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

Re: knowledge

Expand Messages
  • gortoz77
    ... latin.
    Message 1 of 34 , Oct 13, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
      > Hello Gort, welcome to the forum. You state...
      > >>>Gno = know . Gnostic , simply means to know . From the
      > Just a very small alteration to your point here. We are actually
      > getting the term from the Greek (in texts that generally survive
      > Coptic), rather than Latin.
      > >>>If Im not mistaken the Gnostics grew up in the gloomy
      > shadow of the latin church . Many were murdered by the
      > catholics for the great crime of translating the scriptures
      > from latin into their own tongue . Such is religion .<<<
      > Most of the sects that historians lump under the category
      > of "Gnosticism" actually predate the Catholic church. There was no
      > established official language of Christianity in these days, and
      > pogram against translation of various texts. Most of the texts
      > are generally considered "Gnostic" survive in Coptic, but were
      > originally written in Greek rather than Latin.
      > The Gnostics did, however, get a bit of flack from what would
      > become the Catholic and Orthodox church. Most of this was more
      > literary polemic rather than physical attacks. Much later, though,
      > there was a full scale assault by some Catholics on the close
      > cousins of the Gnostics that we know as the Cathars or
      > PMCV

      Well thats interesting , 'understand' in latin is AGNOSTO , and
      surprisingly also VIDEO !!!
      Do you think maybe the coptic predated the latin ?
      Is it right to say latin came from coptic ?
      Sounds like the word transcends both languages .
      Our english word 'know ' obviously comes from GNO
      I think youd know more about this than me .

      Seeya from Gort
    • pmcvflag
      DOH! I started a post in answer to this same querry, but I had not been able to get back to complete it before today. I knew Lady Cari was busy, but I also
      Message 34 of 34 , Nov 5, 2007
      • 0 Attachment

        I started a post in answer to this same querry, but I had not been
        able to get back to complete it before today. I knew Lady Cari was
        busy, but I also knew that as dedicated as she is she would jump
        right back in the mix as soon as she was able.... so I was trying to
        get to it to give her some time off. I was about two thirds done,
        but since I see that Lady Cary expressed almost identical
        observations (and as always, much better than I generally can) I'll
        just erase my own response and say "ditto".

        I'll try to concentrate on the other post I was working on at the
        same time conversing with some of Chester's points instead.


