Your explanation of Logic, its history, the factions,
   successfully answered my every question on the matter. You took
   it from a sociohistorical context, placing it nicely within that
   model. Thank you for that.

   My only quibble might be the implications when comparing the
   Gnostic and downfall of the White Faction of logic (I like the
   team-breakdown... very useful for quick comprehension) in the
   "thankfully no one was killed".

   The behavior of humans in the 1950s/60s vs humans in 350/60s is
   a very invalid comparison, most things considered.

   The majority of Gnostics were instead absorbed and folded into
   Christian Orthodoxy, especially the entirety of the hundreds of
   Epicurean communities, transformed into what are now known as
   monasteries: "friendship communities" - NOT so much as a "wiping
   out" of Gnostic thought, but, at the time, considered to be a
   (to use a modern word) "humane" way of transforming Gnostic
   concepts into Christian concepts, leading towards a very
   important part of Eastern Orthodox tradition, Gnosis.

   [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosis

   Which was hinted at by earlier Church Fathers. Origen is a
   fascinating figure, for while he was extraordinarily
   influential, he was not made a Saint precisely because he got
   some of the specifics of his writings dipping his toes into
   Gnosticism a bit too much for the Church, who was really trying
   to nail down the Logic with great precision.

   By the 3rd/4th Century AD, Logic and related disciplines were
   _very_ important things indeed, likely due to the neoPlatonic
   revival and its influence upon the societies of the time.

   The bloodshed that may have ensued in some circles struck me
   likely as political overenthusiasm by political leaders -
   similar to the "Let's bomb 'em all" mentality and not really a
   sanctioned affair. While they strove for a symphony of Church
   and State, they never fulled merged into one, even through the
   centuries of the time caled Byzantium.

   Unless you're speaking of what's called Gnostics in Western
   Christianity in the medieval times. To me, that's
   neo-Gnosticism, or neo-neo-Gnosticism; an attempt at a revival
   of what was, by then, a thousand year old belief system. I find
   that part of the world and its actions rather pathetic and a
   poor example of the right (Orthodox) way to accomplish
   things.... not that Byzantium got much of it right either.
   Separation of Church/State by 18th century fathers of the US
   constitution made a very wise move indeed.

   It's my bias: I also consider the beliefs/words/actions of
   followers of Plato as distinct from the neoPlatonism of the 3rd
   century AD.

   It might be easy to mix them up, but a revival movement is a
   very different thing than the original, especially when a group
   of people decides, "We're gonna do it right, and do it by the
   book". That seems to always lead into trouble for somebody,
   eventually.

References

   Visible links
   1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosis