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

Re: Mysticism a Regressional Experience?

Expand Messages
  • Thomas Wycihowski
    ... the ... is ... Wilbur, ... While I don t disagree with the Gnostic point of view, I think that what we need to remember is there is two ways to look at it.
    Message 1 of 22 , Apr 3, 2007
      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
      >
      > Thomas
      >
      > >>>My take is that the Garden was a mystical experience that many
      > people of different religious experiences experience. In a book by a
      > Transpersonal writer Ken Wilber, he more or less dissess Eden as a
      > pre-egoistic state where the differentiation between the self and
      the
      > outside worn't exist.
      >
      > I disagree with that. In my opinion, the eating of the Tree of
      > Knowledge of Good and Evil was a divorcing of the counscious human
      > being from the mystical sense of oneness that existed before. This
      > was the "Fall" into matter.
      >
      > Thge author makes regression seem to be inicimal to spiritual
      > progress. I belkeive that is a false dychotomy. My own perspective
      is
      > that it IS a form of Gnosis, I call Agnosis, or intuitive knowledge
      > without the framework of conceptual thought.<<<
      >
      > I was not sure whether you mean to say you disagree with Ken
      Wilbur,
      > or to say that you disagree with the Gnostic text... or maybe both.
      > Your view does seem to echo a relatively common percpetion of Eden
      > in Christian and Jewish mystical thought. Perhaps you could take a
      > moment to explain how you feel that relates to Gnostic thought on
      > the subject.

      While I don't disagree with the Gnostic point of view, I think
      that what we need to remember is there is two ways to look at it.
      One would be that it is a good thing. We took a chance and by
      doing so delivered ourselves from a state of tragic ignorance. If we
      had remained in that state of counsciousness, would we really be any
      different then the lower animals on the evolution scale? Probably not.
      On the other hand, it IS an unmitigated tragedy. The suffering
      that has resulted, the horror, the pain, the unending madness of a
      world at war wit itself and the proliferation of more and deadlier
      weapons clearly point out how well our decision was.
      So is it good or bad, what they did? The answer is neither. Maybe
      it was necessary for our further development; maybe not.
      I don't disagree with them IF you mean we were scammed and that
      the "diety" didn't have our personal best interest in mind.
      >
      > >>>So do you think that some mystical experiences are regressive in
      > nature?<<<
      >
      > Personally, I tend to avoid valuating mystical experience in this
      > forum since my job here is to try and be a bit more objective.
      > However, perhaps others here have something to say on the subject.
      I
      > get the impression that more than really talking about the function
      > of mystical experience, you may be talking about how you feel that
      > experience relates to a specific set of symbols... i.e. the Eden
      > story of Genesis. While there is no doubt that the Gnostic
      > understood this story differently, I think it is important that we
      > understand this particular story within the larger context of the
      > Gnostic world view and spiritual view before assuming the function
      > of the story in their usage even relates to what you are talking
      > about. Otherwise it is comparing apples and oranges.
      >
      > PMCV

      I don't totally disagree with you. But I think that the geniuses
      and masters of Gnosticism would tell you themselves the danger of
      fossilizing what they wrote and making it into some kind of stonelike
      doctrine. They themselves were creative in their approach, and drew
      from many sources in their beleifs and spiritual explorations.
      So while I don't beleive we need to throw the baby out with the
      bathwater, I do not think Valantinus or the other Gnostic masters
      would be upset if we, in the 21st century, applied what we learned in
      expanding and developing what we have received from them.
      Gnosisticism is strongest and most resilienty in it's diversity.
      >
    • pmcvflag
      Hey Thomas In response to Cari s question you state... ... were the first modern humans on earth. Of course there were other creautres, hominids, predecessors
      Message 2 of 22 , Apr 4, 2007
        Hey Thomas

        In response to Cari's question you state...

        >>> First, I am attracted to it because i beleive that Adam and Eve
        were the first modern humans on earth. Of course there were other
        creautres, hominids, predecessors to Adam and Eve, but I no more
        consider them to be human then a chimpanzee is the same as a lemur.
        I beleive the Ethian lineage is the possessors and guardians of
        the varied esoteric doctrines that were promulgated over the Earth.
        Each opf these fragments of the primal knowledge was passed down from
        father to son, begining with Adam to Seth, and eventually culminating
        in Jesus of Nazareth.<<<

        I find it difficult to reconcile the two versions of the creation
        mythology that you seem to present, but then again perhaps that does
        not matter. I would like to ask you a question, though. Do you feel
        that the historical Sethians intended their myths to be taken
        literally? Or, do you feel the expression of the text is intended to
        be allegorical?

        I know it is this kind of question relating to readings of the
        historical text that causes Imdarkchylde to say we "miss the point",
        but in spite of her judgemental presumption of our spiritual failure
        I feel that attempting to understand the intent of the original
        authors of the texts can be valuable.

