Hello Gerry

On 07/27/05, you wrote:

> How so? Again, I think we may not be talking about Gnosticism in the
> same way. A similar verse to the one you mention can also be found
> in what are clearly Gnostic texts, but what exactly is the good news
> that is preached? For that matter, and it would be interesting to
> get Mike and Terje's input here, I'm not so sure that one can simply
> go out and convert the masses in a Gnostic sense. No doubt, one can
> preach a good sermon, and even leave people with something to think
> about which may help their own awakening, but Gnosticism isn't
> exactly something that can be proselytized.

You can teach about gnosticism and even the way to it, but you cannot
really preach about its content, that must be experienced.

Regards
--
Mike Leavitt  ac998_@_lafn._org  remove -'s

Hello pmcvflag

On 07/25/05, you wrote:

> Gerry is overly humble. Let me state for the record that I have
> taken his observations over people who actually technically
> ARE "linguists" by trade.
>
> PMCV
>
> --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@y...> wrote:
>>
>> --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "marinas_snake"
>> <marinas_snake@y...> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Gerry, are you a linguist?
>>>
>>> Marina
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> A Linguist?  No, Marina.  I was raised a Methodist.
>>
>> Well, I was going to extend my facetious abuse of that term to a
>> long
>> spiel on glossolalia, but even as waggish as I feel at the moment,
>> it
>> is actually my fatigue that is winning out.  Let me just admit
>> that I
>> do have a peculiar interest (i.e., geeky fascination) when it
>> comes
>> to languages.  Nothing of a professional nature though.
>>
>> Gerry

At least we can't accuse him of ego inflation. :-)

Regards
--
Mike Leavitt  ac998_@_lafn._org  remove -'s

Hello pmcvflag

On 07/25/05, you wrote:

> The reason you find less of this in Wicca, is that Wicca is a very
> modern religion with modern lingo. However, you may be interested to
> know that the modern inventer of Wicca was indirectly influenced by
> Gnosticism (or maybe directly). That is not to say it is a form of
> Gnosticism, it definately is not.

Gerald Gardner and Stephan Höeller were very close friends, at least
for a while.

Regards
--
Mike Leavitt  ac998_@_lafn._org  remove -'s

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, felix <fe1ix@e...> wrote:
>
>
> Naaa... I'm 66 years old. I am doesn't read much any more
> except for the little bit of research I do on the internet.
> I grew up a bookworm. and literally read most of the books
> in the high school library, and might have made a small dent
> in several university libraries. The last book I bought and read
clean through was Why God Won't Go Away. One of my
> favorite books in recent years was Metaphors We Live By.
>

Well, if you haven't read Bloom's book, you may well enjoy it.  The
problem with his assertions, as I understand them from other critics,
is that his definition of Gnosticism is far too broad to make his
conclusions at all valuable.  I think his objectives would make
perfect sense if the point of Gnosticism were indeed to stress a goal
of subjective individualism, but this is simply not the case.  What
he describes as a population bent on having a personal relationship
with a loving God seems less like Gnosticism to me, and more like a
whitewashing of one's demiurge.  While I disagree with his ultimate
findings, I think some of the observations themselves are certainly
valid.  It seems to me that American society has been fracturing into
a mosaic of self-centered solipsists for decades now.  There's just
no need to label us a population of "Gnostics" *because* of that.

>
> > > In my opinion, the "good news" is one's own gospel told
> > in one's own voice. I don't think it's done to convert
> > anybody  but oneself. Similar perhaps to auto-psychiatry.
>
> > If one's own gospel told in one's own voice were meant to
> > convert nobody but oneself, why would one be asked to go
> > out into the world and preach it?  Seems to me the world
> > is full enough of lunatics as it is.  ;-)
>
> Why would one go to therapy for years and pay somebody
> thousands and thousands of dollars to be they friend? Do you think
people do that to save the world or themselves?
>
> I seem convinced in some way that homo sapiens can only
> perceive their own opinion of the world, and only then what
> they have been taught to perceive by the other. What does it
> matter who we use for a mirror? Does kindness dictate the
> use of a stranger for this?
>

Are we talking about the psychiatric profession now, or the original
question of evangelists?  If the former, then I would say that people
respond in different ways.  Some are better able to discuss the
intimate details of their psyches with a complete stranger, while
others could never entertain the thought of it.  As for preaching,
however, I don't see how this relates to using someone for a mirror.
A person could run his personal ideas past others for feedback in far
more constructive ways than preaching them.  Of course, this still
assumes that the gospel being spread is uniquely individualized,
which still strikes me as being virtually antithetical to Gnosticism.

