6422Re: new Hoeller book / miscellany
- Jul 31, 2002BTW, 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
> 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.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>