        PMCV
      • Thomas Wycihowski
        ... from ... culminating ... does ... to ... point , ... failure ... Ok. My take is that the authors intent was important, but that it is a more nuanced
        Message 3 of 22 , Apr 4, 2007
          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
          >
          > Hey Thomas
          >
          > In response to Cari's question you state...
          >
          > >>> First, I am attracted to it because i beleive that Adam and Eve
          > were the first modern humans on earth. Of course there were other
          > creautres, hominids, predecessors to Adam and Eve, but I no more
          > consider them to be human then a chimpanzee is the same as a lemur.
          > I beleive the Ethian lineage is the possessors and guardians of
          > the varied esoteric doctrines that were promulgated over the Earth.
          > Each opf these fragments of the primal knowledge was passed down
          from
          > father to son, begining with Adam to Seth, and eventually
          culminating
          > in Jesus of Nazareth.<<<
          >
          > I find it difficult to reconcile the two versions of the creation
          > mythology that you seem to present, but then again perhaps that
          does
          > not matter. I would like to ask you a question, though. Do you feel
          > that the historical Sethians intended their myths to be taken
          > literally? Or, do you feel the expression of the text is intended
          to
          > be allegorical?
          >
          > I know it is this kind of question relating to readings of the
          > historical text that causes Imdarkchylde to say we "miss the
          point",
          > but in spite of her judgemental presumption of our spiritual
          failure
          > I feel that attempting to understand the intent of the original
          > authors of the texts can be valuable.
          >
          > PMCV
          >
          Ok. My take is that the authors intent was important, but that it
          is a more nuanced subject then an either or decision.
          First, the authors were at the very least aware and conversant
          with the story of creation. However, they felt that it needed to b e
          amended, or supplemented by additi9onal information and insights
          provided by other thought and philisophical systems.
          My guess would be that they were describing in mythological terms
          the spiritual/mystical experiences they had when in contemplation, as
          you can see was promoted by NeoPlatonic sages and theurgists. Plus,
          you can't remove the social milieu that most of these texts were
          found in Egypt.
          So who were these written for? Well, first they'd need to be able
          to read. Literacy was not as widespread as it is to day. Second, it
          would be of interest to people who were spiritual seekers. Third, it
          probably would appeal to people who understood, roughly at least, the
          Biblical creation story, as there does not seem, in the text, to be a
          lot of explanation. My assumption is the authors knew that it was
          well known enough not to have to give a lot of background information
          on the Creation story.
          So..we have 1)literate 2) people who are spiritual seekers and are
          3) familiar with the Biblical story of creation. My guess, especially
          with the Sethian material, is that were dealing with Hellenized Jews
          who were familiar with the book of Bereshith, but were heavily
          influenced by both NeoPlatonic philosophy and to some degree Stoic
          ideas. They used these ideas to question and "correct" what they saw
          was wrong with the story of creation, from their perspective.
          So the answer to your question is both. I am sure they visualized
          the structures and cosmologies they conceived as literal, in a sense.
          But just as in the orthodox version of Creation, with the wordplays
          on the name Adfam and others, it was meant to be taken figurative too.
          Just like the Apostle Paul who said he spoke differently to the
          spiritual, so too the Gnostic texts probably would mean different
          things, depending where a person stood in their philisophical and
          spiritual development.
          Hence, the variety of texts. The constant textual and theological
          criticism the Masters engaged in led to new systems of thoughts and
          new ideas. It is a mistake to think this all happened in isolation
          from each other and other systems of thought.

          Thus, I have no problem in both beleiving the story of Creation
          and using modern ideas of evolution, e.t.c to criticisize the
          orthodox account and suggest a personal interpertation that includes
          both literalism and allegorical views.
          We need to be constantly aware of the nuanced nature of the
          Gnostic scriptures.
        • Verna Leigh Johnson
          ... historical text that causes Imdarkchylde to say we miss the point , but in spite of her judgemental presumption of our spiritual failure I feel that
          Message 4 of 22 , Apr 4, 2007
            >>>I know it is this kind of question relating to readings of the
            historical text that causes Imdarkchylde to say we "miss the point",
            but in spite of her judgemental presumption of our spiritual failure
            I feel that attempting to understand the intent of the original
            authors of the texts can be valuable.<<<
            Judgmetal you may think it is (and you would certainly know all about
            being judgemental, eh?), I was not alluding to your attempts to
            understand the intent of the ancients. I was refering to the fact
            that discussions on the ACTUAL, real, mystical experience of gnosis
            is not encouraged in this group, I have not been allowed to even post
            things as they didn't fit the definition of gnosis in its historical
            and academic boundries AS IT PERTAINS TO YOUR GROUP, and to focus on
            gnosticism only in such contexts DOES miss the point, IMHO (and I am
            allowed that, or should be). Is this not true? The experience of
            gnosis is real, and happens to people NOW, as it did then, but this
            is not what is desired for discussion in this group. Or did I
            misunderstand? Can we discuss the experience, that people ALIVE
            TODAY have, or does that not fit into the criteria of this group?
            Our discussions offgroup led me to believe this, but mayhaps you have
            had a change of heart?
            peas
            DarkChylde





            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
            >
            > Hey Thomas
            >
            > In response to Cari's question you state...
            >
            > >>> First, I am attracted to it because i beleive that Adam and Eve
            > were the first modern humans on earth. Of course there were other
            > creautres, hominids, predecessors to Adam and Eve, but I no more
            > consider them to be human then a chimpanzee is the same as a lemur.
            > I beleive the Ethian lineage is the possessors and guardians of
            > the varied esoteric doctrines that were promulgated over the Earth.
            > Each opf these fragments of the primal knowledge was passed down
            from
            > father to son, begining with Adam to Seth, and eventually
            culminating
            > in Jesus of Nazareth.<<<
            >
            > I find it difficult to reconcile the two versions of the creation
            > mythology that you seem to present, but then again perhaps that
            does
            > not matter. I would like to ask you a question, though. Do you feel
            > that the historical Sethians intended their myths to be taken
            > literally? Or, do you feel the expression of the text is intended
            to
            > be allegorical?
            >
            > I know it is this kind of question relating to readings of the
            > historical text that causes Imdarkchylde to say we "miss the
            point",
            > but in spite of her judgemental presumption of our spiritual
            failure
            > I feel that attempting to understand the intent of the original
            > authors of the texts can be valuable.
            >
            > PMCV
            >
          • Thomas Wycihowski
            ... shook at us, I have run into this on G2 before; it was made very clear to me that they want to discuss gnoticism strictly in the academic and historical
            Message 5 of 22 , Apr 4, 2007
              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, verna ward <imdarkchylde@...>
              wrote:
              >
              > Blessings, Thomas!
              > Wanted to respond off group, we will get a perverbial finger
              shook at us, I have run into this on G2 before; it was made very
              clear to me that they want to discuss gnoticism strictly in the
              academic and historical sense, not in the reality of an experience of
              gnosis. They aren't bad, they just miss the point. Its their
              group. If I may suggest another group I am on that discusses the
              mystical experience of gnosis is
              http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Real-Gnosis/ . The owner(?) of
              the group is Dick Richardson, a personal friend of mine and mystic,
              altho he doesn't care for the 'religion' of gnosticism. He runs the
              Psychognosis network, and there is much to be learned from him, if
              you are seeking info about the experience of gnosis.
              > Now, that said, I agree with you, that our Root, (Dick calls it
              the Ground of Being, I call it the ONE, or the Great Unmanifest), is
              what few experience, but it does rejuvinate the spirit. I had two
              seperate and distinctly different experiences as OBEs that I am still
              discovering the truth.
              > Could you describe your experinces? What preceeded, what it was
              like (as much as you can use our crude language to describe such a
              wonderfully subtle experiences)? If you are interested, I can
              describe mine as well.
              > Walk in Light and Love!!
              > whirled and inner peas
              > Leigh (DarkChylde)
              >
              >
              > Gnothi Seauton

