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

Re: New Member

Expand Messages
  • hey_market
    And per Philip, the illusory nature of the world is such that the good is never really good, and the bad never really bad, because all is made of a parodoxical
    Message 1 of 137 , Apr 7, 2002
      And per Philip, the illusory nature of the world is such that the
      good is never really good, and the bad never really bad, because all
      is made of a parodoxical and chaotic intermixture.

      That is the reality of this world, and it is a REALITY, even if it is
      an illusory reality, if that makes any sense (well, I suppose if it
      makes sense, it is a paraodoxical and chaotic sort of sense, which is
      the only sort of sense that the world makes).

      And so, we may reject this REALITY, through first we recognize what
      we are rejecting.

      As the great Gnsotic Valentinus tells us (through Clement, who
      paraphrases him), gnosis is the knowledge of who we are, from whence
      we came, INTO WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TRHOWN, and to what we shall return.

      Undoubtedly, we have been thrown into quite a messed-up mix, and Mr.
      Khul, being bi-racial, you no doubt have you're own experience of
      this sort of chaos and intervixture. But all considerations of skin
      aside, we're all in the thick of the mix--none of us escapes it here
      save through gnosis, which is the knowledge that we are more than
      what we seem--we are more than this current reality, and in fact, a
      divine spark within us tell us that who we really are and from whence
      we came.

      And the place we came from is the place unto which we will return,
      and it is a common, transcendent reality--a place without and beyond
      division. Fortunately, with gnosis, we can return to it now, for it
      is none other than the consciosness of this reality.

      When we experience this consciousness, we might already be said to
      have returned to it.

      --- In gnosticism2@y..., "Gerry" <gerryhsp@y...> wrote:
      > Reply to Khaldun's message #5731
      > "One of the wickedest places" you've ever been, huh? I can't quite
      tell if you mean that literally, as one of the "worst" places, or in
      the vernacular, as one of the "baddest" places around. No worries,
      though. I lived in Georgia for a few years, and as with most things,
      I can take those comments either way.
      > First off, I'd like to say that I hope everyone hasn't had the same
      problems posting and accessing posts as some of us have had. Yahoo's
      new Groups format may take some getting used to. Anyway, I thought
      I'd take the chance to respond tonight while I could finally get
      through, but as my eyes are shutting on me, forgive me if you find
      this even more incoherent than usual.
      > >>The texts that I've read were not really shocking, but they
      seriously moved me and now I have this conscience about the whole
      > I wonder if the lack of shock-value might stem from the fact that
      you already find yourself with a conscience? I can see where the
      greatest disturbance might be found by one with deep convictions in a
      radically different understanding, e.g., an orthodox belief system.
      > >>But it makes sense or else why would Jesus himself advise us to
      renounce the things of this world and to repent??<<
      > Well, it makes sense to me as well, and yet, I wonder what exactly
      you mean by "renouncing" and "repenting." I certainly think that his
      teachings meant for us to find the value in "transcending" this
      world, but your comments make me wonder as to what moral judgments
      might have come attached with them.
      > I don't mean to suggest there that Gnostics didn't have moral
      concerns, but I think they had a deeper appreciation that sort of
      mitigated those questions. Unable to put my hands right now on my
      favorite quote regarding this topic, I do like what Elaine Pagels had
      to say about moral preconceptions:
      > "The gnostic author of the Gospel of Philip rejects this whole way
      of thinking. As this author sees it, no act in itself—and
      specifically neither celibacy nor marriage—is necessarily good or
      bad. Instead the moral significance of any act depends upon the
      situation, intentions, and level of consciousness of the
      > — Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, pg. 71.
      > IOW, I see a difference between recognizing the illusory nature of
      the world and going out of one's way in completely rejecting all
      things worldly.
      > Gerry
    • Gerry
      ... Thank you, Jana, for noticing them. ... And ya know, that was the one suggestion you wrote me that I was the most hesitant to attempt. There s something
      Message 137 of 137 , Apr 8, 2006

        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "janahooks" <janahooks@...> wrote:

        > [. . .]
        > Gerry and Lady C.,thanks for all of the info and links.…


        Thank you, Jana, for noticing them. 


        > Gerry, after looking at the National Geographic link, I was

        > reminded of some suggestions I gave you on faded writing. I'm feeling
        > really good about watery sepia ink and sandpaper...and sand
        > horizontally and vertically...with the gray sandpaper...


        And ya know, that was the one suggestion you wrote me that I was the most hesitant to attempt.  There's something about the dual-layered papyrus and its almost glossy sheen that made me wonder if such coarse measures would destroy the whole thing, but the more I've thought about it (along with your renewed convictions), the more I believe it would indeed yield a desirable finish.  I imagine the weathered results would be akin to repeatedly wadding up a sheet of paper to the point that it becomes more like a thin piece of cloth rather than a crisp piece of paper.  Only this way, you avoid the wrinkles!


      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.