Re: something to think about
- Hello pmcvflag
On 11/12/04, you wrote:
> Hey Annie, let me try to make my question a little more direct
> here... using your post as a counterpoint.
>>>> "Yes, I certainly do, of course not as 'god' but in the sense
> of 'The'. There is a common thread which runs through all things,
> by virtue of the spirit. Once the aim is focused on the spirit, it
> can be seen everywhere."<<<<
> What you seem to be talking about is called "pantheism". Are you
> sure that historical Gnostics believed that the true spiritual
> source is in everything?
>>>> "From reading the Nag Hammadi, I have no doubt the original
> gnostics believed this, as well. The reason I say this is because of
> their portrayal of the serpent in the garden being the cleverest
> beast and the 'instructor.' To one not yet prepared to discern all
> things, the snake is a trickster, and a liar. But the second time
> one meets that snake, it's a friend, one that is easily understood.
> To get past that point also makes the spirit evident in all things,
> revealing everything as an opportunity to learn."<<<<
> This is actually not true of all Gnostics. In fact, there is part of
> your point that is not internally consistant here. You say later
> that you are not sure if the "Sethian" outline is really Gnostic,
> you also say the Gnostics have a positive view of the serpent, but
> let me point out that the tendancy to view the serpent in positive
> terms does not hold out in Valentinian texts.
> Can you point out how you see getting past the view of good and evil
> means that the "spirit is evident in all things"? I don't think this
> logically follows, and I personally don't think that historical
> Gnostics agreed with this notion.
> I do think your point is very interesting, but somehow it seems to
> be an itch... either I am misunderstanding you, or perhaps we need
> to look further to see if we really find these ideas in Gnostic
As phrased, the point seems more Tauest than Gnostic, not that that
necessarily invalidates it as also Gnostic. OTOH this world is at
best only a necessary evil, even to the Valentinians, so....
- BTW, Annie....
>>>"So--the gnostics surely saw a lesson in everything, exceptperhaps the Sethian type who saw the demiurge as evil, but perhaps
that means they weren't quite complete gnostics in the pure sense of
the word. The Valentinians saw him as necessary and good in his
limited way. Or am I getting them reversed? You get my drift."<<<<
I don't think it is so much about getting it reversed here, as it is
a matter of translating the meanings and assuming all groups within
the categories fit nicely.
Also, I am not sure I understood how you come to the conclusion of
whether one group is "gnostics in the pure sense" based on this
particular function. Perhaps you could explain a bit more?
- Hey Mike....
>>"As phrased, the point seems more Tauest than Gnostic, not thatthat necessarily invalidates it as also Gnostic. OTOH this world is
at best only a necessary evil, even to the Valentinians, so...."<<<
Kinda my point also. My point here is more about trying to question
and gain context than to really specifically deal with the exact
point. You all know it is our job as "mods" ;) . I don't want any
assumptions to go unchallenged if there is some common debate as to
the validity of that belief as it pertains to "Gnosticism".