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

5977Re: (im-)Perfection

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    Jun 6, 2002
      Ok Play, you do in fact make some areas of where you are comming from
      more clear, and that is quite helpful.

      To deal with some specific points you raise....

      >When I come off sounding like everything is good, it is more to
      illustrate the idea that everything is exactly as it should be and
      not flawed is as valid as the idea that flaw and error exists. I'm
      saying the same thing as you but adding this insight to it. The
      former way of thinking allows one to see God's perfection much more
      readily than the latter.<

      I see two problems that present themselves to the Gnostic perspective
      here. One is a logical flaw called "non sequitor" (which means "it
      doesn't follow"). Whether or not things are "as it shood be" is not
      necessarily relevent to whether or not there is a flaw. A flaw can be
      intentional. On the other hand, intent can be a flaw which would make
      the notion of "as it should be" flawed in and of itself
      since "should" could be error from the getgo. The next one is
      concerning "God". You are assuming we believe in one to make this

      >Acceptance, love and compassion are things of tremendous importance
      and value especially in this day and age, are more easily assimilated
      into being than seeing things as flawed or in error in my opinion.<

      Once again, non sequitor. The notion of flaw in no way implies a lack
      of love or compassion. However, love, like all other things you can
      name, applies to the field of time rather than to infinity.

      >I don't trust that judgement as much as I trust love<

      I don't "trust" period (as far as philosophical points are
      concerned). "Trust" is another way of saying "believe" or "have faith
      in". The point is, that is "pistic" not "gnostic". We don't seek
      to "believe", we seek to "know". I know that love and compassion are
      very valuable, and can even be footsteps in the path to Gnosis, they
      are also limited.

      >I can see that these are not valued from the perspective here when I
      get comments from you and others that ideas based upon love,
      acceptance and tolerance are "rose colored", "warm and fuzzy" and the

      No, you misunderstand. In fact, I run a club solely on the subject of
      love and compassion in esoteric practice. What is "rose colored" is
      the need to imply that that love is a matter of providence, and that
      we should float along being guided by it to the point of excluding
      critical thought, that we should simply "trust" our hearts and not
      stop to think about it. If you have been following my discussion with
      Wilbro you may have noticed that I outlined the function of "Logos"
      and "Sophia" in a sort of Jungian manner.... well that applies here
      as well.

      >I'll tell you truly that warm and fuzzy ideas
      are much more preferable to suicide bombers dieing and killing for
      their belief in what they consider "right". Rose colored glasses are
      better than blood stained ones anyday.<

      Not if everything is "the way it should be". If that is the case then
      thier hate is every bit as important as your love, and even
      preferable in some circumstances. Beyond love and hate is the true
      repose of the spirit. You see, those rose colored glasses are one and
      the same as the blood stained ones. The eyes of the spirit need no
      glasses at all.

      >All things are part of what is true.<

      Only when talking about worldly perception. Remember the post from
      the Tripartite tractate? "The majority, however, all who have reached
      as far as the visible elements, do not know anything more than them."
      The "truth" you keep mentioning is one that is dependant on the
      visible elements, as is "love", and "acceptance". All these things
      that exist as "part of what is true", no longer exist in what is
      really True.

      >This subject of truth and God and spirituality is very much a matter
      of perspective.<

      Only when looked at from somewhere that has "perspective", i.e. the
      world of the "visible elements".

      >And all paths eventually lead to truth.<

      Demonstrate this. I doubt it seriously.

      >The one item that impresses me the most
      is the Gospel of Truth. The Gospel of Thomas is interesting but open
      to too much interpretation by the reader.<

      It is also debatable as to whether Thomas is in fact "Gnostic".

      >I've been on the inner path for a while now and it is
      exactly as you say.<

      Hmmm, except I didn't say the "inner path", I said the "esoteric
      path", there is a difference.

      >Hey, come to think of it, a gnostic shouldn't have much of a
      problem with contradictions. You have read the Gospel of Thomas
      haven't you?<

      There is a difference between intentional contradiction for the sake
      of illustration (such as we see at the biginning of the tripartite
      tractate), and idealogical inconsistancy. Once again, The "Gnostic"
      validity of Thomas is open to debate.

      I do think though, that we may be closer to understanding each other.

    • Show all 27 messages in this topic