Re: [Gnosticism] Logic for Play
- 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.
That was a great post. Excellent logic and thank you so much for taking the
time to do that. ;-)
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. :-)
----- Original Message -----
From: "pmcvflag" <email@example.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
> 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
> 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
> 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"
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/