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

re: "accepting one's lot"

Expand Messages
  • Gerry
    ... Let me stop you for a moment right there, Gich. Suppose we accept that what you re suggesting is in line with what the Gnostics posited. Can you tell us
    Message 1 of 15 , Jun 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "gich morgan" <gich2@b...> wrote:
      >
      > For me, this sort of discussion comes down to whether you consider
      > that there is (literally) a god, or gods, that are responsible for
      > the creation of the universe, the Earth and mankind. Suppose we
      > accept the hypothesis as I think the ancient gnostics did. It then
      > seems to me logical to consider that the gods must have some
      > purpose, some reason for the creation, some PLAN;


      Let me stop you for a moment right there, Gich. Suppose we accept
      that what you're suggesting is in line with what the Gnostics
      posited. Can you tell us where they outline this grand
      strategy . . . the divine PLAN behind creation? Seems to me it is
      generally described in terms of "error." What do you make of that?


      > . . . otherwise, why bother; what's the point?


      Exactly. Is that too scary to consider?


      > Fundamental to gnosticism is the possibility of immortality via
      > gnosis but why didn't the gods create us immortal in the first
      > place?


      Besides questioning "the gods," Gich, perhaps you should question
      your premise that "immortality" is a fundamental goal of Gnosticism.


      > Why bother with the rigmarole of life on Earth? It again seems to
      > me that life on Earth is part of the PLAN; there is a
      > reason for it; it has a purpose;


      It may very well seem that way to you, Gich, but the Gnostics
      described it quite differently from what you propose.


      > . . . it must be some sort of preparation for what follows.


      What exactly is it that follows? [If it's gonna sound like the fuzzy
      promises of a tent revival, I'd rather not hear about it.]


      > . . . It seems to me that the idea of "a god entity meting out
      > Gnosis on a merit basis" [although this isn't the form of words I
      > would use] is a valid concept in gnosticism and follows logically
      > from the foregoing.
      >


      It seems to me that such an understanding would follow from looking
      at Gnostic concepts from a mainstream perspective. There is a very
      good reason that we repeatedly caution against this here.

      Gerry
    • Mike Leavitt
      Hello Gerry ... While for the Valentinians the universe had some redeming features as a training ground, even for them the universe was a mistake, a big
      Message 2 of 15 , Jun 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello Gerry

        On 06/02/05, you wrote:

        > It seems to me that such an understanding would follow from looking
        > at Gnostic concepts from a mainstream perspective. There is a very
        > good reason that we repeatedly caution against this here.
        >
        > Gerry

        While for the Valentinians the universe had some redeming features as
        a training ground, even for them the universe was a mistake, a big
        mistake. Gich sounds more like a theosophist than a gnostic. I
        know, I have that background.

        Regards
        --
        Mike Leavitt ac998@...
      • David Wilson
        One thing I want to stress... becareful of taking a named group of individuals and placing them all into one direct narrow path. All Gnostics followed many
        Message 3 of 15 , Jun 2, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          One thing I want to stress... becareful of taking a named group of individuals and placing them all into one direct narrow path. All Gnostics followed many different paths, some were more open then others and some were close minded.
           
          David

          Gerry <gerryhsp@...> wrote:

          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "gich morgan" <gich2@b...> wrote:
          >
          > For me, this sort of discussion comes down to whether you consider
          > that there is (literally) a god, or gods, that are responsible for
          > the creation of the universe, the Earth and mankind. Suppose we
          > accept the hypothesis as I think the ancient gnostics did. It then
          > seems to me logical to consider that the gods must have some
          > purpose, some reason for the creation, some PLAN;


          Let me stop you for a moment right there, Gich.  Suppose we accept
          that what you're suggesting is in line with what the Gnostics
          posited.  Can you tell us where they outline this grand
          strategy . . . the divine PLAN behind creation?  Seems to me it is
          generally described in terms of "error."  What do you make of that?


          > . . . otherwise, why bother; what's the point?


          Exactly.  Is that too scary to consider?


          > Fundamental to gnosticism is the possibility of immortality via
          > gnosis but why didn't the gods create us immortal in the first
          > place?


          Besides questioning "the gods," Gich, perhaps you should question
          your premise that "immortality" is a fundamental goal of Gnosticism.


          > Why bother with the rigmarole of life on Earth? It again seems to
          > me that life on Earth is part of the PLAN; there is a
          > reason for it; it has a purpose;


          It may very well seem that way to you, Gich, but the Gnostics
          described it quite differently from what you propose.


