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

12851Re: A Question for the gruop...

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    Nov 9 10:23 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hey 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 to
      conquer 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 new
      ideas, 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
      can see.<<<

      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, they
      get 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. ;)

    • Show all 19 messages in this topic