- Jun 6, 2002Ok 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 toillustrate 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 importanceand 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 Iget 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
>I'll tell you truly that warm and fuzzy ideasare 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
>This subject of truth and God and spirituality is very much a matterof 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 mostis 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 isexactly 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 aproblem with contradictions. You have read the Gospel of Thomas
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.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>