Re: Old vs new
>>>One, both you and I are not sure if I have responded to yourquestion. I wasn't sure what your question meant. So I did
the best I could. Maybe you could re-state your question, or
pick a more specific focus?<<<
Ah, so Jana isn't the only one I confused. Well, I don't know if my
answer to her helped clarify any, so maybe I can make it a little
more specific as you ask.
First, one must understand that when we use the term "Gnosticism" in
this forum we always mean it in the strictest historical usage. This
is not meant to imply that anyone else's personal usage is invalid,
but is meant to simply keep a certain level of clarity in
communication and focus for the topic of this forum.
Maybe it would be more clear if I picked out a specific subcategory
of Gnosticism and ask the same questions. Would you say that the
Sethian system is outdated? Or, would you say that it has as much
validity and truth now as it ever did? If you would change
something, what would it be?
>>>As to your comments, I don't think I would say that the Gnosticsystem itself has not specific validity.
I think Gnosticism has LOTS of specific valididty.... it just
doesn't matter what set of symbols or rituals we select to
express the truths. So "change or no change" does seem to
accurately represent a portion of my recent post.<<<
Ok, I think then maybe you are more in agreement with Tom about the
notion of some core that we assume the symbols to adorn. It may then
be better if I count the votes like this...
0= The ancient Gnostic system would be hurt by attempts to
modernize, causing it to loose its intended context or
2= Ancient Gnosticism needs no change (besides maybe words that can
be better understood by the modern reader).
2= The core meanings that we find in Gnosticism are the important
point (a core assumption that we have not yet discussed), the system
itself isn't important so the question of modernization is a given.
0= Historical Gnosticism is only valid if modernized.
This is if we place you in the third one? Does that seem accurate? I
am actually a bit surpized that no one here voted in the last one,
since I know there are a few people here who do feel this way. Maybe
I will list some people, such as Ken (the Mod of the "Gnostic
Thought" group) based on prior statements. Others here, like Steve
and Nick have not chimed in either, but I think in some cases I may
be able to tentatively list them based on recent statements (hoping
they will communicate their points. I guess I should also vote *lol*.
>>>In general, I would think both ancient AND modernized ritualswould have an appeal in a SINGLE community. There would be
the modernized rituals that would have a broad appeal to the
beginner, and in a classic "Fraternal Masonry" approach, the
more experienced members of the community could support the
more arcane, difficult and historically interesting ancient
symbols and rituals.<<<
Well, sure, I am sure modern and ancient rituals could be appealing
to many different groups in different ways, I am sure there are
modern occultists who use ancient Hermetic symbols and Mithraic
symbols.... but I was kind of specifically talking about Gnosticism
in this case, not esotericists in general. So then do you mean to
say that you could imagine a system in which there was a core of
practitioners who held the ancient Gnostic methods, while teaching
the new initiate using a modernized version for ease of