>
> Sure, so would making the judgement that making a judgement
> that we should or should not make judgements.


Not really.  My comment wasn't based on the assumption that there was
anything inherently wrong with judging in the first place.  In fact,
my examples were meant to portray the value of judgements.


> As for the cruciality of our well-being I might resort to the old
> NLP nag... "Well being? According to whom?" LOL
>

Oh my, we haven't dragged the NLP proponents in here for some time
now, but even if we did entertain a few word games, I suspect that
even they would find that getting flattened by a Semi because someone
didn't take the time to judge the safety of crossing the road *could*
be characterized as having negatively impacted that person's physical
well-being.  Yes, absolutely!

>
> I'd have to be a billionaire to live in that traffic in the
> Triangle. I haven't been to that section of the Outer Banks
> very often. Wrightsville and Topsail are much closer. Sand
> is sand. Went to ECU with a couple of Basnight's from that
> area. They seemed charming enow, but distant for some reason.
>
> felix


I could probably stand to underbid you as far as living in the
Triangle, but the outrageous traffic *has* kept me from moving back
there as well.  The alma mater for most of my family was ECU, but I
broke tradition and became the black sheep by going to Chapel Hill.
My father would have been 67 back in May, so I have to ask if you
knew any brothers from Kappa Sigma Nu while you were there?  (He
might well have been instrumental in getting that house closed down
for a time.)  At any rate, my grandmother could certainly tell some
tales on the Basnight kids, but I'm sure the Senator wouldn't
appreciate it much today!

Gerry

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 11:17:09 -0800
Mike Leavitt <ac998@...> wrote:

> Hello felix
>
> On 07/26/05, you wrote:
>
> > For me, all the same principles are present in
> Bartlett's > Book of Quotations as in any of the old
> scriptures. I don't > seem all that sure those scriptures
> didn't exist then for > the same purposes Bartlett's
> serves now.
>
> So you have never seen a Bartlett's bible? :-))

I read somewhere yesterday there are 28,000 books a year
published in the US alone. I have "never seen" most of them.
I'll live...

Tell me about Bartlett's bible.

felix
http://www.livejournal.com/users/fe1ix/

Hello pmcvflag

On 07/25/05, you wrote:

> The reason you find less of this in Wicca, is that Wicca is a very
> modern religion with modern lingo. However, you may be interested to
> know that the modern inventer of Wicca was indirectly influenced by
> Gnosticism (or maybe directly). That is not to say it is a form of
> Gnosticism, it definately is not.

Gerald Gardner and Stephan Höeller were very close friends, at least
for a while.

Regards
--
Mike Leavitt  ac998_@_lafn._org  remove -'s

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 20:19:56 -0000
"Gerry" <gerryhsp@...> wrote:


> I think some of the observations themselves are certainly
> valid.  It seems to me that American society has been
> fracturing into a mosaic of self-centered solipsists for
> decades now. There's just no need to label us a
> population of "Gnostics" *because* of that.

I like it. "a mosaic of self-centered solipsists."


> Are we talking about the psychiatric profession now, or
> the original question of evangelists?  If the former,
> then I would say that people respond in different ways.
> Some are better able to discuss the intimate details of
> their psyches with a complete stranger, while others
> could never entertain the thought of it.  As for
> preaching, however, I don't see how this relates to using
> someone for a mirror.  A person could run his personal
> ideas past others for feedback in far more constructive
> ways than preaching them.  Of course, this still assumes
> that the gospel being spread is uniquely individualized,
> which still strikes me as being virtually antithetical to
> Gnosticism.

Maybe the original question of the evangelists was the same
as the psychiatrists. I doubt human nature has changed that
much. The stuff these people were attempting to communicate
still exists in oral tradition. It's called hope. The only
thing for sale in the entire world. ;-)

>
> I could probably stand to underbid you as far as living
> in the Triangle, but the outrageous traffic *has* kept me
> from moving back there as well.  The alma mater for most
> of my family was ECU, but I broke tradition and became
> the black sheep by going to Chapel Hill.  My father would
> have been 67 back in May, so I have to ask if you knew
> any brothers from Kappa Sigma Nu while you were there?
> (He might well have been instrumental in getting that
> house closed down for a time.)  At any rate, my
> grandmother could certainly tell some tales on the
> Basnight kids, but I'm sure the Senator wouldn't
> appreciate it much today!

No, sorry, I wasn't much of a frat boy. I was a sleazy drama
major. They had pretty girls there, and the drama department
taught dreaming and stalking. There was some sort of
Basnight connection with the outdoor drama there.

felix
http://www.livejournal.com/users/fe1ix/

Hey Felix, I am just catching up on all the conversation.

