Determinism & Apocolypse: the Grim Irony of Our Fortunate Fall

[alice wellintown]

Eddins' essential secondary source is Voegelin.

In his The New Science of Politics, Order and History, and Science,
Politics and Gnosticism, Voegelin opposed what he believed to be
unsound Gnostic influences in politics. He defined gnosis as "a
purported direct, immediate apprehension or vision of truth without
the need for critical reflection; the special gift of a spiritual and
cognitive elite."

Gnosticism is a "type of thinking that claims absolute cognitive
mastery of reality. Relying as it does on a claim to gnosis,
gnosticism considers its knowledge not subject to criticism.
Gnosticism may take transcendentalizing (as in the case of the Gnostic
movement of late antiquity) or immanentizing forms (as in the case of
Marxism)."

Note that Melville famously, and the other Dark Romantics--Hawthorne,
Poe, Dickenson--all reject Transcendentalism.

Apart from the Classical Christian writers against heresy, his sources
on Gnosticism were secondary, since the texts in the Nag Hammadi
library were not yet widely available. For example Voegelin uses Hans
Urs von Balthasar, Henri de Lubac, and the German philosopher Hans
Jonas.

Voegelin perceived similarities between ancient Gnosticism and
modernist political theories, particularly communism and nazism. He
identified the root of the Gnostic impulse as alienation, that is, a
sense of disconnection with society and a belief that this lack is the
result of the inherent disorder, or even evil, of the world. This
alienation has two effects:

The first is the belief that the disorder of the world can be
transcended by extraordinary insight, learning, or knowledge, called a
Gnostic Speculation by Voegelin (the Gnostics themselves referred to
this as gnosis).

These are Pynchon's Scientists and Blicero & Co.


The second is the desire to implement and or create a policy to
actualize the speculation, or Immanentize the Eschaton, i.e., to
create a sort of heaven on earth within history.

Blivero's "Heaven" is a Death Kingdom. For the Herero Cabalists its the Moon.

According to Voegelin the Gnostics are really rejecting the Christian
eschaton of the kingdom of God and replacing it with a human form of
salvation through esoteric ritual or practice.

The primary feature that characterizes a tendency as gnostic for
Voegelin is that it is motivated by the notion 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, Übermensch, 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.


Marxism therefore qualifies as "gnostic" because it purports that we
can establish the perfect society on earth once capitalism has been
overthrown by 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 of the racially inferior and the degenerate.

Marx is tossed in with Mary and the Racists in GR.


In the two cases specifically analyzed by Voegelin, the totalitarian
impulse is derived from the alienation of the individuals from the
rest of society. This leads to a desire to dominate (libido dominandi)
which has its roots not just in the Gnostic's conviction of the
imperative of his vision but also in his lack of concord with a large
body of his society. As a result, there is very little regard for the
welfare of those who are harmed by the resulting politics, which
ranges from coercive to calamitous (e.g. the Russian proverb: "You
have to crack a few eggs to make an omelet").

 Immanentizing the eschaton

One of his most quoted passages is the following:

The problem of an eidos in history, hence, arises only when a
Christian transcendental fulfillment becomes immanentized. Such an
immanentist hypostasis of the eschaton, however, is a theoretical
fallacy.

>From this comes the catch phrase: "Don't immanentize the eschaton!"
which simply means: "Do not try to make that which belongs to the
afterlife happen here and now." or "Don't try to create heaven on
earth."

When Voegelin uses the term gnosis negatively, it is to reflect the
word as found in the Manichaeism and Valentinianism of antiquity. As
it is later then immanentized (or manifest) in modernity in the wake
of Joachim of Flora and in the various ideological movements outlined
in his works.

Voegelin also builds on the term gnosticism as it is defined by Hans
Jonas in his The Gnostic Religion in reference to Heidegger's
gnosticism. Which is to have an understanding and control over reality
that makes Mankind as powerful as the role of God in reality.

Voegelin was arguing from a Hellenistic position that good gnosis is
derived from pistis (faith) and that the pagan tradition made a false
distinction between faith and noesis. Furthermore, this dualist
perspective was the very essence of gnosticism via the misuse of Noema
and caused a destructive division between the internal and external
world in human consciousness. To reconcile the internal (subjective)
and external (objective) world of consciousness was the restoration of
order.

Excerpted with commentary from Wiki.






On 10/2/09, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ignorant questions are pardonable as long as they're sincere.
>
> From my slim knowledge of Gnosticism, its essence isn't a vague
> something called "mysticism."  I assume by your usage of the word
> "mysticism" you mean a direct personal supernatural experience, and,
> yes, many religions/cults promise that experience.  But the essence of
> Gnosticism and its relation to Calvinism is in both of their
> theologies, and specifically their understanding of the spiritual
> origins of the cosmos in relation to its present state, and how to
> escape it.  But you should get a better overview of both Gnosticism
> and Calvinism before you read Eddins.  Then you might not even need to
> read Eddins to see Pynchon's gnosticism.
>
> David Morris
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:48 AM, Michael Bailey
> <michael.lee.bailey at gmail.com> wrote:
> > alice wellintown  wrote:
> >>
> >> >From 'The Gnostic Pynchon' Dwight Eddins, (1990)
> >>
> >> Pynchon specifically identifies Calvinism, and in particular the Puritanism of Slothrop's New England forebears, as the precursor of this modern religion of death--an identification echoed by Voegelin's analysis of Puritanism as a form of gnosticism.
> >
> > apologies if this is an ignorant question, but I have various good excuses for not reading TGP... my curiosity is, Gnosticism as opposed to, or compared to, what?
> >
> > Gnosticism to me is Dead-Sea-Scrolls-there-can-be-some-direct-knowledge-of- God-achieved-by-discipline-(possibly-esoteric)
> >
> > If the Calvinists and Hobbesists embodied a mystical tradition in a polis in a way that is a cognate of the Essenes,
> >
> > what other tradition or directive or impulse was there that they ignored to do this?
> >
> > is there not a substantial mystical basis behind orthodox Papism and Judaism, and maybe even British "common law", to such an extent that these schools could also fulfill the definition of gnostical teachings?
>
>