Re: Gnostic Lingo.
> Works for what? Math works for its function, but is that functionIf you can gain gnosis through math, more power to you! The proof of
> related to what the historical Gnostics were trying to talk about?
> Maybe sometimes... but is it the same intent? Can you show it?
the method is in the trials of the one who subjects him or herself to
the method. It is subjective. What advantage would proving that you
have gnosis have? Self-glorification? The person who does not have it
will not recognise it when it is shown to him. The one who has it will
recognise it in others without it being 'shown' to him. Asking for
proof of gnosis would be like asking DaVinci or Mozart to prove that
they are a genius. The answer should be obvious to anyone aware enough
to pick up on it.
> Well, no, not exactly. Remember that in the definition of this clubHeheh, sorry... I find this extremely hilarious!
> there is no such thing as "modern Gnostics".
> What I am asking is howThis should be obvious to anyone who is one. I see nothing to debate
> 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?
here. If you are a Gnostic, you should intuitively understand the
texts written by one or more of the ancient sects, and be able to
apply what's written there.
> Let me try to put that another way. What if I am reading a GnosticThe rest of their symbols should jive. If they don't, the author was
> 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
most likely not writing about the same thing, or were a fake in the
> Good point. Leaving aside the fact that they did not considerSure they did. Are you saying the sacraments aren't a form of
> 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 personalI would tell you you are correct. It's a metaphor. The scource is
> 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
something that is within us.
> My point was not concerning the ligitimacy of Crowley's teachings,I am not claiming they are the same... I am saying they are similar.
> 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.
Water is similar to mercury because both are liquids. Water is not the
same as mercury. One half is similar to two fourths, but is not the
same as two fourths. You can devide something into two pieces, and
that is not the same as it being devided into four pieces. What I am
saying as they are similar in essence.
- --- In email@example.com, 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*