Re: [Gnosticism2] Re: knowledge
- In many myths and religions there are the jealous gods and I have come to the conclusion personally that this is the Demiurge.When you trace the actions of this god in the Old Testament he is wrathful and that is another term it seems for a jealous god.In the old myths the serpent is symbolic of Wisdom and the source of wisdom is Gnosis and Love. The serpent may be a Seraphic Angel, a messenger of the higher Deity.In the Greek myths the Apples of Hesperides are guarded by a serpent.Gnosis is a good fruit but has a history of being attacked as heresy by the followers of the old wrathful god whereas Christ and Sophia are spirits of love and compassion.gortoz77 <gortoz77@...> wrote:Well ... ok ,
Thankyou very much for your patience , but honestly im not
trying to get you to do the work for me .
Im trying to understand a few things . You suggest i read
some books . Ive had enough of boooks and the only REAL
thing i have learnt from books is that most of these
experts often DISAGREE with one another , and so we are back
at sqaure one , again .
I read that Gnosis is greek for knowledge , than i read
it is an inner personal experience . If Gnosis means knowledge
( imformation ) then i have done more than enough research .
See , thats what im trying to say to you .
Too many books can make your mind inactive . I admire
people who can think for themselves from the material .
Thats why i thought i could actually ask people for their
opinion . But then they refer me to books again , and around
and around we go .
So yea , i dont mind if people have their own opinion
as long as its based on some experience , call it mystical
or Gnostic or new age or religious or cosmic . Gnosis
should cover all the different approches , cause doesnt the
word Gnosis mean knowledge or more accurateley ... to know ?
Or maybe i read it wrongly .
My personal opinion > at this stage < , is that this
demiurge or whatever you call it , was acting out of mercy
for his creation . I dont believe it was evil . Even half
gods dont do things for the sake of evil ... Do they ?
But thats just my opinion . And if we dont agree , then
niether of us have learnt a thing . Because i believe the
truth is the same for everyone . I dont believe there are
different truths . Of course i know many people will
disagree with that .
I realy dont want to argue or split hairs , I was
just seeking an answer to a question .
Regards from Gort ,
--- In gnosticism2@ yahoogroups. com, pmcvflag <no_reply@.. .> wrote:
> >>>Yes lady Caritas ,
> i did read all those links Yes thankyou .
> Yes i also understand these myths represent things ,
> but that doesnt make them any less real , or literal .
> I think it makes much more sence to discuss the story as
> a story without going tooooo deep and disappear into a
> mist of philosophy .<<<
> The question here would be whether the Gnostics MEAN this to be
> understood philosophically. If they did not, then that is fine...
> but if a specific text is speaking philosophically by intent then
> maybe we should understand it in that way.
> >>>Im just being simple in my approach
> with simple questions .
> Such as , why did the genesis god NOT want his children
> to see as he did ? Is that not a simple enough question ?
> If there is no answer for this , then i will accept
> that .<<<
> The problem isn't that there is no answer, the problem is that
> are many answers that are genre specific. This forum deals with
> Gnosticism, so not all of those genres may be on topic here.
> point to you (post 13191) about various answers is very valid.
> >>>Am i being to complex ? I hope not , as i would reather talk to
> people about this , rather than read ten volumes of a book , which
> have learnt is a poor substitute for reality ( gnosis) .<<<
> I would rather talk to people also, but we do expect people here
> do SOME of their own research into the subject of Gnosticism. To
> blunt (and not meant to be acerbic) we mods simply can't be
> to do the research and then spoon feed the info for the forum. We
> raise issues and provide counterpoint for subjects in
> We try to encourage people exploring their own questions within
> topic of this forum.
> The same is true with spiritual "truths". We don't assume them, we
> only ask that you connect them to the topic of Gnosticism.
> >>>And isnt gnosis a personal experiance , isnt that what it
> means ?<<<
> Actually, no, that isn't what "Gnosis" means in this traditional
> >>>I would rather talk to a nobody who had that
> experience then a best selling author who hadnt .
> Even though i have asked a few times now i hope you
> dont mind if i ask again .
> Why did the genesis god NOT want adam and eve to see as
> he did ???
> I will accept ' i dont know ' as an answer and would consider
> it an honest answer .<<<
> Socrates said "teach yourself to say 'I don't know'". It is good
> that you accept "I don't know". However, I think the way you are
> framing the question is also problematic in this case. It would
> be fair of you to assume the problem is Lady Cari's ignorance of
> subject (she actually knows the subject well).
> Gnosis, in this usage, is not the same as a mystical experience.
Yahoo! Answers - Get better answers from someone who knows. Try it now.
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 email@example.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@...>
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "gortoz77" <gortoz77@> wrote:
> > --- In email@example.com, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "gortoz77" <gortoz77@>
> > > >lot
> > > >
> > > > [ ]
> > > > 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 .these
> > > > [ ]
> > > >
> > > > 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'msomewhat
> > > disappointed that you seem far more willing to acceptinformation
> > youespecially
> > > encounter on the Internet with less of a critical eye
> > > when your gut instinct appears to raise a red flag on theissue.
> > Pleasethats
> > > find below some links that will clarify the definition of the
> > (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 .the
> > Books are roads , some good some bad , they are NOT
> > destination . Many books can lead you down the wrong road .agree ?
> > 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
> > 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 thein
> 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-am
> called "experts" and their books. I do admit, though, that I also
> baffled why you might consider an opinion from someone on theto
> 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? Andin
> that some of these might be written by people with much expertise
> certain ways. Yes, some are reliable, and others are bunkum.Can
> Why should we pit one against the other ~ books and experience?
> they not work together as sources of information? Also, would youas
> 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.an
> Tasting an apple is but part of the experience of learning about
> apple. Besides, it is my opinion that "tasting" in this case is aa
> metaphor for more than the literal sensual experience. But to use
> practical example, the sensual experience of tasting mightintroduce
> one to a firsthand familiarity of an aspect of `apple'. It doesnot,
> however, let one know what variety of apple or whether the appleis
> rotten, for example, until one compares with other experiences,one's
> own and perhaps, for added perspective, those of other peoplethrough
> conversation, books, etc.Furthermore
> 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 havecomposition.
> specialized in scientific analysis of an apple's chemical
> What does "tasting" an apple mean in Genesis? To what extent one
> interprets this literally or metaphorically would have
> regarding meaning.kind
> In Gnostic literature, one might consider Allogenes as being a
> of expert. The Foreigner "prepared" himself and "deliberated fora
> hundred years" before having the abstract, mystical vision hewrote
> about. Then the luminaries instructed him to write down what hewas
> told. So, that is what the Foreigner did for the sake of othersto
> read who were "worthy."understanding
> 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 mightor
> 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 researchdepending
> yourself to compare findings. There are lots of options,
> on your interest.to
> 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 ofknowing
> an actual apple or learning about jealousy.and
> 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 andWhy
> 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*