I, like Gerry, instantly thought about Harold Bloom. And one
statement you said added to that perception...

>>>"I seem convinced in some way that homo sapiens can only
perceive their own opinion of the world, and only then what
they have been taught to perceive by the other. What does it
matter who we use for a mirror? Does kindness dictate the
use of a stranger for this?"<<<

... since Harold was a student of Jonas, an Existentialist ;)

Anyway, I am also curious exactly where we could see any connection
between Gnosticism and modern Protestant thought. Keep in mind that
this particular group uses a rather strict historical definition of
the word "Gnosticism". I would be curious to see anyone attempt an
outline that draws any philosophical connection between one
particular Sethian text (for instance) and the doctrine of the
Baptist church (another random instance). It could be an interesting
conversation.

PMCV

Mike

>>"Gerald Gardner and Stephan Höeller were very close friends, at least
for a while."<<

Interesting, I didn't know that. I wonder if Crowley had anything to do
with the falling out?

PMCV

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:31:55 -0000
pmcvflag <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

>
> Anyway, I am also curious exactly where we could see any
> connection between Gnosticism and modern Protestant
> thought. Keep in mind that this particular group uses a
> rather strict historical definition of the word
> "Gnosticism". I would be curious to see anyone attempt an
> outline that draws any philosophical connection between
> one particular Sethian text (for instance) and the
> doctrine of the Baptist church (another random instance).
> It could be an interesting conversation.

Probably none at all. Just a hunch. It has to do with
preaching. Lotta preachers down here. With churches or no.

This has to do with the effect a charismatic orator has on
their audience whether in religious settings, political
settings, or the spontaneous eruption of a mob in response
to a talented rabblerouser. The dynamics of how this happens
interests me.

To amuse myself, I am contemplating presently is how
pervasive this human tendency to go into a conversion state
is on a universal scale using lemming as a model. '-)

There is something quite strange about the idea of large
groups of human males crashing into each other with
murderous weapons. Why would they do that? It seems obvious
to me such behavior springs from our genetic code. That's a
priori speculation too. Never get past peer review. LOL

Hexagram 16 of the Wilhelm/Baynes translation of the I Ching suggests that if
one could learn the secrets of enthusiasm
they could rule the world as if it were spinning in the palm
of they hand.  I sense those secrets has something to do
with oratory. "In the bejinning was the Word..."

felix
http://www.livejournal.com/users/fe1ix/

Felix

>>>"Probably none at all. Just a hunch. It has to do with
preaching. Lotta preachers down here. With churches or no."<<

Do you then feel that Gnostics had a method of "preaching" in
similar to modern Christian churches? I suppose I could see it in a
way, in as much as Plato could also be called a "preacher".

>>"This has to do with the effect a charismatic orator has on
their audience whether in religious settings, political
settings, or the spontaneous eruption of a mob in response
to a talented rabblerouser. The dynamics of how this happens
interests me."<<<

It interests me as well. I do think it is noteworthy though, that
Gnostic groups were generally not built around personalities.. in
spite of the accusations of the heresiologists. Or let me put that
more accurately; while there were probably individual groups that
could be found as examples of "personality cults", we actually have
no Gnostic texts that seem to really exhibit this behavior in any
extreme way. This seems in contrast to modern Christianity.

>>>"To amuse myself, I am contemplating presently is how
pervasive this human tendency to go into a conversion state
is on a universal scale using lemming as a model. '-)"<<

Again, I can't disagree. And again, I am trying to understand where
the point relates to Gnosticism. We are not exactly talking about
groups known for gaining converts.

>>>"There is something quite strange about the idea of large
groups of human males crashing into each other with
murderous weapons. Why would they do that? It seems obvious
to me such behavior springs from our genetic code. That's a
priori speculation too. Never get past peer review. LOL"<<<

Strange indeed... and not relegated to males (though certainly
seemingly more common in them). Yet again... not aware of any
Gnostic group that ever had any part in these kinds of activities...
but I am sure there must be individual cases not recorded.

I remain slightly confused here. I am wondering if perhaps you have
some slightly wider usage of the term "Gnosticism" than the word is
used in more technical circles... and perhaps you have some specific
groups in mind that would not readily strike me as "Gnostic"?

PMCV

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 00:15:28 -0000
pmcvflag <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> I remain slightly confused here. I am wondering if
> perhaps you have some slightly wider usage of the term
> "Gnosticism" than the word is used in more technical
> circles... and perhaps you have some specific groups in
> mind that would not readily strike me as "Gnostic"?

