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

Re: Old vs new

Expand Messages
  • gnostic_ken
    ... my ... in ... This ... invalid, ... subcategory ... the ... then ... can ... system ... I ... Maybe ... Hi PMCV, Nope. Put me in Tom s camp. Ken
    Message 1 of 97 , Jul 9, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
      >
      > George
      >
      > >>>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
      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 Sethian system is outdated?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 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
      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
      > initiatory/communicative structure.
      >
      > 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.

      Hi PMCV,
      Nope. Put me in Tom's camp.

      Ken
    • pmcvflag
      Michael ... G/gnostic?
      Message 97 of 97 , Aug 20, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Michael

        >>>How could one ever conceive of Garnerian Wicca being in the least
        G/gnostic?<<<

        Er... my point exactly.

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