Determinism & Apocolypse: the Grim Irony of Our Fortunate Fall

[Joseph Tracy]

Seem to me to be claiming roots in gnosticism that are far more  
common and universal  than the specific gnostic traditions. What   
unites the  ideas below is not gnosticism but what Armstrong calls  
agonistic faith or philosophy- a system of thought structured as a  
battle or struggle or conflict between good/evil, light/dark,   
knowledge/ignorance, strength/weakness, flesh/spirit, capitalist/  
socialist, chosen/ infidel, god/devil etc. Once accepted this  
generally leads to the idea of the enlightened overthrowing the  
darkened and bringing peace harmony and really cool gizmos, at least  
til the devil gets loose again.

> 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?
>>
>>