Rethinking"Gnosticism 카테고리 인문/사회 > 종교 지은이 Williams, Michael Allen (Princeton, 1999년) 상세보기

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/5956.html 

Most anyone interested in such topics as creation mythology, Jungian theory, or the idea of "secret teachings" in ancient Judaism and Christianity has found "gnosticism" compelling. Yet the term "gnosticism," which often connotes a single rebellious movement against the prevailing religions of late antiquity, gives the false impression of a monolithic religious phenomenon. Here Michael Williams challenges the validity of the widely invoked category of ancient "gnosticism" and the ways it has been described. Presenting such famous writings and movements as the Apocryphon of John and Valentinian Christianity, Williams uncovers the similarities and differences among some major traditions widely categorized as gnostic. He provides an eloquent, systematic argument for a more accurate way to discuss these interpretive approaches. The modern construct "gnosticism" is not justified by any ancient self-definition, and many of the most commonly cited religious features that supposedly define gnosticism phenomenologically turn out to be questionable. Exploring the sample sets of "gnostic" teachings, Williams refutes generalizations concerning asceticism and libertinism, attitudes toward the body and the created world, and alleged features of protest, parasitism, and elitism. He sketches a fresh model for understanding ancient innovations on more "mainstream" Judaism and Christianity, a model that is informed by modern research on dynamics in new religious movements and is freed from the false stereotypes from which the category "gnosticism" has been constructed. Reviews: "Rare is the book on gnosticism that is thoroughly grounded in the primary sources in the ancient languages, widely conversant with the secondary literature, controlled and sophisticated in its historical method--and still intelligible and interesting, not only for experts in its field, but also for religious historians and educated readers in general. Michael Williams's Rethinking `Gnosticism' is such a book. It is essential reading for scholars of ancient Christianity and for anyone who wishes to use the terms `gnostic' and `gnosticism,' but it can be read with profit by all historians concerned with issues of methodology in studying religious people of the past."--Church History "There can hardly be a category more misused in contemporary scholarly and not-so-scholarly discourse than `gnosticism,' so it was probably inevitable that a serious scholar would come along with an argument for the abandonment of the category altogether. In this provocative book Williams does just that."--Religious Studies Review Endorsement: "Michael Williams presents the first treatment of gnosticism in book form that endeavors, and succeeds, to get out of beaten tracks by questioning the very definition and description of this phenomenon. He conducts a detailed analysis of the clichés that have been in circulation for decades and shows convincingly how they have contributed to a distorted and biased approach to the sources. This book will be epoch-making for the field of gnostic studies and should attract a very large reading audience."--Paul-Hubert Poirier, Université Laval

http://www.necessaryprose.com/rethinking.htm  

 

Gnosticism:

Rethinking the Mother of All Heresies

 

Rethinking "Gnosticism":

An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category

By Michael Allen Williams

Princeton UP, 335 pages

 

If one seeks out a quick definition of ancient gnosticism, one is liable to get something like the following:

 

Gnosticism: 

 

A religious movement that flourished in the Roman Empire between the second and fourth centuries C.E.  Identified as heretical by both Christians and Jews, the gnostics taught that the world was created not by the true God but by a lesser, deficient being called the Demiurge, who ruled over his creation, our world, with the help of administrative powers called Archons.  The realm of the true God (the Pleroma, or "Fullness") lay beyond this faulty creation, and it was the goal of the gnostics to escape the trap of this world and return there. 

 

According to the gnostics, human beings contained a spark of true divinity that did not belong in this lesser creation, but would continually be reincarnated here unless redeemed by gnosis (the liberating knowledge of our true origins).  Human beings were divided into three types: the spirituals (those predestined for salvation), the psychicals (those who could attain a kind of salvation through gnosis and various purifying practices) and the materials (those who by their nature were permanently tied to the material realm).  Gnostic religion was thus characterized by a radical contempt both for the world (understood as a prison) and for the body (each individual's prison cell).  Ancient sources show that this contempt led in some groups to a rigorous asceticism, in others to an equally rigorous licentiousness (since the laws of morality were merely part of the trap created by the Demiurge, some gnostics taught that the spiritually liberated must demonstrate their liberation by breaking as many of these laws as they could). 

 

Christian gnostics understood Jesus to be a messenger of the true God, sent from the Pleroma to bring the liberating teachings of gnosis.  They rejected the orthodox doctrine that Jesus died to atone for the sins of men.  According to the gnostics, the evil in the world did not result from human sin, but rather from the Demiurge's faulty creation: i.e., the world was evil because its creator was evil.  Whereas orthodox Christians accepted the Old Testament as part of their sacred scriptures, the gnostics saw in the Old Testament God a depiction of the Demiurge.  Only Jesus was sent from the "Father," i.e. the true God. 

 

Given its rigorous contempt for the world and its concomitant rejection of social norms, most scholars understand gnosticism to have been a religion of radical revolt.  The Bogomils in eastern Europe and the medieval Cathars in the south of France are considered to be later incarnations of gnostic religion.  A buried collection of ancient gnostic scriptures was discovered near the Egyptian town of Nag Hammadi in 1945.

 

Here in a few paragraphs is an example of how gnosticism is typically defined in university classes and encyclopedias.  It is a presentation buttressed by such classic modern studies of gnosticism as Hans Jonas' book The Gnostic Religion.  Through force of repetition it has become more or less standard.  But is this definition really apt to the beliefs and practices of the ancient gnostics?  How appropriate is it to what we find in the Nag Hammadi texts?  After all, most of the elements of this definition were forged before the discovery of these writings.  With actual gnostic writings now available, scholars should be able to come to a more nuanced understanding of gnosticism than was previously possible.  Has their reading of the Nag Hammadi texts changed our understanding of this ancient religious movement?

 

In his book Rethinking "Gnosticism" Michael Allen Williams assesses the validity of such usual definitions and finds them seriously lacking.  To read his study is to realize to what extent this thing called "gnosticism" is an amalgam of modern scholarly caricature and uncritical reliance on ancient heresiologists like Irenaeus and Epiphanius.  Such reliance was maybe inevitable given the previous lack of original sources.  But now with the wealth of gnostic gospels and treatises uncovered in Egypt, things have changed.  Williams' work sets out to reveal the extent of the needed change.  

 

Williams' overall methodology is simple: take the current scholarly presentations of gnostic religion and compare them point by point with what we actually find in the gnostics' writings.  But also: take the ancient heresiologists' presentation of the gnostics and undertake a similar comparison.  Do the gnostics' presentations of themselves in their writings correspond to the doctrines attributed to them by Irenaeus?  Do they correspond to what we hear from the community of modern scholars?  If not, why not? 

 

If Williams is right, our idea of gnosticism as an ancient religion would not, in important respects, have been shared by the ancient gnostics themselves.  Our understanding of gnostic doctrines and attitudes (to the body, to society, to ethics) has often put the stress in the wrong place.  And our presentation of gnostic practices still relies on the heresiologists, even though their portrayals have been given the lie by the Nag Hammadi writings. 

 

For one, gnosticism is usually presented as a world-denying religion of revolt: a religion adopted by outsiders in a state of rebellion against social norms.  The gnostics were believed to have erected a barrier between themselves and the surrounding world by mechanically reversing dominant social values.  This notion of the gnostics undertaking a kind of systematic denial of everything society held sacred grew mainly from select observations of gnostic readings of Hebrew scripture (for example, they frequently understood the serpent in the Garden of Eden in a positive way, while Yahweh, understood as the Demiurge, was seen negatively).  But, as Williams points out, such instances of gnostic scriptural interpretation do not necessarily indicate a rebellious attitude to society at large. Using models developed from the sociological study of religious movements, Williams argues that in many cases the opposite was more likely true: that the gnostics were actually interpreting Judeo-Christian ideas of the divine in ways more in harmony with the dominant pagan society in which they lived.  Williams' argument here is convincing.  Our interpretation of the gnostic attitude as one of revolt against society has been foisted on us by the heresiologists, who themselves, for obvious reasons, sought to portray the gnostics as rebels against orthodoxy.  To claim the gnostics were radical social deviants is thus anachronistic.

 

Williams likewise takes up the question of "gnostic determinism": the oft-repeated modern assertion that the gnostics believed mankind to be strictly divided into different types (the spirituals, the psychics, the materials) or different races (the race of Seth, the race of Cain), and that the doctrinal upshot of such divisions was that each individual's potential for salvation was understood to be already determined at birth.  Williams shows that this modern notion of gnostic determinism is not supported by the original texts.  A careful reading of the sources shows that one is not "born into" the race of Seth: rather it is a status one may attain or earn.  The race of Seth is more a spiritual community than a biological "race" in our modern sense.  Likewise with the division into three types: one's status as a spiritual is seen to be linked to one's behavior: one may lose this status through abandoning the truth, and thus to be born as a spiritual is no guarantee of salvation.  The assertion that the ancient gnostics were elitists in the sense of believing themselves predestined to salvation (saved in essence) is misguided.  Williams demonstrates that there was at least as much flexibility in these gnostic notions as there is in more recent Protestant doctrines of the elect.

 

With these remarks I've only scratched the surface of this subtle and wide-ranging study.  Williams offers an important discussion of gnostic hermeneutics (their practice of Biblical interpretation) and reassesses gnostic notions of the body and how these might relate to the different doctrines of salvation.  One abiding concern of Williams' book--and I've maybe been irresponsible in skirting it until now--is the appropriateness of the term "gnosticism" itself.  On the basis of the many disadvantages Williams sees in the term--its vagueness as a category, the baggage it brings with it--he suggests scholars refer instead to "biblical demiurgical traditions" when discussing much of what is typically called "gnosticism."  He seeks to demonstrate that 1) the ancient people we refer to as "gnostics" did not themselves use this term, and 2) modern scholars have long had difficulty establishing a stable set of characteristics for gnosticism: i.e., we still cannot define clearly what gnosticism is.  The argument Williams finally puts forward is that the term has impeded our understanding of the ancient religious movements in question.  It has led generations of scholars to grapple with false problems and construct arguments on the basis of unexamined preconceptions.  This is a pretty serious charge to make.  Whether or not Williams is right in these assertions--something I'm in no position to judge--it seems obvious that his book has brought forth much that is new in the field of "gnostic" studies.  And it seems clear that many of his new perspectives on the "gnostics" grew directly from his attempts to think beyond the (academic or heresiological) category "gnosticism."  

 

Williams' book is not for scholars only, however.  Even a reader only slightly familiar with the Nag Hammadi texts can gain much from it.  He helpfully begins the book with a chapter summarizing the myths or doctrines of four important "gnostic" traditions: the myth from The Apocryphon of John; the doctrine of the Valentinian teacher Ptolemy; the myth taught by Justin the Gnostic; and the teachings of Marcion.  These four different examples are then referred to repeatedly in the remainder of the study in order to clarify this or that point.  Williams has structured Rethinking Gnosticism in a way that allows him to write both for fellow scholars and the general reader.  It is a successful strategy all around, one that makes the book fascinating reading for anyone interested in "gnosticism," the Nag Hammadi texts, or the history of Christianity.

 

Eric Mader

 

http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2003/2003-07-26.html 

Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2003.07.26

---

Karen L. King, What is Gnosticism?.   Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Press, 2003.  Pp. 343.  ISBN 0-674-01071-X.  $29.95.   

---

Reviewed by Nicola Denzey, Bowdoin College (ndenzey@bowdoin.edu)
Word count: 2496 words

An unprepared reader might pick up What is Gnosticism? expecting either a primer or a definitive study of Gnosticism's nature and origins. But this book, written by one of the country's leading scholars of early Christianity, should not be mistaken for an introductory textbook. First of all, it never addresses what Gnosticism is. In a rather subversive move -- given the book's title -- King asserts that "Gnosticism" exists solely as a modern reification, a terminological construct deriving ultimately from an early Christian discourse of orthodoxy and heresy which has now taken on an independent existence. "My purpose in this book," King explains, "is to show how twentieth-century scholarship on Gnosticism has simultaneously reinscribed, elaborated, and deviated from this discourse" (54). The book assumes that readers will have at least a passing familiarity with the sources which have conventionally been called "Gnostic," as well as with contemporary terms of debate and prominent figures. This "ideal audience" of the learned and open-minded has much to gain from reading King's book. Casual readers, however, would likely find King's thesis -- like the book itself -- too sophisticated and too historiographically esoteric to sustain their interest.

Karen King taught at Occidental College in Los Angeles before moving to her current position as Professor of the History of Ancient Christianity at the Harvard University Divinity School. A highly respected scholar of Gnosticism, King's work has often focused on issues of gender. What is Gnosticism? is her second book to appear in 2003, taking its place next to her new translation of the Gospel of Mary (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2003). Here, King identifies her primary research interests as "early Christian identity formation and the critique of current scholarly categories of analysis" (vii-viii). This book has been at least twenty years in the making; we have had tastes of her critical acumen in a series of articles on the topic of Gnosticism and identity formation which she has presented to a variety of scholarly audiences since 1993. Why is a book like King's timely? The past fifty years have witnessed a series of dramatic paradigm shifts in the Academy that have called for the revision and re-articulation of our discipline. The first of these historiographical and hermeneutical shifts which King chronicles is the rise of the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule as distinct from Theology with its interested, invested focus, its fixed canon, and its implicit Christian supersessionism. The second shift was initiated by the discovery of a cache of hitherto unknown ancient Christian texts in 1945 at Nag Hammadi, Egypt. Because scholars prior to 1945 had only a very limited number of primary sources which early members of the Christian mainstream had termed "Gnostic," the Nag Hammadi treatises have had a profound impact on our understanding of early Christianity as richly diverse in doctrine and praxis. The third and most recent shift has been the re-evaluation of the History of Religions School by postcolonialist and postmodern scholarship, which drew into question its implicit Orientalism and colonialist orientation. For these three reasons, the work of generations of Gnosticism scholars -- built upon a limited number of primary sources and the polemical writings of a few early Christian heresiologists -- needed to be reassessed. More often than not, this examination has called for substantial revision.

The scope of King's book is ambitious, but necessarily so. She recognizes that it is impossible to take on the conceptual and definitional problem of Gnosticism without tackling the conceptual and definitional problem of "heresy," which then draws into question Christianity's discourse of orthodoxy. She notes, "...a discussion of the discourse of orthodoxy and heresy needs to include polemics aimed at pagans and Jews as well" (21). King then dedicates the book's eight chapters to evaluating and critiquing "the discourse of orthodoxy and heresy" in ancient sources, in the work of early twentieth-century scholars, and in more contemporary scholarship. The book addresses the process of early Christian identity formation as a whole, with results both cogent and incisive. It is refreshing to read an approach that neither marginalizes Judaism or paganism, nor places Christianity in high relief against otherwise "insufficient" religious options in the ancient world.

