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

Re: A Dialectical Doodle

Expand Messages
  • wilbro99
    Lady C, I have broken this response into two parts. My slowness in responding is because I had written quite a few versions of the final question, the second
    Message 1 of 18 , May 24, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Lady C, I have broken this response into two parts. My slowness in
      responding is because I had written quite a few versions of the "final
      question," the second part, and dumped each. This one, being the most
      abstract of the lot, survived. ---- Moby Willy

      Sharky, aside from saying what we think Presence is, which we really
      can't say anyway, I am tempted to say that I have no doubt that you
      and I are on the same page in the same book, especially in reference
      to what you have called nourishment from the infinite. I tend to live
      on the edge of unbuttoned and can turn horribly punny, like words are
      only toys, just before the release. I have thought about this before
      and my scheme has it that when I think about the paradox, as it were,
      words begin to leak and lose their meaning. When the word "me/self"
      gets involved and starts leaking, what you would call the nourishment
      begins. I guess I can easily see it that way; as being nourished, it
      makes sense, but I would not, by nature, see it that way. I would
      describe it backwards and call it something like carrying out the
      trash.

      Ah, there we have it. You see it as a filling and I see it as an
      emptying. That's our difference. Great! We see it in reverse. Your
      full is full and my full is empty, yet the empty and the full are one
      and the same. You move from empty to full and I from full to empty. In
      fact, I feel the Error exactly as that; being stuffed with self. Yet I
      moved to the empty with my first step, and it took some time to
      recognize the empty as the full. If you moved directly to the full,
      passing the empty, then the empty would be that passed from. A form
      takes shape to place the two movements within. And questions form.
      Does a new come into being or does an old come to an end? Is the new
      the end of the old or was the old the ending of the new? Was the old
      the ending of the new and the ending of the old a rebirth of the new?
      The questions turn incestful, as the different possibilities of
      relation between was and is begin to weave the carpet we choose to fly
      upon. The only place we can turn, aside from believing which is the
      truth, is to our experience of that movement. This becomes "our"
      truth, and if we can match "our" truths, as you and I are trying to
      do, what does that imply?

      Since you mentioned Gerry, from #5771 to that last point: "I suppose
      I should delight in the fact that we can view such questions from
      multiple perspectives. While I seldom have difficulty changing
      viewpoints in that way (and yes, my difficulty often lies in
      maintaining focus on ONE point!), I've garnered throughout the recent
      discussion some interesting, new ways of looking at this phenomenon of
      self-realization-or -dissolution."

      Ok, if we can agree on the touch of it, yet adhere to separate systems
      of description, you with the Gnostic and I with my cognitive scheme,
      are we then only expressing the preference that best fits our nature?
      Like there are artists such as yourself and engineers such as myself.
      Then again, it is possible the door by which we entered colors our
      description of it? What maintains our focus on "one" point?
      (continued)
    • wilbro99
      #5914 continued: A final question. I ll slip this one under the door by referencing Kierkegaard. He distinguishes between two sorts of authors; the
      Message 2 of 18 , May 24, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        #5914 continued:

        A final question. I'll slip this one under the door by referencing
        Kierkegaard. He distinguishes between two sorts of authors; the
        premise-author and the essential author. Let me posit the difference
        between the two. The former operates before the fact and the latter
        operates after the fact. If the fact to be operated upon is a
        revelatory experience, and this is Kierkegaard's point, the former
        only thinks they know what they are talking about, while the latter
        knows what they are talking about. Implicit in this distinction is
        that the revelation then brings another meaning of what it means to
        know into the scheme of things, i.e., there is knowing and there is
        knowing.

        As an aside, Kierkegaard argues, like you, that the revelation
        requires that Other, while I argue that the Other may be nothing more
        than an artifact of the revelation, or, to be fair, may be seen as
        nothing more than an artifact of the revelation; the question of
        which, in my view, can not be resolved. I say that because I can
        imagine the either/or dissolving into a neither that can only be seen
        as an either. The polar of that neither is both, which completes the
        four corners of the wind, as it were. If that either/or is
        disjunctive, the both creates a paradox. that is grounded in a
        Neither. That Neither may be where the ineffable source of your system
        is to be found, but I leave that connection to you. I see a form in my
        mind's eye here.

