A few concluding remarks. I don't have any problem with descriptions
or labels; they are the only a way we have of communicating. Perhaps I
should have said Home instead of Being; same thing. What I have been
looking for in all of this is the pleasure of thinking in the category
of "spirit." I get a release when I turn my understanding over to the
sway of words and let them have their way. Great fun, very hedonistic!
PS: Sorry about the link; I am not up on the battle between Xtians and
--- In gnosticism2@y..., lady_caritas <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In gnosticism2@y..., "Will Brown" <wilbro99@y...> wrote:
> "Perhaps the difference is that I would say that I am part of
> the Beyond, and that it is not in me other than I am in it, as it is
> the whole; Being."
> Then, Will, considering that the "whole" you are describing
> is "Being," you seem to be describing a temporal concept.
> I tend to view mythology as metaphorical. Whether you are having a
> psychological or pneumatic "cosmic event" is not readily apparent to
> me. I won't put myself in the position of making that determination
> for you.
> I don't see why putting a label on your experience is necessary if
> works for you. We can compare notes until we're blue in the face
> find benefit in doing so, yet whether or not we find a common
> experience does not make one more valid than another. Certainly not
> all Gnostics agree on what makes a "Gnostic," but they most likely
> would agree about the revealing, liberating nature of gnosis.
> BTW, that link you left is a biased, inaccurate Catholic polemical
> piece against Gnosticism. Not my cup o' tea, sorry.