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

6003Re: (im-)Perfection

Expand Messages
  • hey_market
    Jun 8, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm stepping into this conversation late, and haven't read all the
      threads, so I may be repeating thing or speaking out of turn here.

      For what it's worth Play, I will note that it's a bit simplistic to
      even suppose that love and suicide bombers don't mix, since the
      latter certainly have rose-tinted glasses (godly and saintly even, at
      least in their estimation), even rosier than most I'd warrant, since
      they so adamantly believe they can take action to realize a world of
      perfection--a world they love--one that would exsist if they could
      only blow up or otherwise eradicate all of the enemies of their
      perfect world.

      And those enemies are located in the mind as much as anywhere else,
      particularly in minds that refuse to see that their world is as
      flawed as the next person's.

      It was Shakespeare who wrote that "nothing is, but thinking makes it
      so." And given your appreciation for this line, then you might see
      how it applies not only to any conception of love, including a suiced
      bombers, but to any thoughts period.

      As such, how this little bit of wisdom plays out in this instance is
      that "nothing is love, but my thinking makes it so," or "nothing is
      good, but my thinking makes it so," and then invetably, "nothing is
      evil, but THEIR thinking makes it so." And yet, this thinking is not
      exclusively THEIR thinking, is it?

      How it Plays out for you is that, "nothing is bad, but THEIR thinking
      makes it so." So why don't they think about better things--the power
      of positive thinking?

      And yet look at the evidence of our thinking--even your own mind must
      contend with an unavoidable evil within its walls, even if only to
      contend with the thoughts of other. Even if only to say, "ah, that's
      evil over there and there and there, and here's goodness over here."

      You are compelled to be discerning and make distinctions, and these
      distinctions define your own definition of love.

      So why not discern love in a fully conscious fashion? Wouldn't this
      be a better love? A fuller love?

      So why pretend to remove such challenges to your notions of love,
      especially within a field of thought from which they cannot be
      removed, and in fact, must exist as the very material with which you
      scrape away to sculpt your cognitive statue of love?

      This isn't to say that you should welcome evil, but it can hardly be
      avoided, or rather, the archontic forces of evil can only be avoided
      via the highly difficult process of developing fuller awareness.
      Otherwise, without acknowledging this reality we'll bump into a lot
      of ostensibly evil things that will not only disappoint us, but worse
      still, keep us ignorant.

      Internal inconsistency is a hallmark of such a frame of mind,
      precisely because it is unwilling to confront and reconcile those
      things that exist BEYOND the thinking that makes them so--that is,
      the objective psychoid facts of reality vs. a personal psychological
      facts of mind.

      Those who do confront these realities enevitably come to realize that
      the good is never altogether good and the evil never altogether evil,
      at least in this world.

      Better to realize that sooner than later, so as to move beyond it
      sooner than later--to move to the fullness of which Gnostics speak.
      But the only way to do so is through uncompromising consciousness,
      regardless of the discomfort.