        If we come to agree that we are operating under the same revelation,
        and only describing it differently, for the reasons I mentioned
        earlier, and thus applying the revelation to two separate systems,
        which then allows us to read the same revelation into the other's
        system, what happens when those two seemingly disparate systems are
        placed before another who is premise oriented only? My next question
        depends upon your answer to this one. ----Moby Sounding
      • lady_caritas
        Sharky, aside from saying what we think Presence is, which we really can t say anyway, I am tempted to say that I have no doubt that you and I are on the same
        Message 3 of 18 , May 25, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          "Sharky, aside from saying what we think Presence is, which we really
          can't say anyway, I am tempted to say that I have no doubt that you
          and I are on the same page in the same book, especially in reference
          to what you have called nourishment from the infinite."

          Well great, Will! But then you continue by dissecting this finding
          until you wonder if we are really each focusing on "one" point. From
          the horse's or rather shark's mouth ~ "No, I am not focusing on `one'
          point." I view, like Gerry, "from multiple perspectives."
          Otherwise, I don't think I would be able to relate to other
          viewpoints.

          "I have thought about this before and my scheme has it that when I
          think about the paradox, as it were, words begin to leak and lose
          their meaning. When the word `me/self' gets involved and starts
          leaking, what you would call the nourishment begins." (Will, #5914)

          Interesting. I think what is happening is sort of like an automatic
          regulator that kicks in once we have made that shift in sense of
          self. "If they ask you, `What is the sign of the your father within
          you?' say to them, `It is movement and repose.'" (GTh, Logion #50)

          For instance ~

          "You move from empty to full and I from full to empty. In fact, I
          feel the Error exactly as that; being stuffed with self." (Will)

          Will, it seems to me that you are using an alternate meaning of full,
          more like "full of it," it being self or ego, which would tend to
          block your sense of what you call Presence. In that case you have a
          sense of "taking out the trash," releasing into the "emptiness" that
          is really the "fullness" (fullness in this context I assume to mean
          what you refer to as Presence). I don't see myself as just moving
          from empty to full, especially if "full" in the sense you mention
          means "stuffed with self." I *do* recognize that living in this
          temporal world after a shift in sense of self does seem to require a
          balancing act.

          So, anyway, certainly terminology can be helpful or a hindrance,
          depending on our perception. As PMCV noted, "It's helpful to `play
          with it, question it, re-mold it'" after trying to understand "the
          lingo and concepts as they were intended by the communicator first."
          When dealing with metaphor, this is no easy task, but diving into the
          imagery can bring such rewards. I'm also "on the edge of
          unbuttoned," Will, as I find new ways to relate to my experience.

          That said, I agree that this shift in sense of self involves an
          experiential path, and no two paths are exactly alike. Do our varied
          preferences have to do with our respective "natures"? Possibly, at
          least in part. You are an engineer, and, yes, I am an "artist" of
          sorts, a professional musician. However, several years ago in
          a "past life," I was also a CPA (tenuously related to music by
          utilizing math concepts). So, yes, I am capable of using both sides
          of my brain. Hmm. Does that signify an innately confused,
          disjunctive nature? LOL

          Okay, on to a new post to make an attempt to answer your second
          question.

          Cari
        • lady_caritas
          To continue ~ If we come to agree that we are operating under the same revelation, and only describing it differently, for the reasons I mentioned earlier,
          Message 4 of 18 , May 25, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            To continue ~

            "If we come to agree that we are operating under the same revelation,
            and only describing it differently, for the reasons I mentioned
            earlier, and thus applying the revelation to two separate systems,
            which then allows us to read the same revelation into the other's
            system, what happens when those two seemingly disparate systems are
            placed before another who is premise oriented only?" (Will, #5915)

            Why must one of us be premise oriented only? And are our systems all
            that disparate? I shall not speak for your experience, Will. I'll
            let you do that. I would ask you though to consider whether or not
            your reluctance to use the term "spiritual" (other than
            metaphorically) comes from a premise based on a preconceived notion
            of what that term means.