In her first chapter, "Why Is Gnosticism So Hard to Define?" King outlines two overarching scholarly approaches to Gnosticism, one genealogical and one typological. The first approach locates the origins and developments of Gnosticism over time by looking to and comparing Gnosticism with so-called Oriental religions on the one hand and "Christianity" (i.e. "orthodoxy") on the other. The second approach draws upon phenomenological analyses of primarily literary material to develop a set of coherent and definitive terms, characteristics, and tendencies. Both approaches, King warns us, went considerably astray; most significantly, the discovery of the Nag Hammadi texts rendered genealogical and typological analyses of Gnosticism largely moot. Central, too, has been the problem of Gnosticism's infelicitous relationship with Christianity as a whole. King observes, "the problem of defining Gnosticism has been and continues to be primarily an aspect of the ongoing project of defining and maintaining a normative Christianity" (18). In the final words of the chapter, King clarifies the task that lies ahead for the remainder of the volume:

My purpose ... is to consider the ways in which the early Christian polemicists' discourse of orthodoxy and heresy has been intertwined with twentieth-century scholarship on Gnosticism in order to show where and how that involvement has distorted our analysis of the ancient texts. At stake is not only the capacity to write a more accurate history of ancient Christianity in all its multiformity, but also our capacity to engage critically the ancient politics of religious difference rather than unwittingly reproduce its strategies and results (19).

Accordingly, Chapter Two, "Gnosticism as Heresy," focuses on the "rhetorical consolidation" of the broad variety of religious options available to individuals in the ancient world into three recognizable, mutually exclusive, and easily definable groups: Jews, Christians, and pagans (22). What was at stake, King observes, was the discourse of difference and sameness that was crucial to Christian identity-building. In order to exclude those Christians whom members of a nascent orthodoxy opposed, members of this group had to make their competitors look like outsiders; certain doctrinal or practical differences needed to be fabricated, just as real differences needed to be exaggerated. As part of the same strategy of distinction, similarities -- whether between Christians and Jews, Christians and pagans, or different Christian teachers -- were either suppressed or maliciously miscast. So successful were certain Christians in this endeavor, King notes, that even now the terms "heresy" and "orthodoxy" imply only difference, not similarity (23). These two terms are best understood as the consequence of an evaluative process that aimed to "articulate the meaning of self while simultaneously silencing and excluding others within the group" (24). King invokes the examples of Tertullian's Prescription against Heretics, and Irenaeus' Against the Heresies, in a set of rhetorical attitudes she categorizes as "antisyncretism." This discourse functioned to define and defend boundaries (34) and to contribute to the "master narrative" of Christian decline from a time of pure origins to the doctrinal divisiveness of the second century and beyond.

Chapters three and four are explicitly historiographical, as King works through foundational figures and movements of early twentieth-century scholarship on religion. Chapter Three investigates Adolf von Harnack, Chapter Four, the early History of Religions school. Here, modern readers owe perhaps the greatest debt to King, who provides intelligent and useful summaries and analyses of works which are infamously impenetrable and more often than not, only available in their original German. This extended examination of early twentieth-century historiography is central for King to prove her thesis: that modern scholarship has only served to reinscribe a discourse of orthodoxy and heresy established by certain Christians of the second and third centuries. King points out that as a theologian and scholar, for instance, Harnack was perfectly aware of the manifold forms of ancient Christianity, yet like his orthodox predecessors Irenaeus and Tertullian, he employed the term "Gnosticism" as a rhetorical tool to produce a normative vision of Christianity (68).

Chapter five, "Gnosticism Reconsidered," is devoted to a discussion of Walter Bauer --particularly his landmark study Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity -- and to Hans Jonas' Gnosis und Spätantike Geist. King paints Bauer as an innovator, the first to develop an alternative model of Christian historiography away from the master narrative of Christian supersessionism. Jonas, rather differently, was important for his typological reduction of Gnosticism to a series of qualities or characteristics. His work on the "Gnostic experience of self and world" (117) defined Gnosticism as a transhistorical religious movement characterized primarily by the experience of existential alienation and world-abnegation. Thus Jonas proposed seven qualities of Gnosticism: gnosis, dynamic character (pathomorphic crisis), mythological character, dualism, impiety, artificiality, and unique historical locus (120). King discusses each one of these in turn, pointing out their difficulties and shortcomings. The chapter ends with a discussion of the German History of Religions scholar Carsten Colpe. It is not clear what ties these three figures together, however; overall, the chapter division here -- as elsewhere in the book -- seems more arbitrary than seamlessly sewn together into one master narrative.

The last three chapters of the book discuss Gnosticism scholarship following the discovery of the Nag Hammadi texts. Here, King spends some time discussing the various sources themselves, particularly the manner in which they defy the tidy systems of classification and categorization established by earlier generations of scholars. Indeed, King is quick to point out that even post-Nag Hammadi typologies of Gnosticism such as "Sethianism" and "Valentinianism" strain to maintain coherence when applied to the tremendous doctrinal diversity we find reflected in Nag Hammadi's forty-six texts. As King notes, "the problem with variety is not variety itself; the problem is trying to force multiform, irregularly shaped objects into square essentialist definitional holes" (168). These chapters are particularly enjoyable because they move away from historiography to the ancient sources themselves; however, it is difficult to assess how a reader not well-versed in the Nag Hammadi texts would follow King's summaries and arguments.

Readers will inevitably compare What is Gnosticism? to Michael Williams' Rethinking "Gnosticism": Arguments for Dismantling a Dubious Category (1996). Williams' provocative work -- which quickly became obligatory reading for all serious students of ancient Gnosticism -- calls for the abandonment of the term "Gnosticism" altogether, stating that it is best not to imagine that anything like "Gnosticism" or "the Gnostic religion" ever existed. Instead, Williams suggests that we remain cognizant of the many diverse groups and individuals that originally comprised Christianity before they were marginalized and de-legitimated by an emergent orthodoxy. It is obvious thatRethinking "Gnosticism" and What is Gnosticism? were written contemporaneously and that King and Williams were deeply engaged in dialogue with one another. They each carefully and graciously acknowledge one another in their forewords; it is clear that their connections have fostered genuine respect and mutual fondness rather than competition. Still, since Rethinking "Gnosticism" was first to appear, the problem for King is whether or not What is Gnosticism? sufficiently advances the approach both scholars bring to the fore, and whether or not she successfully treats the same topic in a way that complements, rather than competes with, Williams' book. As a partial answer to this issue, it is important to note that for all their topical similarity and virtually identical theses, What is Gnosticism? and Rethinking "Gnosticism" are very different books, because the two authors work very differently. Williams applies previously established typological categories of "Gnosticism" to ancient materials, thus highlighting their insufficiencies for understanding ancient materials on their own terms. King carefully builds a sort of historiographic genealogy and keeps her focus consistently on the last century's scholarship, telling the story of how the reification of "Gnosticism" came to be from within the broader social and intellectual matrix of twentieth-century interests and movements. The books differ, too, in their suggestions for future work. In place of "Gnosticism," Williams suggests we adopt when appropriate the more specific term "biblical demiurgical" (Williams, 265). But King rightly points out the problems with this term: it is cumbersome, and it persists in the same process of naming and categorizing she proposes we abandon altogether (168, 214-16). Still, she spends more time critiquing scholars and scholarship than she does solving the essential problem to which the book is devoted. Is there a future for studying Gnosticism without "Gnosticism"? She herself raises the question in her eighth and final chapter, but ends it reflexively: "It is important not so much to eliminate the term per se, but to recognize and correct the ways in which reinscribing the discourses of orthodoxy and heresy distort our reading and reconstruction of ancient religion" (218).

Ultimately, the reader of What is Gnosticism? is left questioning why King doggedly pursues Gnosticism' s historiographical genealogy. What precisely is at stake? And how well does she convey this? King states at the outset that she will reexamine how twentieth-century scholarship of Gnosticism has reinscribed a second-century discourse, but most of her detailed examples (Harnack, Jonas, Bousset, Reitzenstein, Bauer) harken from the first half of the century. The sole contemporary scholar of Gnosticism to receive a detailed discussion is Michael Williams, leaving readers with the impression that no one else is doing the sort of work King advocates. Because she withholds from the reader what the "state of the debate" truly is, she leaves the impression that hers is the sole clarion call for a new hermeneutic. This is misleading, because King's work not so much presents new material as it presents for a broader audience the methodological approach already well entrenched in the academy, certainly among specialists of Nag Hammadi and early Christianity. Perhaps, though, King would argue that there are only a few scholars who take this approach for granted, and this book is clearly not written for them.

While this book tears down the scaffolding upon which many earlier studies of Gnosticism have been built, King stops short of offering a concrete new direction, though her final chapter and "Note on Methodology" seems to suggest that such a direction lies in adopting postmodern and postcolonial reading strategies. It would have been enlightening and stimulating to see examples of what such a new hermeneutic, applied to the Nag Hammadi writings either individually or as a corpus, might yield; there are indeed recent articles and monographs out there from which to draw, but these are neglected. Because she does not address the work of modern scholars of early Christianity who likewise adhere to the New Historicism, King effectively flattens the background, placing her own methodological convictions in stark relief against a century's worth of essentially flawed scholarship. Still, as the only full-length study of the scholarship of Gnosticism that exists, there is surely a place for King's volume. Readers can follow the thread of a story ably told about a relatively new academic discipline now facing the challenge of modernity.

http://www.oup.com/obso/focus/focus_on_gnosticism/ 

Focus On Gnosticism

Written by leading scholars, the Focus On essays are designed to stimulate thought and to explore in depth topics of interest in the field of Biblical studies. New essays on specific themes, with links to related content within the site for further reading, are published throughout the year. All visitors to Oxford Biblical Studies Online can access these essays, but related content links in Previous Features are available to subscribers only. Please visit the full collection of Focus On essays.

Update Alert Service: to receive an email notice and details when a new Focus On article or site update is posted, sign up for Oxford Biblical Studies Online update alerts.

• Bibliography
• Related Content

---

Gnosticism

Stevan Davies

Professor of Religious Studies
Misericordia University

Walk into any large bookstore and you will discover a few shelves of books labeled "Christian" or "Buddhist" or "Jewish" while next to them you will see several shelves with the vague label "New Age" or "Spirituality." Today many people have left the comfort of the churches or synagogues they grew up in and have decided to understand religion for themselves, to be "spiritual" rather than to be part of any organized religion, perhaps to combine ideas from Buddhism and Judaism and Catholicism into a new synthesis that they create themselves. In ancient times, mainly in the first through the fourth centuries, religious thinkers of this sort were called "Gnostics." In roughly 180 CE Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul (now Lyon, France) wrote a long savage attack against the Gnostics entitled "The Refutation and Overthrow of the Knowledge (Gnosis) Falsely So Called," in which he says angrily that "since their teachings and traditions are different, and the newer ones among them claim to be constantly finding something new, and working out what no one ever thought of before, it is hard to describe their views." Irenaeus was certainly right about that.

Like today's New Age writers, ancient Gnostic writers delighted in coming up with new theories, highly variable creation myths, creative salvation schemes and imaginative descriptions of supernatural realms. Because the Gnostic texts contain such a diversity of ideas, scholars sometimes despair of ever coming up with a clear and useful definition of Gnosticism. Michael Williams has argued that the term "Gnosticism" is so overloaded with diverse meanings, so contradictory in the ways it is used by scholars, and so negative in its connotation when used by Christian clergy, that we probably should not use the label "Gnosticism" at all. I think that Williams is correct, yet I will continue on here to try and discuss Gnosticism in a meaningful way, while urging you to bear in mind that there is a great deal of variation in Gnostic thought that will not be reflected in the relatively straightforward account I will provide.

The word Gnosticism comes from the Greek word "gnosis," which means "knowledge." The reason that Gnostics made "gnosis" their primary category is that for them salvation depended on correct knowledge. One might immediately ask, "salvation from what?" and "knowledge of what?"

Gnosticism postulates that human beings have divinity within them because a divine soul or divine wisdom permeates us. However, they observed, hardly anyone seems to know this. To know that you are fundamentally divine reveals to you that you are also fundamentally trapped in a non-divine material environment filled with demonic forces. If people are inherently divine, and if our divinity is trapped within a world filled with demonic forces, the god who created this world cannot be the same God who is the divinity within us. There must be a higher God in a higher realm than this one. Salvation, then, is an escape from this world into the world of the God beyond the creator god and demons of this world.

In order to escape from this world to the realm of the true God we need to understand how that divinity got trapped here in the first place. This is the essential Gnostic "gnosis," knowing how it came to be that we are God trapped in this world. If we can understand the cosmic process by which we came to be here, we can reverse that process and go back to whence we came. Understanding that cosmic process is the fundamental point of Gnostic mythology, which is a mythology of creation that describes the devolution of God into us.

Many ancient Gnostic manuscripts depict this process, which Irenaus called their attempts to "work out what no one ever thought before." But there is one "locus classicus," of the Gnostic myth that is found in a book called the "Apocryphon Johannis" or, in English, "The Secret Book of John." The Secret Book of John was probably written by Jewish Gnostics in the first century CE, or even a century before. While it is critical of the Jewish God, its terminology and mythic motifs and biblical citations show that it comes from a Jewish cultural background. In the early second century CE Christians revised it slightly to make it Christian; Jesus appears at its beginning and its end and Jesus is now the name of the revealer of Gnostic truth. There are no fewer than four surviving manuscripts of the Secret Book of John, three found in the great collection of Gnostic texts called the Nag Hammadi library and one in what is called the Berlin Gnostic Codex. In addition Irenaeus includes a summary of it in his anti-gnostic tract. If there is a single basic Gnostic text, the Secret Book of John is it.

Here is a brief summary of the Secret Book of John. First we hear of an unimaginable, indescribable perfect God, the being (beyond being) called Brahman in Hinduism, or Ein Sof in mystical Judaism. The Secret Book of John goes on at some length to describe how indescribable God is. Second we hear about the mystical structures of the divine mind, how God's mind contains a central realm of providence called Barbelo, and four subordinate categories of divine activity—truth, incorruptibility, foreknowledge, and everlasting life—then how further subordinate categories of divine being, mainly mental, come into existence. The Secret Book of John's description of the mind of God, called the fullness or, in Greek, the "pleroma," is conceptual and therefore below the level of the indescribable God. Third, we are told that Sophia, the Wisdom of God, seeks to know God objectively. But this leads to crisis because God is purely subjective. God's Wisdom imagines God and, although an imaginary God is unreal, it yet takes on a kind of inferior illusory being of its own outside of God's realm. This lower god has the name Yaldabaoth and is to be identified with Yahweh of the Hebrew Bible. Fourth, Yaldabaoth, who does have a portion of divine spirit from his mother, Sophia, creates a universe populated by all sorts of demonic creatures when, to his amazement, the full mind of God reveals itself as a human being in the heavens. Yaldabaoth constructs a material version of the heavenly human being and puts the divine spirit into it to make it mobile. But, surprise! It was a trick, for now, if the human being can realize its divine origin and return above, the divine spirit will return with it and thereby the realm of Yaldabaoth will become devoid of divine spirit and cease to be. Fifth, in self-defense Yaldabaoth makes the human being ignorant of its origins. But the divine mind sends down a messenger (Jesus, in the Christian version of the tale) to give human beings true "gnosis" by which they can go back to the perfect divine realm.