        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@...>
        > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "gortoz77" <gortoz77@> wrote:
        > >
        > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "gortoz77" <gortoz77@>
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > […]
        > > > > I aslo joined one other gnostic group when you were
        > > > > away . This question was also raised there .
        > > > > […]
        > > > > Im not sure if this is correct , but , the original word
        > > > > jealous was checked to translate into 'unceasing'. Thats a
        > > > > different than jealous .
        > > > > […]
        > > > >
        > > > > From Gort ,
        > > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Indeed, Gort, I would have to agree that "unceasing" is quite
        > > > different from "jealous." Given that you seem to have an
        > > > aversion to conducting further research in books regarding
        > > > questions due to what you deem contradictory claims, I'm
        > > > disappointed that you seem far more willing to accept
        > > you
        > > > encounter on the Internet with less of a critical eye—
        > > > when your gut instinct appears to raise a red flag on the
        > > Please
        > > > find below some links that will clarify the definition of the
        > word
        > > (and
        > > > its original root) used in the OT verses:
        > > >
        > >
        > > Hi Gerry ,
        > > Thanks for the links , but words do get a little
        > > limited at times . I've learnt to avoid 'expert' opinions .
        > > Why should the internet and peoples opinions and
        > > experiences , be any less authorative than a boook ? Many
        > > books arent worth the paper they are written on . But
        > > just my opinion .
        > > Books are roads , some good some bad , they are NOT
        > > destination . Many books can lead you down the wrong road .
        > > True understanding or gnosis of things above , can never
        > > ever be found in a book .
        > > Did the serpent offer them a book ? Reading about
        > > apples is no substitute for tasting one . Dont you
        agree ?
        > >
        > > Regards Gort ,
        > >
        > Hi there, Gort.
        > I don't see where Gerry suggested that people's opinions on the
        > internet were any less authoritative than a book. I believe he
        > talking about being equally critical of information found on the
        > internet. Also, I'm not sure how critiquing the definition
        > of "jealousy" ended up being associated with Gnosis in books, but,
        > any event, you are not the first one to express an aversion to so-
        > called "experts" and their books. I do admit, though, that I also
        > baffled why you might consider an opinion from someone on the
        > internet, whom you do not know, to be preferable to a so-called
        > expert. They could both be hogwash. And, for that matter, an
        > internet person might also be an author.
        > Would you agree, or not, that many books are a means of relaying
        > others information derived from various sorts of experience? And
        > that some of these might be written by people with much expertise
        > certain ways. Yes, some are reliable, and others are bunkum.
        > Why should we pit one against the other ~ books and experience?
        > they not work together as sources of information? Also, would you
        > agree that experience could entail intellectual or technical
        > experience as well as emotional or sensual experience? It's not
        > evident that the Gnostics viewed mystical or spiritual experience
        > being solely in one camp or another.
        > Tasting an apple is but part of the experience of learning about
        > apple. Besides, it is my opinion that "tasting" in this case is a
        > metaphor for more than the literal sensual experience. But to use
        > practical example, the sensual experience of tasting might
        > one to a firsthand familiarity of an aspect of `apple'. It does
        > however, let one know what variety of apple or whether the apple
        > rotten, for example, until one compares with other experiences,
        > own and perhaps, for added perspective, those of other people
        > conversation, books, etc.
        > There are other aspects of `apple' one might want to discover.
        > Perhaps one could explore the apple more fully with other senses.
        > Taste alone also involves the senses of touch and smell.
        > one even might read and mull over writings by others who have
        > specialized in scientific analysis of an apple's chemical
        > http://fst.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/12/6/477
        > What does "tasting" an apple mean in Genesis? To what extent one
        > interprets this literally or metaphorically would have
        > regarding meaning.
        > In Gnostic literature, one might consider Allogenes as being a
        > of expert. The Foreigner "prepared" himself and "deliberated for
        > hundred years" before having the abstract, mystical vision he
        > about. Then the luminaries instructed him to write down what he
        > told. So, that is what the Foreigner did for the sake of others
        > read who were "worthy."
        > Is this book reliable or not?
        > I suppose that is where critical judgment comes into play. And we
        > might use all kinds of experience in making a decision,
        > that with further reliable experiential information we just might
        > change our minds.
        > If in your experience, Gort, you feel that "unceasing" is "a lot
        > different than "jealous", you could just leave it at that. Or you
        > could question the person who supplied that information as to how
        > where he obtained it. And you could even do a bit of research
        > yourself to compare findings. There are lots of options,
        > on your interest.
        > One could have personal experience or vision or intellectual
        > abstraction and call it Gnosis. Why not? In addition, one could
        > call it Gnosis and still have an interest in other people's ideas
        > of "Gnosis" for comparison. Some of these people might even be
        > dead. And the only way we know of their thoughts and experiences
        > would be through their writings. Some modern people even like to
        > specialize in learning about these ancient writings to try to
        > understand the authors' intentions. And there are different ways
        > approach these writings, just as there are different ways of
        > an actual apple or learning about jealousy.
        > I guess my point is that no one here is asking anyone to accept
        > others' beliefs, but it seems to me that avoiding particular
        > opinions, just because they are considered by some to be "expert"
        > contained in a book, and relying more on random opinions and
        > experiences expressed by people on the internet or in conversation
        > would be passing up a possible valuable source of information.
        > not consider a mix?
        > I'll stop here before I end up being accused of writing an entire
        > tome. *lol*
        > Cari
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.