as Buddhism. It is not our job as the editors of an encyclopedia to assert the superiority of one creed and denigrate those of others. We are here to present a world-wide perspective.
Whatever Voegelin's persecutory theories about the gnostics (which clearly do not hold water), they do not belong in an article that is concerned with the understanding the nature of spiritual knowledge. The above section 'Gnosis according to Hans Jonas' is concerned with the concept of gnosis as it was understood by the gnostic traditions. Later in the article there is a section discussing gnosis as it was understood and defined by the Greek fathers. Later on still there is a discussion about how the Gnostic and Orthodox views of gnosis find parallels with those of other religions. The content of 'Gnosis according to Eric Voegelin' has been shown to be interpretive and not contributive to the discussion of what gnosis actually is except to say that Gnosis is 'religious philosophical teachings that are the foundations of cults' and not merely cults but bankrupt and/or immoral 'cults' such as Soviet communism and Nazism. We have already established that gnosis is the spiritual knowledge of the saint or mystically enlightened human being. According to Hans Jonas (from whom Voegelin learned about gnosticism) gnosis is both the technical knowledge required to effect mind-body transformation (presumably the religious philosophical teachings that LoveMonkey is referring to) as well as that knowledge of the infinite ground that is gained when one arrives at the end of this process (ie revelatory knowledge). But I think, lurking behing all these discussions of User:LoveMonkey's assertions that the gnosis of the gnostics is/was false gnosis (not authentic spiritual knowledge) is a deeper issue which should be baldly stated. Eastern Orthodox theology states (correct me if I am wrong) that there is no salvation outside the church. In other words according to the teaching of the church, it is not possible to attain theosis and thus salvation if one is a 'pagan' (e.g. a Platonist; a Buddhist; a Hindu; a Jain; a Mandaean). That seems to be the underlying reason why User:LoveMonkey (as a representative of the Eastern Orthodox Church) wishes to denigrate the supposed knowledge of these 'pagans' because if one admits that it is possible to attain salvation outside the sacramental life of the church it will mean that one does not need to partake of the eucharist in order to attain salvation.
LoveMonkey's wish to promote Voegelin's ideas about gnosticism and totalitarianism should take place in the gnosticism article not here. In this article we are discussing what gnosis (spiritual knowledge) is. We are not here to say that one spiritual tradition's knowledge is inferior to anothers, especially if that is not backed up by hard evidence. So, as for your input, Phil, I need a third party to appreciate that Voegelin's views are not pertinent to this article. Your suggestion that Voegelin's views are fringe is probably correct. My own view is that this type of input from User:LoveMonkey is part of a wider agenda that seeks to assert the superiority of Christianity above other spiritual traditions and the way this is achieved is by promoting theories such as Voegelin's. That is not NPOV. That is not what this encyclopedia is about. Langdell (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

More false statements and historical inaccuracies

Langdell wrote
The problem with the Eric Voegelin section (posted as 'Gnosis according to Eric Voegelin' in characature of the section that I posted above called 'Gnosis according to Hans Jonas') is that it does not belong in this article.

LoveMonkey response
This is not for Langdell to decide, Wikipedia policy does not make such a distinction. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell wrote
Voegelin was a political scientist who believed totalitarianism to be a product of people who were profoundly alienated. He noted in his earlier writings that there is some similarity between the dogmatism of totalitarian ideology and the dogmatism of religion.

LoveMonkey response
Speculation and contradictory. Can Langdell source this allegation? Please. If so this goes in the face of Federici (The Restoration of Order). Who stated that Voegelin taught that gnosis of the gnosticism was anti-established knowledge and that when this gnosis was embraced by a culture, it undermines the cultures understanding of things, causes chaos and disorder, in the societies plagued with cult propaganda. Once a society rejects false knowledge (Voegelin used racism as an example of false knowledge) then the society restores or gives restoration to order. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell wrote
He then read Hans Jonas' book on Gnosticism which discusses the role of alienation as the starting point for mystical striving, the yearning to return home.

LoveMonkey response
Misleading Hans Jonas is not Voegelins only source. Also Now Langdell admits that Voegeling base his works on Hans Jonas which means that Langdell admits there is a relationship. This betrays Langdell behaviour of edit warring and blocking the addition of Voegelin into the article. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell wrote
Gnostic literature uses such metaphors. He then by various leaps and bounds decides that Gnosticism is elitist and believes that (and I am now going to quote verbatim from the current Wikipedia article on Eric Voegelin)

LoveMonkey response
Langdell is denying gnostic text the Sethian made elitist claims. So is Langdell now denying what is in the Sethian text? LoveMonkey (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell quoted

"the world and humanity can be fundamentally transformed and perfected through the intervention of a chosen group of people (an elite), a man-god, or men-Gods, supermen, newmen, who are the chosen ones that possess a kind of special knowledge (like magic or science) about how to perfect human existence. This stands in contrast to a notion of redemption that is achieved through the reconciliation of mankind with the divine, or through the action of the Judeo-Christian God (through the God-man) or even Greco-Roman gods (see Sethianism and Neoplatonism and Gnosticism). Thus Marxism qualifies as 'gnostic' because it purports that we can establish the perfect society on earth once capitalism has been overthrown by a special group of people, the "proletariat". Likewise, Nazism is seen as 'gnostic' because it posits that we can achieve utopia by attaining racial 'purity', once the master race has freed itself from the parasitic influence of the racially inferior and the degenerate."

