Re: [Gnosticism2] Re: Faith vs Experience
- Yes, I agree with your assessment, though there is a "point" for me that has to do with an inward looking. It is pointless to point to something that the listener doesn't already know as long as there is the insistence that this knowing arrives in a conceptual form, and so there is no attention turned within. That was the point of the comment that Truth is not conceptual.It's interesting that you say we're not here to talk about our perception of Truth but rather to talk about Gnosticism. That may be so, but I can't help picturing a group of Gnostics sitting around discussing Gnosticism instead of Truth. In the context of that which is pointless, this would seem to be the poster boy.PhilIn a message dated 1/4/2008 4:28:52 PM Pacific Standard Time, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
In response to Cari's question you wrote....
>>>You're right, it's a pretty strong statement that Truth is not
about conceptual knowledge, and so what conceptual knowledge could I
offer you to proove the truth of that statement?<<<
Not to speak for her, but I believe the point of her question may
have been to demonstrate how you see this being related to the
traditional concepts this forum explores. Truth may not be about
conceptual knowledge (though not all people may agree with that),
but communication IS about conceptual knowledge. Since you just
pointed out that from a conceptual stance the validity of
this "Truth" can only be pointed out via a circular axiom, I guess
it would be fair to say that the only way to validate or invalidate
it would be to experience it. What, then, would be the point of
talking about it? Either you are talking to people who know it and
there is no point, or you are talking to people don't know it about
something that can't be communicated... so there is still no point.
This forum is not really here to tell people what is "Truth", since
that would be quite a presumption. We'll let everyone here figure
that out for themselves. Instead we are talking about Gnosticism,
which may or may not be true or have some understanding of "Truth".
I understand, though, that perhaps Cari's point may have been
difficult to answer in light of your following statement;
>>>I'm not familiar with "historical gnosticism".<<<
Let me take a moment to explain. The term "Gnosticism" is one
invented by modern historians to categorize a number of ancient
religious sects that had certain core attributes in common.
Since you seemed to imply that Gnostic belief reflected this notion
of "Truth" that you mentioned, Lady Cari's question that you
demonstrate this belief within the Gnostic texts was logical and
valid. It doesn't matter if the Truth itself cannot be conceptually
demonstrated, the reflection of a belief in that Truth can (if it is
there). If Gnosis (as related by the Gnostics) is the same is your
term "knowingness", then that similarity should be something we can
Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.
- SORRY. :)
>>>> Seemed like all your other posts to me. :)<<<
> Doh! Just because you are right doesn't mean you are not a pain in the
> ass! *lol*. If you can let a guy PRETEND his spelling is not ALWAYS
> bad you let him keep his dignity.... if just a little. You know...
> just for the sake of Chivalry. ;)
> Yahoo! Groups Links