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

11675Re: [Gnosticism2] Re: another newbie

Expand Messages
  • Hoomer
    Nov 12, 2005
      PLease accept my apologies.

      On 11/12/05, pmcvflag <no_reply@yahoogroups.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
      the word.

      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
      the same.


      Gnosticism Gnosticism christianity


      He who knows both knowledge and ignorance together, crosses death
      through ignorance and attains immortality through knowledge.
    • Show all 27 messages in this topic