          > . . . it must be some sort of preparation for what follows.


          What exactly is it that follows?  [If it's gonna sound like the fuzzy
          promises of a tent revival, I'd rather not hear about it.]


          > . . . It seems to me that the idea of "a god entity meting out
          > Gnosis on a merit basis" [although this isn't the form of words I
          > would use] is a valid concept in gnosticism and follows logically
          > from the foregoing.
          >


          It seems to me that such an understanding would follow from looking
          at Gnostic concepts from a mainstream perspective.  There is a very
          good reason that we repeatedly caution against this here.

          Gerry


          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
          http://mail.yahoo.com

        • Mike Leavitt
          Hello gich ... It is enough to say, that under Karma and the Divine Plan, they think perfect justice rules the world. I m sure Cari can provide you with some
          Message 4 of 15 , Jun 2, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Hello gich

            On 06/02/05, you wrote:

            > What's a theosophist?
            > Gich
            >
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: "Mike Leavitt" <ac998@...>
            > To: <gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com>
            > Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 6:17 AM
            > Subject: [Gnosticism2] Re: "accepting one's lot"

            It is enough to say, that under Karma and the Divine Plan, they think
            perfect justice rules the world. I'm sure Cari can provide you with
            some earlier discourse on this.

            Regards
            --
            Mike Leavitt ac998@...
          • Mike Leavitt
            Hello gich ... There have been enough definitionss given, I won t add any, just read back a few messages. Regards -- Mike Leavitt ac998@lafn.org
            Message 5 of 15 , Jun 2, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Hello gich

              On 06/02/05, you wrote:

              > Hey Mike!
              >>>> Gich sounds more like a theosophist than a gnostic.<<<
              > Would you please define exactly what you mean by "a gnostic"?
              > Many thanks
              > Gich

              There have been enough definitionss given, I won't add any, just read
              back a few messages.

              Regards
              --
              Mike Leavitt ac998@...
            • lady_caritas
              ... think ... You re kidding, right? :-D http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosticism2/message/10562 I don t know if this will help, but here are a few online
              Message 6 of 15 , Jun 3, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
                > Hello gich
                >
                > On 06/02/05, you wrote:
                >
                > > What's a theosophist?
                > > Gich
                > >
                > > ----- Original Message -----
                > > From: "Mike Leavitt" <ac998@l...>
                > > To: <gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com>
                > > Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 6:17 AM
                > > Subject: [Gnosticism2] Re: "accepting one's lot"
                >
                > It is enough to say, that under Karma and the Divine Plan, they
                think
                > perfect justice rules the world. I'm sure Cari can provide you with
                > some earlier discourse on this.
                >
                > Regards
                > --
                > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...


                You're kidding, right? :-D
                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosticism2/message/10562


                I don't know if this will help, but here are a few online sites for
                starters:
                http://www.blavatsky.net/
                http://theosophy.org/
                http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/homepage.htm


                Cari
              • Gerry
                ... Thanks, Mike. That was my point exactly. We can appreciate the diversity of those early groups without losing sight of the fact that there actually were
                Message 7 of 15 , Jun 5, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > While for the Valentinians the universe had some redeming features as
                  > a training ground, even for them the universe was a mistake, a big
                  > mistake. . . .
                  >
                  > Regards
                  > --
                  > Mike Leavitt




                  Thanks, Mike. That was my point exactly. We can appreciate the
                  diversity of those early groups without losing sight of the fact that
                  there actually were points of commonality between them——some very
                  important points.

                  To some of us, I suppose such considerations must seem like givens,
                  but they apparently need to be stated here from time to time . . .
                  to time . . . to time . . . to time.

                  Gerry
                • Gerry
                  ... Honestly, Gich, you need to know. At the very least, it s something you need to consider, and given that Gnostic material is replete with such
                  Message 8 of 15 , Jun 5, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "gich morgan" <gich2@b...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > >>> . . . Suppose we accept that what you're suggesting is in line
                    > >>> with what the Gnostics posited. Can you tell us where they
                    > >>> outline this grand strategy . . . the divine PLAN behind
                    > >>> creation? Seems to me it is generally described in terms of
                    > >>> "error." What do you make of that?<<<
                    >
                    > I don't know.
                    >



                    Honestly, Gich, you need to know. At the very least, it's something
                    you need to consider, and given that Gnostic material is replete with
                    such descriptions, I'm not sure how it has eluded you thus far.

