Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

10109Re: [Gnosticism2] Annie and Jung

Expand Messages
  • annie
    Sep 3, 2004
      When you ask about which books about Gnosticism I've read, I'm assuming you mean modern authors on the subject of gnosticism? If so, then really nothing which has been noted as such so that I would know.  I have read a few articles and sermons on line, but nothing of any significance.  That is why I seem so out of step with your thoughts, and vocabulary, because I haven't addressed gnosticism as far as the philosophy surrounding it.  That's why so many questions, also.
      I have read pretty much all the Nag Hammadi, and that is how I was introduced to the concept of gnosis. Not actually the concept, but the defining of it, as such.  I immediately understood it's character of which it is not just intellectual or emotional knowledge, as it is defined in the lexicon on the groups file page.  That is the primary connection for me, is that way of thinking, because that's been the way I've thought, not the things I've thought about, but the way my head works.  When you talk about initiation, I'm of the understanding that it is maybe the 'crossing of the threshold' into that mode of thinking, but I'm not quite clear on that.  I knew before I joined this group that there are organized gnostic churches, and I read about the some of the practices of a few early gnostic sects, but I was more of the understanding it was more of the method than the subject.
      These likely are not what you meant in your question, I'm sure, but they might give you an idea of the nature of my thinking.  I've read sacred texts of many cultures and religions, throughout history, not in depth, but more to get an idea of the world view.  I've read a lot of what's online at the Gnostic Society Library, besides the Nag Hammadi.  Any aprocryphal texts I find, I do read.  I've also read the Manichean Mythos and related.  I've read a some of Hippolytus and Iraneaus against heresy, and eastern philosophy, mainly in the way of Buddhism.  I have read some of the theosophical society writings, but didn't really feel comfortable with the feeling I got from reading Madame Blavatsky, and there is some by Annie Besant that I liked, but on an intellectual level.  There's something contained in theosophy that I just don't feel comfortable with, more of a feeling than a specific view or belief.  I have read a great deal of Roscrucian literature, also. 
      I'm familiar with Kabbalah, as well, which I first encountered while exploring the sacred tree in relation to numerous cosmologies of various cultures, and there is a lot of it I can identify with.  It's main interest to me lies in the Hebrew alphabet and gematria, and I can see where the in and out breath of creation is of that tone, but that's something I mainly conceived of from an astronomical perspective.
      love from annie
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: pmcvflag
      Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 9:19 PM
      Subject: [Gnosticism2] Annie and Jung

      Say Annie, I think perhaps I made my point a little unclear. You

      >>>"I do understand what you are saying, and there's a middle ground
      I find between totally being psychic or going all the way in Jung's
      direction of the opposite (what is that?  I want to say
      intellectualize it, or is that not the right term?)"<<<

      Well, we should take a look at this for a second. Now, there would be
      some debate here about just how Jung himself may have intended
      certain things, but the common reading that has spawned a rendering
      of myths to be representative of psychological, or personal,
      principles. It is this understanding in which the basic field of
      comparative mythology works, and which is made most popular by
      writers like Joe Campbell. This is "psychologicising" the religions.

      Look at these two words a bit more closely... "psychologicising"
      and "psychic". As you will quickly see, this "Jungian" method is not
      the opposite of psychic, it IS psychic.... one form of it anyway.

      One thing you said I found interesting.....

      >>>"Of course, I actually don't believe that all that we've been is
      all a tragic and extinct mistake, it goes one further for me as being
      necessary for chaos to rise from the shadow of the light in order to
      be conquered by that light, in an endless sequence, and it's
      conceivable that each vast time span, such as the solar systems' life
      time, from beginning to halfway, is G-d exhalation, and then the
      second half is the inhalation."<<<

      I am thinking that you may be far more interested in Kabbalah than in
      Gnosticism. It really sounds a bit closer to your theological
      thinking as well as to your method of interperatation. Ever study it?
      If so, what did you think?

      Lastly, you ask....

      >>>"So what conceptions are found for salvation within the truest
      types of gnosticism, with respect to what you posted below?"<<<

      I am not sure if you mean to ask how salvation is achieved in
      Gnosticism, or what that salvation is. Could you restate your
      question for me to remove my confusion?


    • Show all 11 messages in this topic