From: N.E.Widder-AT-lse.ac.uk Date: Mon, 29 Jul 96 10:34:36 GMT Subject: Re: Deleuze and Gnosticism Mont, My general take on gnosticism is that the gnostics are actually rejecting the Plotonian model of emanation from the One (which Plotinus basically says while at the same time translating gnosticism back into his model). I find this sort of rejection primarily in the section on the errors of other religions and philosophies found in the "Tripartite Tractate" in Nag Hammadi, and the argument found in several other tractates (the Gospel of Philip primarily, if I remember correctly) about the misrepresentativeness of the names usually given to the Father. Basically, I see the Pleroma as presented in these tractates (especially the "Tripartite Tractate" and "Zostrianos") presenting a rhizomatic model of the aeons, one which lacks a centre, outside and a hierarchy. And the aeons do not degrade (even though most commentators who reinscribe gnosticism into the language of neo-Platonic emanation and degradation). Bascially, I think the gnostic system is much closer to immanence than emanation (as Deleuze differentiates between the two, most notably in Expressionism and Philosophy: Spinoza, around pp. 170-178). The demiurge creates the world from the image of the aeons, and his creation is a hierarchy of beings grounded in a transcendent Oneness (the demiurge himself). In other words, he mistakes positive difference (the rhizomatic production and dispersion of aeons) for a negative unity (difference reduced to being grounded in a centre). His negative creation is a shadow of the positive Pleroma. Anyway, that's the shorthand of my take on the gnostics. Later, Nathan
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005