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

5954Re: (im-)Perfection

Expand Messages
  • play_nice_now
    May 31, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In gnosticism2@y..., "Gerry" <gerryhsp@y...> wrote:
      > Reply to Play's message #5947:

      Gerry: Well, Play, I'm glad that makes it clearer for you, but
      truthfully, that's not what "we" are talking about here.

      Play: I'm sorry. Maybe I should limit my questions and conversation
      to include only those things gnostics want to talk about. But I don't
      see how that serves either of us????

      Gerry: You can end that phrase with anything you like, but when you
      start with suggesting that "It called itself…," you have
      anthropomorphized the Infinite, i.e., placed limitations projected
      from our own temporal existence upon it.

      Play: Again, it is hard to talk about this in non-linear terms Gerry.
      I see no problem anthropomorphizing this in the interests of gaining
      some understanding. But regardless, this is something that the Lord
      said to Moses on the top of Mount Sinai. The Lord was not in the form
      of a human. I believe it was a bush. A burning bush that "spoke".
      Maybe not to the ears but to the soul. The spirit of Moses? Who's to
      say? We would have to ask Moses. This isn't gnostic but is Judaic.
      Are you invalidating the story? Should I just forget all of what I
      learned from other religions and teachings? Drop all of it for the
      gnostic renditions? Is there a gnostic story of Moses? What does it
      tell?

      Gerry: Even if you relate it to the non-human, such as "I am a rock…
      I am an island," unless those rocks and islands are capable of speech
      (or song) and can articulate their own self-perceived identity, then
      you have still ascribed it human qualities.

      Play: Not at all. Rocks and islands aren't capable of human speech
      but who is to say that they don't "speak" their own kind of language.
      I don't know about you but nature "speaks" to me. The burning
      bush "spoke" to Moses. The infinite is infinite but it
      doesn't "speak"? Doesn't sound too infinite to me. Sounds pretty
      random and meaningless to me.

      Gerry: I've asked you some very pointed questions in my last posts to
      you. I hope you didn't take that as "beating you up."

      Play: I just didn't care for your tone. You seemed irritated. Didn't
      think it would get us anywhere by responding. Still not sure that it
      will. You still seem irritated. I may be reading too much into this.
      If so, I apologize for not answering you.

      Gerry: I can assure you I haven't come close to doing that.

      Play: Hmm...?

      Gerry: Since you previously claimed that you "wanted" to understand
      our points of view and have ended up at a club whose focus is
      traditional Gnosticism, I thought it would be helpful to ask
      questions and raise issues which would help you to see these concepts
      from our perspective.

      Play: OK. But I'm still trying to make sense out of
      those "perspectives". I do want to understand but I still have
      questions.

      Gerry: Perhaps I was merely too longwinded to merit a reply. Rather
      than spending another two days of my own free time trying to
      summarize your entire philosophy, and getting no response, let me
      just ask one question involving a comment from your last post and
      another made previously:

      Play: And what is flawed to you holds the key to understanding for
      me. That is another intent of mine. To get you to see that if you
      view the creation as flawed only opens up the idea that it isn't good
      enough and has little or no value for understanding. I think that is
      a grave error in and of itself.

      Gerry: I could swear I've seen PMCV comment, even recently, that he
      does NOT claim that one cannot find value in the world.

      Play: I understand that. I wasn't questioning PMCV about whether he
      found value in the world. I was questioning the gnostic perspective
      that it was flawed. I don't see how seeing the world, or the
      creation, or us, or anything as flawed or in error serves us.

      Gerry: That would be somewhat difficult for an "experiential"
      Gnostic. Maybe I didn't read that here, but at another group.
      Regardless, aside from the fact that you misconstrued him as a world-
      hater, I'm curious why you would find his view to be in "error"—
      "grave," no less?

      Play: Huh? I misconstrued him as a world-hater? Sorry. I think you
      read too much into this. I never called him or thought that PMCV was
      a world hater. I was only questioning the gnostic perspective.

      Gerry: I thought you stated earlier that we were all perfect—just as
      we are (posts 5776, 5792). If that's the case, I hardly see how he
      could have missed the mark—whatever his alleged belief or view.

      Play: Now that is quite true. He isn't missing the mark. Neither are
      you or anyone here. This isn't about right or wrong or missing the
      mark or any of that. I'm just sharing my perspective on the truth for
      what it is worth. From what I can tell from the way you are
      responding to my posts, it isn't worth much. ;-(

      Gerry: Evidently, even in a perfect world, some folks can still have
      a less-than-perfect understanding compared to the apparently firm
      grasp of timeless knowledge held by others. I guess that's not too
      hard to swallow if we insist on believing that the Infinite longs to
      be finite.

      Play: I see it this way. The infinite doesn't long to be anything.
      And we are all in the same boat. If we are here in this world, we
      have much to remember.

      The infinite is what it is and also what it isn't. This is an
      extremely non-linear thing we are discussing in a very linear way and
      it can get quite confusing. But please understand that my questions
      aren't meant to invalidate the importance of traditional gnostic
      ideas. I hope that my ideas will compliment them even if I seem to be
      turning them inside out sometimes. I'm not bucking to be a
      traditional gnostic. I only want to know and talk about what is true.
      I also want to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath
      water. I don't pidgeon-hole my search for truth with any one train of
      thought. Maybe there is something worth learning about me with that.
      Maybe not. Whatever path works for you is fine by me.

      peace,
      play
    • Show all 27 messages in this topic