I doubt very seriously that anything I have to say would
alleviate whatever confusion you might have. The groups I
have participated in arose spontaneously and without
aforethought. They dissipate without plans for the future.

felix
http://www.livejournal.com/users/fe1ix/

Felix...

>>>"I doubt very seriously that anything I have to say would
alleviate whatever confusion you might have. The groups I
have participated in arose spontaneously and without
aforethought. They dissipate without plans for the future."<<<

Perhaps you have not noticed, but this group has been here more than
half a decade (the related groups have been here closer to a whole
decade... and the focus groups we deal with are from 10 centuries
ago). Of course, there have been many who have come with self
important thoughts of teaching the rest of us how things are to be
understood.... but the simple question has generaly remained as to
whether they understood the questions within the framework of
historical Gnosticism. One can rework the qustions all they wish,
but before they even start we have sent a letter to all who join
this group, that the focus is HISTORICAL Gnosticism. Is that also an
interest of yours??? or not???

Hey, I have nothing against personal interperative methods, but if
one has no interest in traditional Gnosticism, what are they doing
here?

Can you please answer the questions I have tried to bring up without
sophist rhetoric? It is really a small request. We are talking
about "Gnosticism" as it is historically defined. We are talking
from the POV of people who have been trained in the academic
definition of the term, the people who CREATED the term.... would
you like to add something or not?

Instead of wondering whether you think I understand personally,
wonder instead if you can demonstrate your point. If you think that
Gnosticism without the Logos is valid, then you have already lost
the battle here. Make your choice.... run away or make a point
without sophism.

I AM open to possibilities.... but you better make your point with a
degree of LOGIC.... after all, the LOGOS was important to Gnostics.

PMCV

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 06:56:05 -0000
pmcvflag <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Felix...
>
> >>>"I doubt very seriously that anything I have to say would
> alleviate whatever confusion you might have. The groups I
> have participated in arose spontaneously and without
> aforethought. They dissipate without plans for the future."<<<
>
> Perhaps you have not noticed, but this group has been
> here more than half a decade (the related groups have
> been here closer to a whole decade... and the focus
> groups we deal with are from 10 centuries ago). Of course,
> there have been many who have come with self important
> thoughts of teaching the rest of us how things are to be
> understood.... but the simple question has generaly
> remained as to whether they understood the questions
> within the framework of historical Gnosticism. One can
> rework the qustions all they wish, but before they even
> start we have sent a letter to all who join this group,
> that the focus is HISTORICAL Gnosticism. Is that also an
> interest of yours??? or not???
>
> Hey, I have nothing against personal interperative
> methods, but if one has no interest in traditional
> Gnosticism, what are they doing here?


>
> Can you please answer the questions I have tried to bring
> up without sophist rhetoric? It is really a small request.
> We are talking about "Gnosticism" as it is historically
> defined. We are talking from the POV of people who have
> been trained in the academic definition of the term, the
> people who CREATED the term.... would you like to add
> something or not?
>
> Instead of wondering whether you think I understand
> personally, wonder instead if you can demonstrate your
> point. If you think that Gnosticism without the Logos is
> valid, then you have already lost the battle here. Make
> your choice.... run away or make a point without sophism.
>
> I AM open to possibilities.... but you better make your
> point with a degree of LOGIC.... after all, the LOGOS was
> important to Gnostics.

  I'm sorry, but I don't seem all that sure you're open to
anything but flattery and smarmy compliments for your
superior understanding.

felix
http://www.livejournal.com/users/fe1ix/

Felix...

>>>"I'm sorry, but I don't seem all that sure you're open to
anything but flattery and smarmy compliments for your
superior understanding."<<<

Well, what I said did come out a bit more harsh than I intended it
really... then again, you seem to be the pot calling the kettle
black in this case. You have gone from saying that you doubt I could
ever understand your point, to saying that I am the one who is
pulling an attitude. Go figure.

So, perhaps we should start again? I really AM interested to know
where you are drawing the connections you previously observed. I was
hoping that you could provide some reasoning, some points we could
actually chew on. You seem to be being a little slippery, so... I am
calling "shenanigans". Not meant to put you down in any way, but but
to raise the issue.

PMCV

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 23:36:14 -0000
pmcvflag <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Felix...
>
> >>>"I'm sorry, but I don't seem all that sure you're open to
> anything but flattery and smarmy compliments for your
> superior understanding."<<<
>
> Well, what I said did come out a bit more harsh than I
> intended it really... then again, you seem to be the pot
> calling the kettle black in this case. You have gone from
> saying that you doubt I could ever understand your point,
> to saying that I am the one who is pulling an attitude.
> Go figure.

