6016Re: [Gnosticism] Re: (im-)Perfection (2 questions to pmcv)
- Jun 8, 2002
I hate to butt in but is the difference to believe is something based on fact but still has a leap of faith involved, where to know is a idea based solely on fact or something that we can prove. From example... Fred believes the Gospel of Thomas to be the true word based on the idea that it is one of the oldest Christian documents, or I know the Gospel of Thomas is one of the oldest Christian documents.
ZELITCHENK <zelitchenk@...> wrote:
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
> >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
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>