Whew. The Secret Book of John may be bizarre (and there is a great deal more to it that I have left out here) but it is ultimately a negative reworking of the Biblical story of Genesis, taking the point of view that while the story behind Genesis is true, the version written into the Bible by Moses is mistaken. We hear several times in the Secret Book of John that we should understand that it was "not as Moses wrote," but as some other thing. Moses is taken to be a mistaken interpreter of the fundamental myth. For Gnosticism, the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:15–17) was the tree of gnosis, and people should eat from it. Wicked Yaldabaoth forbade this and then walled off the garden and the tree after Eve did the right thing (led by a divinely empowered serpent) by eating from that Tree (Genesis 3:1–24). The story in Genesis is wholly reversed through Gnostic interpretation.

From the Gnostic perspective, Jesus is a divine being sent from the realm of the higher God into this world to inform the trapped divine elements within human beings of their true nature and origin. Accordingly, Jesus is from some entirely other world than this one and therefore the Gospel of John was particularly interesting to Gnostics because in that Gospel Jesus says repeatedly that he is not of this demonic world of lies but from another world of light and truth (Jn 12:44–46, 17:14–16). The idea of a revealer coming from a world above that is infinitely superior to this demonic world below makes the Gospel of John very open to Gnostic interpretation.

Some have said that the Gospel of Thomas is gnostic, but they are mistaken. They observe correctly that in the Gospel of Thomas Jesus sometimes says that people have divine light within them, e.g. "There is light within a man of light and he lights up all of the world. If he is not a light there is darkness," (saying 24) or "When you give rise to that which is within you, what you have will save you. If you do not give rise to it, what you do not have will destroy you," (saying 70), and certainly Gnostics would have agreed with those passages. But overall the Gospel of Thomas is not Gnostic because it affirms that the Kingdom of God is now and has been from the beginning spread out upon this world, although people do not see it (saying 113). While Gnosticism regards the world as an enimical place of entrapment and declares that God's kingdom is beyond this world, the Gospel of Thomas denies this by mocking (in saying 3) the idea that the Kingdom is in heaven (if so, "the birds will be there before you are!") rather than right here now. (For more information, see the new article on the Gospel of Thomas.)

The success of orthodox Christianity over Gnostic Christianity stemmed in part from its organizational superiority. In establishing an invariant set of beliefs through creedal conferences such as the one in Nicea (325 CE), the range of possible Christian ideas was pinned down to a defined set. Gnosticism's wild creativity worked against its success as an organized religion. Eventually orthodox Christianity defined Gnosticism as a heresy that first Roman and then medieval Catholic police power would work to exterminate. In 367CE the Egyptian bishop Athanasius of Alexandria ordered his monks to destroy "illegitimate and secret books" and so, in a Pachomian monastery near Nag Hammadi, Egypt, the monks took their library of Gnostic books and, rather than burn them all, buried them in jars. In 1945 CE those jars were unearthed and they have subsequently been translated and published. Anyone interested in Gnosticism can read a whole library of texts from 1,600 years ago (many of which were written a couple of centuries earlier still). Through these texts, and others, Gnosticism still lives today, and through the New Age movement and the Spiritual religion movement the creative impulses of the Gnostic thinkers persist.

Further Reading

• Brakke, David. The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2011.
• Davies, Stevan. The Secret Book of John: The Gnostic Gospel Annotated and Explained. Woodstock, Vt.: Skylight Paths, 2005.
• King, Karen L. What Is Gnosticism? Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap, 2005.
• Meyer, Marvin. The Nag Hammadi Scriptures: Revised and Updated Translation. New York: HarperOne, 2009.
• Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. New York: Random House, 1979.
• Williams, Michael A. Rethinking "Gnosticism": An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1999.

Biblical Passages and Apocrypha

Genesis

Gospel of John

Subject Entries and Commentary

Gnosticism

Nag Hammadi

Mysticism

Apocrypha

Gospel of Thomas

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl_sbj.htm 

The Apocryphon of John Collection
(The Secret Revelation of John - The Secret Book of John)

Gnosis Archive | Library | Bookstore | Index | Web Lectures | Ecclesia Gnostica | Gnostic Society

I have come to teach you about what is, and what was, and what will be
in order for you to understand the invisible world, and the world that is visible,
and the immovable race of perfect humanity. - The Apocryphon of John

Introduction

Among the several dozen ancient Gnostic manuscripts rediscovered in modern times, the Secret Book of John is generally agreed to be the most important. It has been called the locus classicus for the Gnostic mythological system – in sum, it is the preeminent “Gnostic Gospel”, a sacred reservoir for the defining essence of Gnostic myth and revelation.  It breathes with the life of vision that vitalized early Christianity, a life suppressed and then largely forgotten in later ages. From a modern reading of this crucially important and recently rediscovered "Gospel", we are granted fundamental insights into the lost foundations of Christian tradition.

Apocryphon Iohannis – the Apocryphon of John – is the title that appears on the original manuscripts, and by this title the text has been known in scholarly circles over the last fifty years. In Greek,apocryphon literally means “hidden” or “secret”, thus in recent popular literature the title is usually translated as either the Secret Book of John or The Secret Revelation of John.   

By its own declaration, the Secret Book of John is a sacred text intended to be shared only with individuals properly prepared to receive its revelation. In second-century Christian communions circulation of the text probably remained restricted.  Amazingly, despite limited circulation and  the effective later efforts by evolving Christian orthodoxy to destroy all such “heretical” scriptures, four separate manuscripts of the SBJ have survived into our own age. Three of these were found among the Nag Hammadi codices discovered in 1945, while a fourth copy was independently recovered fifty years earlier from another site in Egypt. All four versions date to the fourth century. Three of the four appear to be independently produced Coptic translations of an original text in Greek. Two of the four manuscripts (NHC II and NHC IV) are so similar that they most likely represent copies of a single common source.

To put in context the uniqueness of finding four complete copies of a document of this extreme antiquity, note that we possess only two fairly complete manuscripts of the canonical gospels of equal age (the Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus).  Only a few fragments of canonical texts with dates of creation earlier than the fourth century have survived. These four manuscripts of the Apocryphon of John represent some of the oldest known surviving books. From the ancient sands of Egypt, they come to our modern age bearing a timeless message.

The Secret Book of John is the one Gnostic text every student seeking to understand the roots of ancient Christianity must read.  At first reading it will seem unlike anything encountered in the New Testament -- excepting perhaps the Apocalypse of John. Like the Apocalypse, this too is a revelation text, a secret and sacred vision.  It is the story of God, and by reflection, the story of Humankind -- a penetrating psychological reflection on the source of consciousness and the existential predicament of an eternal light indwelling life. It is not an intellectual curiosity, nor is it a text to be "surfed", in the perverse sense of modern internet reading.  As Prof Karen King notes:

In antiquity, readers studied the Secret Revelation of John in order to perfect the divine image of their souls; it was composed, translated, and distributed largely to further salvation—or to refute its claims to aid in salvation. In the modern world, however, it has rarely been read with such goals in mind. It usually finds its place either in the theology of orthodox Christianity as a chapter on Gnostic heresy or in disputes about the historical origins and definition of Gnosticism. Within the academy more narrowly its value largely has to do with intellectual production and prestige, including concerns about tenure and promotion—salvation, if you will, of a rather different sort. As the Secret Revelation of John becomes known more widely, we may expect it to have new and varied impacts on early Christian historiography, constructive theology, and personal appropriation. In any case, modern readers do not stand outside the work's history, but take it up on a new historical stage. (King, p 23)

The resources in this collection are intended to assist study of the Secret Revelation -- the Secret Book, the Apocryphon -- of John, to help it become more widely known, to aid the "personal appropriation" by modern readers who now surprisingly find themselves part of its history. 

In addition to the materials presented here, we strongly advise serious students obtain two excellent books.  The first is Stevan Davies' superb new translation of The Secret Book of John.  Davies has produced a readable translation that is profoundly true to the source material:  it is both accurate and beautiful.  Davies' translation is accompanied by an excellent verse by verse commentary on facing pages.  For any reader, this is the place to start.  The second book is Karen King's The Secret Revelation of John.  This is an extensive and scholarly -- but still very readable -- study of the text and the cultural milieu that influenced and in turn was influenced by the Apocryphon Iohannis.

-- Lance Owens
 

..

simple beautiful perfect .. 공연 볼 생각을 하니 눈물이 날 것 같아 하 
기절 

What It’s Really Like to Work at Google

The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, John Martin, 1852. 

Sodom (Hebrew: סְדוֹם, Modern Sədom Tiberian Səḏôm, Greek Σόδομα Sódoma) and Gomorrah (Hebrew: עֲמוֹרָה, Modern ʿAmora Tiberian Ġəmôrāh/ʿĂmôrāh, Greek ΓόμοῤῥαGómorrha) were cities mentioned in the Book of Genesis and later expounded upon throughout the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament and Deuterocanonical sources as well as the Quran.

According to the Torah, the kingdoms of Sodom and Gomorrah were allied with the cities of Admah, Zeboim and Bela. These five cities, also known as the "cities of the plain," were situated on the Jordan river plain in the southern region of the land of Canaan. The Jordan river plain (which correlates to the modern day Dead Sea^[1]) has been compared to that of the garden of Eden,^[Gen.13:10] being a land well-watered and green, suitable for grazing livestock. Divine judgment by Yahweh was then passed upon Sodom and Gomorrah along with two other neighboring cities that were completely consumed by fire and brimstone. Neighboring Zoar was the only city to be spared during that day of judgment.^{[Deut.29:23][Gen.10:19]}

In Christian and Islamic traditions, Sodom and Gomorrah have become synonymous with impenitent sin, and their fall with a proverbial manifestation of God's wrath.^{[2][Jude 1:7]} Sodom and Gomorrah have also been used as metaphors for vice and homosexuality viewed as a deviation. The story has therefore given rise to words in several languages, including the English word "sodomy", used in so-called sodomy laws to describe a sexual "crime against nature" consisting of oral or anal sex, either homosexual or heterosexual.^[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah

역시나 안정에는 coldplay is my remedy 콜드플레이가 나의 치유 ..

심히 격했던 아침. 왠 눈과 비가 쏟아져 한껏 신이 났다가, 예매 시간을 놓쳐 극히 바닥을 친 심정. 자전거는 나사가 풀리고 팔은 힘이 풀려 무려 커피를 쏟았다. 한 숨 길게 휘유 .. 정신을 차리고 예매 완료. 카페의 괴상한 라디오 채널이 너무나 시끄러워 이동. 조용한 공간을 찾으니 그나마 마음이 평화롭다. 음식을 먹고 차를 마시고 독서. 특별히 무어다 할 것 없이 하지만 정신이 바쁘게 흐른 하루. 체력적으로 정신적으로 가늘게 잡고 있는 .. 느낌이 드는 요즘이다. 12월의 길었던 방학동안의 휴식이, 채울 수 없는 무엇인가가 있지 싶다. 
어제도 그러했고 오늘도 그러하고, 일상에서 멀리는 아니지만 조금씩 벗어나는 하루하루. 내일 또한 약속이 있다. 취소할까도 싶지만 .. 미안한 마음에 휴. 오전 약속 후 오후에는 도서관을 찾아야겠다고 생각.. 받고 싶지 않은 전화들이 걸려오고, 받지 않은 전화는 돌려주어야 할 전화로, 해야 할 일의 목록에 쌓인다. 이렇게 작은 것들의 축적이 견디기 피곤하니, 편히 할 수 있는 것은 무언인가 싶구나. 
space needle 에서 친구의 회사 파티가 있어 참석. 스페이스 니들은 야경이 보다 예쁘더라. 안전을 위해 끼워진 철조망들이 밤에는 비교적 보이지 않는다. 더불어 회사가 빌렸으니 관광객과 아이들이 없으니 편안한 느낌. 무튼 그렇게 찾은 행사에서 친구의 매니저와 십여분 대화. 처음 만나는 나에게 학부생활의 스트레스를 심각히 받아들이지 말라고, 주어진 일을 잘 하는 좋은 사람 good people who are good at what they do 는 항상 괜찮을 것이라고. 학부생 시절의 불안감은 당연하지만 굳이 필요치 않은 것이라고 안심시켜주신다. 내 초면인 그들에게, 힘들다, 지친다 이야기를 꺼낸 것도 아닌데, 학생의 마음은 늘 그리고 누구나 같나보다. 그저 직원의 친구인 나에게, 안정 .. 을 건네주시니 우주에게 감사하다. 
가장 좋아하는 책, 질문을 받으면 무라카미 하루키의 murakami haruki 상실의 시대 norwegian wood 라고 답하곤 했지만 근 몇 년 파울로 코엘료의 paulo coelho 연금술사 alchemist 가 참으로 자주 떠오른다. 두권 모두 상당히 식상 할 수 있는 'favorite book 가장 좋아하는 책' 이지만 아낄 수 밖에 없는 작품들이다. 모든 것은 그러 할 수 밖에 없다, 라는 생각을 자주 하던 고등학교 시절. 반면 우주는 나를 위해 움직인다,는 생각이 일상적으로 드는 .. 대학생활이다.

상실의시대:원제노르웨이의숲 카테고리 소설 > 일본소설 지은이 무라카미 하루키 (문학사상사, 2010년) 상세보기

연금술사 카테고리 소설 > 기타나라소설 지은이 파울로 코엘료 (문학동네, 2001년) 상세보기

i can do this, keep calm and carry on, all will be fine 등의 clique 를 상기시키며 생활 중. 지쳐있지만 마냥 지쳐서 쓰러지고 싶지는 않다, 기운을 내서 움직이자 - 라는 피로와 의욕의 공존,  기이하구나. 1월이어서 이러한가. 사실상 1월 .. 한 해의 시작이지만 겨울의 절정, 해가 짧고 기온이 낮은, 생명의 활력 따위의 반대인, 고독의시기이지 않나 싶다. 그럼에도 한 해의 시작임으로 '새로운'이라는 억지의 수식어를 붙이고 신념과 목표 따위를 세우니, 역설이다.
하지만 모두 어쩌랴, 이러한 것을. 하지만 모두 괜찮다, 우주는 나를 위함이니까. 
안정과 사랑을 찾고싶구나.

holy ........................ 오늘 풀리는지 잊고 있었다 .. 오늘이 오늘인지도 잊었다 하하 
아무튼 표 구입 :-) 숨 좀 돌리고 진정하자 휘유 ~ 이게 무슨 난리람 .. 