I wrote what I wrote to find out if you could understand my
point. Thank you for you kind response, I am convinced you
would probably understand any point I might attempt, and
perhaps more.

> So, perhaps we should start again? I really AM interested
> to know where you are drawing the connections you
> previously observed. I was hoping that you could provide
> some reasoning, some points we could actually chew on.
> You seem to be being a little slippery, so... I am
> calling "shenanigans". Not meant to put you down in any
> way, but but to raise the issue.

I guess I didn't realize this was a scholar's list. Now that
I have been so blatantly informed, this doesn't seem like
such a great place for ill-formed personal dialogue.

Even the point I offered in metaphor seems ridiculous now. I meant to suggest
that persons who experience gnosis probably wouldn't get caught dead in the
types of groups you study in any era of history. In my experience it just
doesn't happen
that way. Why would they if they only exist as a loosely
knit "mosaic of self-centered solipsists" who draw straws to decide temporary
leadership? '-)

felix
http://www.livejournal.com/users/fe1ix/

Felix...

>>"I wrote what I wrote to find out if you could understand my
point. Thank you for you kind response, I am convinced you
would probably understand any point I might attempt, and
perhaps more."<<<

Now I think you are blowing smoke up my bottom ;) *lol*. I am not
looking for ego strokes... honest.

>>>"I guess I didn't realize this was a scholar's list. Now that
I have been so blatantly informed, this doesn't seem like
such a great place for ill-formed personal dialogue."<<<

We try to maintain a ballance that looks something like this;
personal dialogue is great and welcome. Academic exchange is also
great and welcome. We try to be clear when we are doing one or the
other. However, it is my personal feeling that anything presented as
a technical point invites question and querries for expanded
conversation. We do get technical sometimes... but most of us are
laypersons who are simply interested to better understand the
meanings intended in the Gnostic writings.

>>"I meant to suggest that persons who experience gnosis probably
wouldn't get caught dead in the types of groups you study in any era
of history. In my experience it just doesn't happen that way. Why
would they if they only exist as a loosely knit "mosaic of self-
centered solipsists" who draw straws to decide temporary
leadership? '-)"<<<

I get where you are comming from. Not to put words in Gerry's mouth,
but it seems to me that he was very much NOT referring to the
Gnostics as a mosaic of self-centered solipsists. Instead, he points
this out as a sort of false equation in Bloom's book. Bloom somehow
got the mistaken impression that the ancient Gnostics were
solipsists, and so he then argues that modern solipsism is a
continuation of the ancient system (at least idiologically).

Let me also point out that the word "Gnosis" never referred to any
specific spiritual "experience" in the traditional usage. Many
people think "gnosis" is synonymous with the mystical experience...
it isn't. I am not sure if that was what you were driving at, but I
just wanted to point that out because it seemed you were hinting at
that direction. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

To go even further, the term Gnosis, as the Gnostics used it,
explicetly relied on understanding the meaning of the texts. As
Thomas says ... "He who finds the interpretation of these sayings
will not taste death". This is not gnosis as some kind of event or
experience, it is Gnosis as a spiritual comprehension that does have
intellectual elements. My point then is to say that gnosis does
include this kind of study within it, so I don't feel it is accurate
to set "gnosis" up as something in opposition to the groups we are
talking about.

I know, you may believe that I point this out for no other reason
than hollow academic curiousity. My real motive lies elsewhere. I
believe there are many preconceptions (misconceptions) being
fostered in popular liturature about "Gnosticism" that is actually
preventing a deeper exploration of the message... the Gnosis... as
it was intended to be communicated in the ancient texts we are
talking about. The Gnostic texts were not generally some kind of
absolute spiritual canon, but they do contain deep philosophical
points that I think historical Gnostics wished to be understood for
their intended meanings. In order to deal with this subject more
deeply, this group is trying to promote an accurate understanding of
exactly what the words, the symbols, the initiatory systems, etc.,
meant in their original context. Besides, why borrow the lingo from
the groups if not to deal with the point of the lingo? One can then
use this info however they wish. Maybe it is useful for some, while
others find it useless. I personally find the liturature quite deep,
and useful beyond academic interest.

PMCV

Hello pmcvflag

On 07/28/05, you wrote:

> Mike
>
>>> "Gerald Gardner and Stephan Höeller were very close friends, at
>>> least
> for a while."<<
>
> Interesting, I didn't know that. I wonder if Crowley had anything to
> do with the falling out?
>
> PMCV

I don't think there was a real falling out, just a gradual
geographical separation.  Stephan still speaks of him warmly.

