Re: Old vs new
- --- In email@example.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
> >>>One, both you and I are not sure if I have responded to your
> question. 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
> answer to her helped clarify any, so maybe I can make it a littlein
> more specific as you ask.
> First, one must understand that when we use the term "Gnosticism"
> this forum we always mean it in the strictest historical usage.This
> is not meant to imply that anyone else's personal usage isinvalid,
> but is meant to simply keep a certain level of clarity insubcategory
> communication and focus for the topic of this forum.
> Maybe it would be more clear if I picked out a specific
> of Gnosticism and ask the same questions. Would you say that thethe
> Sethian system is outdated?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 Gnostic
> system 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
> notion of some core that we assume the symbols to adorn. It maythen
> be better if I count the votes like this...can
> 0= The ancient Gnostic system would be hurt by attempts to
> modernize, causing it to loose its intended context or
> initiatory/communicative structure.
> 2= Ancient Gnosticism needs no change (besides maybe words that
> be better understood by the modern reader).system
> 2= The core meanings that we find in Gnosticism are the important
> point (a core assumption that we have not yet discussed), the
> itself isn't important so the question of modernization is a given.I
> 0= Historical Gnosticism is only valid if modernized.
> This is if we place you in the third one? Does that seem accurate?
> am actually a bit surpized that no one here voted in the last one,Maybe
> since I know there are a few people here who do feel this way.
> I will list some people, such as Ken (the Mod of the "GnosticHi PMCV,
> Thought" group) based on prior statements.
Nope. Put me in Tom's camp.