LoveMonkey response
And there you have it, Langdell is not collaborating he is censuring. Langdell has decided that his interpretation of Voegelin is such that Voegelin can not be included in the article called gnosis about gnosis. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell quoted

Now, there are some interesting characteristics of this passage. Firstly, during its formation, Christianity believed that "the world and humanity can be fundamentally transformed and perfected through the intervention of a chosen group of people (an elite), a man-god, or men-Gods, supermen, newmen, who are the chosen ones that possess a kind of special knowledge (like magic or science) about how to perfect human existence."

LoveMonkey response
Purposeful distortion. Not Christianity, gnosticism. Read it again. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell quoted
Interesting. Christianity believes that there was a God-man, a manifestation of God in human form, whose presence on the earth marked a rite of passage from one phase of human existence to another 'higher' existence.

LoveMonkey response
No a return to phase. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell quoted
This is attested by St. Athanasius in De Incarnatione Verbi. In this work Athanasius tells us that Jesus Christ came onto the earth to regenerate not only all humanity but all creation which had become corrupted. Jesus entrusted the work unfinished at his passing from this world to apostles who would be ministers of God and continue the work of redeeming all humanity.

LoveMonkey response
Distortion and misrepresentation. POV on what the apostles functions are and were. Voegelin, cults and Voegelins anti gnostic position as an academic and educator and Professor from Stanford. Not how can Langdell post some distortion of history that is his misinformed opinion as if that was a fact. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell quoted
The work of salvation goes on until all matter is redeemed - a state called apocatastasis. This is a standard doctrine of Eastern Orthodoxy.

LoveMonkey response
False knowledge -Slanderous, distortion and a complete outright ignorant statement. Apocatastasis is a heresy. It is not what the EO teaches. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell quoted
Jesus Christ and his apostles and priests serve the function of restoring man to his original vocation to know God and indeed to become God in other words to be 'fundamentally transformed and perfected through the intervention of a chosen group of people'.

LoveMonkey response
Voegelin why no Voegelin. Please no more of Langdell's horrible misinformed distorted view of history. Voegelin. Remember Voegelin inclusive in the article. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell quoted
Now those who are redeemed, namely the saints, possess knowledge and by this I mean spiritual knowledge (gnosis). If they did not possess spiritual knowledge they could not be ministers.

LoveMonkey response
False knowledge and distortion. Incorrect. Salvation is by Gods choice. Ministers and clergy of the church are not held to any such of a standard. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell quoted
A person who is fully deified knows things that the unredeemed do not know. Does it not follow that the more completely we have united with God, the more knowledge, grace, wisdom, love and other attributes we possess in greater abundance? Saints are important because they have realised God. The communion of saints is the church and that is an elite of God-realised men. So, it is interesting that these words applied to Gnosticism also apply to Christianity. Continuing with the quotation we then read:

'This stands in stark contrast to a notion of redemption that is achieved through reconciliation of mankind with the divine, or through the action of the Judeo-Christian God (through the God-man)'

LoveMonkey response
Distortion. Gnosticism teaches that the apostles where lying and so was the Early Hebrew and Christian communities. That these communities changed all of the truths to hide that their God is the devil. Langdell keeps loosing sight of the obvious. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell quoted

The interesting thing about this statement is that the gnostics did very much seek (and achieved) the 'reconciliation of mankind with the divine'

LoveMonkey response
Speculation and misleading. So again Hebrews and Christians are liars and lead people to the demiurge? Who isnt the true God. But again no Voegelin here. How is this justification to not include Voegelin. This appears to be all about religion. Didnt you say that Voegelin was about political science? 18:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell quoted
(those who have achieved this are called pneumatics, a word meaning 'spiritualised') but not through the action of a Judaeo-Christian God.

LoveMonkey response
Hypocritical, there it is. The Judaeo-Christian God is not the true God but the God of Gnosticism is. And yet its bad for one group to make the statement but not all. Again what about Voegelin. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell quoted
With the phrase Judaeo-Christian God, there is an assumption that the Gnostics regarded the God of the Christians as the same as the God of the Hebrews.

LoveMonkey response
Wrong Gnosticism teaches that the Judaeo-Christian God (Adonai) is a false or fallen God. And that Judaeo-Christians groups are liars. The Gnostic revival under the Bogomils Clearly displays hatred of the Christian Community.