 

no time to elaborate - but wanted to write down some recent thoughts i've been having. shall return to write further for i must run to class at the moment.

time management / study / exercise / entertainment 
slept 12.5 hours last night. regardless not refreshed. feel the need to exercise yet cannot find the time between class, personal interests, and time with friends. for sure majority of time is spent on classes. a smaller portion on personal interests (web-surf, research, twitter, google+. approx 2-3hr/day). a smaller portion spent towards meeting with friends (approx 12-24hr/wk). (perhaps graph this if i have time, ha!) 
in short, need more time .. which is impossible, thus need to devise elaborate time-management method. 

home / location - dependence on family / friends / Seattle
Seattle is such a controversial location (personally). think over its pros and cons constantly throughout my days and weeks. more time spent in seattle, more i grow fond of as well as despise it. possibility of moving elsewhere is slim and less favorable. however inquiries and curiosities remain as significant. 

school / work
years of school remaining. school in comparison to career-central lifestyle. feel as if work is more attractive than it has been in my previous years. possibility of finding job after undergraduate studies has been introduced. 
school has been growing towards the positive. class materials are intriguing. physical and systematic maintenance continues to be disappointing, yet need more research on this part. 

food / restaurant eating / farmer's markets 
reduced restaurant eating significantly compared to previous school quarter. however feel the need to cut down even more so. 

environment
usage of electricity in personal space. making the most usage of public electricity and energy. in example, usage of library electronics, lights, and heating rather than in personal space.  

remember
remember the ones i love, the ones i am grateful for, the beautiful day, and the amazing opportunities near me. remember to be thankful and appreciative of the people and my church, of my education and nearing gardents, of the soils and sunlights, the winds below and above me, the ones i notice and fail to notice, the practices of people and our system - regardless of my feelings, appreciate them all for the sake of their being.
remember to be simple, always.


it is now near end of the day, and am feeling more so at ease than earlier. got through the day without any complication. schedules finished rather soon, near 4 pm. got home before sundown. organized lecture printouts. sprout soup dinner and honey on toast with irish breakfast tea dessert. one quiz tomorrow possibly two. three plans for the weekend at three different locations. been biting my lips to extreme extents .. must stop, difficult. 
breathing gets troublesome from time to time, but all is assured to be completely fine. 

Course Description:

Certain forms of religious expression from the early centuries of Christianity were eventually condemned by "orthodox" Christian authorities as "heretical." Among the earliest and most interesting of these were a variety of writers and movements who considered the creator God of biblical tradition to be a "lesser god," inferior to a far more transcendent and sublime divine entity. Original writings from such movements are preserved among the works in the important "Nag Hammadi Library," a collection of writings (gospels, revelations, treatises, etc.) discovered in the later 1940's near the Egyptian village of Nag Hammadi, and we will give special attention to this collection and related sources from the period. These often contain interesting and sometimes rather elaborate mythologies about the origin of the world, the nature of the true God and the lesser god(s) of creation, the origin of evil, and the nature and destiny of humanity. At a time when there was still no fixed Christian Bible or uniform organization, such elaborate myths of origin and eschatology constituted some of the earliest attempts at a systematic articulation of Christian doctrine in relation to Jewish tradition and Greco-Roman philosophy. The Nag Hammadi collection includes other writings that do not necessarily--or at least so clearly--involve these mythologies but do exemplify interesting "alternative" Christian literatures claiming to convey "secret" revelation of one sort or another. Fundamental features of what eventually became Christian orthodoxy were shaped through controversy over such doctrines and literatures.

https://catalyst.uw.edu/workspace/maw/23944/150927

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic

 

Gnosticism (from gnostikos, "learned", from Greek: γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) is a scholarly term for a set of religious beliefs and spiritual practices common to early Christianity, Hellenistic Judaism, Greco-Roman mystery religions, Zoroastrianism (especially Zurvanism), and Neoplatonism.

A common characteristic of some of these groups was the teaching that the realisation of Gnosis (esoteric or intuitive knowledge), is the way to salvation of the soul from the material world. They saw the material world as created through an intermediary being (demiurge) rather than directly by God. In most of the systems, this demiurge was seen as imperfect, in others even as evil. Different gnostic schools sometimes identified the demiurge as Adam Kadmon, Ahriman, El, Saklas, Samael, Satan, Yaldabaoth, or Yahweh.

Jesus is identified by some Gnostic sects as an embodiment of the supreme being who became incarnate to bring gnōsis to the earth.^[1] Others adamantly deny that the supreme being came in the flesh, claiming Jesus to be merely a human who attained divinity through gnosis and taught his disciples to do the same.^{[citation needed]} Among the Mandaeans, Jesus was considered a mšiha kdaba or "false messiah" who perverted the teachings entrusted to him by John the Baptist.^[2] Still other traditions identify Mani and Seth, third son of Adam and Eve, as salvific figures.^[3]

The Christian sects first called "gnostic" a branch of Christianity, however Joseph Jacobs and Ludwig Blau (Jewish Encyclopedia, 1911) note that much of the terminology employed is Jewish and note that this "proves at least that the principal elements of gnosticism were derived from Jewish speculation, while it does not preclude the possibility of new wine having been poured into old bottles."^[4] The movement spread in areas controlled by the Roman Empire and Arian Goths,^[5] and the Persian Empire; it continued to develop in the Mediterranean and Middle East before and during the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Conversion to Islam and the Albigensian Crusade (1209–1229) greatly reduced the remaining number of Gnostics throughout the Middle Ages, though a few Mandaean communities still exist. Gnostic and pseudo-gnostic ideas became influential in some of the philosophies of various esoteric mystical movements of the late 19th and 20th centuries in Europe and North America, including some that explicitly identify themselves as revivals or even continuations of earlier gnostic groups.

History of Gnosticism
Early Gnosticism
Syrian-Egyptic Gnosticism
Gnosticism in modern times
Proto-Gnostics
Philo
Simon Magus
Cerinthus
Valentinus
Basilides
Gnostic texts
Gnostic Gospels
Nag Hammadi library
Codex Tchacos
Askew Codex
Bruce Codex
Gnosticism and the New Testament
Related articles
Gnosis
Neoplatonism and Gnosticism
Mandaeism
Manichaeism
Bosnian Church
Esoteric Christianity
Jnana

Nag Hammadi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi
(Arabic: نجع حمادى‎, IPA: [ˈnæɡʕe ħæmˈmæːdi]), is a city in Upper Egypt. Nag Hammadi was known as Chenoboskion (Greek: Χηνοβόσκιον) in classical antiquity, meaning "geese grazing grounds". It is located on the west bank of the Nile in the Qena Governorate, about 80 kilometres north-west of Luxor.

It has a population of about 30,000, who are mostly farmers. Sugar and aluminium are produced in Nag Hammadi.

The town of Nag Hammadi was established by Mahmoud Pasha Hammadi, who was a member of the Hammadi family in Sohag, Egypt. Mahmoud Pasha Hammadi was a major landholder in Sohag, and known for his strong opposition to the British occupation.

Mahmoud Pasha Hammadi created Nag Hammadi for the indigenous people from Sohag who were forced to abandon their homeland by the British occupation. In recognition of this, the new town was given the name "Hammadi".

The Nag Hammadi Library

Main article: Nag Hammadi library

Nag Hammadi is best known for being the site where local farmers found a sealed earthenware jar containing thirteen leather-bound papyrus codices, together with pages torn from another book, in December 1945. The mother of the farmers burned one of the books and parts of a second (including its cover). Thus twelve of these books (one missing its cover) and the loose pages survive.^[1] The writings in these codices, dating back to the 2nd century AD,^[2] comprised 52 mostly Gnostic tractates (treatises), believed to be a library hidden by monks from the nearby monastery of St Pachomius when the possession of such banned writings, denounced as heresy, was made an offence.^{[citation needed]}

The contents of the Coptic-bound codices were written in Coptic, though the works were probably all translations from Greek. Most famous of these works must be the Gospel of Thomas, of which the Nag Hammadi codices contain the only complete copy.

All the texts have been public since 1975, and are available online.

Codex

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex

Christian Bible as codex

A codex (Latin caudex for "trunk of a tree" or block of wood, book; plural codices) is a book in the format used for modern books, with multiple quires or gatherings (sheets of paper or vellum in multiples of two which are folded and stitched through) typically bound together and given a cover.

Developed by the Romans from wooden writing tablets, its gradual replacement of the scroll, the dominant form of book in the ancient world, has been termed the most important advance in the history of the book prior to the invention of printing.^[1] The spread of the codex is often associated with the rise of Christianity, which adopted the format for the Bible early on.^[2] First described by the 1st-century AD Roman poet Martial, who praised its convenient use, the codex achieved numerical parity with the scroll around AD 300, and had completely replaced it throughout the now Christianised Greco-Roman world by the 6th century.^[3]

The codex holds considerable practical advantages over other book formats, such as compactness, sturdiness, ease of reference (a codex is random access, as opposed to a scroll, which is sequential access), and especially economy; unlike the scroll, both recto and verso could be used for writing.^[4] Although the change from rolls to codices roughly coincides with the transition from papyrus to parchment as favourite writing material, the two developments are quite unconnected. In fact, any combination of codices and scrolls on the one hand with papyrus and parchment on the other is technically feasible and well attested from the historical record.^[5]

Although technically any modern paperback is a codex, the term is now reserved for manuscript (hand-written) books which were produced from Late Antiquity through the Middle Ages. The scholarly study of these manuscripts from the point of view of the bookbinding craft is called codicology, while the study of ancient documents in general is called paleography.

TheNamesake 카테고리 문학>소설 지은이 Lahiri, Jhumpa (PawPrints, 2011년) 상세보기

네임쉐이크 감독 미라 네어 (2006 / 인도,미국) 출연 타부,이르판 칸 상세보기

 

The Namesake (2003) is the second book by author Jhumpa Lahiri. It was originally a novella published in The New Yorker and was later expanded to a full length novel. It explores many of the same emotional and cultural themes as her Pulitzer Prize-winning short story collection Interpreter of Maladies. Moving between events in Calcutta, Boston, and New York City, the novel examines the nuances involved with being caught between two conflicting cultures with their highly distinct religious, social, and ideological differences.

Summary

As The Namesake opens, Ashima Ganguli is a young bride who is about to deliver her first child in a hospital in Massachusetts. Her husband, Ashoke, is an engineering student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). As she prepares to give birth, she realizes how isolated she has become. If she were still in Calcutta, she would have her baby at home, surrounded by all the women in her family who would administer all the proper Bengali ceremonies and would tell her what to expect. In the United States, Ashima struggles through language and cultural barriers as well as her own fears as she delivers her first child.

The baby boy is healthy and the new parents are prepared to take their son home. But Ashima and Ashoke are stunned to learn that they cannot leave the hospital before they give their son a legal name. The traditional naming process in their families is to have an elder give the new baby a name. They have chosen Ashima's grandmother for this honor. They have written the grandmother to ask her to give the baby a name. But the letter never arrives and soon after, the grandmother dies. In the meantime, Ashoke suggests the name of Gogol. He chooses this name for two reasons. First, it is the name of his favorite author, the famous Russian author. The second reason is that Ashoke, before he was married, had been in a very serious accident. The train he was riding in had derailed. Many people died. Ashoke had broken his back and could not move. He had been reading Gogol just before the accident. He had a page of that book clutched in his hand. The paper caught the attention of the medics who had come to rescue him. If it had not been for that page, acting as a flag in the darkness, Ashoke could have died.

While he insists on being called Gogol in elementary school, by the time he turns 14 he starts to hate the name. His father tries once to explain the significance of it, but he senses that Gogol is not old enough to understand. His parents decide to give him a more public name, which is part of the Bengali tradition—having a private name that only family and friends use and a public name for everything else. They chose Nikhil. Shortly before leaving for college, he travels to the courthouse and has his name legally changed to Nikhil Gogol Ganguli. When Gogol goes off to college, he uses his public name.

This change in name and Gogol's going to Yale, rather than following his father’s footsteps to MIT, sets up the barriers between Gogol and his family. The distance, both geographically and emotionally, between Gogol and his parents continues to increase. He wants to be American, not Bengali. He goes home less frequently, dates American girls, and becomes angry when anyone calls him Gogol. During his college years, he smokes cigarettes and marijuana, goes to many parties, and loses his virginity to a girl he cannot remember.

When he goes home for the summer, Gogol's train is suddenly stopped and temporarily loses electricity. A man had jumped in front of the train and committed suicide, and the wait for the authorities causes a long delay. Ashoke, who is waiting at the train station for Gogol, becomes very concerned when he calls the train company and hears of this incident. When they pull into the Ganguli's driveway, Ashoke turns off the car and finally explains the true significance of Gogol's name. Gogol is deeply troubled by this news, asking his father why he didn't tell him this earlier. He starts to regret changing his name and changing his identity.

He lives in a very small apartment in New York City, where he has landed a job in an established architectural office after graduating from Columbia. He is rather stiff personality-wise, perpetually angry or else always on the lookout for someone to make a stereotypical comment about his background.

At a party, Gogol meets a very attractive and rather socially aggressive Barnard girl named Maxine. Gogol becomes completely wrapped up in her and her family. Maxine's parents are financially well off and live in a four-story house in New York City. Maxine has one floor to herself and invites Gogol to move in. Gogol becomes a member of the family, helping with the cooking and shopping. Maxine's parents appear to have accepted him as a son. When Maxine's parents leave the city for the summer, they invite Maxine and Gogol to join them for a couple of weeks. They are staying in the mountains in New Hampshire, where Maxine's grandparents live. For a while, Gogol is fixed on this very American family.

Gogol introduces Maxine to his parents. Ashima dismisses Maxine as something that Gogol will eventually get over. Shortly after this meeting, Gogol's father dies of a heart attack while he is working on a temporary project in Ohio. Gogol travels to Ohio to gather his father's belongings and his father's ashes. Something inside of Gogol changes. He slowly withdraws from Maxine as he tries to sort out his emotions. Maxine tries to pressure him to open up to her. Gogol breaks off the relationship and begins to spend more time with his mother and sister, Sonia.

