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

9146Re: Valentinian anthropology

Expand Messages
  • K.M.Hunter
    Feb 1, 2004
      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
      > Hello eyeambetty
      > On 31-Jan-04, you wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > > betty wrote:
      > >> > i have a hard time reconciling the rigidity of the Valentinian
      > >> > system, and the necessity for the psychic category. you have
      > >> > hylic at one end, and the pneumatic at the other, two natures
      > >> > opposition. then in the middle is the psychic, who basically
      > >> > either hylic tendencies or pneumatic tendencies? sort of
      > >> the
      > >>> whole idea of chosen/elect. and what are the determining
      > >>> for me the three natures are more symbolic of potentials than
      > >>> judgement about ones eternal fate.
      > >>>
      > >
      > >
      > >> Cari wrote:
      > >> Betty, do you feel that we all have all these potentials,
      > > or
      > >> not realized, or rather that some people are limited by nature
      > > the
      > >> hylic or psychic possibilities?
      > >>
      > >> And then, do you view these various natures in any way related
      > > an
      > >> eternal or infinite upshot?
      > >>

      Hi Cari,
      upon thinking this more thoroughly, perhaps all these natures are
      potentials within us, but one nature eventually predominates. for if
      Indeed we all have a spark/shard of the divine, does that not imply
      potential? then i keep coming back to, how is it that some transcend
      the lower levels? and why do some stay bound to those natures? for
      myself, i can say that i have lingered in the lower levels in my
      life. fortunately, i never got comfortable, but not without misery
      and suffering. in hindsight, experientially, that was very necessary
      in shaping the awareness i have now. maybe what is meant by "chosen"
      is the grace to be in the midst of the lower natures, internally and
      externally but not to succumb, but to recognize and observe. how
      would one know light without the contrast of darkness?


      Hi Betty,

      Indeed it is interesting to consider, how would one know light
      without darkness? I do think that there are entities in creation that
      do partake of only one of these. That is, beings that are totally at
      one with the 'concept' of love, who simply do not know of darkness,
      and also, beings of such malevalence that are so completely ignorant
      of goodness. It is possible for some entities to know only one
      quality, without the other, I think. We humans are in fact in a most
      interesting state of being in that we can contemplate both, from
      a 'stand-off' position and choose, through our actions, whether to
      manifest as beings of light or darkness. This is one of our essential
      characteristics, I think.

    • Show all 78 messages in this topic