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

Re: [Gnosticism] Logic for Play

Expand Messages
  • Al Pinto
    Hey_market, don t worry. You re getting through and I hear you. Please be patient with me for a moment. Faith has worked very well for me in the past, it s
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 18, 2002
      Hey_market, don't worry. You're getting through and I hear you. Please be
      patient with me for a moment. Faith has worked very well for me in the past,
      it's hard to let it go sometimes, if even for a moment.

      PMCV,

      That was a great post. Excellent logic and thank you so much for taking the
      time to do that. ;-)

      Hmm....

      You wrote: "Because it is experience, it is not faith (just as I know
      from experience that the result of an impact between an animal and a
      car can be messy. If you have not experienced this, but you believe
      what I tell you about said animal, then you are accepting it on faith)."

      I see, hence the idea that faith really isn't a good thing or not as
      important as experiencing and knowing. Your logic was sound. Because I have
      experienced something akin to what you have said above, I can understand
      where your (gnostic) perspective is coming from much better now. I'm still
      pig-headed in my pistic ways and value the power of faith (it works for me
      at least). I look forward to hearing some more about gnosticism from you
      guys. I think I'll just listen and learn a while. :-)

      peace,
      play




      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "pmcvflag" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
      To: <gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 5:31 PM
      Subject: [Gnosticism] Logic for Play


      > Play states...
      >
      > >>And if knowing equates to having logical proof, I would ask to be
      > shown that proof.<<
      >
      > I would in fact like to attempt that one, being one who likes a
      > challenge. I am assuming Play that you did in fact really
      > mean "logical proof" as oposed to "empirical proof", and I am
      > assuming you know they are not the same thing. So here is my logical
      > arguement, which I hope to only use one experiential point in.
      >
      > P1- if all existance is only percievable through contrast.
      > P2- and primary contrast is seen in the lack of the observed
      > phenomenon
      > C1- Then finity implies infinity.
      >
      > P1- if the percievable material universe is linear
      > P2- and linear is finite
      > C2- then infinity is beyond the material universe
      >
      > P1- If the "universe" is all finite existance
      > P1- and there is a source for the universe
      > P2- and a source is greater than it's product
      > C3- then the source of existance must be infinite
      >
      > Ok, I believe I have shown that it is valid to envision something
      > beyond physics. You all are welcome to point out any logical
      > fallacies I may have commited (even if you agree with me overall,
      > don't be afraid to point out any fallacies I may have made)
      >
      > Also, if any of my Premises need proof (I had assumed most either
      > flowed from previous arguements, or were self evident), I can work
      > them out. Now for the next part...
      >
      > This is the area that cannot be proven, but that Gnostics claim to
      > know. Just because there is a source for existance in infinity does
      > not mean that we are not incedental to the material existance. In
      > other words our possible link to an infinite source cannot be
      > demonstrated to be causal or personal. OR to boil that down even
      > more... there is no way to prove we are not happenstance. The Gnostic
      > claims then to know thier direct connection to the infinite from
      > experience. Because it is experience, it is not faith (just as I know
      > from experience that the result of an impact between an animal and a
      > car can be messy. If you have not experienced this, but you believe
      > what I tell you about said animal, then you are accepting it on
      > faith).
      >
      > Once we get past the basic causal effect it becomes very rational
      > though. Just as light exists from and returns to darkness, so does
      > all existance pass. It becomes easy to say that this demonstrates
      > very clearly that apon death I will no longer exist. The reason
      > being...
      >
      > P1- if existance is linear
      > P2- and I exist
      > C- To be infinite I must no longer exist.
      >
      > This means that when I die one of two thinks is likely to be the
      > result. If I am my body, the only thing that survives me are the
      > elements that make up my body. In other words, when you die you are
      > dead. On the other hand, if I am, even in part, the result of my
      > conceptual ability, and my conceptual ability is rooted in infinity
      > (as my ability to concieve infinity would imply), then when I die
      > part of me is infinite. I am not the sound, but the silence it comes
      > from... the instrument is just a destraction.
      >
      > Oh, I would also like to add for Wilbro. This is all still dependant
      > on self perception. We are obviously only reaching this conclusion,
      > or any conclusion, through our linear contextualization. Therefore,
      > my knowledge of infinity is self obtained. Hermes Trismagistos has a
      > nice little saying that is a simplified version of everything I just
      > said..... "as above, so below"
      >
      > PMCV
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > gnosticism2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.