            That seems to be the crux of our differing descriptions. Upon
            reading your recent post to PMCV, it seems you still hold a concept
            of "other" to mean an imagined reification.

            What you describe could be a deity of orthodox Christianity for
            instance, a creator god. Gnostics could very easily view such
            an "other" as a psychic projection, an attempt to abstract human
            temporal consciousness. IOW, what an orthodox Christian might view
            as a spiritual deity, a Gnostic would view as a psychic reification.

            Now, you also posit that the Prime Source is nothing more than
            reification, stemming from your view that the Prime Source or
            Infinity, which "allows the causal to continue as a viable form of
            reasoning" (Message #5916), is nothing more than imagining?

            Well heck, Willy, I remember you saying you sensed infinity in what
            you call Presence. Now would that be "absolute infinity" or just a
            plain, garden-variety infinity? Spirituality to me simply means
            recognition of infinity that I cannot describe, and knowledge that
            barriers are imagined, including a statement that spirituality is
            metaphorical. Metaphorical for what? Imagination? What allows us
            to imagine? Material and psychic realms have limits. Spirituality
            does not.

            In my own experience, I cannot remember having a premise about what a
            revelation *should* make known. Even though I was raised in a
            liberal Christian environment, I never had faith in the deity of
            Christianity. I always felt like a fish out of water. In my teen
            years I assumed a self-designation of "agnostic" and was satisfied at
            that time admitting I couldn't prove anything one way or another. So
            for many years I lived in the temporal world not concerning myself
            with what I mistakenly considered "spiritual" matters. Later, at one
            point I even attempted to try a religious path again. Could all my
            friends following faiths be wrong? But I just found the experience
            boring, even nauseating, until, … I attended a class offering an
            overview of early Christianity.

            All those years I had never held a premise to be true that there was
            a god that would be revealed to me. So, then I learned about those
            heretical Gnostics. I had found some ancient siblings with whom I
            could relate. Ah! The rest is history. Well, and the present and
            the future – all at once. LOL

            So, I did not begin with a Gnostic premise. I was ignorant and had
            never heard of Gnosis. My revelation was simply "recognizing" after
            the fact that "Presence" that had been there all along.

            So, … you had another question, Moby?

            Cari
          • Gerry
            ... Or, at least with regards to our “apparent” natures. I suppose it is that deeper level of connection and understanding which is ill-served by our
            Message 5 of 18 , May 26, 2002
            • 0 Attachment

               

              Reply to Cari’s message #5919:

               

               

              >>I agree that this shift in sense of self involves an experiential path, and no two paths are exactly alike. Do our varied preferences have to do with our respective "natures"? Possibly, at least in part.<<

               

              Or, at least with regards to our “apparent” natures.  I suppose it is that deeper level of connection and understanding which is ill-served by our superficial means of communication, just as Will pointed out with the “self” getting in the way and words falling apart.

               

              While we may share the latitude of viewing from multiple perspectives, at least from my experience of it, there does indeed seem to be a constant synthesis of it all into a single viewpoint in my mind’s eye.  That understanding, however, even though we can conceive of its individual, constituent perspectives and offer myriad illustrative descriptions for their application, does not readily lend itself to being “explained” as a whole.

               

              ….Jesus said to them, “When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, [etc.]….

              —GTh, 22

               

              Gerry

            • wilbro99
              Oh heavens, I think I did not ask that last question clearly enough. Mea Culpa! It was not a good question, read stupid, in the first place, so I withdraw it;
              Message 6 of 18 , May 26, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Oh heavens, I think I did not ask that last question clearly enough.
                Mea Culpa! It was not a good question, read stupid, in the first
                place, so I withdraw it; the possible answers are endless. Your answer
                as a question about the premise takes care of it anyway. I clear it up
                here only to get around what I see as an implication within it that I
                did not, nor would not, make. I was being too clever by half and got
                the shark shaking I deserved.

