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

Re: Pursuit of gnosis (and Modern Practice)

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    Gich ... the mod; I thought we were sharing ideas :)
    Message 1 of 31 , Apr 7, 2005

      >>"I didn't think I was "grilling" you; I didn't think I was talking to
      the mod; I thought we were " sharing ideas " :)"<<<

      Oh sure, we can share ideas.... as long as you understand that the
      intended focus of this club is quite specific.

      >>>"My apparent "grilling" all comes down to trying to establish
      exactly what we are talking about. Without clear definitions that we
      both understand, no meaningful communication is possible."<<

      Agreed, and "grilling" need not be a bad thing. We do need clear
      definitions, and in here those definitions need to be related to the
      subject at hand.

      >>>"I haven't thought about it before but I suppose I see you with two
      hats in connection with this group: the "mod hat" when required; and
      the "PMCV hat" that you would wear when you operate as an ordinary
      member of the group, which I assumed to be most of the time. It's
      the "PMCV hat" I've been trying to communicate with; after all the non-
      moderator "Gich hat" is the only one I have. :)"<<<

      Sure, I can wear two hats. I have, in the past, talked about my
      personal thoughts.... but only after the subject of the traditional
      Gnostic version is understood on the particular subject. When I believe
      the communication and understanding of traditional Gnosticism has been
      attained between us on some level, then I may be much more willing to
      share my personal thoughts with you, Gich. We don't invalidate the
      personal here, we just try to make sure that it is connected with the
      more objective focus of this group.

    • pmcvflag
      Hey Gich ... I m struggling to see any connection with gnosticism as I understand it. :)
      Message 31 of 31 , Apr 7, 2005
        Hey Gich

        >>>"Gosh!! I must confess to feeling somewhat baffled by your post.
        I'm struggling to see any connection with gnosticism as I understand
        it. :)"<<<

        Honestly, I thought that was part of the point of your line of
        questions..... that you are struggling to understand Gnosticism

        >>>"(1) You said it, it's an ASSUMPTION. But, other assumptions MAY
        be equally valid including ones that haven't yet been proposed."<<<

        Sure, other assumptions could be equally as valid or invalid... that
        has nothing to do with whether other assumptions are
        particularly "Gnostic". The point is not relevent to the other
        philosophies that my make this assumption either.

        >>>"(2) I didn't know we were discussing "movements that deal with the
        destinction between the perciever and the percieved". I'd need loads
        more definitions to begin to understand what you're talking about."<<<

        Well, the vast majority of philosophical movements make this
        destinction, and Gnosticism is one of them. Your other alternatives
        are pantheism or solipsism... and even the first of those two makes
        some destinction. Since we are not here to talk about New Age or post
        modernist movements, you can now assume for the remainder of our
        conversation that we are indeed dealing with a destinction between
        the perciever and the percieved.

        (3) I'm glad you put "fact" in inverted commas.

        >>>If one cannot grasp this, they cannot grasp the very function of

        I find this statement incomprehensible:

        Harris writes: Gnosticism is a term that is used of a movement centred
        around a deep inner yearning to know the secret of deliverance. The
        movement is not a "sociological entity", [Perkins, P. (1980) Gnostic
        Dialogue, New York.] but the use of the word "movement" is intended
        to indicate a process of developing wider vistas of reality on the
        way to full salvation. There is within such a process an implicit
        unity or self-revealĀ­ing experience that is a foretaste of that all-
        consuming coming union between the human and the divine.

        While Harris seems to prefer to couch the point in terms I find a
        little fluffy, it seems he is agreeing with what I said more than you
        seem to believe. He seems to be aware of the teachings in Gnostic
        texts dealing with what is beyond the realm of opposites, but I think
        his subtlety has served more to confuse you than to make the point
        clear. He is, however, wrong in defining the movement in the way he
        does... this is in fact not fully what the term "Gnosticism" was
        coined to refer to. On the contrary, while the "movement" is
        certainly primarily defined by this soteriological function, it is
        also defined by cosmology and ritual, aspects that are very much
        definitive of a "sociological entity". Harris becomes so vague here
        that while he may have started with the intent to deal with
        historical Gnostics what he winds up presenting looses its accuracy
        (at least from the academic perspective).

        It may, however, be of great interest to those who are using a wider
        definition based on emic qualities. That is to say, while for our
        purposes Gnosticism is defined more by the academic qualities that
        the word was created for in the first place, I know that many
        here.... like our friend George who's group you are also a member
        of.... prefer to foster a slightly wider definition for personal use.
        That is certainly ok in that context, and I think that Harris seems
        to be fitting that context more. But again, here we are talking about
        traditional "Gnosticism" so that the point becomes far more specific
        to be generalized in such a way (for our purposes).

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