Hmmm, let me ask for some clarifications, 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."<<<
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 of
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 between
ancient 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 and
personal 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, 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."<<
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?