9767Re: Aeons?/ Lynette 2
- Jul 18, 2004Hey Lynette, you state.....
"I certainly understand the "danger of misunderstanding". However,
when it comes to online conversation, it happens all the time, as one
cannot view body language and facial expressions, which are a vital
part of communication."
Sure, Lynette, all that is true of course.... however it is not the
kind of misunderstanding I was talking about.
"My referring to the similarities between aeons and archeons and
angels, and whatnot, was a simple reference, and as I stated in my
reply to David and Gerry, those similarities also exist in buddhism
Well, of course Lynette, I think we understood your point and no one
disagreed with it. The fact that some of us express caution
concerning the methodology doesn't mean we disagree that there are
similarities or even that the methodology is invalid. No one
suggested you should not draw such comparisons, just that we should
all be careful as we do so, which is not meant to imply that you are
personally incautious in this department.
You then continue....
"I'm not at all opposed to the Historical gnostic meanings, nor any
new ideas. But if this group is designed with the purpose of
discussing Historical gnostic meanings, then that is fine. that is
what I'll hear, but I cannot curb questions just because I'll be
worried that it is out of context with this group."
Oh, of course not, Lynette. Once again, I mearly mean to point these
things out so that we all know what page we are on
"Do you understand? That I do not in any way understand why my
comment on angels and aeons and archeons have offended or caused such
Gee, Lynette, where did you get the idea that anyone was offended, or
that there was a stir here? Perhaps you are misreading the intent of
some of the posts? At least I have not seen any kind of a stir
here... but maybe it is I who missed it.
"I did not come to this list with any preconceived idea of what
gnosticism was, other than what I have already stated. Which was that
it has a connection with Christianity with the Christ, and that I
thought it was a religion. My questions have been asked to ascertain
the general thought processes. Those questions were answered."
And they are perfecly fine questions you ask, Lynette, glad to hear
they were answered.
"My next comment would be in regards to "conversion", if you will.
Technically there may not be a church to convert to, but there is a
set of ideas. Those ideas are formed out of men's minds. There are
all types of conversions, and a conversion of ideas is just as real
as a conversion of religion."
Sure, there are all types of conversion I suppose. Of course, keep in
mind that there are also philosohpies that include a notion that
perhaps not all others are able to be a part of the group in
question. For instance, consider a medieval craft guild that might
disallow "conversion" by sombody it did not feel was up to the task
of learning the secrets of the guild. Indeed, not all groups will
even allow conversions, and that even applies to some religions.
Also thought I would point out that according to Gnostics, the
comprehension known as "Gnosis" is not an idea that originates with
man, but instead is a remembering of divinity.
"Some based upon truth, some based upon myth."
Why can't myth be truth also?
"I would like to point out, PMCV, one personal thing though. Since
your first reponse to my emails, you do like to take out bits and
pieces of things I've said, without fully listening to the whole
intent of the email. The first time, I didn't say anything, because
misunderstandings happen. This time I will state it very clearly, my
whole intention in any of my emails is very clear when you read it as
a whole. If this had been done from the first, I think we would have
clearly understood one another from the get go."
Hmmmm, I was unaware there was any lack of understanding between us,
until this post of yours in which you seem to express a feeling that
there is. I believe perhaps you may have mistaken rhetorical points
by me as personal ones in which you think I am implying a fault on
your part.... and I believe you may have made the same assumptions
concerning Gerry's and David's posts as well. Well, then let's lay
that misconception aside. There is no offence that you have assailed
us with, and neither has anyone implied to you there is.
Also, it would not be logical to assume that just because I pick out
a point from your post that I feel needs clarification that it means
I did not understand the rest of your point. More on that subject
with the next point I picked out ;)
"Please refrain from taking comments I make out of its full context
in future posts, and I will make every effort to not make "off-
handed" comparisons to the list."
Ah, that is one thing I am afraid we will probably all be unable to
do for you, Lynette. You see, this group gets very detailed
sometimes. Often the differences between the ideas of various groups
in the subject we are studying can be profound, but also so subtle
that they are easy to miss. For that reason, many of us here have
become used to picking out those specific points for clarification,
and the same thing happens in the discussion with others.
Now, don't misunderstand me here... you are absolutely right that it
would be wrong of me to take something you said out of context and
then somehow twist the words to mean something else. If ever you
think I have changed your meaning, please don't hesitate to correct
me, it is never my intent. However, at this point I believe what you
will find with a critical reading of my posts to you is that all I
have really done with snippets of your posts is deal with specific
points that I think brought out subjects for more conversation.
In fact, if you step back for a moment and think about this, I think
you will find that just as you are taking parts of posts people have
made here and tried to focus the discussion to the parts that
interest, confuse, inspire, or otherwise cause you to feel a need to
deal with in greater depth in order to foster your curiousity of
Gnosticism, I too am doing the same thing to your posts in order to
better understand where you are coming from.
Take, for instance, the place above in this post where I removed your
statement "Some based upon truth, some based upon myth." from it's
context and then make a quick observation of my own. You see, I
simply did not feel that the rest of your point there needed any
clarification but this statement could be critical for the
implications it has on a wider conversation... and now you have the
chance to give your perspective on that subject in greater detail for
the edification or education of the rest of us as to what you think
of that subject. Your words have not been twisted for the sake of any
debate point, they have just caused in me a desire to have you add to
your point. I notice something in your post that makes me want to
express something, I may be curious to get you to further express
your thoughts on it, or I may feel the need to express a need for
caution in the conversation, or may feel the need to highlight what I
feel was an excellent point that may be burried in other points, and
so I cut and paste that part instead of your whole post.
Once again though, if you ever feel that your words are being used
unfairly, that is a different story... point it out and we will find
a greater level of understanding.
- << Previous post in topic