11675Re: [Gnosticism2] Re: another newbie
- Nov 12, 2005PLease accept my apologies.--Ben
On 11/12/05, pmcvflag <email@example.com> wrote:
>>>mmm new agers..I am a bit insulted by this....but nevermind...I
realise all groups have their dynamic...so I wont mention
this ....you have your aproach...<<<
Ben, don't misread me here. I did not say you were a New Ager, nor
did I say New Age is bad. If you are insulted it is only because of
a valuation you placed, not me. I'm sorry if the connotations seems
bad to you, I intended no offence. I am simply trying to point out a
difference between a common modern usage of the word gnosis (which
comes from New Age sources) and the traditional Gnostic meaning of
You are not the only person I am talking to when I outline these
things, by the way. There are a number of new people here who joined
at the same time as you who may also be wondering exactly what we
are talking about. For that reason I try to be very direct and
explain each term as it comes up.
>>>myslef I prefer a less mercurial approach and more of a venusian
(intelect vs intuition...hod vs netzach)..you have read every one of
the 250,000 pages of their website I assume? ...<<<
250,000 pages of who's website? I am not sure exactly what site you
are talking about there.
>>>unacademic? mmmm I am thinking you have a certain impression of
me....already...beleive me I do not think Gnostics were unacademic!
What are you talking about, Ben? You have confused me. It will not
be good for anyone in the conversation if we read things into posts
that the other person didn't say... would you agree? My only
impression of you is what you yourself told me, which is that you
are new to the subject of historical "Gnosticism" and you are here
to feed your curiousity. I am not new to the subject, so I am just
throwing out points that may be of interest (not only to you, but
also others here).
>>>I am well aware of what Gnosis is.....divine union is but 1 way
to look at it.....<<<
Sure, divine union is one way to use the word. I am simply pointing
out it is not the way the historical Gnostics used the word.
>>>For me the Rosicrucian manifestos had a great affect on my
outlook...really they just told me more of what I already
beleived.....do you know of the rosicrucians?<<<
I do know about the Rosicrucians, both the historical ones run by
Y.V. Andrea and his mentor, as well as the legendary ones they
created, and even various modern groups that claim to be part of the
tradition (I have even been to the AMORC university in Cali, it was
quite fun). The Rosicrucians are a group I am very much interested
>>>Or are they not Gnostic either?<<<
Understand, when I say something isn't technically "Gnostic" it does
not mean I don't think they are interesting, or valid. To use the
technical definition of the word "Gnosticism", I am not Gnostic
either... and in fact technically speaking no one alive today is.
Would you be upset if I said the Rosicrucians are not Buddhist? Of
course not. Why would it matter whether or not they are
technically "Gnostic"? No critical historian today considers the
Rosicrucians to be a form of "Gnosticism", but instead a form
of "esotericism". This doesn't mean that they are not equally as
valid a movement. It just means they are in a different category.
The academic usage the term "Gnosticism" is actually quite specific.
Scholars also invented the term "neanderthal" for the same kind of
reason they invented the term "Gnosticism". What would be the value
of taking the term "Neanderthal" and using it to mean anybody who
has more hair, for instance? Well, of course we can do so, but if a
person was in a university class dealing with the ancient
neanderthals it would seem worth while to use the term to mean what
the specialist uses the term for, right? It is the same here in this
group for the terms "Gnosis" and "Gnosticism".
I have nothing against wider usages, Ben, but please understand that
while I do have a personal interest in the subject I also am talking
from an academic stance. When you jokingly said that your girlfriend
would hate that but you are ok with it, I thought it meant that you
understood that you are dealing with people who have some academic
training in this subject.
>>>I have experienced Gnosis...I am aware of what it is......<<<
Cool, I can dig it. You have had an experience that you choose to
call "Gnosis", and so have I. Not only that, but over the many years
I have been working in this Yahoo Group, my meaning of the
term "Gnosis" has changed. I don't use the word the way I used to.
Now lets all talk and see if the thing we have chosen to
call "Gnosis" is the same thing the ancient Gnostics were talking
about. Lets look at what those ancient Gnostics believed, and
contrast it with how we see things. We don't have to agree with
them, but maybe it is interesting to hear what they had to say all
Gnosticism Gnosticism christianity
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
He who knows both knowledge and ignorance together, crosses death
through ignorance and attains immortality through knowledge.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>