5997Re: (im-)Perfection (2 questions to pmcv)
- Jun 8, 20022 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
> >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
> 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
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>