                    I mentioned this quote from your "Harris" book back in April, but you
                    might have missed it:

                    >>>Gnostic cosmogony is noted for its elaborate cosmologies with
                    multi-storeyed heavens and spheres ..... The myths are not to be
                    interpreted in a literal way: the task is to penetrate the inner
                    meaning the myth enshrines and seek to comprehend the truth.<<<
                    ——http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosticism2/message/10919

                    [That is actually very similar to the advice that Nick just gave you
                    regarding the interpretation of "Thomas."]

                    In the case of Error, you don't seem to have picked up on even
                    the "literal" mention of it in the texts. I just don't see how you can
                    hope to explore the esoteric nature of this material when even the
                    exoteric isn't readily apparent.

                    In the end, if it really floats your boat to believe that there is some
                    comforting God up there (wherever you wish to compartmentalize him),
                    that Man has a quadripartite nature, and Creation is part of some
                    wonderful, perfect plan, then I hope it adds meaning to your life. If
                    you truly wish to pursue the writings of those early Gnostics though,
                    you may find it necessary to suspend some of your preconceptions.

                    Gerry
                  • marinas_snake
                    If you truly wish to pursue the writings of those early Gnostics though, you may find it necessary to suspend some of your preconceptions. ... Suspending
                    Message 9 of 15 , Jun 5, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      "If you truly wish to pursue the writings of those early Gnostics
                      though, you may find it necessary to suspend some of your
                      preconceptions."
                      >
                      > Gerry


                      Suspending preconceptions is not an easy thing to do though, is it?
                      Anyone have any advice on how to accomplish that?
                    • pmcvflag
                      Marinas_snake ... Anyone have any advice on how to accomplish that?
                      Message 10 of 15 , Jun 5, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Marinas_snake

                        >>>"Suspending preconceptions is not an easy thing to do though, is it?
                        Anyone have any advice on how to accomplish that?"<<<

                        It IS hard... REALLY hard. I personally don't claim to completely
                        attain it, and I am on record for pointing out the flaws of nearly
                        every scholar on the subject for not attaining it. I think sometimes
                        people even get the impression that I am some kind of pessimist who is
                        overly ready to rip down everyone else's theories... but this is not
                        really my intent. I simply think that a self aware attempt to
                        understand this in and of itself is admirable, and that we should all
                        be willing to admit our own failings in this area (scholors even MORE
                        so).

                        I can even tell you my own eisigetic leanings, as I am very aware of
                        them. However, to some extent that is a subject for another group. My
                        advice is this; understand the history! THEN, Understand the
                        hermeneutics. And as you learn that history, continue to ask yourself
                        if you are simply looking at it from a personal perspective, or if you
                        are really understanding the intended communication. This is a double
                        check, since anyone can claim to understand it in spirit. I don't
                        agree with Gich that this "Gnosis" does not have an intellectual
                        function... as you know. I think that this intellectual function is a
                        ballance to the Sophia experience, and that they should work together.
                        The Sophia fell without the Logos, so it seems that dealing with this
                        subject on a logical and historical front is something that the
                        Gnostics of old would have supported. Don't get me wrong, I am not
                        saying that it is the only aspect... I am simply pointing out that it
                        can be a way of testing the communication against our own eisegesis.

                        So, the way to deal with the subject while suspending preconceptions
                        seems to me to be aboutbacking off on our personal needs, and trying
                        to understand if the message may have communicated something beyond
                        the desire to prove our own observations. How do you feel about that?

                        PMCV
                      • lady_caritas
                        ... or gods, ... and ... considered ... creation, some ... even the ... can hope to ... exoteric isn t ... over the ... itself. ... point ... Whether or not
                        Message 11 of 15 , Jun 7, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "gich morgan" <gich2@b...> wrote:
                          > Hey Gerry.
                          >
                          > (1) I don't think I've made myself clear. What I was trying to say
                          was this:
                          > if the ancient gnostics believed that there is (literally) a god,
                          or gods,
                          > that are responsible for the creation of the universe, the Earth
                          and
                          > mankind THEN it seems to me logical that the ancient gnostics
                          considered
                          > that the gods must have some purpose, some reason for the
                          creation, some
                          > plan.
                          >
                          > (2) >>>In the case of Error, you don't seem to have picked up on
                          even the
                          > "literal" mention of it in the texts. I just don't see how you
                          can hope to
                          > explore the esoteric nature of this material when even the
                          exoteric isn't
                          > readily apparent.<<<
                          >
                          > I need you to help me here Gerry. The word "error" crops up all
                          over the
                          > place in Harris, but I don't recall reading of it as a "concept" in
                          itself.
                          > Could you please enlarge on your comments as I don't understand the
                          point
                          > your making. :-)



