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

5957Re: (im-)Perfection

Expand Messages
  • Gerry
    Jun 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment

       

      Reply to Play’s message #5954:

       

       

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

       

      You know what, Play?  I think you would be better served right now by making an attempt to question your own perspective rather than trying to fathom the depths of classical Gnosticism.  That’s exactly why I asked you what I did in post #5818.  You keep claiming that you want to understand, yet find the concept of a flawed world to be something alien to you.  Well, that’s why I raised those issues within the context of concepts which you had brought to the table.

       

      I questioned your thoughts on the Light & Dark, human judgement being the cause of the separation, numerous definitions—what’s odd to me is that while you can’t see the flawed world within the context of our perspective, I can still manage to see it within yours.  I guess I was hoping that a few strategically targeted questions might help you to spot those same contradictions which had jumped out at me.

       

      I’m not sure which struck you as more unpleasant:  the fact that you found my tone indicative of “irritation” or the mere thought of considering the scenario of the hypothetical murdering rapist?  Frankly, Play, it was INTENDED to rock your world—why bother sugar-coating it?  The more you persist in claiming that you want to understand the Gnostic perspective, the more I’m going to expect that you’ll actually put forth some effort into understanding what members are saying—that doesn’t involve you projecting some notion of a glorified, seemingly omnibenevolent Demiurge.

       

      For instance, I took a different tack in my last post and asked you ONE question, hoping to be more precise in what I was asking of you.  By breaking that paragraph into several parts in your reply and inserting all sorts of disclaimers and tangential references, you managed to completely dance around it.  PMCV’s already addressed it, but I’d like to reiterate:

       

      Question:

       

      >>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.<<

       

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

       

      Response:

       

      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....  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.

       

      Yes, Play, when you suggest that you find a certain view to be in error (sin… missing the mark) and choose to express said belief at a club whose members are known to hold said view, then you have indeed claimed that they have fallen short.  I would find that presumptuous under normal circumstances, but when the statement comes from someone who claims we are all perfect, “just the way we are,” and who cannot see a flawed world around him, then such recognition of obvious “error” strikes me as utterly conflicted. 

       

      >>The infinite is infinite but it doesn't "speak"? Doesn't sound too infinite to me. Sounds pretty random and meaningless to me.<<

       

      That’s because you’re still conceptualizing it in temporal terms.  Granted, you’ve discarded those qualities which you deemed less desirable, but even when left with an all-loving, super-compassionate father figure who wants the very best for us, you’re still talking about something for which most of us have no use.  I said it before—this sounds more like Neale Donald Walsch.

       

      >>I see it this way. The infinite doesn't long to be anything.<<

       

      I stand corrected.  My assumption, however, was based on your earlier comments:

       

      >>.... this experience of light and dark is something we want to experience. That the Prime Source loves us so much that He/She/It facilitates this desire for us with His unlimited compassion.<<  [#5796]

       

      If we come from the Prime Source, and It wanted to experience Light & Dark in this temporal reality, I reckon you can see where your description resembles “longing.” 

       

      >>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????<<

       

      Well, at a very specifically defined Gnostic forum, I think that serves us just fine.  Even for someone who, as PMCV pointed out, may come from another perspective and wish to learn more about Gnosticism, that same guideline still serves us well.  If they come, however, not interested in gaining understanding, but with notions of converting the heretical masses, then there are other clubs, lists, and communities where their participation would be more appropriate.

       

      Seriously, Play, if you think my feelings will be hurt by your not responding to any of this, in truth, I’d much rather you said nothing and actually pondered what has already been discussed.  “Sharing” is one thing, but when you make comments as you did to Cari, it makes a person wonder:

       

      >>It has become common knowledge to me now and I wish to share it with others like you who are close to raising "the veil" in your life.<<  [Play #5905]

       

      Perhaps we’re “all in the same boat,” as you’ve said, but evidently, some of us have better seats—at least, in your mind.  And that’s fine, Play, really, if that’s the way you feel, but you should realize how such comments come across as little different from mainstream proselytizing.

       

      Gerry

       

    • Show all 27 messages in this topic