Through his machinations the crucifixion took place, and Satan was the originator of the whole Orthodox community with its churches, vestments, ceremonies, sacraments and fasts, with its monks and priests. This world being the work of Satan, the perfect must eschew any and every excess of its pleasure.


Thank you Langdell for leaving out such subtle but absolutely critical details. Now let me get this straight. Followers of gnosticism make such statements and then when people respond in a negative fashion they decry intolerance and victimization. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell quoted
Well many gnostics believed that Jesus Christ was not a manifestation of the God of the Hebrews (whom they regarded as a demi-urge and not the supreme being) but was a manifestation of the true supreme being.

LoveMonkey response
Some Gnostics (see the Mandaeism) call Jesus Christ a liar. You are all over the place and chalked full of all kinds of inaccuracies. And there you have it, Langdell is not collaborating he is censuring. Langdell has decided that his interpretation of Voegelin is such that Voegelin can not be included in the article called gnosis about gnosis. Historical distortion again if you look into the Gnosis article in the word's Etymology in the article you will see that the word gnosis has a political and philosophical origin not a religious or mystical one. But Langdell does not care and wants to have his interpretation of the word gnosis used-This is his POV. Langdell wants his interpretation of gnosis used to be the guiding factor on what gets included in the article. Well I did not create Voegelin nor did I give Voegelin any of his academic credentials. LSU, Stanford and Munich did. Langdell can credential no one but is acting like he can. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell stated

So, Voegelin's claims that the gnostics were fundamentally different from the Christians turns out to be unfounded. Christianity is no less utopian than gnosticism and is full of eschatology.

LoveMonkey's response
False. Misleading Christianity does not teach that the human body and the God that made the human body are evil. The Christian heaven is being in the presents of God. If you have misotheism or Dystheism then you burn (aka Gnosticism) out of your hatred for God. If you are a Theophilos you are in heaven. None of the eastern churches accept Dante, Augustine or Aquintas' hell. The heaven of Christianity also is a reconciliation of the material and spiritual world not annihilation of the material cosmos or universe (and its God) and paradise in a purely spiritual pleroma of fullness as in Gnosticism. So Langdell is really really really being unethical in Langdell's treatment of peoples religious belief and is over generalizing to the point of absolute distortion. Gee imagine people taking issue with that. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell stated
And indeed was it not in part the 'totalitarianism' of the church herself which gave rise to both the Reformation and the eighteenth century Enlightenment. The church put Galileo in prison for the rest of his life for being truthful. That is the behaviour of a totalitarian state. To question official dogma was to commit heresy and put one's life in danger. People were burned at the stake for having their own theological views that were different from that of the church's. That looks to me like life in a Communist state.

LoveMonkey's response
Funny that Langdell would mention such an analogy (considering the Thule society from Voegelin hometown of Munich for example), problem is Langdell is distorting and misrepresenting history again, as Langdell has consistently done with Langdell's ignorance of history. Langdell is very determined while it seems being uninformed. Langdell is obviously biased or Langdell would see that Voegelin was pointing out the occult and cult like tendencies of totalitarianism. Langdell has decided that Voegelin did not do this to Langdell's liking and therefore Voegelins work is invalid and should not and can not be included. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell stated

Why pick on the gnostics?

LoveMonkey's response
No one is above criticism. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell stated
Because it is an ancient tradition started by the fathers of the church in order to secure the predominance of Christianity. You win such a war by means of propaganda which means that you distort the reality about your opponents and you demonise them.

LoveMonkey's response
Gnosticism teaches that the Jews worship the devil/evil (see Sethianism and the Ophites). I bet the Nazis embraced that on some level as Voegelin points out. I find your defensive statement here hypocritical and just like Voegelin would too as dangerous. I hope that some of the things I have pointed out would make it clear why people might have a "problem" with Gnosticism. Gee imagine people taking issue with that. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell stated
We did it to the Germans during two world wars, we are currently doing it to the Muslim world. The Romans did it to the Christians. The User:LoveMonkey keeps going on about how the Gnosis of the gnostics is religio-philosophical knowledge and not the God-knowledge of the saint but there is no evidence to support this thesis except sheer prejudice on the part of those whose historic goal has been the marginalisation of the gnostic groups.

LoveMonkey's response
What is Langdell doing? What does this have to do with Voegelin? Why is Langdell not sourcing but is being critical of credible sources. Why is Langdell not providing valid sources? But blocking the inclusion of College Professors and their works for this article? LoveMonkey (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell stated
If you read Hans Jonas you will see that his description of gnosis within gnosticism follows that of any normal mystical school. There are indeed striking parallels with Indian religions such as Buddhism. It is not our job as the editors of an encyclopedia to assert the superiority of one creed and denigrate those of others. We are here to present a world-wide perspective.