                          Whether or not Gerry expands on his point, in the meantime, Gich,
                          here are a few references to read for starters, if you'd like,
                          regarding various schools or groupings of Gnosticism (Valentinian and
                          Sethian), which might help address things
                          like "creation," "error," "god," "demiurge," etc.:

                          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          Valentinian Gnosticism articles found in our "links" section I have
                          previously mentioned on this board (probably ad nauseum to people who
                          have been around a while) --

                          Sethians viewed demiurge as hostile, even evil, contrary to
                          Valentinians, who viewed demiurge as capricious, foolish, arrogant,
                          etc.:
                          http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Demiurge.htm

                          Brief summary of Valentinian theology:
                          http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Brief_Summary_Theology.htm

                          Valentinian theology in more detail:
                          http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Valentinian_Theology.htm

                          Discussion of Valentinian view of creation:
                          http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Valentinian_Creation.htm

                          Discussion of Sophia myth:
                          http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Sophia_Eve.htm

                          Discussion of "error" in Gospel of Truth:
                          http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Error_GTruth.htm

                          More articles, plus links to *actual source* writings from
                          Valentinian school.
                          http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/index.html
                          http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Detailed_Articles.htm

                          IOW, articles and books give a view, but don't replace reading
                          original source material.

                          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          Also, for Sethian Gnosticism, check out --

                          Sethian original source writings and related articles:
                          http://jdt.unl.edu/

                          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                          Cari
                        • marinas_snake
                          ... it? ... sometimes ... is ... not ... all ... MORE ... of ... My ... yourself ... you ... double ... a ... together. ... this ... it ... preconceptions ...
                          Message 12 of 15 , Jun 7, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                            > Marinas_snake
                            >
                            > >>>"Suspending preconceptions is not an easy thing to do though, is
                            it?
                            > Anyone have any advice on how to accomplish that?"<<<
                            >
                            > It IS hard... REALLY hard. I personally don't claim to completely
                            > attain it, and I am on record for pointing out the flaws of nearly
                            > every scholar on the subject for not attaining it. I think
                            sometimes
                            > people even get the impression that I am some kind of pessimist who
                            is
                            > overly ready to rip down everyone else's theories... but this is
                            not
                            > really my intent. I simply think that a self aware attempt to
                            > understand this in and of itself is admirable, and that we should
                            all
                            > be willing to admit our own failings in this area (scholors even
                            MORE
                            > so).
                            >
                            > I can even tell you my own eisigetic leanings, as I am very aware
                            of
                            > them. However, to some extent that is a subject for another group.
                            My
                            > advice is this; understand the history! THEN, Understand the
                            > hermeneutics. And as you learn that history, continue to ask
                            yourself
                            > if you are simply looking at it from a personal perspective, or if
                            you
                            > are really understanding the intended communication. This is a
                            double
                            > check, since anyone can claim to understand it in spirit. I don't
                            > agree with Gich that this "Gnosis" does not have an intellectual
                            > function... as you know. I think that this intellectual function is
                            a
                            > ballance to the Sophia experience, and that they should work
                            together.
                            > The Sophia fell without the Logos, so it seems that dealing with
                            this
                            > subject on a logical and historical front is something that the
                            > Gnostics of old would have supported. Don't get me wrong, I am not
                            > saying that it is the only aspect... I am simply pointing out that
                            it
                            > can be a way of testing the communication against our own eisegesis.
                            >
                            > So, the way to deal with the subject while suspending
                            preconceptions
                            > seems to me to be aboutbacking off on our personal needs, and
                            trying
                            > to understand if the message may have communicated something beyond
                            > the desire to prove our own observations. How do you feel about
                            that?
                            >
                            > PMCV
                          • marinas_snake
                            ... it? ... sometimes ... is ... not ... all ... MORE ... of ... My ... yourself ... you ... double ... a ... together. ... this ... it ... preconceptions ...
                            Message 13 of 15 , Jun 7, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                              > Marinas_snake
                              >
                              > >>>"Suspending preconceptions is not an easy thing to do though, is
                              it?
                              > Anyone have any advice on how to accomplish that?"<<<
                              >
                              > It IS hard... REALLY hard. I personally don't claim to completely
                              > attain it, and I am on record for pointing out the flaws of nearly
                              > every scholar on the subject for not attaining it. I think
                              sometimes
                              > people even get the impression that I am some kind of pessimist who
                              is
                              > overly ready to rip down everyone else's theories... but this is
                              not
                              > really my intent. I simply think that a self aware attempt to
                              > understand this in and of itself is admirable, and that we should
                              all
                              > be willing to admit our own failings in this area (scholors even
                              MORE
                              > so).
                              >
                              > I can even tell you my own eisigetic leanings, as I am very aware
                              of
                              > them. However, to some extent that is a subject for another group.
                              My
                              > advice is this; understand the history! THEN, Understand the
                              > hermeneutics. And as you learn that history, continue to ask
                              yourself
                              > if you are simply looking at it from a personal perspective, or if
                              you
                              > are really understanding the intended communication. This is a
                              double
                              > check, since anyone can claim to understand it in spirit. I don't
                              > agree with Gich that this "Gnosis" does not have an intellectual
                              > function... as you know. I think that this intellectual function is
                              a
                              > ballance to the Sophia experience, and that they should work
                              together.
                              > The Sophia fell without the Logos, so it seems that dealing with
                              this
                              > subject on a logical and historical front is something that the
                              > Gnostics of old would have supported. Don't get me wrong, I am not
                              > saying that it is the only aspect... I am simply pointing out that
                              it
                              > can be a way of testing the communication against our own eisegesis.
                              >
                              > So, the way to deal with the subject while suspending
                              preconceptions
                              > seems to me to be aboutbacking off on our personal needs, and
                              trying
                              > to understand if the message may have communicated something beyond
                              > the desire to prove our own observations. How do you feel about
                              that?
                              >
                              > PMCV


