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

Re: Fulfilling PMCVFLAG's challenge

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    Hey Gus ... original understanding of Gnosticism and later development of it, it is not too difficult to include you as a Gnostic philosopher.
    Message 1 of 2 , Feb 6, 2006
      Hey Gus

      >>>Seeing the way your prime focus of discussion and response on the
      original understanding of Gnosticism and later development of it, it
      is not too difficult to include you as a Gnostic philosopher.<<<

      Well, I suppose that could be good or bad ;) Let me only point out
      that my focus is dictated by the function of the group and the fact
      that it is my job to try and maintain that function.... it may not
      carry over into other groups I am invloved in (though sometimes it
      does). Again, try to avoid assumptions at this point.

      >>>What I would like to say is that every spiritual school of thought
      has their own accentuation and concept. That is why when we discuss
      Gnosticism in other traditions, it does not exactly suit for what
      hermitic understanding really mean. So there must be underlying
      background of ideas discussed. What I mean with underlying background
      of ideas is the purport of the participants’ writings implicitly or

      Sure, I can see your point. However, that point is very function
      dependant. For instance, if you were in the middle of a spiritual rite
      and you stopped to talk about history, I think we would all agree it
      would be silly. On the other hand, if you were in a history class and
      you kept trying to talk about mythological meaning it could equally
      detract from the point. If I were in a Buddhist monastary and talked
      about nothing but Jesus, they may wonder if I am really understanding
      THEIR teachings.

      In other words, there are many things we have to consider in a
      discussion like this, just as you point out, and many things we need
      not worry about. Just as true, there are some things that really can
      be divided and some that are a little more fuzzy.

      In your initial post, the one that started this conversation, you

      >>>> I suggest this forum that everyone here must be aware of the
      underlying background of the writers's ideas, whether originating from
      phylosophical comprehension or individually spiritual experiences. The
      point can be reached from different starting points, be it intuitive
      findings, the using of intellective faculty or both of them.<<<<

      Sure, it is the goal of this group to try and get to the bottom of
      these texts, not only in the ways you discribe, but other ways as
      well. On that point it goes without saying. The problem I see is that
      you seemed to pigeonhole the group in such a way that actually creates
      the very problem that you seemed to be admonishing against....

      >>>But for those of having usual (regular) contacts with gnostics or
      mystical practitioners, the topics discussed will result in
      uncontroversial (pedestrian) response and comprehension.<<<

      See what I mean? And, it actually works against the first point you
      made on that post... if they are both equally able to be a beginning
      (this group includes many beginners, after all). This problem, I know,
      is partly because you are speaking on such broad terms. I felt that
      you need to communicate the point in a more specific way, especially
      if you are going to admonish anyone. Which brings us to this point you
      make ......

      >>>The will to achieve spiritual enlightenment--thus, the pointed goal
      of gnosis--can be started either from the excercise of intellect or
      through "true" faith. The Gosples of Gnostics teach us not
      underestimate anyone, but our own ego<<<

      Demonstrate it. You make a claim, that is good... show the wider group
      exactly how you see the Gnostic texts making this case. You need to
      demonstrate that Gnostic texts view the intellect in the way you
      describe. Anyone can proslytize something they view to be "fact" or
      self evident... it takes quite a bit more to demonstrate that somebody
      else supports the point as well. I am not saying you are right or
      wrong, just that we avoid this kind of assumptions here.

      >>>The end-result is one, true comprehesion or divine union or
      whatever you name it.<<<

      That is questionable. You seem to say it is the point or "end
      result"... others would say it is just a first step. You compare
      Gnosis with enlightenment and the mystical experience. Again, since we
      are talking about traditional "Gnosticism" and you make the point that
      the Gnostic texts support the claim, I think in order for the
      conversation to have value you need to demonstrate the point. You have
      to consider the possibility that you may be thinking something very
      different from what others here may assume, or the authors of the
      Gnostic texts intended.

      I bring these points up not to seem adversarial, but because I get the
      feeling you may be making some calls based on a lot of presumptions
      that I think you need to fully outline, instead of thinking your
      points communicate to everyone here.

      You are speaking in a very mystical way, but for communication
      purposes we need to you speak in a Gnostic way instead.

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