Regards
--
Mike Leavitt  ac998_@_lafn._org  remove -'s

Hello felix

On 07/28/05, you wrote:

>
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 11:17:09 -0800
> Mike Leavitt <ac998@...> wrote:
>
>> Hello felix
>>
>> On 07/26/05, you wrote:
>>
>>> For me, all the same principles are present in
>> Bartlett's > Book of Quotations as in any of the old
>> scriptures. I don't > seem all that sure those scriptures
>> didn't exist then for > the same purposes Bartlett's
>> serves now.
>>
>> So you have never seen a Bartlett's bible? :-))
>
> I read somewhere yesterday there are 28,000 books a year
> published in the US alone. I have "never seen" most of them.
> I'll live...
>
> Tell me about Bartlett's bible.
>
> felix
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/fe1ix/

I truely hope and pray you didn't take my comment about Bartlett's
Bible seriously.

Regards
--
Mike Leavitt  ac998_@_lafn._org  remove -'s

Hello felix

On 07/28/05, you wrote:

>
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:31:55 -0000
> pmcvflag <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Anyway, I am also curious exactly where we could see any
>> connection between Gnosticism and modern Protestant
>> thought. Keep in mind that this particular group uses a
>> rather strict historical definition of the word
>> "Gnosticism". I would be curious to see anyone attempt an
>> outline that draws any philosophical connection between
>> one particular Sethian text (for instance) and the
>> doctrine of the Baptist church (another random instance).
>> It could be an interesting conversation.
>
> Probably none at all. Just a hunch. It has to do with
> preaching. Lotta preachers down here. With churches or no.

Too much atonement theology.

> This has to do with the effect a charismatic orator has on
> their audience whether in religious settings, political
> settings, or the spontaneous eruption of a mob in response
> to a talented rabblerouser. The dynamics of how this happens
> interests me.

This can happen in gnosticism, it just usually doesn't.

> To amuse myself, I am contemplating presently is how
> pervasive this human tendency to go into a conversion state
> is on a universal scale using lemming as a model. '-)
>
> There is something quite strange about the idea of large
> groups of human males crashing into each other with
> murderous weapons. Why would they do that? It seems obvious
> to me such behavior springs from our genetic code. That's a
> priori speculation too. Never get past peer review. LOL

As good a guess as any.

> Hexagram 16 of the Wilhelm/Baynes translation of the I Ching
> suggests that if one could learn the secrets of enthusiasm they
> could rule the world as if it were spinning in the palm of they
> hand. I sense those secrets has something to do with oratory. "In
> the bejinning was the Word..."

Regards
--
Mike Leavitt  ac998_@_lafn._org  remove -'s

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 03:03:30 -0000
pmcvflag <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Many people think "gnosis" is synonymous with the mystical
> experience... it isn't.

What makes you so sure?

felix
http://www.livejournal.com/users/fe1ix/

Felix...

>>>"What makes you so sure?"<<< (in answer to my claim that "Gnosis"
does not equate with the mystical experience)

Let me correct myself a bit here, I misspoke. Since I did state that
there are people who use this term "Gnosis" synonymously with the
mystical experience, then I can't also state that the word does not
mean that. Obviously for some people it does. The word "Gnosis" has
come to mean quite a few different things to different modern people.
The only time this is a problem is if a person mistakenly believes
that their usage is the same as the one intended by the ancient groups
and texts know as "Gnostic". I am not against the natural changes that
happen in language... I simply think we should try to be aware of them
so we don't misread other usages.

PMCV

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 20:02:58 -0800
Mike Leavitt <ac998@...> wrote:

> Hello felix

> I truely hope and pray you didn't take my comment about
> Bartlett's Bible seriously.

Hi Mike,

I didn't know...  I asked so I wouldn't look any more stupid than I am already
is. lol

felix
http://www.livejournal.com/users/fe1ix/

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 04:08:02 -0000
pmcvflag <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Felix...
>
> >>>"What makes you so sure?"<<< (in answer to my claim
> that "Gnosis" does not equate with the mystical
> experience)
>
> Let me correct myself a bit here, I misspoke. Since I did
> state that there are people who use this term "Gnosis"
> synonymously with the mystical experience, then I can't
> also state that the word does not mean that. Obviously
> for some people it does. The word "Gnosis" has come to
> mean quite a few different things to different modern
> people. The only time this is a problem is if a person
> mistakenly believes that their usage is the same as the
> one intended by the ancient groups and texts know as
> "Gnostic". I am not against the natural changes that
> happen in language... I simply think we should try to be
> aware of them so we don't misread other usages.


