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

Re: Modification of the sensate being

Expand Messages
  • wilbro99
    Hi cari, here is something I had prepared for another group, but it will fit neatly in here. Alice is through the looking glass, as it so happens. alice, given
    Message 1 of 69 , Apr 9, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi cari, here is something I had prepared for another group, but it
      will fit neatly in here. Alice is through the looking glass, as it so
      happens.

      alice, given that we are talking about direct experiential knowledge,
      if we are all capable of doing it, and by that, I mean the possibility
      as opposed to actualization, then we must be looking at something we
      all have in common. This would mean that there is a generic shift in
      one's sense of self. Since that shift occurs in the self-referential,
      the terms we would use to describe the structure of that shift would,
      by necessity, require the use of self-referential language. However,
      it seems to me that if it is a generic shift, the shift itself, or the
      fact of the shift having been appropriated, should allow one to see
      what is being spoken to through the particular description of any
      self-referential language.

      I say this for two reasons; one being the fact that it makes sense
      logically and the other being that this is my experience of it. I have
      my own structure of that generic shift, one that I cobbled together to
      describe it to myself, and I see it being spoken to in many other
      structures. I have not too long ago discovered it in what is called
      the Gnosticism. If the question I was asking was not clear, this
      preface should clear it up. It is the same question I asked the
      Kierkegaard scholars, most of whom were Christian. They immediately
      placed the question in the category of pluralism, which it fits well,
      and away we went. My question then was essentially this: Is there one
      "salvation" and Christianity is only representative of it, or are
      there as many salvations as there are descriptions of it?

      My question now is directed towards those who adhere to, as it were,
      the tenants of Gnosticism; is it the truth or a representative of the
      truth? I just ran across the same question in a Gnosticism club,
      message #5617, where the poster very neatly asked the same question in
      an expanded form. Unfortunately, I saw no responses to it.


      --- In gnosticism2@y..., lady_caritas <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      > --- In gnosticism2@y..., "d_lazenby27" <d_lazenby27@y...> wrote:
      > > --- In gnosticism2@y..., "wilbro99" <wilbro99@y...> wrote:
      > > > Hi, I know not much about Gnosticism, but am learning quickly. I
      > > found
      > > > the following site with a list of what makes a Gnostic, and one
      > of
      > > > them, quoted below, caught my attention as being what it was all
      > > > about. It says that one must first know the revelatory
      experience
      > > > before there is an awakening. Could someone describe this
      > > modification
      > > > of sensate being for me?
      > > >
      > > > http://gnosis.org/whatisgnostic.htm
      > > >
      > > > "Man does not attain the knowledge that awakens him from these
      > > dreams
      > > > by cognition but through revelatory experience, and this
      > knowledge
      > > is
      > > > not information but a modification of the sensate being."
      > > >
      > >
      > > Hi Wilbro,
      > > Great question. Here's how I see it,
      > >
      > > It's a deeper understanding, beyond intellect, of the knowledge
      > that
      > > you have cognisized, a realisation. A drawing together of
      knowledge
      > > into wisdom that cannot be perceived on it's own. This wisdom is
      > far
      > > greater, deeper and more profound than the sum of it's parts.
      > > The effect of these realisations is to bring about a change in
      > > perspective, an expansion of conciousness not knowledge.
      > > Realisations are revelatory because they occur unprompted by our
      > > conciousness.
      > >
      > > We can read a thousand books but if we don't realise their deeper
      > > meaning then we read in vain.
      > > Knowledge alone is useless.
      > >
      > > Dave
      > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      >
      > Greetings, Will and Dave. Yes, informational knowledge alone won't
      > bring about "a modification of the sensate being."
      >
      > Dave speaks of "a drawing together of knowledge into wisdom" (Logos
      > and Sophia). In fact, the sects of the ancient phenomenon of
      > Gnosticism used an initiatory process in their seeking of Gnosis.
      You
      > can see this system referred to in _The Gospel of Philip_ for
      > instance.
      >
      > Will, I'm taking the liberty of posting one of your quotes from your
      > homepage. Considering your interest in Kierkegaard, this following
      > passage of his describes a transition, a shift in the sense of self:
      >
      > "All human language about the spiritual, yes, even the divine
      > language of Holy Scriptures, is essentially transferred or
      > metaphorical language. This is quite in order or corresponds to the
      > order of things and of existence, since even though man is spirit
      > from the moment of birth he first becomes conscious as spirit later,
      > and therefore prior to this he has lived for a certain time within
      > sensuous-psychic categories. The first portion of life shall not,
      > however, be cast aside when the spirit awakens, any more than the
      > awakening of spirit announces itself in sensuous or sensuous-psychic
      > modes in contrast to the sensuous or sensuous-psychic. The first
      > portion is taken over by spirit, and, thus used, thus laid at the
      > base, it becomes transferred. Therefore the spiritual man and the
      > sensuous-psychic man say the same thing in a sense, and yet there
      > remains an infinite difference between what they say, since the
      > latter does not suspect the secret of transferred language, even
      > though he uses the same words, but not metaphorically. There is a
      > world of difference between the two; the one has made a transition
      or
      > has let himself be led over to the other side; whereas the other has
      > remained on this side. Yet there is something binding which they
      have
      > in common - they both use the same language. One in whom the spirit
      > is awakened does not therefore leave the visible world. Although now
      > conscious of himself as spirit, he is still continually in the world
      > of the visible and is himself sensuously visible; likewise he also
      > remains in the language, except that it is transferred. Transferred
      > language is, then, not a brand new language; it is rather the
      > language already at hand. Just as spirit is invisible, so also is
      its
      > language a secret, and the secret rests precisely in this that it
      > uses the same language as the simple man and the child but uses it
      as
      > transferred. Thereby the spirit denies (but not in a sensuous or
      > sensuous-psychic manner) that it is the sensuous or
      sensuous-psychic.
      > The distinction is by no means directly apparent. Therefore we quite
      > rightly regard emphasis upon a directly apparent distinction as a
      > sign of false spirituality - which is mere sensuousness; whereas the
      > presence of spirit is the quiet, whispering secret of transferred
      > language - audible to him who has an ear to hear." (W0L, Hong, pp.
      > 199-200)
      >
      > Cari
    • lady_caritas
      Say, Will, not to confuse you any more, but . . .just for fun, since we both are not adverse to a transferred language of metaphor, I invite you and any other
      Message 69 of 69 , Apr 22, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Say, Will, not to confuse you any more, but . . .just for fun, since
        we both are not adverse to a transferred language of metaphor, I
        invite you and any other members who wish to join in, to read through
        _The Gospel of Thomas_ to see if you find any metaphorical language
        that makes sense to you. (This is not a requirement BTW, just an
        invitation to get a feel for a bit of metaphorical language used in
        the environs around here. LOL)

        For those who do not have a copy of the text, an online version can
        be found here ~

        http://gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html

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