12851Re: A Question for the gruop...
- Nov 9 10:23 PMHey Darkchylde
>>>Now this was one thing I could sink my teeth in, so to speak. Yum!LOL Just want to clarify one thing. (I know, *groan*)<<<
Glad I was understandable *lol*. I am always unsure if I am actually
making sense. Anyway, no groans here... it is part of what we are
here to talk about, after all.
>>>A similar analogy would be describing red to a person born blind.I can describe the color and its effect and everything most
loquaciously (love that word, have so little chance to use it in
conversation) but how can a blind person know what red is until
he/she sees it for themselves? To me any discussion of 'gnosis'
would be similar.<<<
I think in one sense your analogy is very apropos. I wonder, though,
if it could confuse some people into thinking "Gnosis" is an
experience the way seeing a color is. Still, I can't think of a
better example off the top of my head. I think perhaps just to
clarify we could simply add that the person who sees the red without
thinking about it has no more "Gnosis" of red than the person who
can describe it without seeing it. Both have only one side of the
I think many people would rhetorically ask "well, isn't it the
seeing of the red that is the important part, the final goal?" I
think that when looking at the Gnostic perspective the answer to
that question is, no. A computer scanner can detect red vs black
without any cognitive effect. An animal can experience red without
comprehending that the experience has some meaning beyond the simple
fact of being red (why is the stop sign red? does the redness of
some flowers have a function? why should Roxanne not "put on the red
light"? how did "red" come to be seperate from "white" in the first
place? Is there value to viewing colors beyond greyscale?)
>>>I believe you are correct in the fact it is not one aspect toconquer in order to achieve gnosis, but many. A teacher can show the
student the door but the student must pass thru for themselves. I do
believe that someone that has aquired gnosis, if they have truly had
it, it will change them irrevocably.<<<
I think nobody would quibble with you on that point.
>>>It did me. But it was a combination of being exposed to newideas, having a mind open to that experience, and accepting the
experience when it came, and it changed my life. It was a
combination of things, like you said about the bike. I learned how a
bike is made, how it works, and then I learned to ride. Learning to
ride alone would not have made the experience complete, learning to
make the bike and how it works would not have make the experience
complete. But the combination of the elements would make me a biker.
Snicker. I was blind, and had red dscribed to me. I hungered for
more than a description, I wanted to know, to experience red. Now I
Some would say that perhaps another step in understanding red would
be to form a common conceptualization with others. As Isidore of
Seville said "Who knoweth not the names, knoweth not the subject".
>>>I think many are frustrated as they get the descriptions, theyget the idea- they get it here (touch the corner of the crainum) but
they don't feel it here (touch the heart.) It has to be the entire
experience. Mind, understanding; body, feeling; spirit,
transformation. Am I in the ballpark at least? Or am I just parking
Sounds right to me. As you state, it goes both ways. Just as people
sometimes get it in the head, but not the heart... there are many
who get it in the heart but don't quite get it in the head yet.
Either direction fails to be Gnosis.
In fact, that does kind of help give perspective to the function of
this forum. There are some 300 groups in the "Gnosticism" section of
Yahoo Groups that deal with the heart side so we figured perhaps we
could fill the gap on the head side *lol*. Well, just joking...
Seriously though, to be more technical; if one doesn't know about
the Demiurge, the fine points of the difference between the
apophatic infinity vs the kind of infinity presented by the "second
Father", the meaning of the fall of Sophia, the function of
intellect as it is presented, say, in Allogenes... then one has not
attained "Gnosis", by definition of the word.
What I am saying then, and I think you are as well, is that in
traditional Gnostic thinking the experience and the context simply
cannot be removed from each other and still constitute "Gnosis".
That is why we cannot be so quick to discard or discount those moldy
old texts. ;)
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>