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

5886Re: Thomasine Metaphor

Expand Messages
  • wilbro99
    May 17, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      I said: "I see no kingdom that is always already here. I think that
      notion derives from the ending of the temporal view of the self, and
      can only derive from it as a metaphor. What is then known is not the
      kingdom, but the end of the temporal sense of self, the Error. That is
      all that is known; the rest is the unknown...."

      My error here was that I knew what I was referring to and did not make
      that reference clear. When I referred to the unknown, I was thinking
      only of the presence that ensues from that ending of the temporal
      sense of self. I was thinking that the notion of an ever present
      kingdom was a metaphor for that sense of presence, and any attempt to
      say that it is that is turning that unknown into the known. The next
      sentence, which you omitted goes like this: "The unknown can not be
      known by the decision to know it, for when it is known, that decision
      maker no longer is." I thought that connected to what I meant by the
      unknown, but since both of you are not mind readers, I guess I goofed.
      I do not, nor do I see how I can, deny the world I find myself in.
      Even if what I find myself in is only the "seems" of it, so long as I
      can make these words come into being by pressing keys on this thing in
      front of me, that seems to me as if the seems are for real.

      G: I guess what is puzzling me is that you seem to be referring to a
      2-step transition from un-knowing to knowing, while perhaps I've taken
      it as a given that the original state was already one of knowing,
      i.e., knowing, forgetting, and then remembering. True, that implies
      past and future, but only on the part of the knower-not that which is
      known.

      The notion of having known, forgetting, and remembering is, if I have
      it straight, the Greek theory of recollection. Under that scheme of
      it, the loss of the error would be the remembering, the waking up to
      what had already been known, the wiping away of the
      fog of forgetfulness, and so on. I have a different scheme, one that
      derives from my experience of the ending of a temporal sense of self.
      Now, it may be that there are two different "original states," and
      that the "original state" as defined by the forgetting of it and
      remembering of it, which defines the term "original," is not the same
      as the presence come upon when the temporal sense of self comes to an
      end, leaving behind a presential sense of self. That is my question. I
      know only the latter and I think the former is only a way of
      describing it that ensues from the belief that that is the way it is.
      I do not believe it so I see it differently.

      I see it as follows: There is a coming into being of the temporal
      sense of self because of the ability to remember and identify with a
      me that things happen to. That identity is the Error. The loss of that
      identity brings a sense of presence into being that is a new sense of
      presence, there being no way to remember back through the presence of
      the error to a before of the error.



      --- In gnosticism2@y..., "Gerry" <gerryhsp@y...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > Reply to Wilbro's message #5878:
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > I, too, think we're talking about the same thing here, albeit from
      different perspectives. If I may offer my 2¢, Will, here's where I
      think you lost me:
      >
      >
      >
      > >>I see no kingdom that is always already here. I think that notion
      derives from the ending of the temporal view of the self, and can only
      derive from it as a metaphor. What is then known is not the kingdom,
      but the end of the temporal sense of self, the Error. That is all that
      is known; the rest is the unknown.... The notion of remembering it
      again implies a past forgetting and a future remembering, and when it
      is known, there is no past nor any future.<<
      >
      >
      >
      > And yet, as Cari pointed out, we still reside in a temporal
      world—how our perceptions alter our views within this temporality need
      not affect the objective Truth.
      >
      >
      >
      > I guess what is puzzling me is that you seem to be referring to a
      2-step transition from un-knowing to knowing, while perhaps I've taken
      it as a given that the original state was already one of knowing,
      i.e., knowing, forgetting, and then remembering. True, that implies
      past and future, but only on the part of the knower—not that which is
      known.
      >
      >
      >
      > >>"The error, as I see it, is a temporal taking of oneself as
      oneself, where one thinks self in terms of time, and in thinking of
      self in terms of time, creates that temporal identity."<<
      >
      >
      >
      > Aren't these identities and manners of thinking in terms of time
      created for all of us when we come into this world? It seems to me
      that all babies want for their own needs to be met. While we may want
      to view infants with an innocence that we no longer retain, I don't
      equate that with being free from the bounds of our physical natures,
      or the apparent individuality we each have once expelled from the
      womb.
      >
      >
      >
      > Whether a conscious or unconscious act by each of us, or the mere
      result of being born, the fact that something "creates" the temporal
      identity seems to suggest that there exists a non-temporal identity.
      >
      >
      >
      > Anyway, I hope that wasn't so short as to muddy the waters even
      further, but that may be about as much of a reply as I'll be able to
      muster 'til I manage to get some projects out of the way.
      >
      >
      >
      > Gerry
    • Show all 29 messages in this topic