LoveMonkey's response
Are these mystical schools accredited? If not why mention them in such away? Also Langdell is not being honest or he would address Jonas' article on Gnosticism and Nihilism. And again again again why no more scholars why no current ones? Why only Jonas who is not even used anymore. Why no John D. Turner why no John M. Dillon? Why has Langdell not named one other valid source. At least Voegelin had a degree and was a Professor at three major Universities. Which is actually better the Hans Jonas. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell stated

Whatever Voegelin's persecutory theories about the gnostics (which clearly do not hold water),

LoveMonkey's response
False. Voegelin is a world famous scholar, author and has several study groups dedicated to his work. He has a entire section of the University of Louisiana dedicated to the study of him that carries his name. Langdell's POV can not change that. LoveMonkey (talk)

Langdell stated
they do not belong in an article that is concerned with the understanding the nature of spiritual knowledge.

LoveMonkey's response
Langdell attacks Greek Orthodox Christianity and then Langdell uses it to try and win for his POV. Unethical to say the least. Langdell then posts about my bias???? LoveMonkey (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell stated
The above section 'Gnosis according to Hans Jonas' is concerned with the concept of gnosis as it was understood by the gnostic traditions. Later in the article there is a section discussing gnosis as it was understood and defined by the Greek fathers.

LoveMonkey's response
OK and Voegelins work is based on Hans Jonas (among others). So why Jonas and not Voegelin? LoveMonkey (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell stated
The content of 'Gnosis according to Eric Voegelin' has been shown to be interpretive and not contributive to the discussion of what gnosis actually is except to say that Gnosis is 'religious philosophical teachings that are the foundations of cults' and not merely cults but bankrupt and/or immoral 'cults' such as Soviet communism and Nazism. We have already established that gnosis is the spiritual knowledge of the saint or mystically enlightened human being.

LoveMonkey's response
Historical distortion and speculative. We are in arbitration because we have not established anything. The history of the word gnosis very clearly relates it to political and philosophical meanings. Just because you say otherwise will not change that. Again the word gnosis has a history that comes from Plato not Syria or Egypt or India. Voegelin was addressing the word in the full spectrum of it history and meaning. 17:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell stated
According to Hans Jonas (from whom Voegelin learned about gnosticism) gnosis is both the technical knowledge required to effect mind-body transformation (presumably the religious philosophical teachings that LoveMonkey is referring to) as well as that knowledge of the infinite ground that is gained when one arrives at the end of this process (ie revelatory knowledge).

LoveMonkey's response
Jonas' own quote that is in the article invalidates what Langdell just stated. Revelatory would mean an objective of revelation. Gnosticism is not objective. Gnosticism states that one can gain gnosis from gnosis. Hellenistic philosophy and Greek Orthodox Christianity state that one gets gnosis from theoria or contemplation. Jonas' overly wordy wise was trying to say this simple concept. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell stated
But I think, lurking behing all these discussions of User:LoveMonkey's assertions

LoveMonkey's response
Mine are sourced yours are your own conspiracy history. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell stated
that the gnosis of the gnostics is/was false gnosis (not authentic spiritual knowledge) is a deeper issue which should be baldly stated.

LoveMonkey's response
You can not do that by censuring critics of gnosis and gnosticism Langdell. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell stated
Eastern Orthodox theology states (correct me if I am wrong) that there is no salvation outside the church.

LoveMonkey's response
False. Distortion. There is more then one position on this in the EO community -Sobornost for example held this not to be true. Neither idea is absolute within the Orthodox community since salvation is a gift from God not a mechanical process. Again Voegelin. Instead of more ignorances. Voegelin. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell stated
In other words according to the teaching of the church, it is not possible to attain theosis and thus salvation if one is a 'pagan' (e.g. a Platonist; a Buddhist; a Hindu; a Jain; a Mandaean).

LoveMonkey's response
False. Sobornost's held this not to be true. Again Voegelin. Instead of more ignorant statements. BTW the gnostics of gnosticism held that people where cattle who where not Sethian and cattle or animal are not saved since only and elite actually have "gnosis". I find Langdell's comments hypocritical and disingenious. Voegelin. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell stated
That seems to be the underlying reason why User:LoveMonkey (as a representative of the Eastern Orthodox Church) wishes to denigrate the supposed knowledge of these 'pagans' because if one admits that it is possible to attain salvation outside the sacramental life of the church it will mean that one does not need to partake of the eucharist in order to attain salvation.

LoveMonkey's response
Please abstain from depicting my motives. It is inappropriate. Also then why did I include the pagans? As to speaking to the motives of God (who does and does not get saved) that is between them and God. Not Langdell, wikipedia or LoveMonkey. Again Voegelin again Voegelin. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell stated

LoveMonkey's wish to promote Voegelin's ideas about gnosticism and totalitarianism should take place in the gnosticism article not here.