      --- In gnosticism2@y..., "play_nice_now" <stokedup@y...> wrote:
      > --- In gnosticism2@y..., pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      > > Hate to say it "Play Nice", but I'm forced to question your grasp
      > on
      > > the notion of internal consistancy. Some of your statements
      simply
      > > don't pan out.
      >
      > That is partly because I'm not explaining them clear enough and
      also
      > partly because this is a very difficult subject to present in an
      > absolute sense of the word as you well know.
      >
      > > I say this not to upset you, but to give you the
      > > opportunity to examine your statements a little more closely
      before
      > > you post them.
      >
      > I understand and examine my statements more closely than you think.
      >
      > > Gerry and Cari are completely justified in questioning
      > > the way you come accross.
      >
      > Of course they are. So are you and so am I.
      >
      > > However, let me base my points on the
      > > idealogical, for instance....
      > >
      > > If there is such a thing as the "Infinite" source, then you are
      > right
      > > to some extent to point out that the notion of a "flaw" is in
      error
      > > (since no opposites exist there). On the other hand it also means
      > > that the "everything is good" ideal is equally in error. Someone
      > once
      > > said that nothing is good or evil but that our thinking makes it
      so
      > > (yes, it was a Gnostic ;)).
      >
      > I would more agree with the latter. Everything isn't good as much
      as
      > everything isn't bad. I think that was the point I was trying to
      > make. 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. 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. Humanity seeks to "fix" things that are
      > considered "flawed" or in "error". Our track record in judging what
      > is messed up or not isn't exactly the best if you catch my drift. I
      > don't trust that judgement as much as I trust love, tolerance and
      > compassion which by their very nature don't concern themselves with
      > the flaws and errors that seemingly exist from a perspective that
      > roots out love, compassion and tolerance in their thinking. 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 like.
      Like
      > these are "bad" things. 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". Fixing what they
      consider
      > as flawed and in error. Rose colored glasses are better than blood
      > stained ones anyday.
      >
      > This subject of truth and God and spirituality is very much a
      matter
      > of perspective. It isn't as objective as many people think it is.
      You
      > don't agree? That is why I question every path when it seems to me
      > that people are so married to one idea over all others. From what I
      > see here, Gnosticism isn't much different in this regard. Like I
      have
      > said a bunch of times already, truth isn't a matter of right and
      > wrong, good or bad, up or down, left or right. All things are part
      of
      > what is true. It is more about acceptance and tolerance than
      anything
      > else in my opinion.
      >
      > >
      > > Let me post this again since I don't think it hit home....
      > >
      > > "Therefore they have introduced other types of explination, some
      > > saying that it is according to providence that the things which
      > exist
      > > have thier being. These are the people who observe the stability
      > and
      > > the conformity of the movement of creation. Others say that it is
      > > something alien. These are the people who observe the diversity
      and
      > > the lawlessness and the evil of the powers. Others say that the
      > > things which exist are what is destined to happen. These are the
      > > people who were occupied with this matter. Others that it is
      > > something in accordance with nature. Others say that it is self
      > > existent. The majority, however, all who have reached as far as
      the
      > > visible elements, do not know anything more than them."
      >
      > No. It hit home. I would agree with that and it is why I say
      that "I
      > don't know shit". Compared to what there is to know, I don't.
      Neither
      > does anyone here. I give that the respect that it deserves. Doesn't
      > mean that I know nothing as much as it means that I have much to
      > learn. Much to remember. So do we all.
      >
      >
      > > The difference between the Gnostic "flaw" and the New Age rose
      > > colored glasses? Well the difference is that we make our mistake
      > > conciously rather than out of ignorace or the pathological need
      to
      > > feel warm and fuzzy in spite of the dual nature necessary for
      time
      > > to exist. We do it for the sake of description. However, that
      isn't
      > > the problem. The fact is, until you know what Gnostics mean by
      the
      > > things they say, you don't really know if you agree or disagree,
      > nor
      > > how to state what is right or wrong about it. The thing is, you
      are
      > > still doing so. The word for this behavior is "presumption", and
      > many
      > > people find it annoying. I will be patient, as you have asked of
      > us,
      > > but don't think that "patience" is the same as letting you off
      the
      > > hook where critical thinking is concerned.
      >
      > My thinking about what is being said in here is critical. I'll try
      to
      > be more clear if and when I decide to post anything in here again.
      > I'm sorry if I annoyed anyone.
      >
      > > If you "don't know shit", then that is about what the "insights"
      > you offer are worth.
      >
      > I explained what I meant by that statement above so it should be
      > clearer to understand now.
      >
      > > That doesn't mean that they may not be true, they
      > > just haven't flowered into true cogniscence yet. Hold on to them,
      > > test them, and after you _really_ know what we are talking about
      > see
      > > if they stand up to what you may learn here. We also believe we
      > have
      > > some insights as to where to find truth, and how to come to know
      > > it.... and it has much to do with flaw and error (at least in an
      > > allegorical sense). To add to that, there are some here who know
      > > thier "shit" pretty well.
      >
      > I have said many times that you all "know" as much as anyone when
      it
      > comes to what is true. And all paths eventually lead to truth. You
      > know well what you know but compared to what there is to know,
      > well.....each of us doesn't know much. That isn't presumption. It
      is
      > truth.
      >
      >
      > > I hope you are able to take this in the light it is meant. I am
      > > giving you a hard time, but it is not meant in an angry manner at
      > > all. I think the fact is that there are a few basic principles to
      > > Gnosticism that may still be a little foggy to you, let alone the
      > > deep stuff for now. Yes, there is a great deal of study that is
      > going
      > > to be involved if you wish to have some understanding of
      Gnosticism
      > > (whether or not you decide you agre with it), and you stated that
      > you
      > > are in fact curious.
      >
      > I am not at all irritated and have read a bunch of Gnostic "stuff"
      > already. I am still curious. 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. Words taken out of
      context
      > lends itself to much confusion in my opinion. Reminds me of what
      > fundamentalist Christianity does to support ideas that the original
      > teachings weren't meant to portray.
      >
      > > Any true esoteic path is going to be blood sweat
      > > and tears, expect some work and some concepts that had not
      > previously
      > > hit you. This is a continual process, and any worth while
      esoteric
      > > path is a tremendous amount of work.
      >
      > So true. I've been on the inner path for a while now and it is
      > exactly as you say. I have shared much with you in this post and
      > hopefully now you understand me and my "contradictory" nature a bit
      > more. 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?
      >
      > peace be with you,
      > play
    • Show all 27 messages in this topic