              Well, first of all the most prominent nature of it was having
              returned "Home". I often have felt like an exile, and desired greatly
              to return to my "home". It's like wandering through a world of exile,
              a lot like Adam must have felt when he was banished from the Garden
              of Eden, or Garden of Delight.
              There was a sense that I had recovered a missing fragment of my
              self, a self often that is in a divorce from the world I live in. I
              suppose the best way toi describe it would be my Unconditioned Self.
              Society is always trying to manipulate our thoughts and our feelings
              via social pressure, expectations, the media, e.t.c . This creates a
              form of spiritual colonization that is just a devestating as the
              colonization that occured when Native Americans were robbed of their
              land and their ways by the colonists, or what occured in Africa.
              So this colonization is so insidious that eventually it corrupts
              the original purity of the mind of their person, setting up various
              illusions and deceptions that cause the person to be confused about
              Who and What they are.
              So there was that sense that I was Home and at the same time a
              sense of inner joy that for a time, the journey was over for me. I
              suppose it might have bene like if Adam had been able to sneak past
              the guardian Cherub back into the Garden, if only for a minute.
              The worst part was the sense of exile. In many ways, I have often
              desired to die or at least have a NDE, so I can be enraptured in the
              sea of bliss and unity that lies beyond the leadened skies.
              Inevietabley, one returns to the journey and the ceaseless
              wandering. What I wants is like what the birds released by Noah
              wanted, which is a place for me to rest and find peace from my
              wanderings and to bask in a joy that is often difficult to remember.
              My greatest fear has been to be totally socialized by this
              heartless society that looks at people as machines and tools for
              either their personal enrichment or for their use. In this society,
              people are things, tools, machines. Once one autamaton teaches the
              young to think that way, they create another autamaton who in turn
              will take free human children and make them into consumer goods to be
              sold and bartered for pay.
              Thank God they haven't mind-raped me to the point that I am just
              another autamaton, wandering unthinkingly across the landscape. If I
              ever became like that, I hope God would be merciful and kill me.
              What good is it to be alive, if your just a walking corpse and
              your soul is dead within you?>
              > Thomas Wycihowski <tjwycihowski@...> wrote:
              > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Verna Leigh Johnson"
              > <imdarkchylde@> wrote:
              > >
              > > Brightest Blessings, Thomas!
              > > What a blessed name! You aren't kin to the famous (infamous?)
              > > brothers that made the Matrix, are you?
              > > I agree with you on a few of your points. As a beginner
              > Kabbalist,
              > > I am still discovering the 'truth' of the Garden of Eden story,
              but
              > I
              > > am a Valentian to the core, so to speak, and that is what still
              > > resonates within me, like scratching an itch that bugged me for
              so
              > > long.
              > > It is interesting you consider 'agnostic' to be "intuitive
              > knowledge
              > > without the framework of conceptual thought." Knowledge is
              gnosis,
              > > not a 'collection of data, but 'knowledge' (as used by the Hebrew
              > > definition and alike in the Greek and Latin as well) thus a,
              > meaning
              > > anti, meaning 'against' would be without knowlegde in its
              technical
              > > sense.
              > > But I understand your meaning, as I have had such 'mystical'
              > > exeriences (altho I didn't know they were when I had them) in the
              > > form of OBEs, NDEs, and some I don't think have
              a 'classification',
              > > (or at least not one that can be pinned down). But having visted
              > the
              > > Ground of Being, the Great Unmainfest, the Father of the
              Entirety,
              > > whatever pigeonhole you wish to use, I can tell you there is NO
              > > THINKING there, only an 'awareness' of self (not ego). I have not
              > > been told this, I KNOW this. You may contact me on my personal
              > email
              > > if you wish, as I have found this may not meet the definition of
              > > classification of Gnosticism in the traditional (an to some no
              > longer
              > > existant) sense and such discussions may not be encouraged, but I
              > > will still put in my two cents.
              > > Whirled and inner peas
              > > DarkChylde
              > >
              > > my email is imdarkchylde@
              > >
              > > Gnothi Seauton
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Wycihowski"
              > > <tjwycihowski@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > I'm continually fascinated by the story of the Garden of Eden
              > and
              > > > it's various version in Gnostic books.
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > My take is that the Garden was a mystical experience that many
              > > > people of different religious experiences experience. In a book
              > by
              > > a
              > > > Transpersonal writer Ken Wilber, he more or less dissess Eden
              as
              > a
              > > > pre-egoistic state where the differentiation between the self
              and
              > > the
              > > > outside worn't exist.
              > > >
              > > > I disagree with that. In my opinion, the eating of the Tree of
              > > > Knowledge of Good and Evil was a divorcing of the counscious
              > human
              > > > being from the mystical sense of oneness that existed before.
              > This
              > > > was the "Fall" into matter.
              > > >
              > > > Thge author makes regression seem to be inicimal to spiritual
              > > > progress. I belkeive that is a false dychotomy. My own
              > perspective
              > > is
              > > > that it IS a form of Gnosis, I call Agnosis, or intuitive
              > knowledge
              > > > without the framework of conceptual thought.
              > > >
              > > > Anyways, a lot of mystical experience seems like to me a
              > > regression
              > > > to a earlier stae of perception and cognition.
              > > >
              > > > So do you think that some mystical experiences are regressive
              in
              > > > nature?
              > > >
              > > I have had what I would term "blissful" experiences. But I guess
              > the way I get to it might be different then some people.
              >
              > While I am a hetrosexual in the general sense of the term, I'm
              > also an AB (Adult Baby). So basically, my experience of these
              > blissfull experiences, the closest I could say I got to "mystical",
              > was ina "regressed" frame of mind.
              > I really beleive the biggest problem people have is they seek to
              > continually advance. While this is necessary in life (that which
              does
              > not grow dies), I also beleive we all must at times return to our
              > Root for rejuvanation. I find it to be a spiritual experience,
              myself.
              >
              > I am more of a Sethian, in that I beleive the Sethian line is the
              > inheritors of the Gnosis. Ultimately, these experiences are so
              > different, that they can't be framed mentally. In the mundane
              sense,
              > what can't be named or labelled can't be "known". But then how does
              a
              > baby "know" his mothers love? How do we "know" someone loves us.
              >
              >
              >
              >

