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

13014Re: Rex Mundi film,

Expand Messages
  • Gerry
    Mar 1 6:02 AM
    • 0 Attachment


      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, teafourme <no_reply@...> wrote:

      >
      >
      > IMO anything that gets the general public open to Gnosis is a good thing
      >
      > Dan Brown opened a lot of doors for many people, and in turn they have
      > their eyes and minds open too much more.
      >
      >
      >
      > Some people began asking more questions, taking what he had to say to
      > another level, what ever that level might be to suite their own needs.
      >
      > Whether or not they get suck on this theory that is their own issue. The
      > fact that it has opened minds to new possibilities is what matters.
      >

       

      Okay, consider what I was discussing previously with Andrew.  Do we consider it "gnosis" that some people have a "need" to support their racist agenda, and apparently claim to find such substantiation within ancient texts?

      Or, take another look at that passage from Prof. Couliano that PMCV quoted.  Some people seem to have no difficulty picking and choosing which portions of that essay they find relevant, all in order to come away with the very understanding AGAINST which the author was writing.  Unless, of course, they actually DID read the whole thing and (more disturbingly) think to themselves, "Hey, let's be gnostics like the communists and nazis!"

       

      >

      > I am not saying that one should agree with all he put in print and
      > screen, but his action of getting it out there was HUGE and it has
      > defiantly had an impact on the general public. People started taking
      > this into their homes and communities and talked about it.
      >
      > "Talked about it", .. Isn't that great? People are talking!
      >
      > Getting the vibration out there.
      >
      > In the search of enlightenment the means that moves a person are vast
      > and varied
      >

       

      No.  Talking, in and of itself, is not necessarily a great thing.  I've known plenty of people with diarrhea of the mouth.  If their affliction spewed forth something of substance, even on occasion, I might think differently.  After the Matrix trilogy, there are some people who are honestly convinced that we are living in a computer program, and they faithfully await a savior to come and disrupt the machinations so they can be released.  I have seen "talk" of this on the Net.  "Great"?  I'm not convinced.

       

      >

      > The comic book has been around since the 1950's long before DB and
      > the DVC. And if people can relate to this, how can that be bad? It may
      > open a few more minds and ideas.
      >
      > Isn't that what it is all about, opening the mind and expanding
      > Ideas?
      >
      >
      >
      > Through the centuries Gnosis has been handed down through art and
      > literature, this is no different; one means of art might not appeal to
      > one, but may enlighten another. So if someone has seen or heard of this
      > Comic, and thought not too much of it, and now they see it in a
      > different form of media that may appeal to them more, than great,
      > another open mind!
      >
      >
      >
      > Many people didn't like the fact that Tom Hanks was to the major
      > roll in the DVC, but they wanted to know it was all about, so they went
      > anyway. I don't think the message that was meant to be sent out
      > there was hindered at all by him playing the part.
      >
      > So, JD having a hand in this movie isn't such an awful thing. You
      > are apparently not a big fan of his, but knew he was in Chocolate and
      > you still went to see the movie and you got what you needed from that
      > movie.
      >

       

      Actually, I missed Chocolat at the cinema.  I'm not even sure that it was ever released around these parts, but I did manage to catch it numerous times on cable.  I wasn't even aware that Johnny Depp was in it until I was well into the film the first time.  Despite the fact that I find his personal notoriety to be a bit of a distraction, I was able to take in the overall work (writing, direction, other fantastic actors, etc.) and managed to appreciate varying levels of appeal.  If I had driven out of town when the movie first came out just to catch an appearance of Lena Olin on the big screen because I think she's hot … would I have gotten as much out of it?  Who knows.  The point is that one would be more likely to come away with a broader appreciation of the work if such preconceptions as "I hate Johnny Depp" or "I love Lena Olin" were set aside at the start.

       


      > Take what you need and left the rest.

      >
      > What a great concept for all.
      >
      >
      >
      > Peace,
      >
      >
      > KP
      >

       

      This seems like a great concept for anyone who can be satisfied with an exploration of profundity that may be limited to thrashing about in the shallow end or simply swimming across the surface.  Perhaps there's more to the pool than we've considered.  Have we pondered the tiles, or the drain, or the filtration system?  How about the source of the water?  Is it, in fact, meant merely for decoration or reflection?  Could it be intended for sacred or ritualistic purposes?  If so, have we already embarrassed ourselves by diving into it in the first place?  Even though we may be accustomed to seeing a bunch of water and thinking to ourselves what a splashing good time might be had therein, perhaps it would be a good thing to consider the context.

      Gerry

    • Show all 20 messages in this topic