                              OOps, sorry I hit the "send" button before I even replied on the last
                              post.

                              Thanks for answering my question. I think it would be a real
                              challenge.

                              Marina
                            • Gerry
                              ... Honestly, Gich, it is apparent that you haven t understood many of the points made since you got here. What is truly tragic about the whole thing is that
                              Message 14 of 15 , Jun 10, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "gich morgan" <gich2@b...> wrote:
                                >
                                >
                                > I need you to help me here Gerry. The word "error" crops up all
                                > over the place in Harris, but I don't recall reading of it as
                                > a "concept" in itself. Could you please enlarge on your comments as
                                > I don't understand the point your making. :-)


                                Honestly, Gich, it is apparent that you haven't understood many of
                                the points made since you got here. What is truly tragic about the
                                whole thing is that your understanding of Gnosticism actually seems
                                to have declined over recent months.

                                If you understand the concept of the word "error," then you have a
                                point of reference by which you might attempt to understand why the
                                Gnostics might have depicted their creation myths in this way. You
                                could say that it was the "opposite" of how the same story was
                                portrayed by the orthodox. The latter maintained that God's creation
                                was perfect from the start and that Man screwed it up, but the
                                Gnostics posited that the physical creation was NOT the result
                                of "God's" will——that it was, in fact, a mistake.

                                Perhaps you can see how different these things are:

                                • something done purposely and intentionally; a Divine plan.
                                • something done accidentally——in error; an abomination.


                                > I don't personally believe any of this Gerry. I've just been trying
                                > to produce models that help me make sense of gnosticism.
                                >
                                > Gich



                                I know you're trying to produce models, and you're looking at the
                                entire phenomenon quite concretely while you do so. BTW, that is not
                                a compliment. Of course, neither is it an attack; it is merely an
                                observation of your tendencies to pick apart details in an extremely
                                obsessive manner——to the point that you often miss the bigger picture.

                                If you were able to step back far enough to actually see the subject
                                of your focus, you might realize that there is probably a reason that
                                those early Gnostics chose to represent the Creation story in the way
                                that they did. If they believed that God had a purpose for Man and a
                                place for us in this ostensibly perfect world (again, the belief of
                                the orthodox already), then why would they have been at odds with
                                those mainstream believers in the first place? Why create a story
                                antithetical to theirs?

                                While you may think you're trying to construct a model of Gnosticism,
                                you are actually composing something that is at odds with the very
                                system you are striving to represent.

                                Gerry

                                BTW, I'm well aware that you claim not to be an orthodox Christian,
                                Gich. I heard you very plainly when you commented early on that you
                                did NOT have a background in that tradition. And yet, you DO seem to
                                have a propensity for viewing this material through the same
                                mindset. Again, just an observation, but one that may have meaning
                                to some.
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.