Subject: Re: The Garden of The Dead
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 08:15:51 PDT




... For Schelling, "Nature is intelligence in the process of becoming" 
(Marias: 1967, p. 315); for Hegel, God, or the primal 'root', exists 
only in a state of becoming (ibid., p. 323).  Is, then, the idea of a 
"beginning ... that can't be recuperated by the operations of the 
understanding" (Ariosto Raggo, 9-10-98) _pantheistic_?  The difficulty 
(for me) of drawing a concrete notion of 'beginning' or 'origin' from 
the Hegelian dialectic is due to the fact that, in Hegel, "temporal 
sequences are often only inadequately and misplaced reflections" (J.N. 
Findlay, foreword to _Phenomenology of Spirit_: Oxford 1977, tr.).  Thus 
the problem of _creatio ex nihilo_ is rendered superfluous, for creation 
becomes merely a "necessary production within the dialectic of the 
absolute" (Marias, p. 323).  

Here the similarities, as well as the differences, between Hegel's 
dialectic of the absolute (a "true ontology") and Valentinian Gnosis 
becomes apparent.  It was said by Irenaeus (derisively) that the 
Valentinians produced a new idea every day.  These ideas were 
speculations on the nature of the pre-existent god and the origins or 
'emanations' of the beings in the pleroma, the _aeons_.  Their (the 
Valentinians') "temporal reflections" on a being or 'root' that is 
without origin and independent of time were therefore subject to 
constant revision, since there was no way for them to 'stand under' or 
give a foundation to their intuitive ideas -- in short, there was no way 
for them to become what they were seeking [the pre-existent Father, the 
'Depth', was described as the "root with tree, branches and fruit" ('The 
Tripartite Tractate', 51:15, NHL)].  

The strength of their speculations resides in their ability to avoid the 
rigid dialectic of being and nothingness, and to think "philosophy's 
outside" in a manner alien to philosophy, as is only right and proper. 
The real similarity to Hegel's system lies in their conception of this 
temporal world, this world of creation; with their conception of a 
primal root, responsible for emanating or "emitting" the beginning of 
all things, and of emergent beings capable of creating new beings 
_within the totality of the godhead_, they united the opposing concepts 
of creation and emanation within a single ontotheological system.  A 
syncretism of Hellenistic ideas of emanation and Judaeo-Christian ideas 
of _creatio ex nihilo_ was thus accomplished by the Valentinian 
theorists through their establishment of a unique duality of this 
temporal, systematic, ordered world of creation, and another, purely 
perfect realm of emanation.  

The above ramblings, Ariosto, are partly the result of my reflection 
upon your post, and a single passage in the _CUP_:

     "The fantastic I-am-I is not an identity of the infinite and the 
finite, since neither the one nor the other is real; it is a fantastic 
rendezvous in the clouds, an unfruitful embrace, and the relationship of 
the individual self to this mirage is never indicated" (p. 181).
 
I too am confused, and am still running with this ...


~~ Edward













______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com