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

Re: Idea of Gnosis

Expand Messages
  • Mike Leavitt
    Hello lady_caritas ... We should remember that the late NeoPlatonists like Proclus were very theurgic, if not plain magical in their emphasis. Regards -- Mike
    Message 1 of 20 , Dec 10, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello lady_caritas

      On 12/10/04, you wrote:

      > IOW, to end my rambling here, there seemed to be a common emphasis
      > on a pneumatic remembrance, an awakening from ignorance common to
      > these groups, that was still apparent in spite of varying
      > expressions, cosmological details, and ritual emphasis in attaining
      > Gnosis.

      We should remember that the late NeoPlatonists like Proclus were very
      theurgic, if not plain magical in their emphasis.

      Regards
      --
      Mike Leavitt ac998@...
    • lady_caritas
      ... attaining ... very ... Yes, Mike, and I don t know if Jung felt the same dislike for Proclus as he did toward other Neoplatonists. Proclus was still the
      Message 2 of 20 , Dec 11, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
        > Hello lady_caritas
        >
        > On 12/10/04, you wrote:
        >
        > > IOW, to end my rambling here, there seemed to be a common emphasis
        > > on a pneumatic remembrance, an awakening from ignorance common to
        > > these groups, that was still apparent in spite of varying
        > > expressions, cosmological details, and ritual emphasis in
        attaining
        > > Gnosis.
        >
        > We should remember that the late NeoPlatonists like Proclus were
        very
        > theurgic, if not plain magical in their emphasis.
        >
        > Regards
        > --
        > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...


        Yes, Mike, and I don't know if Jung felt the same dislike for Proclus
        as he did toward other Neoplatonists. Proclus was still the
        philosopher, but certainly incorporated theurgy in his contemplation
        of Forms.
        http://www.kheper.net/topics/Neoplatonism/Proclus-theurgy.html


        Cari
      • lady_caritas
        ... some ... Chronology ... and ... this ... Oh, yes, Mike. I checked back to a previous post of mine (#10379) in which I quoted from the preface of Turner s
        Message 3 of 20 , Dec 11, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
          > Hello lady_caritas
          >
          > On 12/10/04, you wrote:
          >
          > >
          > >
          > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...>
          wrote:
          > >>
          > >> It seems to me from this short bit I have read, that Dr Turner
          > >> postulates a later origin for Sethianism, but not so late as
          some
          > >> believe.
          > >>
          > >> In looking at this part of Turner's outline....
          > >>
          > >> "So far as I can see, most of the Sethian documents cited above
          > >> originated in the period 100-250 C.E.
          > >
          > >
          > > Hi, PMCV. Turner also does mention (near the end of III.
          Chronology
          > > and Redaction, A. Before 100 C.E.) earliest Sethian compositions
          > > that were written by the end of the first century. I would copy
          and
          > > paste here, but I can't seem to access the web page right now.
          > >
          > > He basically shows an origin for Sethianism before 100 C.E in
          this
          > > whole section. Are there sources that postulate a much earlier
          > > origin?
          > >
          > > Cari
          >
          > I have heard about 100 BCE. PMCV?
          >
          > Regards
          > --
          > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...


          Oh, yes, Mike. I checked back to a previous post of mine (#10379) in
          which I quoted from the preface of Turner's article, mentioning
          "Sethianism as a non-Christian
          baptismal sect of the first centuries B.C.E. and C.E. which
          considered itself primordially enlightened by the divine wisdom
          revealed to Adam and Seth,..."

          I don't know how much further back we could go, but even activity
          around 100 B.C.E. would exemplify non-Christian roots.