                My question was this: Let's say that you and I agree that we are
                speaking to the same thing, yet our respective descriptions are so
                disparate that only knowing what is common to them, the central point
                of them, the hub around which each of our descriptions whirl, allows
                that agreement. What is the case of it when another reads both and
                understands only one of them?


                --- In gnosticism2@y..., lady_caritas <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                > To continue ~
                >
                > "If we come to agree that we are operating under the same
                revelation,
                > and only describing it differently, for the reasons I mentioned
                > earlier, and thus applying the revelation to two separate systems,
                > which then allows us to read the same revelation into the other's
                > system, what happens when those two seemingly disparate systems are
                > placed before another who is premise oriented only?" (Will, #5915)
                >
                > Why must one of us be premise oriented only? And are our systems
                all
                > that disparate? I shall not speak for your experience, Will. I'll
                > let you do that. I would ask you though to consider whether or not
                > your reluctance to use the term "spiritual" (other than
                > metaphorically) comes from a premise based on a preconceived notion
                > of what that term means.
                >
                > That seems to be the crux of our differing descriptions. Upon
                > reading your recent post to PMCV, it seems you still hold a concept
                > of "other" to mean an imagined reification.
                >
                > What you describe could be a deity of orthodox Christianity for
                > instance, a creator god. Gnostics could very easily view such
                > an "other" as a psychic projection, an attempt to abstract human
                > temporal consciousness. IOW, what an orthodox Christian might view
                > as a spiritual deity, a Gnostic would view as a psychic reification.
                >
                > Now, you also posit that the Prime Source is nothing more than
                > reification, stemming from your view that the Prime Source or
                > Infinity, which "allows the causal to continue as a viable form of
                > reasoning" (Message #5916), is nothing more than imagining?
                >
                > Well heck, Willy, I remember you saying you sensed infinity in what
                > you call Presence. Now would that be "absolute infinity" or just a
                > plain, garden-variety infinity? Spirituality to me simply means
                > recognition of infinity that I cannot describe, and knowledge that
                > barriers are imagined, including a statement that spirituality is
                > metaphorical. Metaphorical for what? Imagination? What allows us
                > to imagine? Material and psychic realms have limits. Spirituality
                > does not.
                >
                > In my own experience, I cannot remember having a premise about what
                a
                > revelation *should* make known. Even though I was raised in a
                > liberal Christian environment, I never had faith in the deity of
                > Christianity. I always felt like a fish out of water. In my teen
                > years I assumed a self-designation of "agnostic" and was satisfied
                at
                > that time admitting I couldn't prove anything one way or another.
                So
                > for many years I lived in the temporal world not concerning myself
                > with what I mistakenly considered "spiritual" matters. Later, at
                one
                > point I even attempted to try a religious path again. Could all my
                > friends following faiths be wrong? But I just found the experience
                > boring, even nauseating, until, … I attended a class offering an
                > overview of early Christianity.
                >
                > All those years I had never held a premise to be true that there was
                > a god that would be revealed to me. So, then I learned about those
                > heretical Gnostics. I had found some ancient siblings with whom I
                > could relate. Ah! The rest is history. Well, and the present and
                > the future – all at once. LOL
                >
                > So, I did not begin with a Gnostic premise. I was ignorant and had
                > never heard of Gnosis. My revelation was simply "recognizing" after
                > the fact that "Presence" that had been there all along.
                >
                > So, … you had another question, Moby?
                >
                > Cari
              • wilbro99
                ... Nope, I have run out of questions, and just in the nick of time.
                Message 7 of 18 , May 26, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  > > So, … you had another question, Moby?
                  > >
                  > > Cari

                  Nope, I have run out of questions, and just in the nick of time.
                • lady_caritas
                  ... enough. ... Willy, your question was not stupid, although it was abstract as you noted before. After rereading your Messages #5914 and 5815, plus Gerry s
                  Message 8 of 18 , May 26, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In gnosticism2@y..., Message #5922, "wilbro99" <wilbro99@y...>
                    wrote:
                    > "Oh heavens, I think I did not ask that last question clearly
                    enough.
                    > Mea Culpa! It was not a good question, read stupid, in the first
                    > place, so I withdraw it; the possible answers are endless."


