I like the term "Gnosis Envy" the more it gains context. The fact
is, there are so many people out there who have some kind of guru
complex, and who are so ready to redifine "Gnosis" to mean anything
they already have in exclusion to the entire meaning of the term ina
a traditional context. If they hate the "Chruch" then "Gnosis"
itself becomes about hating "orthodoxy", blah blah blah.
It is all the worse when these people claim to have actually read
the traditional Gnostic sources, and seem to have missed the point
--- In email@example.com, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@y...> wrote:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > [...]
> > The seperation from the spirit, the hylic notion of the world
> > only a subjective and perceptual basis, is something that is the
> > core idea that Gnosticism is meant to fight against. Waking up
> > the mere subjectivity into a larger objective perspective is a
> > constant theme. Yes, it is true that there is also the
> > to look inward, but that look inside is meant to be a search for
> > the connection to something beyond the self.
> You used two words there that I meant to include in my last post,
> from a different slant. Thanks for reminding me!
> I was perplexed from the beginning when Felix brought up his
> about Protestantism. As I tried to point out with the film
> both Catholicism and Protestantism are still pistic religions, so,
> regardless of the differences we note between them, what kind of
> pertinent "connection" are we drawing with regards to Gnosticism?
> Even allowing for the trends that Bloom observes in Southern
> religious movements, we are still talking about beliefs that
> faith and a personal god, so I still don't see how it was relevant
> this group's interests. In addition, concerning the issue of
> Docetism, I mentioned how certain self-proclaimed Gnostics embrace
> this viewpoint while still treating such a savior as an
> anthropomorphized, limited, personal god. Again (to be more blunt
> this time, in hopes of avoiding anyone thinking that I've implied
> something other than what I intended!), I should simply
> At such a group's very best, it's probably just another case of
> Gnosis Envy. I think you had the same individuals in mind when
> reiterated the point with your reference to Marcionites.
> Going back to Bloom's book, I was struck by the comments of one
> critic in particular. I believe he was a cleric, and he noted
> his biggest concern was that the "objective" God (envisioned by
> Church) was being ignored among the highly "subjective" movements
> associated with the phenomenon that Bloom was describing. As he
> critiqued the inevitable drawback of such personalized religion
> (paraphrasing), "We are all Popes . . . but only unto ourselves."
> thought the imagery there was quite appropriate: a great deal of
> people authoritatively pontificating and proselytizing, but with
> one having any true believers of their message save themselves.
> Well, whether talking about Catholics, or Protestants, or some
> of newfangled Protestants, or even some sort of wannabe pneumatics
> who have hijacked the Gnostic myths and perverted them to suit
> own fundamentalist faith, I think I would have difficulty with
> who questioned whether I saw a "connection" between those groups
> Gnosticism. It would be as if I had been asked, "Do you prefer an
> objective or subjective Demiurge? . . . How about a literalist or
> solipsist approach to the Divine"
> Geez, if those were my only choices, I suppose I would have to
- Hello lady_caritas
On 08/12/05, you wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, "janahooks" <janahooks@y...>
>> Hello, Mike.
>>> Well the theosophists would say (recasting their termanalogy into
>>> gnostic) that at death only the portion of soul useful to the
>>> is saved, the rest is left to decay.
>> Now, that's something to think about: what part of my soul is
>> to my spirit? I might not sleep if I think about that. ;)
> Say, Mike, to tie in Plotinus and the Enneads that Steve brought up,
> I didn't know that Plotinus was a "Great Theosophist." ;-) lol Per:
> Anyway, if you scroll about halfway down the page linked above,
> Plotinus and Porphyry, have a dialogue about the soul.
> Plotinus: "Every soul has a lower part turned toward the body, and a
> higher part turned toward the divine intelligence."
> Anyone want to comment about how the Gnostics viewed "soul" and its
> relation to death? (Are we just talking about physical death here?)
> The Gnostics seemed to be more preoccupied with cosmogony,...
> beginnings, origins, reunification, as I believe Gerry pointed out
> earlier. Do the Gnostics have anything to specifically say about
> reincarnation, or not?
I can't give you citations, but some of the writings specifically say
if you don't make it you are turned back to earth. I read such a
passage here just a few weeks ago. May have been Phillip, but I
can't remember. No idea of karma there though.
Mike Leavitt ac998_@_lafn._org remove -'s