Ashima, after some time has gone by, suggests that Gogol contact the daughter of one of her friends. Gogol knows of the woman from his own childhood. Her name is Moushumi, and she has had the unfortunate experience of having planned a wedding only to have her intended groom change his mind at the last minute. Gogol is reluctant to meet with Moushumi for two reasons. She is Bengali, and she is recovering from having been shamed. But he meets her anyway, to please his mother.

Moushumi and Gogol are attracted to one another and eventually are married. However, by the end of their first year of marriage, Moushumi becomes restless. She feels tied down by marriage and begins to regret what she has done. Gogol suspects something is wrong and often feels like a poor substitute for Moushumi's ex-fiance, Graham, who abandoned her. One day, Moushumi comes across the name of a man she knew when she was a senior in high school. She contacts him, and they begin an affair. Gogol finds out. Moushumi and Gogol divorce.

The story ends with Ashima selling the family home so she can live in India with her siblings for half of the year. Sonia is preparing to marry to an American man named Ben. Gogol is once again alone. But he feels comforted by one thing: before his father died, he finally told his son why he had chosen that name for him. By the end of the novel, Gogol has come to accept his name and picks up a collection of the Russian author's stories that his father had given him as a birthday present many years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Namesake  

Plot

The Namesake depicts the struggles of Ashoke and Ashima Ganguli (Irrfan Khan and Tabu), two first-generation immigrants from West Bengal, India to the United States, and their American-born children Gogol (Kal Penn) and Sonia (Sahira Nair). The film takes place primarily in Kolkata, India; New York City; and various New York state suburbs.

The story begins as Ashoke and Ashima leave Calcutta and settle in New York City. Through a series of miscues, their son's nickname, Gogol (named after Ukrainian author Nikolai Gogol), becomes his official birth name, an event which will shape many aspects of his life. The film chronicles Gogol's cross-cultural experiences and his exploration of his Indian heritage, as the story shifts between the United States and India. Gogol eventually meets and falls in love with two women, Maxine (Jacinda Barrett) and Moushumi (Zuleikha Robinson), while his parents struggle to understand his modern, American perspectives on dating, marriage and love.

As much as Gogol/Nikhil's experiences, the film tenderly describes the courtship and marriage of Ashima and Ashoke, and the effect of Ashoke's early death of a massive heart attack. Ashima's decision to move on with her life, selling the suburban family home and returning to Calcutta, unifies and ends the film.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Namesake_(film)  

Nikolai Vasilievich Gogol (Russian: Николай Васильевич Гоголь; Ukrainian: Микола Васильович Гоголь; 31 March 1809^[4] – 4 March 1852O.S.; 19 March 1809 – 21 February 1852 N.S.) was a Ukrainian-born Russian dramatist and novelist.^[4]

Considered by his contemporaries one of the preeminent figures of the natural school of Russian literary realism, later critics have found in Gogol's work a fundamentally romantic sensibility, with strains of Surrealism and the grotesque ("The Nose", "Viy", "The Overcoat," "Nevsky Prospekt"). His early works, such as Evenings on a Farm Near Dikanka, were influenced by his Ukrainian upbringing, Ukrainian culture andfolklore.^[5][6] His later writing satirised political corruption in the Russian Empire (The Government Inspector, Dead Souls), leading to his eventual exile. The novel Taras Bulba (1835) and the play Marriage (1842), along with the short stories "Diary of a Madman", "The Tale of How Ivan Ivanovich Quarreled with Ivan Nikiforovich", "The Portrait" and "The Carriage", round out the tally of his best-known works.

Literary development

Cover of the first edition of The Government Inspector (1836).

In 1831, he brought out the first volume of his Ukrainian stories (Evenings on a Farm Near Dikanka), which met with immediate success. He followed it in 1832 with a second volume, and in 1835 by two volumes of stories entitled Mirgorod, as well as by two volumes of miscellaneous prose entitled Arabesques. At this time Russian editors and critics such as Nikolai Polevoy and Nikolai Nadezhdin saw in Gogol the emergence of a Ukrainian, rather than Russian, writer, using his works to illustrate supposed differences between Russian and Ukrainian national characters, a fact that has been overlooked in later Russian literary history.^[8] At this time, Gogol developed a passion for Ukrainian history and tried to obtain an appointment to the history department at Kiev University. Despite the support of Pushkin and Sergey Uvarov, the Russian minister of education, his appointment was blocked by a Kievan bureaucrat on the grounds that he was unqualified.^[9] His fictional story Taras Bulba, based on the history of Ukrainian cossacks, was the result of this phase in his interests. During this time he also developed a close and life-long friendship with another Ukrainian, the historian and naturalistMykhaylo Maksymovych.^[10]

In 1834 Gogol was made Professor of Medieval History at the University of St. Petersburg, a job for which he had no qualifications. He turned in a performance ludicrous enough to warrant satiric treatment in one of his own stories. After an introductory lecture made up of brilliant generalizations which the 'historian' had prudently prepared and memorized, he gave up all pretense at erudition and teaching, missed two lectures out of three, and when he did appear, muttered unintelligibly through his teeth. At the final examination, he sat in utter silence with a black handkerchief wrapped around his head, simulating a toothache, while another professor interrogated the students."^[11] This academic venture proved a failure and he resigned his chair in 1835.

Commemorative plaque in his house in Rome

Between 1832 and 1836 Gogol worked with great energy, and though almost all his work has in one way or another its sources in these four years of contact with Pushkin, he had not yet decided that his ambitions were to be fulfilled by success in literature. During this time, the Russian critics Stepan Shevyrev and Vissarion Belinsky, contradicting earlier critics, reclassified Gogol from a Ukrainian to a Russian writer.^[8] It was only after the presentation, on 19 April 1836, of his comedy The Government Inspector (Revizor) that he finally came to believe in his literary vocation. The comedy, a violent satire of Russian provincial bureaucracy, was staged thanks only to the intervention of the emperor, Nicholas I.

From 1836 to 1848 Gogol lived abroad, travelling through Germany and Switzerland. Gogol spent the winter of 1836–1837 in Paris, among Russian expatriates and Polish exiles, frequently meeting the Polish poets Adam Mickiewicz and Bohdan Zaleski. He eventually settled in Rome. For much of the twelve years from 1836 Gogol was in Italy. He studied art, read Italian literature and developed a passion for opera. He mingled with Russian and other visitors, and in 1838 met Count Ioseph Vielhorskiy, the 23-year-old son of the official who had brought Gogol's Government Inspector to the attention of the emperor. Vielhorsky was travelling in hopes of curing his tuberculosis. Gogol became deeply attached to the young man and attended him in his illness, but in 1839 Vielhorsky died. Gogol left an account of this time in his Nights at the Villa.

Pushkin's death produced a strong impression on Gogol. His principal work during years following Pushkin's death was the satirical epic Dead Souls. Concurrently, he worked at other tasks – recast Taras Bulba and The Portrait, completed his second comedy, Marriage (Zhenitba), wrote the fragment Rome and his most famous short story, The Overcoat.

In 1841 the first part of Dead Souls was ready, and Gogol took it to Russia to supervise its printing. It appeared in Moscow in 1842, under the title, imposed by thecensorship, of The Adventures of Chichikov. The book instantly established his reputation as the greatest prose writer in the language. 

Creative decline and death

After the triumph of Dead Souls, Gogol came to be regarded by his contemporaries as a great satirist who lampooned the unseemly sides of Imperial Russia. Little did they know that Dead Souls was but the first part of a planned modern-day counterpart to The Divine Comedy. The first part represented the Inferno; the second part was to depict the gradual purification and transformation of the rogue Chichikov under the influence of virtuous publicans and governors — Purgatory.^[12]

Gogol, painted in 1840.

From Palestine Gogol returned to Russia, and passed his last years in restless movement throughout the country. While visiting the capitals, he stayed with friends such as Mikhail Pogodin and Sergei Aksakov. During this period he also spent much time with his old Ukrainian friends, Maksymovych and Osyp Bodiansky. More importantly, he intensified his relationship with a starets or spiritual elder, Matvey Konstantinovsky, whom he had known for several years. Konstantinovsky seems to have strengthened in Gogol the fear of perdition by insisting on the sinfulness of all his imaginative work. His health was undermined by exaggerated ascetic practices and he fell into a state of deep depression. On the night of 24 February 1852, he burned some of his manuscripts, which contained most of the second part of Dead Souls. He explained this as a mistake, a practical joke played on him by the Devil. Soon thereafter he took to bed, refused all food, and died in great pain nine days later.

Gogol was mourned in the Saint Tatiana church at the Moscow University before his burial and then buried at the Danilov Monastery, close to his fellow Slavophile Aleksey Khomyakov. In 1931 Moscow authorities decided to demolish the monastery and had his remains transferred to theNovodevichy Cemetery.

Gogol's grave at the Novodevichy Cemetery

His body was discovered lying face down; which gave rise to the story that Gogol had been buried alive. A Soviet critic even cut a part of his jacket to use as a binding for his copy of Dead Souls. A piece of rock which used to stand on his grave at the Danilov was reused for the tomb of Gogol's admirer Mikhail Bulgakov.

The first Gogol monument in Moscow was a Symbolist statue on Arbat Square, which represented the sculptor Nikolay Andreyev's idea of Gogol, rather than the real man.^[13]Unveiled in 1909, the statue was praised by Ilya Repin and Leo Tolstoy as an outstanding projection of Gogol's tortured personality. Joseph Stalin did not like it, however; and the statue was replaced by a more orthodox Socialist Realism monument in 1952. It took enormous efforts to save Andreyev's original work from destruction; it now stands in front of the house where Gogol died.^[14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Gogol  

Jhumpa Lahiri (Bengali: ঝুম্পা লাহিড়ী; born on July 11, 1967) is a Bengali American author. Lahiri's debut short story collection, Interpreter of Maladies (1999), won the 2000 Pulitzer Prize for Fiction, and her first novel, The Namesake (2003), was adapted into the popular film of the same name.^[2] She was born Nilanjana Sudeshna, which she says are both "good names", but goes by her nickname Jhumpa.^[3] Lahiri is a member of the President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities, appointed by U.S. President Barack Obama.[4]

Biography

Lahiri was born in London, the daughter of Bengali Indian immigrants. Her family moved to the United States when she was three; Lahiri considers herself an American, stating, "I wasn't born here, but I might as well have been."^[3] Lahiri grew up in Kingston, Rhode Island, where her father Amar Lahiri works as a librarian at the University of Rhode Island;^[3] he is the basis for the protagonist in "The Third and Final Continent," the closing story from Interpreter of Maladies.^[5] Lahiri's mother wanted her children to grow up knowing their Bengali heritage, and her family often visited relatives in Calcutta (now Kolkata).^[6]

When she began kindergarten in Kingston, Rhode Island, Lahiri's teacher decided to call her by her pet name, Jhumpa, because it was easier to pronounce than her "proper names".^[3] Lahiri recalled,"I always felt so embarrassed by my name.... You feel like you're causing someone pain just by being who you are."^[7] Lahiri's ambivalence over her identity was the inspiration for the ambivalence of Gogol, the protagonist of her novel The Namesake, over his unusual name.^[3] Lahiri graduated from South Kingstown High School and received her B.A. in English literature from Barnard College in 1989.^[8]

Lahiri then received multiple degrees from Boston University: an M.A. in English, M.F.A. in Creative Writing, M.A. in Comparative Literature, and a Ph.D. in Renaissance Studies. She took a fellowship at Provincetown's Fine Arts Work Center, which lasted for the next two years (1997–1998). Lahiri has taught creative writing at Boston University and the Rhode Island School of Design.

In 2001, Lahiri married Alberto Vourvoulias-Bush, a journalist who was then Deputy Editor of TIME Latin America, and who is now Senior Editor of Fox News Latino. Lahiri lives in Fort Greene, Brooklyn with her husband and their two children, Octavio (b. 2002) and Noor (b. 2005).^[7]

Literary focus

Lahiri's writing is characterized by her "plain" language and her characters, often Indian immigrants to America who must navigate between the cultural values of their homeland and their adopted home.[2]^[10] Lahiri's fiction is autobiographical and frequently draws upon her own experiences as well as those of her parents, friends, acquaintances, and others in the Bengali communities with which she is familiar. Lahiri examines her characters' struggles, anxieties, and biases to chronicle the nuances and details of immigrant psychology and behavior.

Until Unaccustomed Earth, she focused mostly on first-generation Indian American immigrants and their struggle to raise a family in a country very different from theirs. Her stories describe their efforts to keep their children acquainted with Indian culture and traditions and to keep them close even after they have grown up in order to hang on to the Indian tradition of a joint family, in which the parents, their children and the children's families live under the same roof.

Unaccustomed Earth departs from this earlier original ethos as Lahiri's characters embark on new stages of development. These stories scrutinize the fate of the second and third generations. As succeeding generations become increasingly assimilated into American culture and are comfortable in constructing perspectives outside of their country of origin, Lahiri's fiction shifts to the needs of the individual. She shows how later generations depart from the constraints of their immigrant parents, who are often devoted to their community and their responsibility to other immigrants.^[14]

Bibliography

Short story collections

• Interpreter of Maladies (1999)
• Unaccustomed Earth (2008)

Novels

• The Namesake (2003)

Unpublished Material (Academic)

• A Real Durwan and Other Stories (1993, Boston University M.A. thesis)
• Only an Address: Six Stories by Ashapurna Devi introduced, translated and with critical commentary by Lahiri (1995, Boston University M.A. thesis)
• Accursed Palace: The Italian Palazzo on the Jacobean Stage (1603-1625) (1997, Boston University Ph.D. thesis)

Uncollected Non-fiction

• "Cooking Lessons: The Long Way Home" (6 September 2004, The New Yorker)
• "Improvisations: Rice" (23 November 2009, The New Yorker)
• "Reflections: Notes from a Literary Apprenticeship" (13 June 2011, The New Yorker)

Contributions

• (Introduction) The Magic Barrel: Stories by Bernard Malamud, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, July 2003.
• (Introduction) Malgudi Days by R.K. Narayan, Penguin Classics, August 2006.
• "Rhode Island" (essay), State by State: A Panoramic Portrait of America edited by Matt Weiland and Sean Wilsey, Ecco, September 16, 2008
• Essay, The Suspension of Time: Reflections on Simon Dinnerstein and The Fulbright Tryptich edited by Daniel Slager, Milkweed Editions, June 14, 2011.