LoveMonkey's response
Problem with that is Voegelin again treats the whole history of the word gnosis including the words philosophical pedigree. I think that Jonas might however better fit Langdells suggestion then Voegelin. Since Voegelin is a critical voice on gnosis. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell stated
In this article we are discussing what gnosis (spiritual knowledge) is.

LoveMonkey's response
The article again is about the word gnosis. No the POV interpretation of gnosis that Langdell wants but the one that can be sourced from academic sources. Langdell appeared to not be wanting to adher to policy about reliable sources but wants his PVO in the face of a reliable source to be the overview what the content of the gnosis article. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell stated
We are not here to say that one spiritual tradition's knowledge is inferior to anothers, especially if that is not backed up by hard evidence.

LoveMonkey's response
Contradictory. If Langdell was being inclusive Langdell would not be trying to keep Voegelin out. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell stated
So, as for your input, Phil, I need a third party to appreciate that Voegelin's views are not pertinent to this article. Your suggestion that Voegelin's views are fringe is probably correct.

LoveMonkey's response
That would be a bad president. That would be a very negative stance to take against Louisianna State University. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell stated
My own view is that this type of input from User:LoveMonkey is part of a wider agenda that seeks to assert the superiority of Christianity above other spiritual traditions and the way this is achieved is by promoting theories such as Voegelin's. That is not NPOV. That is not what this encyclopedia is about.

LoveMonkey's response
Contradictory. Why would anyone follow any belief if it is nothing but relative. Wow talk about a poor and destructive egalitarianism. Also that is definitely not what the followers of gnosticism believe. I mean by Langdells standard Jewish people are in trouble again for having laws against the Minuth and or Heresy in Orthodox Judaism. Impossible. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking for a compromise

Ok, thanks for responding. In terms of what sort of compromise could be possible, I want to suggest the notion of briefly mentioning the ideas of Eric Voegelin, but including sourced criticism of these ideas. I've done a quick search and found the following sources:

  • O'Regan, Cyril (2001). Gnostic Return in Modernity. SUNY Press. p. 25. ISBN 079145021X.
  • Versluis, Arthur (2006). The New Inquisitions: Heretic-Hunting and the Intellectual Origins of Modern Totalitarianism. Oxford University Press US. p. 72. ISBN 0195306376.
  • O'Regan, Cyril (1994). The Heterodox Hegel. SUNY Press. p. 19. ISBN 0791420051.

PhilKnight (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Eugene Webb wrote the best critical overview of Voegelin. Robert Anton Wilson was the pop culture equivelent.

LoveMonkey (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking for a compromise Part 2

Please forgive my formating, I am trying to cut to the chase. I agree with what you stated PhilKnight. I think though that a better overview and inclusion of both Hans Jonas and Voegelin would be just a section of known "gnostics" ancient and modern - Pro and con. I think we could keep the whole thing very brief and just deal directly with what is noteworthy. That way we can leave whatever is nebulious to the individuals article page (as long as the subject has one). It would be good to cover that gnosis is not purely "mysticism" (in the words modern usage). That word has psychological and political science usage that correlate to how the word evolved into meaning "spiritual knowledge" or validation of the spiritual realm. This in contrast to metaphysics. We could reduce this to just a list of names and again leave the specfics to the individuals article page. As links like I was pushing for to begin with. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the article could have a religious, philosophical and political science set of sections. Also I firmly believe that a second article called spritiual knowledge should be created.LoveMonkey (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. PhilKnight (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking for a compromise responses

Ok, thanks for responding. In terms of what sort of compromise could be possible, I want to suggest the notion of briefly mentioning the ideas of Eric Voegelin, but including sourced criticism of these ideas. I've done a quick search and found the following sources:

