Mystik och polemik
Hur begreppet gnosis förstås och används av Lectorium Rosicrucianum
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21866740 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Niklas Nenzén (0000-0003-2232-5175, Uppsala University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2020 |
| Volume | 11 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 52-80 |
| Publication date | 2020-11-09 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | AURA - Tidsskrift for akademiske studier av nyreligiøsitet (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2000-4419 • E-ISSN: 2703-8122 |
| Publisher | Stavanger University Library (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.31265/aura.358 |
| OpenAlex | W3107354415 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 3 |
In recent studies of Western esotericism, the essentialist status and “religionist” design of the concept of gnosis has been disputed. Current aspects of the concept to discuss are gnosis as modern construction, as reflective surface of a secular worldview, and as an element in revisionary historiographies. This article explores the dynamic of tradition and renewal of the concept of gnosis, employing as a case study the Lectorium Rosicrucianum, an international Rosicrucian New Religious Movement that so far has received little academic attention. My methodological procedure is a Weberian analysis of the LR:s application of the concept of gnosis in legitimation strategies and in blending charismatic appeal with claims of traditional authority. I argue that while a construct of LR as ideological “Gnostic dualists” can be derived from their polemical discourse, their outlook of “dynamic dualism”, drawing on alchemy and German mysticism, retains gnosis as both an ineffable, mytho-poetically circumscribed experience and as social and corporeal phenomena
Aesthetics · Alchemy · Appeal · Dualism · Epistemology · Essentialism · Ideology · Legitimation · Mysticism · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Theology · Historical, Religious, and Philosophical Studies · Law · Media, Religion, Digital Communication · Philosophy · Religious Studies and Spiritual Practices
| Highly cited | No |
|---|