Awards

• 1993 – TransAtlantic Award from the Henfield Foundation
• 1999 – O. Henry Award for short story "Interpreter of Maladies"
• 1999 – PEN/Hemingway Award (Best Fiction Debut of the Year) for "Interpreter of Maladies"
• 1999 – "Interpreter of Maladies" selected as one of Best American Short Stories
• 2000 – Addison Metcalf Award from the American Academy of Arts and Letters
• 2000 – "The Third and Final Continent" selected as one of Best American Short Stories
• 2000 – The New Yorker's Best Debut of the Year for "Interpreter of Maladies"
• 2000 – Pulitzer Prize for Fiction for her debut "Interpreter of Maladies"
• 2000 – James Beard Foundation's M.F.K. Fisher Distinguished Writing Award for "Indian Takeout" in Food & Wine Magazine
• 2002 – Guggenheim Fellowship
• 2002 – "Nobody's Business" selected as one of Best American Short Stories
• 2008 – Frank O'Connor International Short Story Award for "Unaccustomed Earth"
• 2009 – Asian American Literary Award for "Unaccustomed Earth"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jhumpa_Lahiri  

 

 

1) 원만한성격
2) Farmer's Market
3) 유제품, 고기, 일회용품, 식당 사용 최소화 


비닐봉지 & 종이봉지
1/2 Bartells
 
일회용품 
1/2 Japanese Restaurant 

 

환경적 현재 상황 및 실천 해야 할, 할 수 있는, 하고있는 움직임들에 대해 제법 다양한 정보제공. 석유의존을 벗어나는 것은 충분히 가능 할 뿐더러 이미 시작되었고, 이에 대한 투자는 늘어 날 수 밖에 없고, 현재로써 우리는 늦었지만 할 수 있다. 태양력 수력 등 다양한 대체에너지가 있는 가운데 풍력에 대한 설명이 특히나 인상적, 전망이 상당히 밝아보였다. 


 

carbon nation is a documentary movie about climate change SOLUTIONS. Even if you doubt the severity of the impact of climate change or just don't buy it at all, this is still a compelling and relevant film that illustrates how SOLUTIONS to climate change also address other social, economic and national security issues. You'll meet a host of entertaining and endearing characters along the way.

•   carbon nation is an optimistic, solutions-based, non-preachy, non-partisan, big tent film that shows tackling climate change boosts the economy, increases national & energy security and promotes health & a clean environment.
• Public opinion is sliding the wrong way - far fewer people are concerned about climate change than even a year ago. We’ve made carbon nation to give a majority of people an entertaining, informed and pragmatic primer about why it’s incredibly smart to be a part of the new, low-carbon economy: it’s good business.
• carbon nation's optimism and pragmatism are appealing across the political spectrum. While other good films have been about problems, blame and guilt, carbon nation is a film that celebrates solutions, inspiration and action.
  
  
   

quotes from carbon nation:

“Do I think man is causing global warming? No, but that doesn’t make any difference. I want clean water and I want clean air. And that’s so simple.” THE WILD ALASKAN

“Climate change in fact is a national security issue. This is no longer the purview of Birkenstock-wearing tree huggers. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.” THE ARMY COLONEL

“So if you don’t give a damn about the environment, do it because you’re a greedy bastard and you just want cheap power.” THE BIOCHEMICAL ENGINEER

다큐멘터리 South 180 를 보았음. 내용은 즉 아웃도어 제품 제조 회사인 Patagonia 의 이전 회장 Kris Tompkins 설립의 파타고니아 보존 - 말 그대로 conservacion patagonica 캠페인. 설립 년도 2000. 아르헨티나 argentina 와 칠레 chile 를 거쳐 있는 안데스 산맥 andes mountains 의 가장 남쪽 지역인 파타고니아 patagonia 의 개발 및 오용을 제한하고, 지역을 구입하여 국립공원 national park 들로 지정. 현재로써는 규모가 제법 커서 소속된 단체들 및 개인의 숫자도 제법 늘었다. 
가장 놀라운 것은 몇 사람의 의지가 만들어난 굉장한 환경적 영향. 흔한 현상이다. 경제 또한 소수의 압도적인 권력으로 움직이고 환경 오염 또한 인류의 전체가 아닌 특정 단체들이 주도하는 - 소수의 불균형된 영향력. 하지만 역으로 생각하여 그 소수의 영향력이 긍정적일 수 있다는 것! Kris 와 그녀의 남편과 몇 친구들의 의지가 현재도 크지는 않지만 파타고니아에서 상당한 ecosystem 에코시스템들과 species 종자들을 보존하고 있다. 
그녀는 사실 많은 땅을 샀지만, '지고있다'고 말했다. 개발을 완전히, 아니 대부분도 막을 수는 없다는 것. 그녀의 단체와 보존운동이 규모가 자랐지만 아직 부족하다는 것. 하지만 이러한 움직임이 있다는 자체와 지금의 비교적 작지만서도 굉장한 움직임이 놀랍고 아름답다! 
South 180 라는 개념을 보자면 - 산의 정상에 올랐을 때 우리에게 주어진 가능성은 두가지: 계속 앞으로 전진하여 산을 내려가거나, 180도 돌아 내려가는 것. 우리는 상당한 속도로 과학 및 기술적 발전을 이루었지만 정점에서 더이상 올라 갈 수 있는 곳은 없다. 내려가야 한다. 우리는 정상을 향하고 있다, 어쩌면 다다랐다. 정점이 아니라면 다행이다, 그러므로 지금에라도 우리는 180도 돌아 하산해야한다. 

http://www.180south.com/




칠레 법원 "자연보존지역 댐 건설 중지" 
http://www.yonhapnews.co.kr/bulletin/2011/06/21/0200000000AKR20110621019100094.HTML 
'개발론-환경보호 논란' 가열될 듯

(상파울루=연합뉴스) 김재순 특파원 = 칠레 법원이 자연보존지역에서 추진되는 대형 댐 건설 계획의 중단을 명령했다.

   20일 브라질 뉴스 포털 테하(Terra)에 따르면 칠레 남부 푸에르토 몬트 시 법원은 파타고니아 지역에 대형 댐을 건설하려는 이른바 '이드로아이센(HidroAysen) 프로젝트'를 둘러싼 논란과 관련, 이날 프로젝트 시행 중단 명령을 내렸다.

   칠레 여야 의원과 환경단체들이 '이드로아이센 프로젝트'의 중단을 요구하며 제기한 3건의 소송을 법원이 받아들인 것. 이에 따라 '이드로아이센 프로젝트'를 놓고 벌어진 환경파괴 논란이 해소될 때까지 댐 건설 계획은 중단 상태에 놓이게 됐다. 

파타고니아 지역의 아이센 주(州)에 있는 바케르 강과 파스쿠아 강에 5개의 댐을 건설하는 것을 내용으로 하는 '이드로아이센' 프로젝트는 2006년 입안됐으며, 칠레 정부의 환경평가위원회는 지난달 9일 프로젝트 추진을 승인했다.

   공사는 칠레와 스페인, 이탈리아 등 3개국 기업으로 이루어진 컨소시엄에 의해 2014년부터 시작될 예정이며, 총 투자액은 70억 달러(약 7조5천억원)에 달할 것으로 추산된다.

   세바스티안 피녜라 칠레 대통령 정부는 경제의 지속적인 성장과 에너지난 해결을 위해 댐 건설이 필요하다며 공사를 강행하겠다는 뜻을 밝혀 왔다. 석유와 천연가스 자원이 거의 없는 칠레로서는 전력 공급의 상당량을 수력발전에 의지하는 수밖에 없는 처지다.

   그러나 환경론자들은 두 강 주변이 세계적으로 자연 원형이 가장 잘 보존된 곳의 하나인 데다 댐이 건설되면 파타고니아 지역 5천900㏊가 침수되는 등 자연환경이 크게 파괴될 것이라며 반대하고 있다. 칠레 정부에 수력발전 대신 풍력과 태양열 등 재생에너지 개발에 주력하라는 주장도 제기하고 있다.

   '이드로아이센 프로젝트'가 나온 이후 수도 산티아고를 비롯한 주요 도시에서는 수만 명이 참가한 가운데 '댐 없는 파타고니아' '칠레를 팔지 마라'는 등의 플래카드를 내건 격렬한 반대 시위가 계속됐다. 브라질, 프랑스, 스페인, 독일, 벨기에, 아르헨티나, 볼리비아, 미국 등 다른 국가의 환경단체들도 반대 시위를 지지하고 나섰다.

   한편, 칠레 언론은 여론조사에서 댐 건설에 반대한다는 응답이 74%까지 나온 사실을 들어 '이드로아이센 프로젝트'가 피녜라 대통령의 지지율을 떨어뜨리는 요인이 되고 있다고 말했다.

   fidelis21c@yna.co.kr

<저작권자(c)연합뉴스. 무단전재-재배포금지.>             2011/06/21 08:00 송고 

A Journey to the Bottom of the Earth

http://www.gq.com/blogs/the-q/2010/06/a-journey-to-the-bottom-of-the-earth-180-degrees-south-review.html#ixzz1i54ivEYi 

What does it take to make a new National Park?

The story of the future Patagonia National Park offers a modern-day example of how you create a great park.

What makes a great park? By that, we mean a flagship park that protects a large, biologically critical area, invites visitors to experience the natural world, and contributes to the local economy. Parks like this, such as Yosemite, Yellowstone, and Glacier in the U.S, Banff in Canada, and Torres del Paine in Chile, do not appear effortlessly. Parks thrive in reality, and not just exist on paper, when people visit, explore, and advocate for them. Building public access and engaging local communities represent essential components of our work. At the same time, we're creating a 21st century wilderness area from a degraded sheep estancia; ecosystem restoration and wildlife recovery programs ensure that this park protects more than scenery.

The goal is to donate a fully functional new park to the Chilean state with healthy ecosystems, thriving wildlife populations, and outstanding visitor facilities. Our programs to build capacity in conservation workers, educate local schoolchildren and engage neighboring communities build the base of knowledge and support that will allow the park to flourish in the future.

Our work

Our team protects land, restores ecosystems, recovers wildlife, creates trails and campgrounds, builds the park headquarters, and works with neighboring communities. Our volunteer and intern programs provide hands-on experience to interested conservationists. Through these programs, Conservacion Patagonica seeks to secure the long-term success of the park and magnify the positive benefits of land conservation.

Conservacion Patagonica is an dynamic community of people who
share one thing: a commitment to the wild future of Patagonia.

About fifty people work full-time on the creation of Patagonia National Park, but many thousands more throughout the world have joined in this project in one form or another, be it volunteering with ecosystem restoration, donating, spreading the word, serving as supportive neighbors, or lending expertise.

It's our stellar team of conservationists who bring a variety
of skills and backgrounds to the project, that lets us tackle the
creation of new parks.

In 2000, Kristine Tompkins founded Conservacion Patagonica. The former longtime CEO of the Patagonia clothing company, Kris has lived in South America for two decades, working full-time on land and wildlife conservation projects. Business luminaries, environmental advocates and scientific pioneers guide our Board of Directors and our Science Advisory Board. Working in the Chacabuco Valley, our all-Chilean team includes wildlife biologists, animal trackers, restoration specialists, architects, landscapers, construction workers, teachers, volunteer program coordinators, and chefs. Our satellite U.S. office, in Sausalito, CA, focuses on outreach, communications, and development.

Our generous supporters, key partners in this project, enable us
to work on this globally significant scale.

Foundations such as the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Butler Conservation Fund, the Arcadia Fund, and the Wallace Genetic Foundation, along with hundreds of individual donors, have contributed to this initiative, helping us cross the midway point in this ambitious project. For information about joining us, please look here.

Volunteers, interns, visiting experts and neighbors lend a hand in transforming the Chacabuco Valley from estancia to park.

There are threatened species to monitor, restoration techniques to study, trails to build, new sectors to map, fences to remove, exotic species to control, trees to plant, children to teach, people to feed...the list continues, and we're immensely grateful to the hundreds of people who have put their skills to use towards the creation of a park for generations to come. Read more about our volunteer program here and our intern program here.

http://www.conservacionpatagonica.org/ 

2011년의 성탄 - 이븟날 카페에서 느긋한 휴식, 자전거타고, 동네 구경. 해가 비추어 제법 밝은 날이었다. 성탄 날 가족과 점심 및 저녁 식사 후 집에서 휴식. 바람이 상당히 많이 불고 비가 내렸다. storm 이 다가오는 것을 느낄 수 있음. 비바람은 참으로 익사이팅 신이 난다 크크. 
혼자 그리고 가족과 친구들과 즐거운 편안한 연말을 보내고 있다. 이것이 행복이다 하하 :-)


매일 카페들을 가지만, 성탄 이브라고 혼자 무려 티라미수 섭취 쿠쿠 에스프레소를 주문 했어도 맛있었을 듯. 훌륭한 케익은 아니었지만 편안하고 기분 좋은 오후.

성당의 아기 예수 탄생 풍경 

성당의 성탄 나무 크리스마스 트리 

누군가의 트리, 불 타는 듯 밝다 하하 

나의 아파트의 트리 크크 2012 성탄까지 나와 함께 있어다오

다운타운 시애틀의 트리 

가까이서 올려 본 모습, 흔들렸다웅 쏟아지는 듯한 전기 빛 

다운타운 풍경, 마침 지나가는 마차 - 카메라 세팅을 오후로 두었더니 흔들렸다. 말의 속도가 빠른 것은 아님 킄.

밝은 다운타운의 밤, 빛을 잔뜩 입은 나무들, 사람들도 많다

조명 가게 - 조명 예쁘다 사고 싶다 쿠쿠

접시도 사야하지만 내가 원하는 것들은 세일을 하지 않음으로, 몇 주 째 찾고 있는데 접시 쇼핑 쉽지 않다 하하 

크리스마스 후 의 쇼핑 풍경, 사람들 제법 많다 

크리스 마스 성탄 이브 날, 자전거로 동네를 돌았다. 공원에서 한가로이 공을 던지는 가족의 풍경. 혼자 여유로운 무려 햇빛 따듯한 하루였다.

성탄 이븟날의 노을

나란히 노을을 바라보는 새들, 사이 좋다 

이준석 기업인

성별

남성

소속

배움을 나누는 사람들 (대표), 클라세스튜디오 (대표)


http://people.search.naver.com/search.naver?sm=tab_txc&where=people_profile&ie=utf8&query=%EC%9D%B4%EC%A4%80%EC%84%9D&os=799113

이준석 "디도스 국민검증委, 나꼼수도 영입" 
http://www.etoday.co.kr/news/section/newsview.php?TM=news&SM=2203&idxno=524869 
 
한나라당의 이준석 비상대책위원은 28일 자신이 맡은 '디도스 검찰수사 국민검증위' 구성에 대해 "국민검증위라는 이름에 걸맞게 일반시민을 위원으로 모시겠다"고 말했다고 연합뉴스가 보도했다.