I get fairly persnickety about words because I have a
ferocious habit of working crossword puzzles since I was
about six years old. I like crossword puzzles that challenge me. It doesn't take
all that much, but if a puzzle is too
easy it doesn't provide me with the joy of getting stuck.

Enlightenment means enlightenment for me. "Blinded By The
Light" was a very descriptive tune.

I was working a construction job over in Fort Bragg when a
young electrician approached me and ask if we could talk.
His brother and I had previously had brief conversations and it was his
concerned brother that directed this man to me.
He had a problem he didn't gnow what to do about.

He told me of being out in his usual party mood drinking a
few beers with friends when suddenly he was overcome by the
vision of a light. He said he was pretty sure he was the
only one who saw the light. When he mentioned it to his
friends they told him he was just drunk... or crazy. He said
he was sure he hadn't drank enough beer to be drunk, but he
didn't seem so sure about whether he had gone crazy or not.

I tried to assure him that seeing the light was not
necessarily an indication of insanity, that there was a
history of this happening to people and that although it
took some adjustment to get used to it he would be fine. I
knew that wasn't the whole truth. The same thing happened to
a childhood friend who was a musical prodigy and he's still
in the Dorothy Dix Hospital some forty years later.
Enlightenment is a life-threatening situation.

Seeing the white light (as he described it) stripped him of
his belief in wot was sot before him in his upbringing. His
family was not particularly religious. Although I have had
this experience with light many times, I could not comfort
him. He came and talked to me several times. I told him how
I had reacted to this type of experience, but he wasn't
interested in my off-the-wall New Age crap. He told me he
was talking to a preacher who had given him a Bible. He left
the job shortly after informing me of this development, and
I never saw him again. No need. I knew what would happen to
him.

So, I ask you this, would it have made any difference if
instead of the preacher handing him a Bible, a Hindu guru
had handed him the Bhagavad Gita; or a Muslim imam had
handed him a copy of the Koran; or ol' Adolph had handed him a copy of Mein
Kampt; or Mao Tse Tung handed him a 'little red book', would it matter at this
fragile point in his
life?

felix
http://www.livejournal.com/users/fe1ix/

Hello felix

On 07/30/05, you wrote:

>
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 20:02:58 -0800
> Mike Leavitt <ac998@...> wrote:
>
>> Hello felix
>
>> I truely hope and pray you didn't take my comment about
>> Bartlett's Bible seriously.
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> I didn't know... I asked so I wouldn't look any more stupid than I
> am already is. lol
>
> felix
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/fe1ix/

Well it woouldn't be that hard to exxtract all of the Bartlett's
biblical quotations, and voi la, you have the Bartlet's Bible
Quotations, I'm almost surprised no one has done that. :-)

Regards
--
Mike Leavitt  ac998_@_lafn._org  remove -'s

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 14:10:55 -0800
Mike Leavitt <ac998@...> wrote:

> Well it woouldn't be that hard to exxtract all of the
> Bartlett's biblical quotations, and voi la, you have the
> Bartlet's Bible Quotations, I'm almost surprised no one
> has done that. :-)

I wonder if Bartlett's publisher has thought of that. They'd sell a million of
them easy. Good idea!

felix
http://www.livejournal.com/users/fe1ix/

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, felix <fe1ix@e...> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 20:19:56 -0000
> "Gerry" <gerryhsp@y...> wrote:
>
>
> > I think some of the observations themselves are certainly
> > valid.  It seems to me that American society has been
> > fracturing into a mosaic of self-centered solipsists for
> > decades now. There's just no need to label us a
> > population of "Gnostics" *because* of that.
>
> I like it. "a mosaic of self-centered solipsists."
>



Sorry to have contributed to any confusion there, Felix, but I
initially took your response as an equally facetious reply to my
sarcastic comment.  I don't know if it's a struggle for him, but PMCV
has known me long enough to follow my metaphors, possibly as clearly
as those rare times when I manage to speak directly, so I'm glad that
he clarified my actual intent.  By now, he has probably also picked
up on the fact that when I get on a tear about something, I
occasionally burst into spontaneous alliteration (just another clue
that I'm ranting again!).

Indeed, "solipsist" is pretty much a four-letter word for me, so you
won't find me singing their praises.  Coupled with my comments about
the individualization of religious understanding being virtually
antithetical to Gnosticism, I hoped it was readily apparent that I
was still baffled by Bloom's assertions (and confused as to whether
you and I were actually discussing different "gnosticisms").  While I
might have unwittingly succeeded in making egocentrism sound
attractive, I saw it as no different than if I had described
Ignorance in a "blissful" light (IOW, it would still be "Ignorance").

