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

5955Re: Whats in a word?

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    Jun 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Ok Moby, I'm back :) let me jump right in (surely we are beyond
      formalities ;))

      >I am not referring to "that monad, Father of the All..."<

      Ok, but surely you can see how I would have gotton the impression. I
      mean your lingo was almost identical. So, now I have to step back
      again and try and see what you _were_ talking about. If I get it
      wrong again please be patient, I was only making inferences based on
      the lingo I am familiar with, and the fact that this lingo has proven
      valid in my experience.

      >To be neutral about it, let's call it the X-experience.<

      It is the fact that you refer to an experience that still makes me
      think of the Image, but your resistance to the idea makes me have to
      step back and see if there are other similarities (I'm not willing to
      simply say to myself "well, he is really still talking about the
      image, and just doesn't know it!"). So, let me outline what we have
      so far (barring the parts that have not worked for us)....

      >Since the description of this X-experience reveals what we see it
      revealing and we disagree on what we see it revealing<

      Er.... what exactly do we see it revealing again? Since I assumed
      initially that you were talking about an experience of the image, I
      described one form of mystical experience that I thought you were
      refering to. Since you believe you are in fact referring to something
      else, I don't remember giving my perspective on it.

      >If the X-experience is specific to what is revealed, then we have
      subscript experiences and can only gossip over the fence, as it were.<

      But we _do_ have subscript experiences, it is called "context". No
      matter how all encompassing and persona removing ("person" BTW,
      literally means "mask". A true mystical experience does in fact
      remove some of that "mask" of self and social perception), it is not
      truely fully gone or you would be able to pass on the experience by
      your mear presence. But I would not over estimate the power of the
      fence, to do so would only be to deny the validity of the thing that
      even pervades the illusion that makes the fence a barrier instead of
      a foothold for climbing.

      I started to answer many other points directly, but since you go into
      the direct philosophical points let me skip the rest as merely likely
      to confuse the issue (perhaps I should have even skipped what I wrote

      >OK, so let's go directly to my philosophical point. There is an
      experience process in which one comes upon a sense of presence that
      is of a different order, and in that process, the "wrong" sense of
      self is exposed as a temporal sense of being.<

      Absolutely agreed so far. That is one step in the initiatory process
      (though not the final one).

      >The following three points, with site references, are basic to my
      point,. The system I have created around my experience has only these
      basic points in common with Gnosticism.<

      Ok, the word I use (As do the Gnostics of old) for that
      is "Initiation". That can be formalized, but can happen spontaniously
      as well.

      >I think I remember reading in several places that Gnosis
      refers only to the revelation that describes itself in terms of
      Gnosticism and the spiritual world it contains.<

      Hmmm, yes and no. (I bring this down to your description because it
      seems to directly relate to the following criteria you placed as
      basic to your experience)

      >"Gnosis is undoubtedly an experience based not in concepts and
      precepts, but in the sensibility of the heart."<

      Yes and no again

      This is a good area to start.... on just what "Gnosis" is. Contrary
      to many popular books and articles ("Gnosis" is not in fact a public
      event, so you can disregard much of what you read by "outsiders"),
      Gnosis is an initiatory concept (and I can provide contextual proofs
      for that concept). This means that it comes in stages, rather than
      being a single "experience". It is much easier to recognize when some
      one completely lacks "Gnosis" than it is to see now many pieces
      of "Gnosis" an individual may have truely obtained. It is entirely
      possible for a non-Gnostic to gain thier measure of "Gnosis", there
      is no reason to assume otherwise. In fact, when you look at certain
      other esoteric strains, even ones that are entirely unrelated
      (historically), there are undeniable common grounds. Gnosticism, even
      in it's earliest inception, is syncratic and able to recognize these
      common strains (so that is the "no" part of the above statements).
      However, This "sensibility of the heart" is in fact only one portion
      of Gnosis, and one half of the process. If then you equate this
      _part_ of Gnosis as "Gnosis" itself, then you would be talking about
      something different than I, and what I would view as an incomplete

      >"Something is wrong. Somewhere, somehow, the fabric of being at the
      existential level of human functioning has lost its integrity."

      "Humans live in an absurd world that can be rendered meaningful only
      by Gnosis, or self-knowledge."<

      These two I am in absolute agreement with.

      >Turn to your experience of Gnosis and tell me if your basic
      experience is basic to mine, the meaning of the terms be damned. If
      it is, then we can turn to the description of it, what the terms
      mean, and dance around that singular pole.<

      If then these are the basic three points that have come to outline as
      common between your system and "Gnosticism", we are in emphatic
      agreement on two thirds of them. The only point that needs hashing
      out then is on just how we view the first one. And, it apears to me
      now that it may come down to the differance between the terminology
      of the Sophiac experience of the heart, and Gnosis itself. This may
      be more than simply semantics though, since it implies just where the
      experience fits in a line of experiences. In other words, I may agree
      with you on the experience, maybe just not on where it is placed
      within the system.

    • Show all 13 messages in this topic