              >
              >
              > ---------------------------------
              > Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
              > Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
              >
            • Verna Leigh Johnson
              I am in complete aggreance with you. This feeling of alieness, aloneness and isolation has always existed with me as well (and to most all gnostics, ancient
              Message 6 of 22 , Apr 5, 2007
                I am in complete aggreance with you. This feeling of alieness,
                aloneness and isolation has always existed with me as well (and to
                most all gnostics, ancient and modern). My OBEs and NDEs (altho they
                are not from an accident or anything - they are from a seizure
                disorder I inherited) gave me the knowledge not only that this
                reality was not the only one, and the experieneces (except one)
                filled me with me with undescribable joy and peace, which as you
                said, tends to fade in the return to the mundane world.
                And you are spot on about society, and its control games, which is
                used to keep us as consumeristic slaves, and far eaiser to control.
                For that is why. is for control and dominance.
                The gnostics of old were fighting the same political as well as
                spiritual battles we face today, but as you also mentioned in a post,
                that literacy is more prevalent today, and thus it is getting harder
                and harder for the orthodox religions and society in general to keep
                controlling people with their brainwashing.
                But according to the gnostic ideas, Adam was trapped in the Garden of
                Eden, it was an illusion, (much as this reality is the entrapment for
                our minds), at least acording to the Apoch. of John. The archons
                created this Garden, and it can be seen as an allagory of the
                illusion of the mundane world as well. The snake freed us, if you
                remember, and the 'banishment' from the garden was nothing compared
                to the sin of the demiurge when the epinoia was trapped in
                corruptable matter to begin with. I would rather compare myself to
                wanting to rejoin the pleroma, rather than a return to the Garden.
                But we were put here for a reason, and not to be in some state of
                estatic bliss (altho that sure can be fun). In some Catharian texts
                (which wehter or not they were gnostic is a source of dissention, but
                to me they are as gnostic as manicheean texts or the Nag Hammadi)
                there is the idea that our 'souls' are those of fallen angels, who
                chose this existance. To aquire gnosis is to free yourself from the
                gilgumic (to use a kabbalistic term) cycle, and to rejoin the Great
                Unmanifest, but you can only do this thru gnosis. You came here to
                learn, to love, and to live. To just wait around for your death
                would not be the path to gnosis, and mirrors the attitude of the
                orthodox-'lets all just survive, and we can go to heaven.' This is a
                flawed view of your own existance. YOu were here for a reason, until
                you can figure out why, do the best you can, use your time here to
                help this screwed up society, it needs your imput. As I have in my
                email signature, and a quote from the aforementioned Dick
                Richardson, "Enjoy your journey thru time, ab eterno ad hoc, for
                eternity awaits"...
                Brightest blessings to you!
                whirled and inner peas
                DarkChylde




