Difference between revisions of "European Grand Narrative"
(Created page with "<blockquote class="definition">The '''European Grand Narrative''' (EGN) is Creation Template that emerged as a consequence of the intellectual/theological activities of Re...") |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
[[European Grand Narrative]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::European Grand Narrative]]}} | [[European Grand Narrative]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::European Grand Narrative]]}} | ||
==Notes== | |||
The EGN is mystified, obscured, and hard to pin down. It "is constituted of no fewer than three macrohistorical models, each with their own implications and internal logic, may have been a weakness theoretically, but could be an advantage in practice. The very ambiguity of the narrative gave it a peculiar flexibility: it allowed authors – provided they possessed sufficient erudition and rhetorical skill – to have recourse to different apologetic strategies at different times or to mix elements taken from all three models, and thereby elude their critics almost forever in a never-ending maze of references to unquestionable authorities."<ref>Hanegraaff, Wouter J. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. p. 11.</ref> | |||
{{endstuff}} | {{endstuff}} | ||
[[category:terms]][[category:lightningpath]][[Is a related term::Esotericism| ]] | [[category:terms]][[category:lightningpath]][[Is a related term::Esotericism| ]] | ||
Revision as of 15:03, 16 September 2021
The European Grand Narrative (EGN) is Creation Template that emerged as a consequence of the intellectual/theological activities of Renaissance elites.[1] The European Grand Narrative consisted of three related variations, Philosophia Perennis, Prisca Theologia, and Pia Philosophia. The EGN has informed esoteric and exoteric spirituality and popular culture since.
Related Terms
European Grand Narrative > Common Core, Perennial Philosophy, Philosophia Perennis, Pia Philosophia, Platonic Orientalism, Prisca Theologia
Notes
The EGN is mystified, obscured, and hard to pin down. It "is constituted of no fewer than three macrohistorical models, each with their own implications and internal logic, may have been a weakness theoretically, but could be an advantage in practice. The very ambiguity of the narrative gave it a peculiar flexibility: it allowed authors – provided they possessed sufficient erudition and rhetorical skill – to have recourse to different apologetic strategies at different times or to mix elements taken from all three models, and thereby elude their critics almost forever in a never-ending maze of references to unquestionable authorities."[2]