To me, mosaics and stained glass can indeed be quite lovely in their
own right, but when it comes to accurately depicting a given subject
matter, they tend to offer a distorted vision of reality.  The
overall image is "fractured," something we can relate to through the
Gnostic myths.  The borders separating the individual pieces can be a
distraction, and we must learn to look beyond that in order to
appreciate the bigger picture.

To return to a humorous approach, the whole thing reminds me of
something a number of us have encountered and commented on in past
discussions here.  I know *I* first noticed it as a bumper sticker,
and this was the gist of it:

You are a unique individual . . .
Just like everybody else.

I have to believe that the Gnostics of old would have gotten a kick
out of something like that.

Gerry

Hello. Does anyone here have any opinion concerning the Valentinian
exegesis of the Pauline Corpus, as related by the heresiologists? I
just finished Pagel's The Gnostic Paul, and I am curious if anyone
here has anything to say about this topic. Thank you.
                                             Yours, Steve W.

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 13:42:53 -0000
"Gerry" <gerryhsp@...> wrote:

>
>
> Sorry to have contributed to any confusion there, Felix,
> but I initially took your response as an equally
> facetious reply to my sarcastic comment.  I don't know if
> it's a struggle for him, but PMCV has known me long
> enough to follow my metaphors, possibly as clearly as
> those rare times when I manage to speak directly, so I'm
> glad that he clarified my actual intent.  By now, he has
> probably also picked up on the fact that when I get on a
> tear about something, I occasionally burst into
> spontaneous alliteration (just another clue that I'm
> ranting again!).

I understood you were being sarcastic. I still liked the
phrase. I think Wittgenstein would also.

> Indeed, "solipsist" is pretty much a four-letter word for
> me, so you won't find me singing their praises.  Coupled
> with my comments about the individualization of religious
> understanding being virtually antithetical to Gnosticism,
> I hoped it was readily apparent that I was still baffled
> by Bloom's assertions (and confused as to whether you and
> I were actually discussing different "gnosticisms").
> While I might have unwittingly succeeded in making
> egocentrism sound attractive, I saw it as no different
> than if I had described Ignorance in a "blissful" light
> (IOW, it would still be "Ignorance").

I like to play around with words. It's one of my favorite
pastimes. Particularly with the five hundred year old
two-line phrase from Thomas Grey you appear to reference in your comment above.

  "... where ignorance is bliss,
       'tis folly to be wise."

Would not the root word of ignorance be "to ignore"? Could
this not signify that where someone is happy/blissful
ignoring something, then it's foolish to attempt to change
their behavior?

> To me, mosaics and stained glass can indeed be quite
> lovely in their own right, but when it comes to
> accurately depicting a given subject matter, they tend to
> offer a distorted vision of reality.  The overall image
> is "fractured," something we can relate to through the
> Gnostic myths.  The borders separating the individual
> pieces can be a distraction, and we must learn to look
> beyond that in order to appreciate the bigger picture.

Is this some sort of equivalent to Nietzsche's declaration
that "God is dead."? Do you mean to suggest that gnosis no
long occurs among humans, and exists only as myth?

> To return to a humorous approach, the whole thing reminds
> me of something a number of us have encountered and
> commented on in past discussions here.  I know *I* first
> noticed it as a bumper sticker, and this was the gist of
> it:
>
> You are a unique individual . . .
> Just like everybody else.
>
> I have to believe that the Gnostics of old would have
> gotten a kick out of something like that.

Some say the space age evolved from the old Flash Gordon
comic books. Cartoonists rule! ;-)

It's been in the news for a few days that a 10th planet has
been discovered. All the planets discovered since the
invention of the telescope have been given the attributes or meaning of the era
in which they were discovered. For
instance, the attributes of Pluto were assigned due to
events typifying the condition of Earth during the 1930's when it was
discovered. What attributes would you assign to
the new planet that would capture the essence of the early
Millennium, and what nayme would you give it to indicate
such?


felix
http://www.livejournal.com/users/fe1ix/

Hello felix

On 07/31/05, you wrote:

> It's been in the news for a few days that a 10th planet has been
> discovered. All the planets discovered since the invention of the
> telescope have been given the attributes or meaning of the era in
> which they were discovered. For instance, the attributes of Pluto
> were assigned due to events typifying the condition of Earth during
> the 1930's when it was discovered. What attributes would you assign
> to the new planet that would capture the essence of the early
> Millennium, and what nayme would you give it to indicate such?
>
>
> felix
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/fe1ix/

Sleepy?  Don't care? (Somulance, Indifference).

Regards
--
Mike Leavitt  ac998_@_lafn._org  remove -'s