9961Re: First Line of Questions, Gavin's retort
- Aug 5, 2004Ok 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 mathematicalstatements 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
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 notcannot 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"
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?
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>