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

Re: knowledge

Expand Messages
  • gortoz77
    Yes thankyou , i just read it . Besides eve being the higher self and adam the lower self , the following sentence stuck in my mind . The
    Message 1 of 34 , Nov 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Yes thankyou , i just read it . Besides eve being the
      higher self and adam the lower self , the following sentence
      stuck in my mind .

      The developement of the human race depended on the 'fall' ?

      So the Demiurge did NOT want them to fall , and so he
      didnt want the human race to develope ?
      But the serpent did ?
      Excuse me if im a bit slow .

      From Gort ,



      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > Hi, Gort. How would the Gnostics have viewed this? How would
      > the `demiurge' come into play here?
      >
      > http://www.gnosis.org/genesis.html
      >
      > Cari
      >
      >
      > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "gortoz77" <gortoz77@> wrote:
      > >
      > > So in other words 'he' thought it best for his children
      > > NOT to know certain things . Things that might put at
      risk ,
      > > or unbalance the natural order . So he was wiser than
      the
      > > serpent after all .
      > >
      > > From Gort
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, gaye verrall <gayeverrall@>
      > > wrote:
      > > >
      > > > I was thinking about the fruit of knowing good and bad as
      causing
      > > the fall and the loss of the garden of paradise. Maybe it
      causes a
      > > split.
      > > >
      > > > This fall is perhaps a way of seeing that is materialistic
      and
      > > subject to death and decay and that in identifying with that
      state
      > > the eternal is lost.
      > > >
      > > > Without the beauty and love of the spiritual nature to
      > > complement the gnosis, of what value is it to eat this fruit of
      > > knowing? Together maybe they manifest as a completeness.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > gortoz77 <gortoz77@> wrote:
      > > > Hello ,
      > > > Umm ... So the genesis god ( and gods friends whoever
      > > > they may be ) didnt want adam and eve to see like him
      > > > , because they would be disconnected from eternity and
      > > > subject to death due to sole indentification with the cycles
      of
      > > > nature.
      > > > Mmm ... Cycles of nature makes no sence because that
      > > > includes everything . But maybe thats what you mean . So
      > > > there are two trees . One of knowledge ,and one of life . I
      > > > think the tree of life needs another name , because again ,
      > > > everything is living .
      > > > Basically , do you mean that this god was trying to
      > > > PROTECT them by not allowing them to see like him ?
      > > >
      > > > Regards Gortoz ,
      > > >
      > > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, gaye verrall
      <gayeverrall@>
      > > > wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > Hi
      > > > >
      > > > > I have heard another angle on this. It is not that Adam and
      Eve
      > > > were not to eat of the Tree of Knowing but that without eating
      > > also
      > > > of the Tree of Life they would be disconnected from eternity
      and
      > > > subject to death due to sole indentification with the cycles
      of
      > > > nature.
      > > > >
      > > > > Without eating of both they would lose balance and the joy
      of
      > > > living the bliss of spiritual identity on earth. Maybe this is
      > the
      > > > balance that we now seek to restore.
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > gortoz77 <gortoz77@> wrote:
      > > > > 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
      > > > > knowknottalot...
      > > > > > 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
        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 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.

        PMCV


        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "gortoz77" <gortoz77@> wrote:
        > >
        > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "gortoz77" <gortoz77@>
        wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > […]
        > > > > 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
        lot
        > > > > 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
        these
        > > > questions due to what you deem contradictory claims, I'm
        somewhat
        > > > disappointed that you seem far more willing to accept
        information
        > > you
        > > > encounter on the Internet with less of a critical eye—
        especially
        > > > when your gut instinct appears to raise a red flag on the
        issue.
        > > 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
        thats
        > > just my opinion .
        > > Books are roads , some good some bad , they are NOT
        the
        > > 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
        was
        > 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,
        in
        > 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
        am
        > 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
        to
        > others information derived from various sorts of experience? And
        > that some of these might be written by people with much expertise
        in
        > certain ways. Yes, some are reliable, and others are bunkum.
        >
        > Why should we pit one against the other ~ books and experience?
        Can
        > 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
        as
        > being solely in one camp or another.
        >
        > Tasting an apple is but part of the experience of learning about
        an
        > apple. Besides, it is my opinion that "tasting" in this case is a
        > metaphor for more than the literal sensual experience. But to use
        a
        > practical example, the sensual experience of tasting might
        introduce
        > one to a firsthand familiarity of an aspect of `apple'. It does
        not,
        > however, let one know what variety of apple or whether the apple
        is
        > rotten, for example, until one compares with other experiences,
        one's
        > own and perhaps, for added perspective, those of other people
        through
        > 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.
        Furthermore
        > one even might read and mull over writings by others who have
        > specialized in scientific analysis of an apple's chemical
        composition.
        > 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
        significance
        > regarding meaning.
        >
        > In Gnostic literature, one might consider Allogenes as being a
        kind
        > of expert. The Foreigner "prepared" himself and "deliberated for
        a
        > hundred years" before having the abstract, mystical vision he
        wrote
        > about. Then the luminaries instructed him to write down what he
        was
        > told. So, that is what the Foreigner did for the sake of others
        to
        > 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,
        understanding
        > 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
        or
        > where he obtained it. And you could even do a bit of research
        > yourself to compare findings. There are lots of options,
        depending
        > 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
        to
        > approach these writings, just as there are different ways of
        knowing
        > 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"
        and
        > 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.
        Why
        > 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.