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

Re: knowledge

Expand Messages
  • gortoz77
    Hi K , One yet many . I think to know that is to know a lot . Like petals on a rose , seperate yet one . I think genesis has very deep knowledge
    Message 1 of 34 , Oct 31 7:08 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi K ,
      One yet many . I think to know that is to know a lot .
      Like petals on a rose , seperate yet one .
      I think genesis has very deep knowledge hidden in it . Are
      you familiar with it ?
      In my opinion , the main crux of it all is this .
      Gnostic thought relates the snake as the good guy , maybe .
      But the big question is , why was the genesis God so worried
      about his children eating the apple and therefore TO SEE AS
      HE ( plural ) DID ?????
      Why didnt this god want adam and eves eyes to open to
      the truth ??? Why didnt he want them to see like him and
      his company , up there in the clouds ( whoever they were ) .

      Seeya , from Gort ,

      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, RatherNotSay TooMuchBoutMe
      <knowknottalot@...> wrote:
      > well. let me inform you, and any others that would surely express
      curiosity about myself, that my knowledge is purely subjective and
      biased, dependent upon my own experiences and given insights... any
      knowledge or info that I may impart is therefore wholly open to
      potential flaws and/ or criticism; in fact, I encourage such, for
      such is the path towards empowerment and enlightenment for all...
      Knowledge is for naught, if proven false, correct? I will share what
      I may, and hope that you, too, will facilitate my enlightenment and
      advancement towards The Penultimate Truth; thus, may we grow,
      together... Having said that, I shall endeavor to enlighten you as
      to the meaning of that Passage in Genesis, understanding that I
      > It has come to be understood by myself that God spoke, then
      and oft since, with regard to the Whole of Himself, Him being One,
      and Many (both aspects considered uniquely separate, and,
      simultaneously, unified). I doubt this explanation will help a whole
      lot, but 'tis the best I have to offer...
      > gortoz77 <gortoz77@...> wrote:
      > Ok , well please to meet you ,
      > Umm ... yes of course the greek was before the
      > latin . But what was before the greek ?
      > Besides that . I think this is a good group but its very
      > slow at the moment . I like the loggo of the snake and the
      > apple . And i read a bit about that in your links . Very
      > interesting .
      > Genesis has always been one of my favourite things .
      > Not that im religious . Hope you dont mind me asking a
      > couple of questions .
      > Do you see genesis 1/26 . ' ... we shall make them in
      > OUR image ' Obviously this god was not alone . Could you
      > please shed some light on this , from a Gnostic view .
      > Thankyou , 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.