                --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Wycihowski"
                <tjwycihowski@...> wrote:
                >
                > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, verna ward <imdarkchylde@>
                > wrote:
                > >
                > > Blessings, Thomas!
                > > Wanted to respond off group, we will get a perverbial finger
                > shook at us, I have run into this on G2 before; it was made very
                > clear to me that they want to discuss gnoticism strictly in the
                > academic and historical sense, not in the reality of an experience
                of
                > gnosis. They aren't bad, they just miss the point. Its their
                > group. If I may suggest another group I am on that discusses the
                > mystical experience of gnosis is
                > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Real-Gnosis/ . The owner(?) of
                > the group is Dick Richardson, a personal friend of mine and mystic,
                > altho he doesn't care for the 'religion' of gnosticism. He runs
                the
                > Psychognosis network, and there is much to be learned from him, if
                > you are seeking info about the experience of gnosis.
                > > Now, that said, I agree with you, that our Root, (Dick calls it
                > the Ground of Being, I call it the ONE, or the Great Unmanifest),
                is
                > what few experience, but it does rejuvinate the spirit. I had two
                > seperate and distinctly different experiences as OBEs that I am
                still
                > discovering the truth.
                > > Could you describe your experinces? What preceeded, what it
                was
                > like (as much as you can use our crude language to describe such a
                > wonderfully subtle experiences)? If you are interested, I can
                > describe mine as well.
                > > Walk in Light and Love!!
                > > whirled and inner peas
                > > Leigh (DarkChylde)
                > >
                > >
                > > Gnothi Seauton
                >
                > Well, first of all the most prominent nature of it was having
                > returned "Home". I often have felt like an exile, and desired
                greatly
                > to return to my "home". It's like wandering through a world of
                exile,
                > a lot like Adam must have felt when he was banished from the Garden
                > of Eden, or Garden of Delight.
                > There was a sense that I had recovered a missing fragment of my
                > self, a self often that is in a divorce from the world I live in. I
                > suppose the best way toi describe it would be my Unconditioned
                Self.
                > Society is always trying to manipulate our thoughts and our
                feelings
                > via social pressure, expectations, the media, e.t.c . This creates
                a
                > form of spiritual colonization that is just a devestating as the
                > colonization that occured when Native Americans were robbed of
                their
                > land and their ways by the colonists, or what occured in Africa.
                > So this colonization is so insidious that eventually it corrupts
                > the original purity of the mind of their person, setting up various
                > illusions and deceptions that cause the person to be confused about
                > Who and What they are.
                > So there was that sense that I was Home and at the same time a
                > sense of inner joy that for a time, the journey was over for me. I
                > suppose it might have bene like if Adam had been able to sneak past
                > the guardian Cherub back into the Garden, if only for a minute.
                > The worst part was the sense of exile. In many ways, I have often
                > desired to die or at least have a NDE, so I can be enraptured in
                the
                > sea of bliss and unity that lies beyond the leadened skies.
                > Inevietabley, one returns to the journey and the ceaseless
                > wandering. What I wants is like what the birds released by Noah
                > wanted, which is a place for me to rest and find peace from my
                > wanderings and to bask in a joy that is often difficult to remember.
                > My greatest fear has been to be totally socialized by this
                > heartless society that looks at people as machines and tools for
                > either their personal enrichment or for their use. In this society,
                > people are things, tools, machines. Once one autamaton teaches the
                > young to think that way, they create another autamaton who in turn
                > will take free human children and make them into consumer goods to
                be
                > sold and bartered for pay.
                > Thank God they haven't mind-raped me to the point that I am just
                > another autamaton, wandering unthinkingly across the landscape. If
                I
                > ever became like that, I hope God would be merciful and kill me.
                > What good is it to be alive, if your just a walking corpse and
                > your soul is dead within you?>
                > > Thomas Wycihowski <tjwycihowski@> wrote:
                > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Verna Leigh
                Johnson"
                > > <imdarkchylde@> wrote:
                > > >
                > > > Brightest Blessings, Thomas!
                > > > What a blessed name! You aren't kin to the famous (infamous?)
                > > > brothers that made the Matrix, are you?
                > > > I agree with you on a few of your points. As a beginner
                > > Kabbalist,
                > > > I am still discovering the 'truth' of the Garden of Eden story,
                > but
                > > I
                > > > am a Valentian to the core, so to speak, and that is what still
                > > > resonates within me, like scratching an itch that bugged me for
                > so
                > > > long.
                > > > It is interesting you consider 'agnostic' to be "intuitive
                > > knowledge
                > > > without the framework of conceptual thought." Knowledge is
                > gnosis,
                > > > not a 'collection of data, but 'knowledge' (as used by the
                Hebrew
                > > > definition and alike in the Greek and Latin as well) thus a,
                > > meaning
                > > > anti, meaning 'against' would be without knowlegde in its
                > technical
                > > > sense.
                > > > But I understand your meaning, as I have had such 'mystical'
                > > > exeriences (altho I didn't know they were when I had them) in
                the
                > > > form of OBEs, NDEs, and some I don't think have
                > a 'classification',
                > > > (or at least not one that can be pinned down). But having
                visted
                > > the
                > > > Ground of Being, the Great Unmainfest, the Father of the
                > Entirety,
                > > > whatever pigeonhole you wish to use, I can tell you there is NO
                > > > THINKING there, only an 'awareness' of self (not ego). I have
                not
                > > > been told this, I KNOW this. You may contact me on my personal
                > > email
                > > > if you wish, as I have found this may not meet the definition
                of
                > > > classification of Gnosticism in the traditional (an to some no
                > > longer
                > > > existant) sense and such discussions may not be encouraged, but
                I
                > > > will still put in my two cents.
                > > > Whirled and inner peas
                > > > DarkChylde
                > > >
                > > > my email is imdarkchylde@
                > > >
                > > > Gnothi Seauton
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Wycihowski"
                > > > <tjwycihowski@> wrote:
                > > > >
                > > > > I'm continually fascinated by the story of the Garden of Eden
                > > and
                > > > > it's various version in Gnostic books.
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > My take is that the Garden was a mystical experience that
                many
                > > > > people of different religious experiences experience. In a
                book
                > > by
                > > > a
                > > > > Transpersonal writer Ken Wilber, he more or less dissess Eden
                > as
                > > a
                > > > > pre-egoistic state where the differentiation between the self
                > and
                > > > the
                > > > > outside worn't exist.
                > > > >
                > > > > I disagree with that. In my opinion, the eating of the Tree
                of
                > > > > Knowledge of Good and Evil was a divorcing of the counscious
                > > human
                > > > > being from the mystical sense of oneness that existed before.
                > > This
                > > > > was the "Fall" into matter.
                > > > >
                > > > > Thge author makes regression seem to be inicimal to spiritual
                > > > > progress. I belkeive that is a false dychotomy. My own
                > > perspective
                > > > is
                > > > > that it IS a form of Gnosis, I call Agnosis, or intuitive
                > > knowledge
                > > > > without the framework of conceptual thought.
                > > > >
                > > > > Anyways, a lot of mystical experience seems like to me a
                > > > regression
                > > > > to a earlier stae of perception and cognition.
                > > > >
                > > > > So do you think that some mystical experiences are regressive
                > in
                > > > > nature?
                > > > >
                > > > I have had what I would term "blissful" experiences. But I
                guess
                > > the way I get to it might be different then some people.
                > >
                > > While I am a hetrosexual in the general sense of the term, I'm
                > > also an AB (Adult Baby). So basically, my experience of these
                > > blissfull experiences, the closest I could say I got
                to "mystical",
                > > was ina "regressed" frame of mind.
                > > I really beleive the biggest problem people have is they seek to
                > > continually advance. While this is necessary in life (that which
                > does
                > > not grow dies), I also beleive we all must at times return to our
                > > Root for rejuvanation. I find it to be a spiritual experience,
                > myself.
                > >
                > > I am more of a Sethian, in that I beleive the Sethian line is the
                > > inheritors of the Gnosis. Ultimately, these experiences are so
                > > different, that they can't be framed mentally. In the mundane
                > sense,
                > > what can't be named or labelled can't be "known". But then how
                does
                > a
                > > baby "know" his mothers love? How do we "know" someone loves us.
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >
                > >
                > >
                > > ---------------------------------
                > > Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
                > > Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
                > >
                >
              • Michael Leavitt
                ... I think this is a vary balanced view of things.
                Message 7 of 22 , Apr 5, 2007
                  Thomas Wycihowski wrote:
                  > Ok. My take is that the authors intent was important, but that it
                  > is a more nuanced subject then an either or decision.
                  > First, the authors were at the very least aware and conversant
                  > with the story of creation. However, they felt that it needed to b e
                  > amended, or supplemented by additi9onal information and insights
                  > provided by other thought and philisophical systems.
                  > My guess would be that they were describing in mythological terms
                  > the spiritual/mystical experiences they had when in contemplation, as
                  > you can see was promoted by NeoPlatonic sages and theurgists. Plus,
                  > you can't remove the social milieu that most of these texts were
                  > found in Egypt.
                  > So who were these written for? Well, first they'd need to be able
                  > to read. Literacy was not as widespread as it is to day. Second, it
                  > would be of interest to people who were spiritual seekers. Third, it
                  > probably would appeal to people who understood, roughly at least, the
                  > Biblical creation story, as there does not seem, in the text, to be a
                  > lot of explanation. My assumption is the authors knew that it was
                  > well known enough not to have to give a lot of background information
                  > on the Creation story.
                  > So..we have 1)literate 2) people who are spiritual seekers and are
                  > 3) familiar with the Biblical story of creation. My guess, especially
                  > with the Sethian material, is that were dealing with Hellenized Jews
                  > who were familiar with the book of Bereshith, but were heavily
                  > influenced by both NeoPlatonic philosophy and to some degree Stoic
                  > ideas. They used these ideas to question and "correct" what they saw
                  > was wrong with the story of creation, from their perspective.
                  > So the answer to your question is both. I am sure they visualized
                  > the structures and cosmologies they conceived as literal, in a sense.
                  > But just as in the orthodox version of Creation, with the wordplays
                  > on the name Adfam and others, it was meant to be taken figurative too.
                  > Just like the Apostle Paul who said he spoke differently to the
                  > spiritual, so too the Gnostic texts probably would mean different
                  > things, depending where a person stood in their philisophical and
                  > spiritual development.
                  > Hence, the variety of texts. The constant textual and theological
                  > criticism the Masters engaged in led to new systems of thoughts and
                  > new ideas. It is a mistake to think this all happened in isolation
                  > from each other and other systems of thought.
                  >
                  > Thus, I have no problem in both beleiving the story of Creation
                  > and using modern ideas of evolution, e.t.c to criticisize the
                  > orthodox account and suggest a personal interpertation that includes
                  > both literalism and allegorical views.
                  > We need to be constantly aware of the nuanced nature of the
                  > Gnostic scriptures.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  I think this is a vary balanced view of things.
                • lady_caritas
                  ... point , ... failure ... about ... post ... historical ... on ... am ... this ... have ... As one of the proclaimed missers of the `point , all I have to
                  Message 8 of 22 , Apr 5, 2007
                    --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Verna Leigh Johnson"
                    <imdarkchylde@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > >>>I know it is this kind of question relating to readings of the
                    > historical text that causes Imdarkchylde to say we "miss the
                    point",
                    > but in spite of her judgemental presumption of our spiritual
                    failure
                    > I feel that attempting to understand the intent of the original
                    > authors of the texts can be valuable.<<<
                    > Judgmetal you may think it is (and you would certainly know all
                    about
                    > being judgemental, eh?), I was not alluding to your attempts to
                    > understand the intent of the ancients. I was refering to the fact
                    > that discussions on the ACTUAL, real, mystical experience of gnosis
                    > is not encouraged in this group, I have not been allowed to even
                    post
                    > things as they didn't fit the definition of gnosis in its
                    historical
                    > and academic boundries AS IT PERTAINS TO YOUR GROUP, and to focus
                    on
                    > gnosticism only in such contexts DOES miss the point, IMHO (and I
                    am
                    > allowed that, or should be). Is this not true? The experience of
                    > gnosis is real, and happens to people NOW, as it did then, but
                    this
                    > is not what is desired for discussion in this group. Or did I
                    > misunderstand? Can we discuss the experience, that people ALIVE
                    > TODAY have, or does that not fit into the criteria of this group?
                    > Our discussions offgroup led me to believe this, but mayhaps you
                    have
                    > had a change of heart?
                    > peas
                    > DarkChylde