PhilKnight (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not Voegelin's ideas are sourced the issue is not being addressed. This article is about gnosis, which is to say spiritual knowledge. This is the normal accepted meaning of the word in the English language. We are referring to knowledge of God that proceeds by means of self-knowledge. This definition was understood by the writers of the Philokalia just as it was understood by the sectarian gnostics themselves. The reason that the word is understood in the same way is because we are dealing with universal spiritual phenomena that transcend sectarianism. The Hellenic traditions (whether gnostic or Christian Orthodox) call the direct intuitive knowledge of God gnosis. The Indian traditions call it Jñana. In sufism it is called Marifa. They all refer to the same state of being if you bother to read the accounts of these traditions rather than let yourself be informed by people who are not informed about the subject (e.g. Eric Voegelin). And it does not matter that Voegelin was a University Professor; what matters is that Voegelin was a political scientist and not a scholar of spirituality which is what this article is about. To address LoveMonkey's question as to why Jonas should be left in and Voegelin left out (it is not a question of censuring but organising the encyclopedia according to Wikipedia guidelines and policy) is because Jonas was a scholar of the gnostic literature (there was gnostic literature before Nag Hammadi!) who had no other agenda than to explain to people what the Gnostic Religion was about. What was this gnosis that the gnostics emphasised? That is what he explains in the section that has been posted. What does he say? He says:
'Thus in the more radical systems like the Valentinian the "knowledge" is not only an instrument of salvation but itself the very form in which the goal of salvation, i.e., ultimate perfection, is possessed. In these cases knowledge and the attainment of the known by the soul are claimed to coincide—the claim of all true mysticism. It is, to be sure, also the claim of the Greek theoria, but in a different sense. There the object of knowledge is the universal, and the cognitive relation is "optical," i.e., an analogue of the visual relation to objective form that remains unaffected by the relation. Gnostic "knowledge" is about the particular (for the transcendent deity is still a particular), and the relation of knowing is mutual, i.e., a being known at the same time, and involving active self-divulgence on the part of the "known." There, the mind is "informed" with the forms it beholds (thinks) them: here the subject is transformed (from "soul" to "spirit") by the union with a reality that in truth is itself the supreme subject in the situation and strictly speaking never an object at all.'
What Jonas describes here about the relation of knowing being mutual ie, knowing at the same time as being known, is an absolutely standard description of the final state of mystic knowledge. In Hinduism it is called advaita. Again this is not something 'special' or 'secret' except in as far as great spiritual teachers throughout the ages (including Jesus) would not talk about such knowledge unless they knew the recipient to be sufficiently sincere in their aspirations. And again this knowledge is not something peculiar to the 'pagans' as they are generically referred to in Christianity. It is a feature of Christian belief itself. Paul says:
'...whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come [God], then that which is in part shall be done away...For now we see distorted images as though in a mirror [For now we see through a glass darkly]; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.'
That is a description of gnosis; the non-dual awareness of the unconditioned ground [God]. The Tibetans call it Rigpa. The Zen masters emphasise that it is 'nothing special' and should be regarded as such. It has nothing to do with totalitarianism, Nazism or Communism. One who has attained gnosis has acquired transcendental peace of mind and is in no discord with his fellow man. All egoism is absent from such a person because they possess 'the peace that surpasses all human understanding'.
Personally, I do not understand religious bigotry. The desire to victimise and persecute minorities is foreign to my outlook. When Jesus commanded us to love our neighbour as ourselves he emphasised loving those who we may perceive as enemies. He did not advocate persecuting them. But each to his own. All I am saying is that Wikipedia promotes fairness and objectivity. Voegelin's views are neither fair nor objective. They are out of place in this article. Langdell (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

LoveMonkey response
And I think the gnosticism view that the Jews worship the devil/evil is anti-semitic and extremely bigoted (see Sethianism and the Ophites). Voegelin did too, but Langdell wishes Voegelins attacks on Nazis and Communists to be depicted as bigotry. But now being critical of cult devotion is inappropriate? Communism and Fascism used the same Psychological cult technics, as the gnostics according to Voegelin. Gnosis being used to control people spread hatred should not be addressed and if it is the person doing so is a bigot. Voegelins attacks on groups like Nazi occultists the thule society now is bigotry, Voegelin a bigot. I think Langdell is now running in circles and adding content that is wasting time and not pertinent. How about working toward what the administrator suggested no asked about the majority of what you posted above? How misleading and misinformed you are Langdell I mean let alone the gnosticism belief that the material universe or cosmos (because its evil and our existence here is evil) will be destroyed by fire and replaced by a purely spiritual paradise. Destroyed with its creator because nature and its God are evil and or the devil. This belief triggering in people pure nihilistic annihilation, but anyone calling this stuff in question is now a bigot. How outrageous can you get? LoveMonkey (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A note to collaboration. I wonder how Voegelins whole Immanentize the Eschaton or the Gnostic, cult desire to trigger the apocalypse should be handled in his mention here. Since what is mentioned here (and in his own article as well) is not clear about this. It is something that ties him to Hans Jonas and Jonas' Gnosticism and Nihilism text. I am sifting through the admins list of sources above.

LoveMonkey (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Much of what you say is hyperbole. You satisfy that psychological truism that you accuse the other of what you yourself are guilty of. A great deal of what you say is irrelevant and beside the point. You do not understand what, for example, apocatastasis is. Nowhere have I suggested that attacking Nazism and Communism is bigotry. If you believe, as Plato did, that the universe is not the work of the supreme being but a lesser being, does that mean that one is calling the God of the Jews evil. Of course not. That is not bigotry. That is exercising one's right to have one's own view. Huge struggles were fought in European civilisation for four hundred years or more to prevent the church from arresting, torturing and burning to death people for simply having their own view about the universe. The Gnostics had their own opinions and they were entitled to them. But because they conflicted with those of the church they were branded enemies of the truth. It is the oldest trick in the book. That is exactly what you are doing with my writing on this page. You are not reading it. Frankly, I do not think you are interested. Nonetheless it is my duty to do what is right and prevent others from sabotaging articles. There is very little that you have said that has anything to do with gnosis at all. One wonders if you in fact know what it is. Instead of talking about gnosis you want to attack the gnostic sects. What have you contributed to this article on the subject of gnosis. What do the Greek fathers say of gnosis, for example? Do you know? Are you interested? My concern with this article is to explain to people what gnosis is. We are not discussing gnosticism as a cultural phenomenon. That is beyond the scope of this article. It does not belong here. It is clear to any sensible person where such discussion belongs. Langdell (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The inclusion of ideas in article doesn't imply approval, or even that such ideas are reasonable, merely that they are considered notable. PhilKnight (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Truism from a misinformed Langdell?

