- May 31, 2002--- 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
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.
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
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 perfectjust as
we are (posts 5776, 5792). If that's the case, I hardly see how he
could have missed the markwhatever 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
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.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>