                    As one of the proclaimed missers of the `point', all I have to say
                    is, well, yes, I admittedly appear to missing whatever point you seem
                    to be making, Darkchylde.

                    This is a group about historical Gnosticism, that category that some
                    even debate should not be a category,... and members are free to
                    discuss this topic. Whether or not Gnosis "happens to people NOW, as
                    it did then" could be another interesting topic of debate.

                    That said, the letter all new members in our group receive mentions
                    that our focus is historical Gnosticism and "how that relates to us
                    in our modern world." In other words, talk about personal mystical
                    experience is not off limits as long as one relates it to the FOCUS
                    of historical Gnosticism. Pretty simple, isn't it? If someone is
                    not interested in what the ancient Gnostics intended and this someone
                    is primarily interested in discussing personal experience or
                    mysticism in a more general context with others, there are many other
                    groups devoted to that focus. We offer a different angle. That's
                    all. That does not mean that we don't appreciate other `points' of
                    focus.

                    Actually, I had thought you already understood this, considering you
                    already had a conversation like this with PMCV:
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosticism2/message/12865
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosticism2/message/12867
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosticism2/message/12872
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosticism2/message/12876
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosticism2/message/12880

                    I might have missed something, but I couldn't find further posts in
                    this thread, and no one is obligated to always reply if they choose
                    not to. Yet, though I wasn't privy to off-group discussions,
                    perhaps you can appreciate my confusion when you were asking about a
                    change of heart, well, unless that would involve an absolute change
                    of focus, which isn't going to happen in our group.

                    Cari – Point Misser
                  • lady_caritas
                    ... from ... culminating ... curtains, ... It ... Demiurge ... and ... Thank you for all your recent comments, Thomas. I was a little confused by a couple
                    Message 9 of 22 , Apr 6, 2007
                      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Wycihowski"
                      <tjwycihowski@...> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > First, I am attracted to it because i beleive that Adam and Eve
                      > were the first modern humans on earth. Of course there were other
                      > creautres, hominids, predecessors to Adam and Eve, but I no more
                      > consider them to be human then a chimpanzee is the same as a lemur.
                      > I beleive the Ethian lineage is the possessors and guardians of
                      > the varied esoteric doctrines that were promulgated over the Earth.
                      > Each opf these fragments of the primal knowledge was passed down
                      from
                      > father to son, begining with Adam to Seth, and eventually
                      culminating
                      > in Jesus of Nazareth.
                      > At all times and all cultures, humans have known the primal
                      > revelation. The apparent discrepancies come from this revelation
                      > mixing with local customs and cultures.
                      > The Apocalypse of Adam reveals what happened BEHIND the
                      curtains,
                      > and is presented as a testament by the dying Adam to his son Seth.
                      It
                      > reveals the TRUE reason for the discord and evil on what is a good
                      > planet.
                      > Basically, humans have lived under spiritual tyrrany sinmce our
                      > inception. The Demiurge has played one person or religion against
                      > another, in classical divide and counquer tactics of tyrants.
                      > Irregardless if this "being" is called Allah, Yahweh, Jesus or
                      > someother name, in the end it is the same being.
                      > This deception is used to enslave our minds and keep us busy
                      > fighting over words and doctrines that in the end serve the
                      Demiurge
                      > very well.
                      > Part of it is to steal the Gnosis from us, because the Demiurge
                      > knows if we remember our root and origins, we will eventually find
                      > our way out of his and his Aeons clutches.
                      > The Secret Book of John details, from a Sethian standpoint, the
                      > associated Aeons and the planets they are related to.
                      > Combine that with some Hermetic material, and you see that true
                      > to the conception of demonologists, these beings are not "gods" but
                      > devils! There the personification of Vice, and the downward pull of
                      > evil to enslave us for eternity here.
                      > IMHO, the way to escape is to shed the chains on our minds. We
                      > must cast away all that holds us down and enlighten our minds with
                      > the TRUTH of our manipulation by the demonic forces of Ialdabaoth
                      and
                      > his minions of wickedness.