Langdell wrote
Much of what you say is hyperbole.

LoveMonkey's response
There again you have it. The Ophites as followers of Gnosticism explicitly worship the snake from the garden of eden BECAUSE the God Yahweh (you know the one the Christians and Jews worship as their God) is the devil or the evil demiurge. Somehow that bigotry is now hypebole, exaggeration. Not bigotry and hatred. You are not exhibiting reasoned or rational behaviour in your posting Langdell. You are being hypocritical. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell wrote
You satisfy that psychological truism that you accuse the other of what you yourself are guilty of.

LoveMonkey's response
You do not know me, you are very ignorant as such and have no idea what my motivations are. Your quickness to assume betrays that you have nothing but this silliness to offer. No sources no substance only smoke and projection. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell wrote
A great deal of what you say is irrelevant and beside the point.

LoveMonkey's response
Tell that to the victims. But only your group, is worthy to be sympathized with. No sympathy for any other. Somehow that logic seems flawed, elitist. Also could your rants not fall under the same criticism you just made Langdell. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell wrote
You do not understand what, for example, apocatastasis is.

LoveMonkey's response
I think you are and have engaged in disinformation. Apocatastasis is a heresy. Langdell wrote this piece of historic nonsense-"The work of salvation goes on until all matter is redeemed - a state called apocatastasis. This is a standard doctrine of Eastern Orthodoxy."- WRONG. You deny that it is established as such, as a heresy (see Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople 553), no mention of Origen or of Diodore of Tarsus. You have no idea do you. You just do not know what you are talking about. Ignorant as if Gnosticism does not teach damnation to the hylic. Playing on peoples ignorance. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell wrote
Nowhere have I suggested that attacking Nazism and Communism is bigotry.

LoveMonkey's response
Oh yes you have. Voegelin was one of a few brave forerunners in standing up to them and you oppose him as his critque is directed at them. You have not exhibited any form of objectiveness in your behaviour or rants. 18:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell wrote
If you believe, as Plato did, that the universe is not the work of the supreme being but a lesser being, does that mean that one is calling the God of the Jews evil.

LoveMonkey's response
Distortion. Plato taught that the demiurge did the work of the One or the Goodness above him. As such the Demiurge or Zeus was not evil nor did Plato engage him as such. The demiurge did the will of the one (which is good). Since the demiurge was the nous or mind of God by emanation. The demiurge as an emanation of the one, from the one. Who manifest order as nous, Zeus then manifest the logos or thought in his mind of this cosmos its called Platonic idealism. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell wrote
Of course not. That is not bigotry.

LoveMonkey's response
To call the God as creator, that people worship, as fallen, false, a lie and evil. Is bigotry. It is bigotry against people who worship the creator. It is bigotry against the creator. Pure and simple. It is sad that something so obvious has to be pointed out to you. To vilify Christianity as Langdell has with lies and false information is bigotry. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell wrote
That is exercising one's right to have one's own view.

LoveMonkey's response
Which you deny to Voegelin. Ones POV uh Langdell. Just like I stated that you would do to try and justify you unsourced OR. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell wrote
Huge struggles were fought in European civilisation for four hundred years or more to prevent the church from arresting, torturing and burning to death people for simply having their own view about the universe.

LoveMonkey's response
Now that is straight up Hyperbole and Anti-Christian propaganda if ever there was any (let me guess such a thing does not exist right Langdell). Hey theres bigotry for you. Let alone that Langdell refuses to acknowledge that the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics have been at war and killing each other for 1000 years. No respectful mention or treatment as it is right? Langdell just has completely rewrote history. According to Langdell there is no Balkinization. No Ustashe no Magnum Crimen for example between Roman Catholicism and the Eastern Orhodox? I mean any human organization is going to have a negative episode (or several) in its history no matter what, talk about unrealistic. We can all see cults as being at the heart of this, (Voegelin's point) just look at the Solar Temple, Heavens Gate and Charles Manson. The Piteşti prison and the Psikhushka, are all more recent then Langdell would like to admit, though. Langdell so blind by bigotry that these things have no mention. Only the followers of gnosticism suffer. The thule made no such claims to the occult or gnosticism according to Langdell. If thule was not true gnosticism won't that make them heretics to the followers of gnosticism? I mean why is one groups' suffering more important then another in this context. Certainly the Harvest of Sorrow is treated this way as equal, the opposite of Langdells standard. Certainly these things on magnatude alone make them more then something that happened almost 2000 years ago, like the Gnosticism and church conflict. Langdell seems to not be able to put things into perspective Langdell has no source for any numbers of the cults or sectarians killed in the time of Irenaeus. Just guess work like The Burning Times which is made up anti-christian bigotry and hate. LoveMonkey (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell wrote
The church put Galileo in prison for the rest of his life for being truthful. That is the behaviour of a totalitarian state.