          Cari
        • Mike Leavitt
          Hello lady_caritas ... I seem to remember Iamblicus On the Mysteries, which was very theurgic too. I don t have ready access to my library (long story) or I
          Message 4 of 20 , Dec 11, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Hello lady_caritas

            On 12/11/04, you wrote:

            >
            >
            > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
            >> Hello lady_caritas
            >>
            >> On 12/10/04, you wrote:
            >>
            >> IOW, to end my rambling here, there seemed to be a common emphasis
            >> on a pneumatic remembrance, an awakening from ignorance common to
            >> these groups, that was still apparent in spite of varying
            >> expressions, cosmological details, and ritual emphasis in
            > attaining
            >>> Gnosis.
            >>
            >> We should remember that the late NeoPlatonists like Proclus were
            > very
            >> theurgic, if not plain magical in their emphasis.
            >>
            >> Regards
            >> --
            >> Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
            >
            >
            > Yes, Mike, and I don't know if Jung felt the same dislike for
            > Proclus as he did toward other Neoplatonists. Proclus was still the
            > philosopher, but certainly incorporated theurgy in his contemplation
            > of Forms.
            > http://www.kheper.net/topics/Neoplatonism/Proclus-theurgy.html

            I seem to remember Iamblicus On the Mysteries, which was very theurgic
            too. I don't have ready access to my library (long story) or I would
            check.

            Regards
            --
            Mike Leavitt ac998@...
          • lady_caritas
            ... emphasis ... the ... contemplation ... theurgic ... would ... You must have some amazing library, Mike. Anyway, I was able to find this online:
            Message 5 of 20 , Dec 11, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
              > Hello lady_caritas
              >
              > On 12/11/04, you wrote:
              >
              > >
              > >
              > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...>
              wrote:
              > >> Hello lady_caritas
              > >>
              > >> On 12/10/04, you wrote:
              > >>
              > >> IOW, to end my rambling here, there seemed to be a common
              emphasis
              > >> on a pneumatic remembrance, an awakening from ignorance common to
              > >> these groups, that was still apparent in spite of varying
              > >> expressions, cosmological details, and ritual emphasis in
              > > attaining
              > >>> Gnosis.
              > >>
              > >> We should remember that the late NeoPlatonists like Proclus were
              > > very
              > >> theurgic, if not plain magical in their emphasis.
              > >>
              > >> Regards
              > >> --
              > >> Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
              > >
              > >
              > > Yes, Mike, and I don't know if Jung felt the same dislike for
              > > Proclus as he did toward other Neoplatonists. Proclus was still
              the
              > > philosopher, but certainly incorporated theurgy in his
              contemplation
              > > of Forms.
              > > http://www.kheper.net/topics/Neoplatonism/Proclus-theurgy.html
              >
              > I seem to remember Iamblicus On the Mysteries, which was very
              theurgic
              > too. I don't have ready access to my library (long story) or I
              would
              > check.
              >
              > Regards
              > --
              > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...


              You must have some amazing library, Mike. Anyway, I was able to find
              this online:
              http://www.esotericarchives.com/oracle/iambl_th.htm


              Cari
            • Mike Leavitt
              Hello lady_caritas ... This appears to be the work in question. The style makes it a bit hard to read, I m afraid. Regards -- Mike Leavitt ac998@lafn.org
              Message 6 of 20 , Dec 11, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Hello lady_caritas

                On 12/11/04, you wrote:

                >
                >
                > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
                >> Hello lady_caritas
                >>
                >> On 12/11/04, you wrote:
                >>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>> --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...>
                > wrote:
                >>>> Hello lady_caritas
                >>>>
                >>>> On 12/10/04, you wrote:
                >>>>
                >>>> IOW, to end my rambling here, there seemed to be a common
                > emphasis
                >> >> on a pneumatic remembrance, an awakening from ignorance common
                >> >> to these groups, that was still apparent in spite of varying
                >> >> expressions, cosmological details, and ritual emphasis in
                >>> attaining
                >>>>> Gnosis.
                >> >>
                >> >> We should remember that the late NeoPlatonists like Proclus were
                >>> very
                >>>> theurgic, if not plain magical in their emphasis.
                >>>>
                >>>> Regards
                >>>> --
                >>>> Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
                >>>
                >>>
                >>> Yes, Mike, and I don't know if Jung felt the same dislike for
                >>> Proclus as he did toward other Neoplatonists. Proclus was still
                > the
                >>> philosopher, but certainly incorporated theurgy in his
                > contemplation
                >>> of Forms.
                >>> http://www.kheper.net/topics/Neoplatonism/Proclus-theurgy.html
                >>
                >> I seem to remember Iamblicus On the Mysteries, which was very
                > theurgic
                >> too. I don't have ready access to my library (long story) or I
                > would
                >> check.
                >>
                >> Regards
                >> --
                >> Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
                >
                >
                > You must have some amazing library, Mike. Anyway, I was able to find
                > this online:
                > http://www.esotericarchives.com/oracle/iambl_th.htm