                      Thank you for all your recent comments, Thomas. I was a little
                      confused by a couple thoughts in the post above.

                      You said, "Each opf these fragments of the primal knowledge was
                      passed down from father to son, begining with Adam to Seth, and
                      eventually culminating in Jesus of Nazareth."

                      You further stated, "Basically, humans have lived under spiritual
                      tyrrany sinmce our inception. The Demiurge has played one person or
                      religion against another, in classical divide and counquer tactics of
                      tyrants. Irregardless if this "being" is called Allah, Yahweh, Jesus
                      or someother name, in the end it is the same being.
                      This deception is used to enslave our minds and keep us busy
                      fighting over words and doctrines that in the end serve the Demiurge
                      very well."

                      When you refer to "being," are you referring to the Demiurge or
                      a "being" used by the Demiurge? You mention "Jesus" in your list,
                      and I am curious if you associate him with the Demiurge or whether
                      you are referring to others who interpret "Jesus" in a deceptive way.

                      Thanks in advance for clarifying for me.

                      Cari
                    • pmcvflag
                      Cari and Thomas ... confused by a couple thoughts in the post above.
                      Message 10 of 22 , Apr 7, 2007
                        Cari and Thomas

                        >>>Thank you for all your recent comments, Thomas. I was a little
                        confused by a couple thoughts in the post above.<<<

                        Cari, your observations and questions are exactly where I was leading
                        as well. This is the reason I was asking Thomas where he drew the line
                        between literal and allegorical. I think you hit the core of the issue
                        better than I did.

                        Thomas

                        Your post answered many of my questions, but somehow I am still not
                        sure of your stance on the issues that Cari is asking about. I don't
                        want you to think you are getting the 3dr degree (so to speak), just
                        that it is a genuine curiousity that I think is worth exploring.

                        This is my ditto to Cari's question.

                        PMCV
                      • pmcvflag
                        Darkchylde Lady Cari answered it pretty well. I guess I should respond also. ... did then, but this is not what is desired for discussion in this group. Or did
                        Message 11 of 22 , Apr 7, 2007
                          Darkchylde

                          Lady Cari answered it pretty well. I guess I should respond also.

                          >>The experience of gnosis is real, and happens to people NOW, as it
                          did then, but this is not what is desired for discussion in this
                          group. Or did I misunderstand?<<<

                          You did, in fact, misunderstand (or perhaps I have not done a good
                          job explaining... though it does seem others here understand). As
                          Cari points out, this is explained in the letter that everyone gets
                          when they join the forum.

                          >>>Can we discuss the experience, that people ALIVE TODAY have, or
                          does that not fit into the criteria of this group?<<<

                          You are welcome to talk about personal experience as long as it is
                          within the context of historical Gnosticism. Do you find that
                          confusing? If so just ask and I will try to do a better job
                          explaining it.

                          We do accept there are many definitions of "Gnosis" (or "gnosis"),
                          and they are valid in their own (emic) context even if they are not
                          the context this forum uses. For those who are not happy sticking to
                          traditional meanings of terms like "Gnosis" or "Sophia" etc., we
                          would like to help them find the forums that they feel fits them
                          best. Here are a few...

                          The group Darkchylde suggests is run by Dick Richardson (aka Merlin,
                          aka Doug, and maybe a number of other names). It seems to deal
                          largely with semi-psychological notions of mysticism that it
                          calls "Gnostic" (Valentinians would likely call this "Psychic"). The
                          url is already posted in Darkchylde's post so I need not post it
                          again.

                          DharmaGnosis is a group run by Tom Ragland. The subject matter as I
                          understand it is a sort of Jungian conjuction between Kabbalah,
                          Eastern mysticism (especially Buddhism), and a notion of gnosis as a
                          sort of general mystical realization. Though it does not seem to be
                          the focus, the forum has not discouraged critical discussion when
                          the subject has come up.

                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DharmaGnosis/

                          Gnostic_Cafe is run by Ms Jenny (aka Vee). The subject matter is a
                          wider and looser grouping of modern spiritual mystical thinking in a
                          very informal setting (as I guess the word "Cafe" in the title would
                          suggest).

                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnostic_cafe/

                          GnosticThought is run by GnosticKen (aka George). It deals with what
                          Ken has termed "New Age" Gnostic thinking (which I think may be
                          similar to what I would call "eclectic relativism", but I could be
                          wrong and I don't intend to put words in Ken's mouth), and allows
                          for some exploration of a number of systems from personal
                          perspectives.

                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GnosticThought/

                          You are encouraged to be in the groups that you find helpful for
                          what you are trying to discover. Each group has stronger points and
                          weaker points... including this one. I will not go so far as
                          Darkchylde in accusing anyone of "missing the point", since I think
                          that many different functions and foci can have important places
                          within a larger human search for meaning.

                          While we don't disregard other contexts, we do offer a more
                          specifically "historical Gnostic" conversation FOCUS. We think this
                          does have an important value. Take it or leave it... but don't be
                          here and heckle it.

                          PMCV
                        • gnostic_ken
                          ... I ... a ... be ... Hi PMCV, Tom is also a moderator of GnosticThought. ... a ... would ... Jenny is Jungian Gnostic. She has disappeared as she does from
                          Message 12 of 22 , Apr 8, 2007
                            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > DharmaGnosis is a group run by Tom Ragland. The subject matter as
                            I
                            > understand it is a sort of Jungian conjuction between Kabbalah,
                            > Eastern mysticism (especially Buddhism), and a notion of gnosis as
                            a
                            > sort of general mystical realization. Though it does not seem to
                            be
                            > the focus, the forum has not discouraged critical discussion when
                            > the subject has come up.
                            >
                            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DharmaGnosis/

                            Hi PMCV,
                            Tom is also a moderator of GnosticThought.

