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

Re: Gnostic Lingo.

Expand Messages
  • hermetic_star
    Ok... I think the question is irrelevant. What the ancients did or didn t do doesn t matter so much as whether your method works. If you get caught up in the
    Message 1 of 35 , Jan 16, 2005
      Ok... I think the question is irrelevant. What the ancients did or
      didn't do doesn't matter so much as whether your method works. If you
      get caught up in the form, you end up with another type of exotericism.

      If you are trying to say there must be a direct link between ancient
      and modern Gnostics, then we are all screwed, the ancients included.
      Who initiated THEM into Gnosticism? Therefore a direct and personal
      spiritual experience must link you to the scource, or you CANNOT and
      never will be a Gnostic.

      As for Liber Al and the ligitimacy of Crowley's teachings, that too is
      irrelevant. I was trying to make a comparison to the relationship
      between Hadit and Nuit as being similar to that of Sophia and the
      Logos. Hadit is to Nuit as the Logos is to Sophia. ;)

      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      > Ah, ok.... so if I understand you then you are stating your support
      > for the more personal method of interpretation. Part of that
      > question though is whether or not you can demonstrate that the
      > historical Gnostics intended the liturature to be understood that
      > way. Would you care to take a crack at demonstrating that this is
      > the intention by using historical Gnostic texts? Where do you feel
      > they tell us this?
      > What I mean is, I understand that there are many people here who
      > feel that revalation is personal, but what I am asking is if anyone
      > wishes to outline whether this belief agrees with traditional
      > Gnostic understanding of this subject. In order to demonstrate that
      > Sophia and Logos are related to ideas in Liber Al, we need to
      > demonstrate what Sophia and Logos are in their original context
      > (otherwise I could just as easily state they could be something very
      > different, or even opposed to what is presented in Liber Al.... and
      > in fact many here do not see Crowley's teachings as even remotely
      > related to Gnosticism so we can't make such an assumption without
      > using Gnostic texts to outline this).
      > Care to give it a try?
      > PMCV
      > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, hermetic_star <no_reply@y...>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > > The Gnostic 'revelation' is a state of mind, something like Zen.
      > You
      > > will either get it, or not get it. If you get it, your perception
      > > shifts and you will understand the symbols and images represented
      > in
      > > the texts. I believe giving away such secrets is a violation. I
      > > believe this for two reasons: It opens up our gnosis to ridicule by
      > > those hard headed enough to not have the capacity to understand,
      > and
      > > also if we give away the method by which we ourselves measure our
      > > progress, then how will we recognise those who have joined us?
      > >
      > > A partial answer to your question though, Sophia and the Logos are
      > > kind of like Nuit and Hadit to in Liber Al. They are form and
      > > function. You can no more have one without the other than you can
      > have
      > > a front without a back. They are interdependant, and two sides of
      > the
      > > same coin.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > I am throwing out a few ideas here so a few conversations can go
      > on
      > > > at once.
      > > >
      > > > In MANY groups the question as to the allegorical vs literal
      > > > interperatations of Gnostic texts have been a bit of a debate.
      > While
      > > > latter method leaves no difficult strings to tie, the former
      > really
      > > > seems to be the wider assumption in spite of the fact that it is
      > the
      > > > more difficult to demonstrate.
      > > >
      > > > Strangely enough, a fairly wide majority of people seem to
      > ascribe
      > > > to the sort of "sola scriptura" notion of interpretive method
      > that
      > > > came very late to Christian thought, which is to say they feel
      > that
      > > > interpretation of these scriptures is a personal affair.
      > > >
      > > > As most of you know, I have stated many times, for the record,
      > that
      > > > I doubt that the intent of these authors was simply to throw out
      > > > scripture for personal interpretive methodologies. However, I
      > have
      > > > had people counter from the assumption that the texts are a sort
      > of
      > > > revelation, and have even been asked how we can know if these
      > > > authors even understood the texts themselves.
      > > >
      > > > I would like to have a conversation with the assumption that
      > these
      > > > are allegory, and ask how you feel they should be dealt with. Do
      > you
      > > > think they used a sort of lingo meant to be understood in
      > specific
      > > > ways? Do you believe you understand what the Logos and Sophia
      > is? Or
      > > > the difference between the "First Father" and the "Second
      > Father"?
      > > > Or, you think they were intended to be personal images? And why?
      > > >
      > > > PMCV
    • hermetic_star
      ... Damn it, I didn t want to be recognised... LOL ... Agreed. Just because a group attempts to point the way isn t necessarily a bad thing though. If the goal
      Message 35 of 35 , Jan 20, 2005
        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
        > Ok, I am back from my trip. I need to point out some confusion here,
        > Hermetic_Star. I finally got a chance to look at your profile, and
        > now I know which clubs and so forth I know you from. "Philo Sophia",
        > btw, was accidentally erased by Yahoo... I may remake it again
        > someday. Remember, you went by another name in those other clubs so
        > I had to piece a few things together, including your writing style
        > and your interests and pages.

        Damn it, I didn't want to be recognised... LOL

        > Gnosis is not found in an internet club. Any Yahoo group that thinks
        > it is passing on Gnosis to it's members is selling a fantasy.

        Agreed. Just because a group attempts to point the way isn't
        necessarily a bad thing though. If the goal is understood to be
        un-attainable, and the group doesn't take itself too seriously in this
        respect, I think it's still a noble goal/attitude.

        > If you were born outside human society, say you were raised by
        > animals, you would learn a different way of being that would be
        > based on that animal existance. You may have the mind of a genius,
        > but it will never fully develope. You may go a bit further
        > linguistically somehow, you may invent tools, but no matter how
        > intelligent you are you would never come up with Quantum
        > Electrodynamic Thoery, you will not invent a steam engine, you will
        > not even come up with something so natural to humans as a fully
        > developed language.

        Maybe to that extreme, yes... But I offer you the example of Joan of
        Arc. A peasant girl who has a spiritual experience, and saves her
        country against a foreign super-power. Unlikely, but it does happen.
        It *IS* possable. Now what if we could take a good thing and mass
        produce it? Think of what we would be like THEN. *Grinz*
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.