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

9961Re: First Line of Questions, Gavin's retort

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    Aug 5, 2004
      Ok Gavin, you really make me have to stop ant think there.... I like
      that ;) I don't think we are so much talking at cross purposes, as
      perhaps saying something similar in different ways... I meant to
      raise some of the same questions I think you do, and was asking for
      you take on the subject. You bring up some great topics here. Let me
      try to give my take....

      >>>"Well, I'm no mathematician, but I believe that all mathematical
      statements are either true or false, with no room for disagreement.
      For instance, 2+2=5 is just plain wrong, no matter what spin one puts
      on it. Can the same be said of Gnosis? If so, then what is
      the "formula" for working it out? If I knew that, my question would
      be answered."<<<

      Hey, I am with you there. I am not one of those people who argue that
      perception is reality, and everything is subjective. I think though,
      that you make the question even more specific later on here, so let
      me move on to that point. BTW, I aknowledge that I misunderstood your
      point concerning what the equation is between Gnosis and Truth, so
      let me skip that and get to the other point.....

      >>>"you said 'The question of whether a text has "Gnosis" or not
      cannot be answered unless the reader has a good understanding of
      what "Gnosis" actually is.' I suppose that answers my question, then,
      in a way - though it does put me in a sort of catch 22 position.
      Maybe this is just something I'll have to work out myself."<<<

      Well, ok, of course I was trying to make an analogy. Math is
      something that we can test, and with the one assumption that reality
      has it's own life outside perception, math becomes something "true"
      for sure.

      Let me try an analogy that is perhaps more to the point. In most
      peoples mind we see "psychology" from the lense of particular shools.
      I will be the first to admit that in the over all spectrum,
      psychology is not a pure science. However, let me point out that
      there are subdivisions within the grouping, and some are more
      scientific than others. Few people would debate the fact that Frued's
      methodology was flawed. On the other hand, Skinner was much more the
      true scientist. Psychology is a misture of fields that is sometimes
      science, sometimes good speculation, and sometimes fraud.

      I will be the first to say that we should not psychologicize
      Gnosticism, and even our Jung fans here have been in agreement with
      that, so don't take what I am saying at face value. Since there are
      sections of Psychology that are more or less "scientific", there are
      sections that could be seen as more or less objective or subjective.

      When we bring this down to the attainment of "Gnosis", I think we are
      on middle ground in the original texts. That is to say, we are not
      quite on such specific grounds as "2+2=4" but neither are we on the
      level of " what is truth".

      Let me put this another way. Gnostics had specific formulas for
      what "Gnosis" is, as well as how to attain it. Rituals may have
      differed, but the function and outline of Gnosis was agreed (which is
      why we group them together).

      Since Gnosis was a very specific realization, there was definately an
      idea that the ways of attaining it were testable, and repeatable. It
      was not luck of the draw, it was dedication to a path of
      understanding which used a formula.

      Think about the initiation part of our discussion. Gentile (hylic) is
      something that can lead to Hebrew (psychic). There is a methodology
      used to help a person go from one level to the next. The system can
      be repeated for the average person, and that is a sort of scientific
      test. Next, the system assumes a move from Hebrew, to "Christian"
      (which does not have to mean an acceptance of "Jesus". This also is
      something tested and repeated. The whole point here being that it is
      a system that seems to be something that can be used time an again to
      achieve a specific effect.

      Now, I am not even dealing with the point of whether the effect is
      valid, that is the next point to debate. Here, all we need worry
      about is if the effect intended is achieved. If so, there is already
      a sort of scientific level to this outline.

      So, before I go on... what do you think so far?

    • Show all 28 messages in this topic