                    Willy, your question was not stupid, although it was abstract as you
                    noted before. After rereading your Messages #5914 and 5815, plus
                    Gerry's insightful post, #5921, I've gained a new perspective on what
                    you might be saying. Perhaps this shark should place her muzzle on
                    more frequently.

                    Gerry said, "I suppose it is that deeper level of connection and
                    understanding which is ill-served by our superficial means of
                    communication, just as Will pointed out with the "self" getting in
                    the way and words falling apart.

                    While we may share the latitude of viewing from multiple
                    perspectives, at least from my experience of it, there does indeed
                    seem to be a constant synthesis of it all into a single viewpoint in
                    my mind's eye."

                    So, rephrased, Will, you say, "My question was this: Let's say that
                    you and I agree that we are speaking to the same thing, yet our
                    respective descriptions are so disparate that only knowing what is
                    common to them, the central point of them, the hub around which each
                    of our descriptions whirl, allows that agreement. What is the case of
                    it when another reads both and understands only one of them?"

                    I understand your question to relate only to _comprehension_ of
                    descriptions of a commonly agreed central point.

                    Well, I figure if the other person truly understands in
                    an "essential" way only one of them, it might be because he/she is
                    only comfortable or familiar with a particular system or way of
                    communication, and if the misunderstood description were explained in
                    that person's lingo, he/she would comprehend the common central point
                    to both descriptions;

                    or . . .

                    this "essential author" who truly knows what he/she is talking about
                    based on experience after the fact might only understand one
                    explanation not because of language barriers, but because our
                    agreement on a central point is in error and one of the descriptions
                    perhaps doesn't make sense;

                    or . . .

                    it's possible that the person only *thinks* they understand based
                    upon predetermined notions, not direct experience. For instance, if
                    the other person would tend to interpret and accept our common
                    revelation only in spiritual terms, … this "premise oriented" person
                    might see your explanation in what this person views as psychic terms
                    of what this person considers a spiritual event too incongruous and
                    confusing. Misunderstanding due to cognitive dissonance could result
                    based on preconceived expectations. And of course the reverse could
                    be true based on an example of a person who doesn't recognize
                    spirituality based on preconceived notions.

                    I might be totally off base here, but do I finally understand what
                    you're asking here? LOL

                    Perhaps other members have a different take on this question.

                    Then again, some who do understand both explanations and agree that
                    we _are_ speaking to the same thing might have no trouble with
                    disparate explanations . . . while others, who comprehend both and
                    concur with our agreement of a central point, might still ask whether
                    both descriptions are valid.

                    And all of this only matters in the long run if we choose to take
                    into account for comparison what others think in our continuing
                    critical analysis.

                    Cari
                  • wilbro99
                    Reply to #5925: Ok, we are back on track. Your understanding is correct. It is about a comprehension of that central point, that bit of crazy glue that cements
                    Message 9 of 18 , May 27, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Reply to #5925:

                      Ok, we are back on track. Your understanding is correct. It is about a
                      comprehension of that central point, that bit of crazy glue that
                      cements our respective views together. Gerry's 5921 makes sense to me.
                      That there is more than one central pole to all of this does not make
                      sense. I will gladly call that central pole the spiritual pole and
                      make it a singular pole. So there.

                      You have covered the various possibilities I had in mind. I brought
                      this up for a specific reason and it has to do with the reason you
                      raised why it might matter in the critical analysis we seem to be
                      engaging in. You stated, "And all of this only matters in the long run
                      if we choose to take into account for comparison what others think in
                      our continuing critical analysis." You see, you have been throwing me
                      curves from time to time by referring to what another poster has said
                      in this matter, and I, in reading what the other has said, cannot find
                      our central pole in it.

