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

6962Re: Answer to Plotinus?

Expand Messages
  • Will Brown <wilbro99@yahoo.com>
    Jan 8, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Terje Bergersen" <terje@b...>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > > Inherent in this is a dual appreciation of the word "acquiantance" -
      > > either a man is acquianted with material and sensual concerns, and a
      > > material and sensual "world" - or else he is, by his renouncement
      > of "the
      > > world and all the matter therein", acquianted with the spiritual and
      > > suprasensual "world" through his uniformity with the nature of that
      > world,
      > > while still being "in" this world. As such, Matter does not matter,
      > only
      > > if the archons which dwell within man (a view shared between a great
      > > variety of Gnoses, whether you consider them "true" or "false") or
      > some
      > > exterior influence, be it embodied or disincarnate - confuses and
      > > confounds man to value either the physical or psychic as being
      > > divine,eternal,ultimate,absolute or of greater necessity than the
      > soul
      > > itself. In that respect, man looses himself temporarily through his
      > > predicament _in_ Matter, just as he stands in danger of eternally
      > loosing
      > > himself _in_ the "Outer darkness", these two are most clearly not
      > > identical, just as Chaos and emptiness are _distinct_ from
      > eachother.
      > Interesting point, Terje, and I would wonder then whether divisive,
      > materialistic distinctions (or judgments based on personal, earthly
      > lifestyle choices) like "feeble" and "strong" in categorizing
      > gnostics would therefore be relevant...
      > Cari

      Either man is acquainted with the "sensual" or he is acquainted with
      the "suprasensual" whilst still in the "sensual" world. In other
      words, there is a necessary breaking of the first to come upon the
      second regardless of what terms the first and the second are to be
      cast in. The Gnostic form is just one form of the casting.

      Another form of the casting: At the center of all castings is a
      movement, within one's sense of self, from one sense of the self in
      the world to another sense of the self in the world. From that
      movement, a reflection upon the self that was takes the form of a
      transcendence. If, however, the sense of self is seen to be given
      through reflection, then the act of transcendence is transcended, and
      Plotinus might then speak in terms of "the alone to the alone."

      Of course, that cast was made with a baited hook. ---- willy-nilly
    • Show all 19 messages in this topic