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

Re: Weekly Study Session #1: Definitions of Gnosis - "God's prerogative..."

Expand Messages
  • lady_caritas
    ... I find with the rational or analytic part of ourselves is that it can also be its own greatest enemy. For example when the Gnostics speak about a being
    Message 1 of 32 , Jun 2, 2005
      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Nick Lawrance"
      <nicholson2000r@c...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > Thanks gich that was an excellent synopsis, the problem though that
      I find with the rational or analytic part of ourselves is that it can
      also be its own greatest enemy. For example when the Gnostics speak
      about a 'being' that exists which has no beginning or ending I find
      for me anyway that my rational mind dismisses such ideas as fantasy
      because it fails to find such an idea makes sense for how can such a
      being come to be. That's why I find Gnostic texts give a lot of
      precedence to our 'insightful/intuitive or what I consider to be our
      spiritual nature for then we are operating at a higher level than the
      analytic mind. What the rational mind can not see intuition can.
      >
      > Nick
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: gich morgan
      > To: gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 9:39 PM
      > Subject: Re: [Gnosticism2] Re: Weekly Study Session #1:
      Definitions of Gnosis - "God's prerogative..."
      >
      >
      > Hey Nick!
      >
      > >>>... Personally I tend not to take the viewpoint of the
      Demiurge as being a real existent entity in his own right but rather
      as a powerful negative aspect of ourselves. For as the text
      repeatedly state that he is a 'Blind God' who can see no one greater
      than himself thus representing as from another analysis made about
      him "our narrowness of vision, our blindness to hidden realms which
      when accesed can animate and enlighten all our efforts. He also
      represents our resistance to growth of the lower order to a higher
      order."<<<
      >
      >
      > I think it was Freud who put forward the idea that our minds are
      in two parts and he referred to these parts as our "animal mind" and
      our "analytic mind". He talked about the constant "battle" between
      these two aspects for control of (mind) and hence (body).
      When "analytic mind" is in charge we behave well but when "animal
      mind" is in charge we behave badly. We should strive throughout life
      to enhance the role of "analytic mind" and diminish the role
      of "animal mind". This sounds to me very like the gnostic idea of
      striving for spirituality.
      >
      >
      > When reading gnostic writings referring to the demiurge as
      creator and Sophia adding a divine "spark" to our nature a way of
      modeling this is as follows:
      >
      > (demiurge man ) == (body)+(mind)+(soul)
      >
      > (Sophia enhancement) == ... +(mind)+(soul)+(spirit)
      >
      > ... and the final product, (man) is a combination of these two.
      (Spirit) is located in the Pleroma with Sophia and (soul) is located
      in the Ogdoad with the demiurge. The Ogdoad is conceived as a
      region "below" the Pleroma. From this there will be two aspects of
      (mind) and two aspects of (soul). Considering the two aspects of
      (mind) it is clear that one will be hylic (having originated with the
      demiurge) and one will be rational (having originated with Sophia).
      >
      > It follows that we can conceive of the mind in two parts and
      write, using terms more gnostic than Freud:
      >
      > (mind) == (hylic mind)<--xxx->(rational mind).
      >
      > The symbol <--xxx-> is intended to show that there is a constant
      internal "battle" between (hylic mind) and (rational mind) for
      control of (mind) and hence control of (body). This seems to me to be
      identical to Freud but it comes straight out of an analysis of
      gnosticism.
      >
      > We can take this further and the gnostic concepts of "hylic
      man", "psychic man" and "spiritual man" can be represented as follows:
      >
      > (hylic man) == (body, hylic mind, soul) [the creation of the
      demiurge]
      >
      > (psychic man) == (body, rational mind, soul) [the creation of
      Sophia]
      >
      > (spiritual man) == (body, rational mind, soul, spirit) [the
      creation of Sophia]
      >
      > Gich


      Gich wrote:

      >>>I think it was Freud who put forward the idea that our minds are
      in two parts and he referred to these parts as our "animal mind" and
      our "analytic mind". He talked about the constant "battle" between
      these two aspects for control of (mind) and hence (body).
      When "analytic mind" is in charge we behave well but when "animal
      mind" is in charge we behave badly. We should strive throughout life
      to enhance the role of "analytic mind" and diminish the role
      of "animal mind". This sounds to me very like the gnostic idea of
      striving for spirituality.<<<


      I'd like to comment here that Freud was an aggressive (non-spiritual)
      atheist and materialist. I don't believe his "analytic mind" had
      anything to do with "striving for spirituality."

      Gnostics found value in the rational mind, but also appreciated the
      importance of our higher nonrational nature, evidenced by their use
      of mythology (as pointed out by Nick) to reach our nondiscursive
      nature.


      Cari
    • marinas_snake
      ... Thank you. Makes me wonder though. Marina
      Message 32 of 32 , Jun 11, 2005
        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
        > Hello marinas_snake
        >
        > On 06/11/05, you wrote:
        >
        > > "Demiurge: According to the Gnostics (as opposed to Plato and others
        > > who had a more positive assessment), an inferior deity who
        > > ignorantly and incompetently fashioned the debased physical world"
        >
        > Let's look at the obvious, derrevation can be negative or positive, in
        > this case, the demiurge turns negative, but the idea was still
        > derived from the Platonists. Gnosis has a smaller role in Platonism,
        > but again Gnosis as salvation was derrived from it. Augustine
        > derrived original sin (I would bet) from Manachean ideas of good and
        > evil, but wound up looking quite different. Derrivation does not
        > mean carrying through ideas in the same way.
        >
        > Regards
        > --
        > Mike Leavitt ac998_@_lafn._org remove -'s


        Thank you. Makes me wonder though.

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