Re: Gnostic Lingo.
- Hmmm, let me ask for some clarifications, Hermetic_Star
>>>"Ok... I think the question is irrelevant. What the ancients didor didn't do doesn't matter so much as whether your method works."<<<
Works for what? Math works for its function, but is that function
related to what the historical Gnostics were trying to talk about?
Maybe sometimes... but is it the same intent? Can you show it?
>>"If you get caught up in the form, you end up with another type ofexotericism."<<
Sure, but my question is whether or not we understand the intended
function, not the form.
>>"If you are trying to say there must be a direct link betweenancient and modern Gnostics, then we are all screwed, the ancients
Well, no, not exactly. Remember that in the definition of this club
there is no such thing as "modern Gnostics". What I am asking is how
well, and in what context, people understand the historical Gnostic
texts. If you think it is personal, how sure are you that what you
are talking about is really "Gnostic" in the same way they were?
Let me try to put that another way. What if I am reading a Gnostic
text about Sophia and the Logos, but the meaning I get from them is
something completely unrelated to what the author was talking about?
Did the author HAVE a meaning? Just because two people use the same
word it doesn't mean they are talking about the same thing. See my
>>"Who initiated THEM into Gnosticism? Therefore a direct andpersonal spiritual experience must link you to the scource, or you
CANNOT and never will be a Gnostic."<<<
Good point. Leaving aside the fact that they did not consider
themselves to have been "initiated into Gnosticism" I think the
concern you raise is important there.
However, what if I told you that "Gnosis" is not a personal
spiritual experience that links you to the source? Can you
demonstrate otherwise? It sounds to me that you, like many people,
believe that Gnosis is a sort of mystical experience. Can you
demonstrate that the word really means that to the historical
>>>"As for Liber Al and the ligitimacy of Crowley's teachings, thattoo 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."<<
My point was not concerning the ligitimacy of Crowley's teachings,
but simply whether or not what he was talking about realy is the
same meaning as the Logos and Sophia. It is easy to make an equation
between any two things that seem similar on the surface.... but I am
asking for an equation on a bit of a deeper level. In other words,
you need to demonstrate what the Logos and the Sophia mean in the
original Gnostic texts before you can show us how they are the same
as Hadit and Nuit.
Does that make more sense?
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
>Damn it, I didn't want to be recognised... LOL
> 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.
> Gnosis is not found in an internet club. Any Yahoo group that thinksAgreed. Just because a group attempts to point the way isn't
> it is passing on Gnosis to it's members is selling a fantasy.
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 byMaybe to that extreme, yes... But I offer you the example of Joan of
> 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.
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*