Gnosis, Early Church, Logic, Eastern Orthodoxy, sociohistorical, church and state

Your explanation of Logic, its history, the factions, successfully answered my every question on the matter. You took it from a sociohistorical context, placing it nicely within that model. Thank you for that.

My only quibble might be the implications when comparing the Gnostic and downfall of the White Faction of logic (I like the team-breakdown… very useful for quick comprehension) in the “thankfully no one was killed”.

The behavior of humans in the 1950s/60s vs humans in 350/60s is a very invalid comparison, most things considered.

The majority of Gnostics were instead absorbed and folded into Christian Orthodoxy, especially the entirety of the hundreds of Epicurean communities, transformed into what are now known as monasteries: “friendship communities” – NOT so much as a “wiping out” of Gnostic thought, but, at the time, considered to be a (to use a modern word) “humane” way of transforming Gnostic concepts into Christian concepts, leading towards a very important part of Eastern Orthodox tradition, Gnosis.

Which was hinted at by earlier Church Fathers. Origen is a fascinating figure, for while he was extraordinarily influential, he was not made a Saint precisely because he got some of the specifics of his writings dipping his toes into Gnosticism a bit too much for the Church, who was really trying to nail down the Logic with great precision.

By the 3rd/4th Century AD, Logic and related disciplines were _very_ important things indeed, likely due to the neoPlatonic revival and its influence upon the societies of the time.

The bloodshed that may have ensued in some circles struck me likely as political overenthusiasm by political leaders – similar to the “Let’s bomb ‘em all” mentality and not really a sanctioned affair. While they strove for a symphony of Church and State, they never fulled merged into one, even through the centuries of the time caled Byzantium.

Unless you’re speaking of what’s called Gnostics in Western Christianity in the medieval times. To me, that’s neo-Gnosticism, or neo-neo-Gnosticism; an attempt at a revival of what was, by then, a thousand year old belief system. I find that part of the world and its actions rather pathetic and a poor example of the right (Orthodox) way to accomplish things…. not that Byzantium got much of it right either. Separation of Church/State by 18th century fathers of the US constitution made a very wise move indeed.

It’s my bias: I also consider the beliefs/words/actions of followers of Plato as distinct from the neoPlatonism of the 3rd century AD.

It might be easy to mix them up, but a revival movement is a very different thing than the original, especially when a group of people decides, “We’re gonna do it right, and do it by the book”. That seems to always lead into trouble for somebody, eventually.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

× 6 = thirty six

Leave a Reply