                            >
                            > Gnostic_Cafe is run by Ms Jenny (aka Vee). The subject matter is a
                            > wider and looser grouping of modern spiritual mystical thinking in
                            a
                            > very informal setting (as I guess the word "Cafe" in the title
                            would
                            > suggest).
                            >
                            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnostic_cafe/

                            Jenny is Jungian Gnostic. She has disappeared as she does from time
                            to time. The last time she disappeared she deleted her Jung cafe
                            group. This time she left her cafe running on automatic.

                            >
                            > GnosticThought is run by GnosticKen (aka George). It deals with
                            what
                            > Ken has termed "New Age" Gnostic thinking (which I think may be
                            > similar to what I would call "eclectic relativism", but I could be
                            > wrong and I don't intend to put words in Ken's mouth), and allows
                            > for some exploration of a number of systems from personal
                            > perspectives.
                            >
                            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GnosticThought/

                            GnosticThought is only "New Age" in the same sense this group
                            is "New Age." That is we are not traditional Christian
                            as "Christian" has been defined for the past 1600 or so years. We
                            are part of the new age of openness, diversity and tolerance. When I
                            said "we are all of the new age" I was including you ;-)

                            GnosticThought could be defined as having the exact opposite focus
                            of this group. While this group is about historical gnosticism and
                            modern personal experiences are not off topic so long as they are
                            related to historical gnosticism in some way, GnosticThought is
                            about modern personal Gnosis and related mystic experiences with
                            some historical discussion hopefully relating to modern personal
                            experiences.

                            I don't remember ever saying GnosticThought is "New Age" because
                            spelling it with capital letters usually refers to the loose
                            movement personified by Shirley MacLaine. The only Gnostic movement
                            I know of that would fit that definition of New Age would be Sylvia
                            Browne's Gnostics. While Sylvia Browne Gnostics are welcome on
                            GnosticThought they are generally not real comfortable with the
                            range of viewpoints there. They generally want to talk about
                            Sylvia's personal mythology and most of us relate more to historical
                            Gnostic mythology than to Sylvia's mythology. Several, such as Tom
                            and Steve, seem to relate most to Buddhism.

                            Ken
                          • pmcvflag
                            Hey Ken ... Ah, yes... and after I posted I thought about at and realized I should have posted all of the mods of the groups. Isn t Brenda also a mod there?
                            Message 13 of 22 , Apr 8, 2007
                              Hey Ken

                              >>>Tom is also a moderator of GnosticThought.<<<

                              Ah, yes... and after I posted I thought about at and realized I
                              should have posted all of the mods of the groups. Isn't Brenda also
                              a mod there?

                              >>>GnosticThought is only "New Age" in the same sense this group
                              is "New Age." That is we are not traditional Christian
                              as "Christian" has been defined for the past 1600 or so years. We
                              are part of the new age of openness, diversity and tolerance. When I
                              said "we are all of the new age" I was including you ;-)<<<

                              That sounds like what I picked up as well. So my term "eclective
                              relativism" seems not so far off the mark in intent.

                              >>>GnosticThought could be defined as having the exact opposite focus
                              of this group. While this group is about historical gnosticism and
                              modern personal experiences are not off topic so long as they are
                              related to historical gnosticism in some way, GnosticThought is
                              about modern personal Gnosis and related mystic experiences with
                              some historical discussion hopefully relating to modern personal
                              experiences.<<<

                              I think that is a good observation of the primary differences
                              between the groups. I am glad to see that there are others here who
                              understand how this forum is meant to function so that it is not
                              simply that us mods have completely failed to communicate it.

                              PMCV
                            • gnostic_ken
                              ... also ... I ... focus ... who ... Hi PMCV, Yes Brenda is also one of the GnosticThought moderators. You have always been quite clear about the focus of this
                              Message 14 of 22 , Apr 9, 2007
                                --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Hey Ken
                                >
                                > >>>Tom is also a moderator of GnosticThought.<<<
                                >
                                > Ah, yes... and after I posted I thought about at and realized I
                                > should have posted all of the mods of the groups. Isn't Brenda
                                also
                                > a mod there?
                                >
                                > >>>GnosticThought is only "New Age" in the same sense this group
                                > is "New Age." That is we are not traditional Christian
                                > as "Christian" has been defined for the past 1600 or so years. We
                                > are part of the new age of openness, diversity and tolerance. When
                                I
                                > said "we are all of the new age" I was including you ;-)<<<
                                >
                                > That sounds like what I picked up as well. So my term "eclective
                                > relativism" seems not so far off the mark in intent.
                                >
                                > >>>GnosticThought could be defined as having the exact opposite
                                focus
                                > of this group. While this group is about historical gnosticism and
                                > modern personal experiences are not off topic so long as they are
                                > related to historical gnosticism in some way, GnosticThought is
                                > about modern personal Gnosis and related mystic experiences with
                                > some historical discussion hopefully relating to modern personal
                                > experiences.<<<
                                >
                                > I think that is a good observation of the primary differences
                                > between the groups. I am glad to see that there are others here
                                who
                                > understand how this forum is meant to function so that it is not
                                > simply that us mods have completely failed to communicate it.
                                >
                                > PMCV

                                Hi PMCV,
                                Yes Brenda is also one of the GnosticThought moderators.

                                You have always been quite clear about the focus of this group. I
                                have no idea why so many people seem to misunderstand.

                                I do know from experience that no matter how clear we try to be
                                somebody will always misunderstand. Those who misunderstand seem to
                                talk (write) the most ;-)

                                So my point is it's certainly not your fault. You are and always
                                have been as clear as you possibly can be.

                                Ken
                              • gnostic_ken
                                ... Update: Jenny is now back. Ken
                                Message 15 of 22 , Apr 26, 2007
                                  > Jenny is Jungian Gnostic. She has disappeared as she does from time
                                  > to time. The last time she disappeared she deleted her Jung cafe
                                  > group. This time she left her cafe running on automatic.

                                  Update: Jenny is now back.

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