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

Re: knowledge

Expand Messages
  • gortoz77
    In regard to books , I am interested in books if they have some answers to my questions . I cant help feeling the same way about any form of
    Message 1 of 34 , Nov 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      In regard to books ,
      I am interested in books if they have some answers to my
      questions . I cant help feeling the same way about any form
      of knowledge or teaching . But at the moment i have one
      question i need an answer for . IF i find that answer , im
      sure another question will arise . Just that i find it hard
      to work out many questions all at once . Please dont hold
      that against me . Thanks for your help , i am learning .
      So i keep getting the idea that this half god , or
      imperfect god is a jealous god , wrathfull, bossy . Sounds like
      he has an ego issue . Cant blame him for that , can we ?
      See already another question has arose . But first i
      need to know why he didnt want his children to understand,
      or to see , what he and his archons understood or saw .
      Ive learnt a new word ... ' archons ' .
      Wow , i just had the thought . He didnt want them to
      have knowledge because knowledge is power ? Mmm that makes
      sence , but . He sounds more like a typical human , rather
      than a god .
      Anyway when you mentioned that the serpent may be a
      messenger from the REAL god . That realy shone some light
      on things . ill have to think a bit about this .

      Any opinions would be appreciated .
      Thankyou all , from Gort






      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, gaye verrall <gayeverrall@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > 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:
      > >
      > > Gort
      > >
      > > >>>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
      > there
      > > are many answers that are genre specific. This forum deals with
      > > Gnosticism, so not all of those genres may be on topic here.
      > Mark's
      > > 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
      > i
      > > have learnt is a poor substitute for reality ( gnosis) .<<<
      > >
      > > I would rather talk to people also, but we do expect people here
      > to
      > > do SOME of their own research into the subject of Gnosticism. To
      > be
      > > blunt (and not meant to be acerbic) we mods simply can't be
      > expected
      > > to do the research and then spoon feed the info for the forum.
      We
      > > raise issues and provide counterpoint for subjects in
      > conversation.
      > > We try to encourage people exploring their own questions within
      > the
      > > 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
      > > usage.
      > >
      > > >>>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
      > not
      > > be fair of you to assume the problem is Lady Cari's ignorance of
      > the
      > > subject (she actually knows the subject well).
      > >
      > > Gnosis, in this usage, is not the same as a mystical experience.
      > >
      > > PMCV
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ---------------------------------
      > Yahoo! Answers - Get better answers from someone who knows. Tryit
      now.
      >
    • 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.