또 중앙선거관리위 홈페이지 디도스 공격사건에 대한 의혹을 집중적으로 제기해온 인터넷 팟캐스트 정치풍자 토크쇼인 '나는 꼼수다'(나꼼수) 진행자들의 영입도 고려한다는 입장을 밝혔다.

26세의 이 비대위원은 28일 연합뉴스와의 통화에서 "국민검증위는 검찰수사결과가 국민 눈높이 수준에 맞는지를 검증하는 곳"이라며 일반시민 영입 의사를 밝혔다.

그는 위원으로 참여하게 되는 '시민'의 기준에 대해서는 "말 그대로 일반시민"이라고 강조했다.

이어 "검찰 수사결과 발표를 보고 국민검증위가 실제적인 활동에 들어갈 것"이라며 "수사결과가 기술적으로 미진한 부분이 있다거나 정치적으로 봤을 때 '나꼼수'에서 거론되는 의혹 같은 걸 해소하지 못했다고 하면 그 사안에 따라 같이 활동할 위원이 달라진다"고 말했다.

이 비대위원은 "(의혹 제기를) 시작한 곳에서 끝내야 한다고 생각하기에 김어준 등 나꼼수 진행자들에게 내일 연락을 취해볼 계획"이라며 "안철수연구소 등에 기술검증도 의뢰할 생각"이라고 부연했다.

또 "국민검증위에서 나온 결론을 비대위에서 추인해 선관위에 관련 자료를 제출해달라고 강력하게 요청하거나 검찰에 추궁한다던지 하는 식으로 비대위 권한을 빌려서 하는 형태가 될 것"이라고 설명했다.

[인터뷰] 이준석 한나라 비대위원 "젊은층과 소통" 2011/12/27  10:05:09  연합뉴스 http://cn.moneta.co.kr/Service/paxnet/ShellView.asp?ArticleID=2011122710050901331   "들러리 서지 않을 것..ICL에 관심 많다""박근혜 위원장의 진정성 의심하지 않게 돼"(서울=연합뉴스) 정아란 기자 = 한나라당 비상대책위원에 내정된 이준석 클라세스튜디오 대표는 27일 "제가 들러리를 서지 않을 것이라는 생각이 들어 비대위 참여를 결정했다"고 밝혔다. 26세로 미국 하버드대 출신이며 저소득층 학생 대상 무료과외 봉사단체인 '배움을 나눈 사람들(배나사)'을 출범시킨 이 대표는 연합뉴스와의 전화인터뷰에서 "부담이 매우 크다"면서도 "젊은층과 소통을 위해 고지식하게 정책을 많이 고민하겠다"고포부를 밝혔다. 다음은 이 위원과의 일문일답. --20대에 여당의 비대위원이 된 소감은. ▲모두 파격이라고 생각하고 있을 것 같다. 명단이 지난주쯤 확정됐는데 지금까지 비밀이 유지되는 것을 보고 놀랐다. --박근혜 비대위원장과는 어떤 인연인가. ▲만난 적이 두 번 있다. 첫 만남은 박 위원장도 모르고 있을 것 같다. 제가 미국서 대학을 다닐 때 한선교 의원과 찾아와서 그때 처음 봤다. 박 위원장은 지난 10월인가, 11월에 '배나사' 마포교육장을 방문해서 오랫 동안 수업을 참관하고 선생님들과 얘기를 나누고 갔다. 박 위원장은 굉장히 많은 관심을 보였다. 숨김이 많은 사람처럼 보이지만 진지하게 많은 얘기를 해줬다. 서강대 전자공학과를 들어가게 된 동기 등을 물었는데 진지하게 답변하더라. 가볍게 말하는 법이 없고, 생각을 많이 하는 모습을 보였다. (제가 비대위원으로 결정된 것에는) 두번째 만남이 결정적인 것 같다. --언제, 어떻게 비대위 참여를 요청받았나. ▲지난주 수요일(21일)쯤 박 위원장측으로부터 연락을 받았다. 저희 단체 내부구성원의 의사를 수렴할 시간이 없고 오해받을 소지가 큰 것 같아 정중히 거절했다. 그런데 주말에 박 위원장으로부터 연락이 직접 왔다. 청년층 문제와 관련해서 (제게) 기대를 많이 하고 있는 것 같았다. --비대위 참여로 마음을 돌린 이유는. ▲제가 고민해온 정책들이 있었는데 반영될 수 있겠다는 생각이 들었다. '배나사' 활동을 4∼5년 하면서 여러 정치인을 만났지만 이번에는 제가 들러리를 서지 않을 것이라는 생각이 들었다. 박 위원장과 통화하면서 그의 진정성을 의심하지 않게됐다. 제가 비대위에 계층대표, 직능대표로 들어가는 게 아니라는 생각을 하게 됐다. 제가 "제 첫 인상이 어떨지 모르겠지만 조용히 하는 타입은 아닐 것"이라고 말했더니 박 위원장은 "당연히 그러셔야죠"라고 말했다. -- 비대위 참여가 부담스럽지는 않은지. ▲부담이 매우 크다. 그래도 부담을 인지하지 못해서 따라가는 나이는 아닌 것같다. --젊은층과의 소통 강화를 위해 어떤 역할을 하겠나. ▲`소통을 위해 트위터를 해야 한다'는 말도 나오지만 저는 고지식하게 정책을고민을 많이 할 것 같다. 몇 년 전부터 하고 싶었던 정책이 2개 있다. 우선 취업후 상환 학자금대출(ICL)에 관심이 많고 그 쪽을 파헤쳐 보겠다. --한나라당에 어떤 인물이 들어와야 한다고 생각하는가. ▲좀 과감한 사람들이 많이 나와야 한다. 시민사회운동 계열에서 좋은 사람을많이 보는데 많이들 움츠리고 있다. 박원순 서울시장이 보여준 게 있지 않는가. 그분을 `찬양'한다는 것은 아니지만 한나라당에 배운 사람과 현장에서 뛴 사람 사이의균형이 필요하다. airan@yna.co.kr (끝) <저 작 권 자(c)연 합 뉴 스. 무 단 전 재-재 배 포 금 지.>

 

美국립보건원 유명 저널 조류독감 연구 수정요구

Nature, Science 거부 "연구활동에 나쁜 영향 줄 수도" 김준호 기자  jkim30@medical-tribune.co.kr  http://www.medical-tribune.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=48797  미국립보건원(NIH)이 조류독감에 관한 Nature와 Science에 발표된 연구논문 2건에 대해 수정을 요구했다. 산하 미국바이오시큐리티국가과학자문위원회(NSABB)는 20일 고병원성조류독감바이러스(A/H5N1)의 사람에 대한 감염성을 획득하는데 필요로 하는 유전자변이의 구체적인 기술 등을 삭제하라는 보도자료를 발표했다. 2개 저널의 편집장은 그러나 연구자의 권리를 보호해야 한다며 거부했다. 기존 생각보다 위험 2건의 논문은 일본 도쿄대학 의과학연구소 가와오카 요시히로 박사와 네덜란드 에라스무스대학 론 포키에르(Ron Fouchier) 박사가 각각 Nature와 Science에 발표한 것. 모두 NIH로부터 연구비를 지원받았다. A/H5N1은 현재로서는 사람에 대한 감염 및 사람간 전파는 대부분 나타나지 않고 있다. 그러나 자연계에서 바이러스가 변화하고 사람에 대한 감염력을 갖게 된다는 사실은 여러 연구자와 보건위생관계자가 우려하는 사실이라고 NIH는 설명했다. 또 이들 논문에서 보고된 내용은 공중보건위생에 효과를 가져올 가능성이 있는 한편 악용될 가능성도 있어 NSABB에 의견을 요구했다고 설명했다. NIH에 의하면 이들 논문에는 A/H5N1의 포유류에 대한 감염능 획득에 관한 실험내용이 기록돼 있다. 또 실험결과에서는 일부 유전자변이로 사람을 포함한 포유류에 감염될 위험성이 기존 생각해 왔던 것보다 높은 것으로 나타났다. Nature 편집부 발표제한은 무의미, 연구자 권리 보호해야 NSABB는 2건의 논문 관계자에게 A/H5N1 유전자변화의 구체적인 기술의 삭제와 함께 변화 위치에 관한 보고서와 실험시설 직원 및 일반시민의 A/H5N1에 대한 보호대책에 대해서도 자세한 설명을 내놓을 것을 주문했다. 이에 대해 Nature는 공식사이트에서 "아직 발표되지도 않은 논문이라도 이미 여러 연구자가 본 상태"라며 발표 제한은 무의미한 처사라고 밝혔다. 편집장인 필립 캠벨 박사는 "이번 NASBB의 권고는 이레적인 일"이라며 연구자의 연구활동에 나쁜 영향을 주지 않을까 우려하고 있다. 또 NSABB에 대해 연구자가 논문에서 삭제된 부분의 정보에 접근할 수 있는 제도 마련을 요구했다. Science 편집장 역시 이같은 성명서를 발표했다.

Scientists working with avian influenza are concerned about a recent decision by the U.S. government to ask two scientific journals to withhold portions of a controversial study.

A panel of biosecurity experts advised the U.S. government to object to the publication of portions of two studies that showed how the H5N1 avian flu virus could be made more transmissable to humans. They are also considering that the government recommend that researchers and journals be asked to agree to a short-term moratorium on publishing any similar work, according to TheStar.com.

Researchers fear that it may become more difficult to publish any work aimed at answering one of the key questions in influenza science, specifically how viruses that normally infect other species evolve to become viruses that infect humans. In the short term, many believe it could become harder to publish work relating to this question if it touches H5N1.

Paul Keim, an anthrax expert who is currently the acting chair of the National Science Advisory Board on Biosecurity, said that scientists, policy makers and public health officials need to come to an agreement on how much of such work is safe to put in the public domain.

“A short-term publication moratorium is not essential for this, but I think that it would be useful,” Keim said, TheStar.com reports. "We know that there is a lot of research occurring in this specific area and with every paper, the situation changes. Setting policy in such an environment is difficult and it is hard enough already.”

It remains unclear as to whether the board will recommend that the government ask for a moratorium. It is also far from certain how the journals would respond to such a request. The journals Science and Nature, both involved in the current controversy, have indicated that they are willing to discuss some kind of compromise.

태양의 중력에 빨려들어가지 않고 스쳐지나가다니 굉장하다! 지름 500m 라는 크지만 작은 크기로 이러한 현상이 가능한 것은 굉장한 속도 때문이겠죠?


태양을 그야말로 '스쳐지나가는' ! 굉장함을 보여주는 혜성 Lovejoy 

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/comet-lovejoy.html 
Comet Lovejoy survives its encounter with the sun. The comet is seen here exiting from behind the right side of the sun, after an hour of travel through its closest approach to the sun. By tracking how the comet interacts with the sun's atmosphere, the corona, and how material from the tail moves along the sun's magnetic field lines, solar scientists hope to learn more about the corona. This movie was filmed by the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) in 171 Angstrom wavelength, which is typically shown in yellow. Credit: NASA/SDO 



태양의 코로나를 지나 살아나온 혜성 Lovejoy. 예성 핵의 지름을 100 - 200 m 로 예상 했으나, perihelion 근일점 이후 핵의 지름이 이보다 큰 500 m 정도라고 예상 됨. 상당히 밝음 - 금성의 밝기와 유사.

C/2011 W3 (Lovejoy) is a periodic comet, classified as a Kreutz Sungrazer. It was discovered on 27 November 2011, by amateur astronomer Terry Lovejoy.^[2] The comet's periheliontook it through the Sun's corona on 16 December 2011 at 00:35 UTC,^[1] as it passed approximately 140,000 kilometres (87,000 mi) above the Sun's surface.^[3] It was not expected to survive the encounter, but the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO), as well as other Sun-monitoring spacecraft, observed the comet emerge from the corona intact.^[4][5][6]

Before perihelion, the comet nucleus of Lovejoy was estimated to be between 100 and 200 metres (330 and 660 ft) in diameter, but after surviving perihelion it has been estimated that the nucleus was larger, as much as 500 m (1,600 ft) before the passage through the corona.^[6] At its brightest the comet had an apparent magnitude of around –4^[7] (about as bright as the planet Venus). It is the brightest sungrazing comet ever observed by SOHO,^[8]

STEREO-A sequence of Comet Lovejoy approaching the Sun  
태양을 향하는 Comet Lovejoy  


 
SDO witnesses Comet Lovejoy survive the Sun's corona   
태양의 코로나를 살아 통과한 ! Comet Lovejoy 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C/2011_W3_(Lovejoy)   



http://ipv6.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/multimedia/gallery/iss030e015479.html 
ISS030-E-015479 (22 Dec. 2011) --- Comet Lovejoy is visible near Earth’s horizon in this nighttime image photographed by NASA astronaut Dan Burbank, Expedition 30 commander, onboard the International Space Station on Dec. 22, 201 




태양에 가까워지는 Comet 혜성 Lovejoy 
   
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/multimedia/gallery/ 

일본의 아픈 모습이 보이면서도 보이지 않는다. 애써 피해를 감추려는 모습에 정당하지 않다는 분노를 느끼기도 했고 이제는 슬픔과 아픔을 무디게 받아들이려는 모습 같아 안쓰럽기도하다. 일본에 대해 아는 바가 많지 않은 나에게 이렇게 비추어지는 일본의 모습 - 막상 일본에 살고 있는 사람들의 마음과 생각은 어떠할까. 정작 태연할까, 상상 이상으로 아플까, 모르겠다 - 안타깝다. 
아픈데 무표정으로 나으려 애쓰면서 무던한 척 하는 듯 한 인상, '괜찮아?'라고 물으면 툭하고 울음을 터트릴 것 같은 일본 .. 괜찮아?

 

[강상중칼럼]‘3·11’ 이후 일본, 어디로 가고 있나

강상중 | 도쿄대학 대학원·정보학환 교수

http://news.khan.co.kr/kh_news/khan_art_view.html?artid=201111172109495&code=990000 

 
3월11일, 동일본을 덮친 대지진과 거대한 쓰나미, 그리고 원전사고는 일본의 형상을 바꾸려 하고 있다. 즉 자연의 형상, 국가의 형상, 사회의 형상, 또한 사람들이 갖는 가치의 형상도 바뀌려 하고 있는 것이다. 아무리 ‘복구’라는 방식으로 과거를 재현하려 해도 일본은 더이상 ‘어제의 세계’로 돌아갈 수 없을 것이다. 

