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

6422Re: new Hoeller book / miscellany

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    Jul 31, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      BTW, I am kidding about the "language" thing.


      --- In gnosticism2@y..., pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      > Language, Incognito... this is a family room ;) Anyways, you have
      > gone over entirely into the subjective and personal perspective.
      > There is little we can talk about in any constructive way once you
      > that, since there is little we can to to demonstrate our points. It
      > simply becomes the silly banter of one individual perspective vs
      > another. All the same, I'll bite for the moment. Only as long as it
      > doesn't degenerate beyond this into door knocker proslytizing
      > though... or I'll end the conversation.
      > >Good is the source. Evil is a byproduct<
      > Well, no one is going to accuse you of making things overly complex
      > *g*. However, what makes you so sure that the words you choose are
      > the only correct ones (or even the best ones) for the concept you
      > trying to confer? Also, this is not so much about what we think is
      > true, but what we think these long dead historical groups were
      > to say. You said that you "defer to your (my) hermeneutic", but
      > is all about hermenuetics... eisegesis vs exegesis. How much of
      > we read is colored by personal understanding, vs what they really
      > meant to say.
      > >You mean utterly literally as in true incorruptible good?<
      > No, utterly litterally as in thinking that concepts which are
      > dependant on the field of time survive beyond time.
      > >The danger is if we use the standards of good we know here in our
      > dualistic existence, which is corrupt, as absolute standards for
      > Father.<
      > Any notion of good you can have is within this corruption you so
      > accurately point out. As a "notion" or "concept" it is dependand on
      > our existance in this dualistic field. That is why the language is
      > imperfect, and should not be taken at face falue. There is nothing
      > you can think, see, feel, grasp, talk about, or write, that does
      > fall into that trap. You however seem to be using the term "good"
      > a very concrete way, as if a word could truely hold the power of
      > Bythos, and so should be taken at face falue. I agree with Ernst on
      > this one.... "language is just language".
      > >The Corpus Hermeticum explains it better than I<
      > The Coprus Hermeticum isn't technically "Gnostic" (the Jury is in
      > that one). While it does have some itnerest to this club (as a sort
      > of cousin form of Platonism), we have to be careful about assuming
      > its value in interpreting other texts.
      > >Good and evil here are a mixture, neither is pure.<
      > And the same is true of the concepts therof.
      > >We can also conceive of perfect things that do not exist in nature
      > so this is not a difficult idea to grasp. Language may be linear
      > whoever said the human perception was?<
      > Well... I say that. Perception is a happening, an experience,
      > therefore it is dependant on the field of time. Without opposites,
      > there is nothing to percieve and and no perception. If you grasp a
      > moment of the infinite... it still happens in a moment. We can in
      > fact have an experience of that infinite, the problem is that we
      > to then ascribe descriptions to it that have baggage.... such
      > as "good" (this is not a bad thing, as long as it is only
      > for it's descritpive power). At that moment, what we describe
      > linear in it's being passed on. The true grasp of this eternal
      > Source is not conceptual, it is not perceptual, but it's lingo is,
      > and it's memory is. As you are typing on your computer, you are
      > speaking and thinking... those are linear actvities. When you
      > say "good", the "o" comes after the "g" and that is a linear
      > >The GoPh quote on good and evil refers to *this realm*.<
      > As all conceptual understandings are in *this realm*, even those
      > point imperfectly to something beyond.
      > >If you say you can't describe something, and then go on to do just
      > that, as the texts I gave quotes from do, it is a contradiction.<
      > No, it's a metephor
      > >Off the web (I am not a member of the bahai faith if anyone
      > Then, may I ask what faith you do belong to?
      > >I suppose literal is the new dirty word in religious philosophical
      > circles, like liberal is in politics.<
      > TriTra "nor can any speach convey him".... "Literal" has always
      > a dirty word for Platonists (and Gnosticism is in fact a Platonic
      > syncratism). Plato outlines this very directly in his doctrin of
      > arete vs techne. Literal representation, he says, is not true
      > which is instead found in underlying meanings. I believe Valintinus
      > was completely familiar with this principle.
      > PMCV
    • Show all 39 messages in this topic