![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Jun. 15th, 2011 11:23 amMy recent fatuous remarks regarding Gnostic sects and social organization suggest the perennial confusion between "Gnostic" and "gnostic" in English...presumably Gnostics are world-negating and matter-hating sectarians given to secret confabulations, whereas gnostics can simply be groups or individuals given to sharpening or widening the area of consciousness, with no particular implications about their attitude towards the world or humanity in general. Some gnostically inclined social groups I can think of are quite active in architectural preservation, promotion of the economic advancement of their communities, openness to other views of the world and dialogue with same, et cetera. Bt contrast, groups inclined towards pessimism regarding the possibility of improving the human condition, or of producing inclusive outcomes rather than protecting an already existing exclusive group, would have a very different social philosophy. (Now that John Crowley has alerted us to the other John Crowley's researches, I wonder what sorts of social attitudes are prevalent among the predestinarian Baptists Prof. Crowley has been researching.)
All of the foregoing dynamics are having very direct political and economic consequences at this very moment in the world at large, on stages much larger than those associated with fringe movements. Since even the politically oriented reporters are beginning to pick up on this, I hope that historians and sociologists of religion are weighing in regarding the extent to which prior beliefs shape present responses to social forces.
These remarks could lead off into one of my frequent disquisitions on how critical theorists of a certain ilk have long since revised their opinions with regard to base and superstructure, on how beliefs can cause groups to behave in ways that simple material self-interest would not suggest...but I would prefer not to go there. And so, I suspect, would you prefer that I not go there. I await utopyr's deliciously double-entendre sarcastic reactions to my intentional provocation. (It will only seem puzzling to everybody else, except longtime readers of the joculum blog.)
If everyone, longtime readership included, is puzzled by the generalities with which this post began, I am trying to spare you several thousand words of explication based on topics I have written about previously. Plus I remain painfully aware of just how much research it would require to do more than offer meaningless observations about the comparative dynamics going on within or between groups in different parts of the world.
I simply remain surprised by the extent to which seemingly socially irrelevant factors of personal belief play a major role in decision-making regarding intensely practical and sometimes life-or-death issues. Cynics who insist that belief systems are always only a screen for material interests are much too simple-minded, and indeed childlike, in their belief-driven suppositions. I could offer footnotes, beginning with my graduate seminars forty years ago and updating from there, but as I say, I would prefer not to.
All of the foregoing dynamics are having very direct political and economic consequences at this very moment in the world at large, on stages much larger than those associated with fringe movements. Since even the politically oriented reporters are beginning to pick up on this, I hope that historians and sociologists of religion are weighing in regarding the extent to which prior beliefs shape present responses to social forces.
These remarks could lead off into one of my frequent disquisitions on how critical theorists of a certain ilk have long since revised their opinions with regard to base and superstructure, on how beliefs can cause groups to behave in ways that simple material self-interest would not suggest...but I would prefer not to go there. And so, I suspect, would you prefer that I not go there. I await utopyr's deliciously double-entendre sarcastic reactions to my intentional provocation. (It will only seem puzzling to everybody else, except longtime readers of the joculum blog.)
If everyone, longtime readership included, is puzzled by the generalities with which this post began, I am trying to spare you several thousand words of explication based on topics I have written about previously. Plus I remain painfully aware of just how much research it would require to do more than offer meaningless observations about the comparative dynamics going on within or between groups in different parts of the world.
I simply remain surprised by the extent to which seemingly socially irrelevant factors of personal belief play a major role in decision-making regarding intensely practical and sometimes life-or-death issues. Cynics who insist that belief systems are always only a screen for material interests are much too simple-minded, and indeed childlike, in their belief-driven suppositions. I could offer footnotes, beginning with my graduate seminars forty years ago and updating from there, but as I say, I would prefer not to.