그렇지만, 일본의 형상이 바뀐다해도 그것이 어떤 형상이 될 것인지, 그 누구도 이 모호한 윤곽을 파악하고 있지는 않다. 이런 의미에서 현재 일본은 혼돈의 한가운데 있다고 할 수 있다. 여러 가능성이 있는 동시에 일말의 가능성조차 차단된 것처럼 보인다.  
그렇다면 누가 일본을 이런 심각한 혼돈에 빠뜨렸던 것인가. 미증유의 지진, 쓰나미로 인한 피해인가? 그 뿐이라면 거대한 부흥수요가 일어나 ‘한국(전쟁)특수’에 의해 전후(戰後)의 혼돈에서 벗어났듯이 재건은 비교적 용이하게 진행될 것 아닌가. 굳이 ‘3·11’이라는 호칭을 쓸 필요도 없을 터이다.

일본을 혼돈에 빠뜨린 것은 원전사고가 초래한 눈에 보이지 않는 심각한 영향이다. 체르노빌 원전사고를 상회하는 방사능의 확산은, 과거 미나마타병을 넘는 규모로, 먹이사슬을 통한 방사능 오염을 열도 전체에 확산시키고 있다. 오염정도와 심각성, 확산에 지역적 편차가 있다고는 하지만 생활 일체를 잃을 수 있는 파국이 다가올지 모른다는 바닥없는 공포와 불안의 그림자가 국민들에게 조용히 드리우고 있다. 더구나 후쿠시마 제1원전의 주변지역과 주민에게는 죽음의 위협에 떠는 암흑의 ‘자연상태(인간본성 그대로의 생존상태)’로 추락하는 듯한 느낌이 엄습하고 있는 것 아닐까.

확실히 예전에도 마찬가지의 경험이 있었다. 패전이다. 국가와 그 중추가 붕괴하고, 수많은 국민이 목숨을 잃었다. 국토가 초토화하고, 모든 것이 혼돈상태에 빠져 있었다. 하지만 당시의 ‘자연상태’는 어떤 의미에서 한없이 밝았고, 일본 국민은 사상처음으로 ’자유’라는 신선한 공기를 느낄 수 있었던 것이다. 전후 ‘무뢰파(無賴派)’ 작가인 사카구치 안고(坂口安吾)가 ‘타락하라, 좀더 타락하라’(<타락론>)고 외친 것도 무한히 밝은, 미래에 대한 희망이 솟아오르고 있었기 때문이다. 얼마 안 가 일본은 미국의 점령정책의 큰 전환과 체제변화, ‘한국특수’, 거대한 노동력의 배출 등에 힙입어 경제대국으로 소생했다.

하지만 ‘3·11’ 이후에 이런 낙관적인 전망은 없다. 아무리 국민동원 ‘캠페인’으로 ’간바레 닛폰(힘내라 일본)’과 ‘일본은 하나’라는 슬로건이 미디어를 통해 흘러나와도 ‘억조일심(億兆一心)’으로 일본을 똘똘 뭉치도록 하는 내셔널리즘이 확산되지는 않는다. 국가와 국민간의 거리가 멀어지고 있기 때문이다.

국가불신. ‘3·11’이 일본국민에게 가져다준 영향에서 가장 큰 것은 국가에 대한 뿌리깊은 불신감이 아닐까. 토머스 홉스가 말한 의미의 ‘자연상태’에 종지부를 찍고 질서와 안녕을 가져다주는 안식처가 아니라 오히려 ‘자연상태’를 만들어내는 원흉이 되고 있는 것 아닐까. 이런 불신감이 만연하고 있는 것이다. 

국가에 대한 뿌리깊은 불신감은 패전 당시에도 분출했다. 그러나 점령군과 그 지배하에서 부활한 ‘전후국체(戰後國體)’하에서 전후부흥과 경제성장에 대한 구심력으로 빠르게 대체되면서 국가와 국민의 일체화가 얼마안가 회복됐다. 

그러나 ‘3·11’의 원전사고에서는 국가중추가 너덜너덜하게 이완되는 미증유의 사태가 초래됐다. 원전사고 이후 8개월, 정부와 도쿄전력의 발표를 그대로 받아들이는 국민은 거의 없다시피 할 정도로 신뢰가 땅에 떨어졌다. 사고처리에서도 동일본의 주민은 불안과 염려를 끌어안은 채로 있다. 지금까지 어떤 국가와 국민도 경험하지 못한, 대량의 방사능에 의한 장기오염이라는 문명사적인 위기상황에서 일본은 그 국가적 무능력을 죄다 드러내면서 국민의 생명과 안전을 ‘자연상태’로 방치하고 있는 것이다.

국토의 일부를 불모지로 만들어 다음 세대의 생명을 위기에 노출시킬지 모를 미증유의 ‘예외상태’를 맞아 일본이란 국가는 필사적으로 현상유지에 급급하고 있는 것처럼 보이는 것이다. 때마침, 개혁파 관료 고가 시게아키(古賀茂明)가 발표한 <일본중추의 붕괴>가 베스트셀러가 된 것은 결코 우연이 아니다. 

전후의 산업·수출·통상정책을 책임지는 경제산업성의 엘리트인 고가가 국가적인 파탄의 내막을 내부에서 폭로한 것이다. 경제산업성이 경제대국·일본을 리드해온 국가관료제의 중추에 있고, 원자력에너지를 추진해온 관청이라는 점은 사태의 심각성을 웅변하고 있다. ‘국책민영’이라는 말로 대표되듯 국가와 기업과 대학·연구기관, 지역을 포섭하는 거대한 원자력에너지 이익 시스템은 국가중추의 핵심 그 자체였다. 

<일본중추의 붕괴>는 그것을 책임진 일본판 ‘노멘클라투라’(소수특권층)의 장치, 이에 달라붙은 정치가 등 국가중추의 이익배분 시스템과 그 붕괴를 고발하고 있다. 이렇듯 일본 국민의 눈앞에는 전후 경제적 기적의 주역인 자민당을 중심으로 한 이른바 ‘55년 체제’이지만 그 체내에 제도적 피로를 끌어있고 있다. 

확실히, 민주당 주도의 정권교체는 체제 개혁의 호기로 기대됐다. 하토야마 유키오(鳩山由紀夫) 전 총리는, ‘일본의 고르바초프’가 될 가능성이 있었다. 그러나, 하토야마 정권은 정치소극(笑劇)을 연출한 뒤 일찌감치 무대 뒤로 사라졌다. 그리고, 전전(戰前) ‘의회제 데모크라시’ 좌초의 최초의 희생자인 하마구치 오사시(浜口雄幸)가 개탄한 것 같은 상황과 흡사해지고 있다. 

일본의 정치가 ‘멜트다운’되듯 녹아버려 어디에 중심이 있는지 조차 모를 정도가 되고 있다. 이는 노다 요시히코(野田佳彦) 내각이 들어선 이후에도 근본적으로 바뀌지는 않았다. 이미 정권지지율이 40%대로 급속히 하락하고 있는 것을 봐도 분명하다.

여기서 떠오르는 것은 제국수도 도쿄를 덮친 대지진의 여파로 6000명의 조선인과 무정부주의자 등이 학살당하는 등 근대 일본사상 대참사로 기록된 간토(關東)대지진과 그 후의 역사이다. 간토대지진 이후 일본에는 입헌정우회와 입헌민정당이라는 양대정당에 의한 정당정치가 정착하는 것처럼 보였다. 하지만 부패와 항쟁으로 날을 지새는 정당정치는 쇼와(昭和) 공황에서 세계공황으로 이어지는 경제적 파탄과 함께 극우테러및 군부반란을 유발해 만주사변을 기점으로 사실상 군부지배라는 거친물결에 휩쓸려 사라지고 만다. 

역사가 똑같이 되풀이되지는 않지만 정우회를 자민당, 민정당을 민주당으로 바꿔 생각하면, ‘3·11’이후 명백해진 정당정치의 기능부전이라는 최악의 상황은 만주사변 전후의 일본과 흡사하다. 게다가 대지진과 지금도 계속되고 있는 방사능 오염, 유럽을 뒤덮은 금융파탄의 사슬과 기축통화국인 미국의 국채·달러 폭락 등 과거의 재난및 이후 역사와 판박은 듯한 ‘광란노도’의 물결이 밀어닥치고 있다. 

물론 지금 일본에는 (과거) 군부와 같은 독단적인 무장집단은 존재하지 않고, 자위대도 문민통제하에 있다. 일본을 둘러싼 국제환경도 당시와 비교할 수 없을 정도로 변해 있다. 일본이 다시 무력으로 해외팽창하는 상황은 주체적·객관적으로 존재하지 않는다. 

다만 그럼에도 불구하고, ‘3·11’ 이전으로 일본의 국력을 되돌리고, ‘전후데모크라시’를 일신해 ‘포스트 전후체제’의 형태를 만들려는 역학이 작동할 가능성은 남아있다. 만주사변 전후 ‘국가개조’의 슬로건 하에 혁신관료와 혁신파막료에 의한 국가통제형 신체제가 모색됐던 것처럼 ‘전후’라는 낱말 자체를 지워버리고, 헌법을 바꾸고 권력의 중심을 국민에서 국가로 옮기려는 역학이 커질 가능성이 전혀 없는 것은 아니다. 

지난 20년에 걸친 경제침체 및 중핵도시의 지반침하와 함께, 높은 자살률, 저출산·고령화와 고용불안, 막다른 길에 몰린 사회보장과 연금제도 등 수많은 사회불안을 끌어안은 일본에서는 특히 도시권에서 사회의 원자화(아토마이제이션)가 진행되면서 유권자의 정치적 폐색감이 점차 깊어지고 있다. 그 불만을 해소해줄 것으로 기대됐던 정권교체도 혼란을 깊게 할 뿐으로, 대변되지 않은 유권자의 분개는 포퓰리스트적인 ‘갈채 정치’에서 활로를 찾으려 하고 있다. 

가령 오사카(大阪), 나고야(名古屋), 도쿄라는 일본의 중핵도시권이 이같은 ‘보수혁명’의 주요 공명판이 될 경우 그외 지역과의 알력은 점차 커지지 않을 수 없게 될 것이다. 이는 일본열도가 ‘패자’지대와 ‘승자’지대로 갈라지고, 인구유출과 산업공동화, 재정파탄에 몰린 지역에 대한 포기가 진행되는 한편으로 오사카·나고야·도쿄 등을 중심으로 하는 부유 도시지대가 국가의 자원배분에 패권적인 영향력을 행사하는 사태를 가리킨다.

물론 도시권에서는 다양한 저항과 반대의 움직임이 격화되고 계층간 격차가 얽히면서 보수혁명적인 ‘국가개조’로 똑바로 돌진하지는 못할 것이다. 그러나, 오사카·나고야의 포퓰리즘적인 ‘갈채의 정치’가 국정으로 파급될 가능성도 있다. 

이런 ‘국가개조’ 움직임의 모멘텀이 된 것은 환태평양경제동반자협정(TPP)의 참가다. TPP가 만약 실현되면 농업과 지역산업, 중소영세기업에 의존해온 지방도시와 지역의 급속한 쇠퇴가 진행될 것임에 틀림없다. 이와 달리 경쟁력이 있는 지역과 산업분야는, 글로벌화의 혜택을 더 향유하게 될 것이다. 

이는 ‘분열하는 일본’을 의미하는 것으로, 분열을 봉합하기 위해서도 내셔널리즘이라는 접착제가 역할을 하게 될지 모른다. 그 내셔널리즘의 대외출구가 되는 것이 중국이다. 구 대장성 관료이자 <1940년 체제>의 분석으로도 알려져 있는 노구치 유키오(野口悠紀雄)가 지적한 대로 환태평양협정은 중국봉쇄를 노린 새로운 경제블록화의 움직임이다. 일본에서는 지금 한·중·일과 아세안을 중심으로 하는 동아시아공동체구상은 쇠퇴하고 있고, 중국의 경제력과 패권의 확대를 저지하려는 대중방위·안보의 구상이 대두하고 있다. 동아시아에서 자유무역협정(FTA) 네트워크가 확대돼 역내의 무역·투자·기술협력을 추진하고 이를 밖으로 펼쳐가는 동아시아공동체구상은 멀어져가고 있다. 

한국에게 우호적인 한·일관계는 결정적으로 중요하지만 경제·안보면에서 원활한 한·중관계도 불가결하다. 대미관계라는 중요한 양국관계를 토대로 건설적인 대중·대일관계를 구축하는 것은 한국과 한반도 평화와 번영에 중요하다는 점은 말할 필요도 없다. 그러기 위해서는 지금까지 살펴본 것 같은 일본의 변화를 확실히 지켜볼 필요가 있다.

신났오용 

무아지경 

2층에서 촬영

차를 팔고 자전거를 산지 곧 4개월이다. 교통수단으로 이용하는 자전거는 생활에 기대 이상의 긍정적인 기운을 더한다. 생활에 운동이 자연스럽게 접목되는 것은 물론. 자동차로 시작하는 하루와 자전거로 시작하는 하루의 아침은 굉장한 차이가 있다. 몸을 움직이면서 바람을 받으며 수업을 향하는 아침은 너무나 상쾌 - 운전 할 시 신호등 불이 변하기를 기다리며 커피를 마시며 피곤함을 되뇌이는 아침이 전혀 그립지 않다. 이렇게 자전거는 신체적으로 정신적으로 긍정적인 에너지를 더한다. 
차가 그리운 때는 멀리 가고 싶을 때에 - 한국만큼 대중교통이 많고 편리 할 수 없는 미국인지라 차가 없으면 장거리 이동이 어렵다. 등산을 자주 못 간다는 것이 가장 아쉽다. 또한 장을 볼 때에 짐을 많이 실을 수 없어 불편했으나 패니어를 사용하면 편리하다.
시애틀은 자전거를 타기에 참 좋다. 비가 많이 오지만 비를 피할 수 있는 장비들이 충분하다. 방수 가방, 자켓, 바지, 방수 헬멧 커버 등 으로 비를 피할 수 있다. 물론 비를 맞지만 대수롭지 않다. 사실상 한국에서 방수 장비로 무장하고 자전거를 탈 사람들은 많지 않을 것이다. 하지만 시애틀은 워낙 자전거 인구가 많다보니 스판덱스 전신 쫄 의상에 헬멧만 쓰고다녀도 이상 할 것이 없다. 

나를 기다리는 자전거 

자전거 거치대 시설이 불편함 없을 정도로 많다. 묶여진 다른 사람들의 자전거를 보는 재미도 제법있다.

넘어진 자전거 

자전거 라이트 새벽 6시 

비 내린 시애틀의 거리, 도난이 많다
. 

방수 가방과 방수 패니어