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

5997Re: (im-)Perfection (2 questions to pmcv)

Expand Messages
    Jun 8, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      2 simple questions. First. I see the difference between "to believe"
      and "to know" is fundumental for you. Can you articulate this in more
      details. What does it mean - "to know"? What does it mean - "to
      believe"? Where is difference?

      Second. What is the difference between "esoteric path" and "inner
      path"? What is it - "esoteric path"?

      --- In gnosticism2@y..., pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      > Ok Play, you do in fact make some areas of where you are comming
      > 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
      > 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
      > intentional. On the other hand, intent can be a flaw which would
      > 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
      > statement.
      > >Acceptance, love and compassion are things of tremendous
      > and value especially in this day and age, are more easily
      > 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
      > 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
      > 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
      > very valuable, and can even be footsteps in the path to Gnosis,
      > are also limited.
      > >I can see that these are not valued from the perspective here when
      > get comments from you and others that ideas based upon love,
      > acceptance and tolerance are "rose colored", "warm and fuzzy" and
      > like.<
      > No, you misunderstand. In fact, I run a club solely on the subject
      > love and compassion in esoteric practice. What is "rose colored" is
      > the need to imply that that love is a matter of providence, and
      > 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
      > 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
      > better than blood stained ones anyday.<
      > Not if everything is "the way it should be". If that is the case
      > 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
      > 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
      > as far as the visible elements, do not know anything more than
      > 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
      > 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
      > 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
      > 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
      > PMCV
    • Show all 27 messages in this topic