or Back to that old Gnosticism problem

[Richard Ryan]

In the words of the Nicene creed (which I just recited at Anglican
mass this morning):

"One in being with the Father; BEGOTTEN *not* made....."

On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com> wrote:
> wikipedia sez:
> Much of the debate hinged on the difference between being "born" or "created"
> and being "begotten". Arians saw these as essentially the same; followers of
> Alexander did not. The exact meaning of many of the words used in the debates at
> Nicea were still unclear to speakers of other languages. Greek words like
> "essence" (ousia), "substance" (hypostasis), "nature" (physis), "person"
> (prosopon) bore a variety of meanings drawn from pre-Christian philosophers,
> which could not but entail misunderstandings until they were cleared up. The
> word homoousia, in particular, was initially disliked by many bishops because of
> its associations with Gnostic heretics (who used it in their theology), and
> because it had been condemned at the 264–268 Synods of Antioch.
>
> Started with: since JC was a son of The Father, what mean that? other sons were
> not divine, was he and how?
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Michael Bailey <michael.lee.bailey at gmail.com>
> To: P-list <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> Sent: Sun, April 10, 2011 8:28:51 PM
> Subject: Re: TRTR(1) Eye Goddesses Wearing Dipthongs
>
> Jed Kelestron wrote:
>> The absurdity of the schisms and self/other inflicted punishments
>> stemming from unverifiable assertions is highlighted by Gaddis in the
>> passage cited and what follows it on p. 10.
>>
>
> drawing an unverifiable parallel to physics, was the Nicene insistence
> on a single substance something like a quest for a unified field
> theory?
>
> the other thing, even more unjustified, is, you know how the
> Heisenberg paradox says you can't know the position and velocity of a
> particle?
>
> I always figured you could get around that by assigning 2 different
> teams, one to watch each characteristic --
>
> similarly, maybe there are both homoousian and homoiousian
> characteristics to the Deity that for some reason can't be appreciated
> at the same time, and so the division of the Church allowed the
> development of the different teams...
>
> the fact that their strivings devolved into self-abuse might be
> measured against the background of the violent and primitive society
> they existed in:
> that is,
>
> a) those dudes in caves and cells, perhaps might've done even worse in
> the larger society - back then there were a lot of lives that were
> pretty miserable, lead miners, galley slaves (for DeMille, young
> fur-henchmen...), etc etc
>
> b) not only that, but perhaps their violence, self-directed at the
> behest of a gnarly theology, would've been outer-directed otherwise
> and therefore worse...
>
> c) and perhaps we must allow for the possibility that certain moments
> of genuine gratuitous grace were granted them, in their "carcel
> triste"
>
>
> but enough of my rather lukewarm apologetics - my sense is that there
> is sarcasm aplenty in the book, and justifiied certainly.  But nobody
> would write a book just to be sarcastic --- well, maybe they would,
> but my sense is that there's this mind-of-Gaddis that accumulated all
> these arcana because there was a certain amount of joy in so doing,
> and wrote these beautiful sentences (though in a way, writing (not to
> mention reading) is a solitary discipline not so far removed from the
> painful dreams of the immured monks) to express the beauty of his soul
> and reflect the glories of the world - abuses, stupidities, fraud and
> forgeries exist, sure, but hey, nobody's perfect! - and succeeded.
>
>
>



-- 
Richard Ryan
New York and the World
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Come see VTM's new production!
www.kingstheplay.com