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

Re: Knowledge ?

Expand Messages
  • chesterelders
    ... from being . ... of ... nothing ... wasted. ... With regard to knowledge, I believe that every kind of knowing must first start out as a preceptable,
    Message 1 of 3 , Oct 20, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "gortoz77" <gortoz77@...> wrote:
      >
      > 'The divine spark is hidden in worthless matter ??? '
      >
      > Could you please repeat this monologue in a more simple
      > manner so i can try and grasp what you are actually saying .
      > Thankyou ches , from Gort ,
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "chesterelders"
      > <chesterelders@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Hello:
      > >
      > > I'd like to venture a somewhat different opinion as to what
      > > knowledge is. First of all, knowledge is inseperable
      from "being".
      > > That which knows, is. The nature of being is to be. In the case
      of
      > > living beings, the nature of being is to live. Life processes are
      > the
      > > most basic perceptions of which living beings are capable;
      nothing
      > is
      > > more certain than my perceptions of hunger, cold, fear, and so on.
      > > All knowledge is a metaphor for bodily or somatic
      > perceptions.
      > > For example, love is an appetite modeled after hunger. On a more
      > > prosaic level, the notion of "force", so basic to physics is
      > defined
      > > as "a push or pull", which is a bodily perseption. There is no
      > > category of knowledge which isn't either directly derived from
      > bodily
      > > perceptions, or else a secondary construct.
      > > I believe this is why "gnosis" has such a popular appeal.
      > What
      > > is the most basic formulation of the gnostic myth? A divine spark
      > has
      > > been lost by a transcendent God, who wishes to find and reabsorb
      > it.
      > > The divine spark is hidden in worthless matter. I suggest this
      > > represents an organism which has voided it's bowels and then
      > checks
      > > to see if there are any bits of undigested nourishment which can
      > be
      > > reclaimed. This makes good sense when one considers that ancient
      > > peoples saw food and life as essentually the same thing. A
      > > subsistence life-style means that nothing can afford to be
      wasted.
      > >
      > > Sincerely,
      > > Chester Elders
      > >
      >Hello, Gortez77:

      With regard to knowledge, I believe that every kind
      of knowing must first start out as a preceptable, bodily activity. In
      my previous post, I gave the example of love as a kind of appetite.
      What about thought, itself? Well, the stomach has more nerve activity
      that does the brain. We often express hunches or intuition as a "gut
      feeling". I suggest that the act of thinking mirrors the act of
      digestion. The point is that anything we can say about the world is
      an analogue of something our bodies do.
      If that's so, then gnosis, which is just a kind of
      knowing, must also be an analogue of something our bodies do.
      Although there's really not a single gnostic myth, many gnostic myths
      do talk about a remote and utterly transcendent god somehow losing
      touch with part of himself. God then (or else through some proxy)
      tries to reabsorb that which has been lost. As a possible analogue to
      something our bodies do, I suggested this scenaro. Some animals,
      primates, in particular will scavage their feces to retrieve
      partually digested matter which can be given a second chance, as it
      were. On a subsistence diet, to lose valuable nutrients is tantamount
      to losing one's life. How might this fact from biology tie into
      gnosis?
      Most gnostic myths regard matter as the husk of
      spirit. Some gnostics even believed that Jesus didn't defecate
      because that was a sign of his enlightenment; it meant he had
      transcended the world. Myths are simply archetypes of that which we
      know most intimately, which of course are the sensations of our own
      bodies. (I know it offends our modern sensibilities to imagine
      scavaging our feces for extra nutrients. It also offends our modern
      sensibilites to fart; yet, we all do). For the most part, ancient
      gnostics regarded the physical world as the waste matter or by-
      product of disobedience by lesser gods, or archons. The valuable
      "spark" of the remote and high god are trapped in the waste matter of
      what we call reality. In a sense, the world is god's feces. This
      suggestion is less outrageous when one considers that Jewish
      Kabbalah, which is a kind of "late" gnosis, makes this claim more
      explicitly.
      Just as god wants to reabsorb his lost essence, so
      we, at some time in our evolutionary history sought to reabsorb our
      lost "essence". The way we did that was to try and digest our food,
      even if it meant trying again, and again. The myth is an archetype of
      a necessary survival strategy which we once employed.

      Sincerely,
      Chester
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.