                This appears to be the work in question. The style makes it a bit
                hard to read, I'm afraid.

                Regards
                --
                Mike Leavitt ac998@...
              • pmcvflag
                In my memory I seem to recall that Pearson pushes back even farther, a little into the second century B.C.. To be honest though, I can t recall what evidence
                Message 7 of 20 , Dec 11, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  In my memory I seem to recall that Pearson pushes back even farther,
                  a little into the second century B.C.. To be honest though, I can't
                  recall what evidence he presents for that.... and I can't think of
                  any myself. I also was just noticing that Turner and Pearson seem to
                  have many parallel studies, such as the specific connection between
                  Gnosticism and Platonism. From what I am reading they seem very much
                  in agrement. Perhaps Turner is a good replacement (and maybe a bit
                  updated) for the fact that Pearson seems pretty hard to find. It
                  would be helpful to have more books on this perticular subject to be
                  able to recomend to people. Expect my review within a year ;) *lol*

                  PMCV

                  --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@y...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...>
                  wrote:
                  > > Hello lady_caritas
                  > >
                  > > On 12/10/04, you wrote:
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...>
                  > wrote:
                  > > >>
                  > > >> It seems to me from this short bit I have read, that Dr
                  Turner
                  > > >> postulates a later origin for Sethianism, but not so late as
                  > some
                  > > >> believe.
                  > > >>
                  > > >> In looking at this part of Turner's outline....
                  > > >>
                  > > >> "So far as I can see, most of the Sethian documents cited
                  above
                  > > >> originated in the period 100-250 C.E.
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > Hi, PMCV. Turner also does mention (near the end of III.
                  > Chronology
                  > > > and Redaction, A. Before 100 C.E.) earliest Sethian
                  compositions
                  > > > that were written by the end of the first century. I would
                  copy
                  > and
                  > > > paste here, but I can't seem to access the web page right now.
                  > > >
                  > > > He basically shows an origin for Sethianism before 100 C.E in
                  > this
                  > > > whole section. Are there sources that postulate a much
                  earlier
                  > > > origin?
                  > > >
                  > > > Cari
                  > >
                  > > I have heard about 100 BCE. PMCV?
                  > >
                  > > Regards
                  > > --
                  > > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
                  >
                  >
                  > Oh, yes, Mike. I checked back to a previous post of mine (#10379)
                  in
                  > which I quoted from the preface of Turner's article, mentioning
                  > "Sethianism as a non-Christian
                  > baptismal sect of the first centuries B.C.E. and C.E. which
                  > considered itself primordially enlightened by the divine wisdom
                  > revealed to Adam and Seth,..."
                  >
                  > I don't know how much further back we could go, but even activity
                  > around 100 B.C.E. would exemplify non-Christian roots.
                  >
                  > Cari
                • pmcvflag
                  Hey Mike... ... Sethians were not.
                  Message 8 of 20 , Dec 11, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hey Mike...

                    >>>"Just one, the early Valentinians were in the church, the
                    Sethians were not."<<<

                    Perhaps, but what about the synagogue? Also, I am not so sure that
                    the Christinized "Sethian" tracts were not originally used in the
                    church. On the other hand, they are hard to reconcile with what we
                    know of the earliest Christian texts. I think this question is very
                    difficult to be positive about, either way.

                    PMCV
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.