LoveMonkeys response
Socrates taught that the earth was round long before Galileo. Since Greece and Russia were under Ottoman and Tatar rule in Galileo's time (hint under the Muslim yoke, technically there was no Russia then) how does what Langdell say so exagerated, have anything to do with the Greek Orthodox Church? Ignorant. Just ignorant comments. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell wrote
The Gnostics had their own opinions and they were entitled to them.

LoveMonkey's response
POV again. Yes they were but no one is entitled to start outright rebellions and kill people (see the Chrysocheres). Let alone during the Empire being at war with Islam. But then all these little details get in the way for Langdell and his revisionist history of bad evil Christian and good innocent cults. Lame conspiracy theories -poshlust. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell wrote
But because they conflicted with those of the church they were branded enemies of the truth.

LoveMonkey's response
As if any religion has ever not done this. I mean was it wrong for the Hebrews to declare Minuth (long before Christianity)? This as if Socrates was not put to death by pagans for engaging in deveant anti-pagan behavior. As if Father Calciu did not get sent to Prison for disagreeing with atheism. What does one thing has to do with the other. I mean as if occult, cult groups don't have the same problem. Whats the point then? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell wrote
It is the oldest trick in the book.

LoveMonkey's response
Warning lame clique, elitist. Indicative of conjecture and hyperbole ahead. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell wrote
That is exactly what you are doing with my writing on this page. You are not reading it.

LoveMonkey's response
So now Langdell's a victim. I have read your comments and responded to them one by one. I have contributed more in writing and sourcing to this article then you have. You are dillusional. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell wrote
Frankly, I do not think you are interested.

LoveMonkey's response
Again please abstain from speculating about my motives. It is wasting time.

Langdell wrote
Nonetheless it is my duty to do what is right and prevent others from sabotaging articles.

LoveMonkey's response
I do not think wikipedia is the proper environment to foster deontic POVs. I also find you very ignorant and making very terrible mistakes with the history you post. I think you are sabotaging. Engaging in edit warring anti-christian bigotry, as forms of sabatoge. Also so is posting attacks when you have been requested to collaborate- by the administrator that responded to your instigation of arbitration. Still no sources no contributions no suggestions other then delete and censure. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell wrote
There is very little that you have said that has anything to do with gnosis at all.

LoveMonkey's response
You know that is you projecting. I wrote and contributed the Etymology section including sourcing it. I have added the Voegelin section (remember that, Voegelin, what the arbitration is about-remember). So now you dont like my contributions and then accuse me of not making any? LoveMonkey (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell wrote
One wonders if you in fact know what it is. Instead of talking about gnosis you want to attack the gnostic sects.

LoveMonkey's response
Diversationary misinformation. Voegelin and his defintion of the word and the context as he defined them. You refuse that they be included. Voegelin remember, Voegelin.

Langdell wrote
What have you contributed to this article on the subject of gnosis.

LoveMonkey's response
You know that is you projecting. I wrote and contributed the Etymology section including sourcing it. I have added the Voegelin section (remember that Voegelin's what the arbitration is about-remember). So now you dont like my contributions and then accuse me of not making any? Why are you not contributing to the arbitation as the administrator has requested? LoveMonkey (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell wrote
What do the Greek fathers say of gnosis, for example?

LoveMonkey's response
Again projecting. Lame. I wrote that section of this for the article to. Ignorant. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell wrote
Do you know? Are you interested? My concern with this article is to explain to people what gnosis is.

LoveMonkey's response
It seems to me your just wasting time and posting rants now. How about focusing on what the administrator asked us? LoveMonkey (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell wrote
We are not discussing gnosticism as a cultural phenomenon. That is beyond the scope of this article. It does not belong here. It is clear to any sensible person where such discussion belongs.

LoveMonkey's response
The article is named gnosis. I posted Voegelins definition of the word. I posted his take on the context and use of the word. You have done nothing but edit war and now rant between you anti-christian propaganda and disinformation. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Enough

I think it would be preferable to completely discontinue the discussion about bigotry, which isn't conducive to improving the article. PhilKnight (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gnosis/Archive_1&oldid=1136768564"