                      Now, all those differing scenarios of comprehension come into play and
                      I can not say which is correct; especially because one of the
                      scenarios has me as the one missing the boat. Who knows? And, I can
                      see any discussion along these lines getting dicey. I had assumed you
                      had picked up on that point and had your teeth in me because of that,
                      which is why I quickly withdrew the question. Anyway, since I am the
                      figment of another's fertile mind, Will Brown being a pseudonym, those
                      teeth marks are easily erased. ----Moby
                    • lady_caritas
                      You see, you have been throwing me curves from time to time by referring to what another poster has said in this matter, and I, in reading what the other has
                      Message 10 of 18 , May 28, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        "You see, you have been throwing me curves from time to time by
                        referring to what another poster has said in this matter, and I, in
                        reading what the other has said, cannot find our central pole in
                        it." (Will, #5926)

                        Well gee, Will, why didn't you just say so in the first place?
                        Sometimes it might just be a matter of understanding the jargon or
                        even a matter of merely rephrasing a thought. And we could always go
                        to the original poster for clarification, too. Oh, I know, you just
                        enjoy watching me get all apoplectic, right? J/K ;-)

                        So, regarding this pneumatic central pole, have you read:
                        http://gnosis.org/valentinus.htm ?

                        Hoeller, a Jungian scholar, tends to bring a psychological, as well
                        as spiritual, approach to his Gnostic essays. In this article,
                        Hoeller does discuss what he refers to as the "pneumatic equation."
                        We're definitely not talking "unicorns and the tooth fairy." LOL

                        Cari
                      • wilbro99
                        Lady C, a few closing comments before I shift my attention as you suggest. This mind of which I am a prisoner takes every particular exegetic thought I have
                        Message 11 of 18 , May 29, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Lady C, a few closing comments before I shift my attention as you
                          suggest. This mind of which I am a prisoner takes every particular
                          exegetic thought I have and translates it into an abstract form
                          capable of holding that particular particular before it will allow the
                          particular to enter the scene. It is as if the particular, the actor,
                          can only do its thing if the stage is set and a proper entry is
                          chalked out. Besides, there is a certain release that comes with
                          seeing the particular within a general, as you can attest to.
                          Evidently, my thinking process emulates that. A stray thought: is an
                          ostrich an emulater? Button, button, who's got the button?

                          I have just read the site you proffered, which I had read before, and
                          it occurred to me how I might make the clarification you suggest, but
                          more importantly, engage in what I think will be a meaningful
                          discourse about Gnosis and what it means, not that such a meaning can
                          ever be put to words, but about the form of it. Since I see such a
                          project as beginning with the abstract, our concrete pole needs be set
                          aside - read as excuse to set aside our Great Pole Hunt. I'll pester
                          CV for a while. ---polly wolly doodle...


                          --- In gnosticism2@y..., lady_caritas <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                          > "You see, you have been throwing me curves from time to time by
                          > referring to what another poster has said in this matter, and I, in
                          > reading what the other has said, cannot find our central pole in
                          > it." (Will, #5926)
                          >
                          > Well gee, Will, why didn't you just say so in the first place?
                          > Sometimes it might just be a matter of understanding the jargon or
                          > even a matter of merely rephrasing a thought. And we could always
                          go
                          > to the original poster for clarification, too. Oh, I know, you just
                          > enjoy watching me get all apoplectic, right? J/K ;-)
                          >
                          > So, regarding this pneumatic central pole, have you read:
                          > http://gnosis.org/valentinus.htm ?
                          >
                          > Hoeller, a Jungian scholar, tends to bring a psychological, as well
                          > as spiritual, approach to his Gnostic essays. In this article,
                          > Hoeller does discuss what he refers to as the "pneumatic equation."

                          > We're definitely not talking "unicorns and the tooth fairy." LOL
                          >
                          > Cari
                        • lady_caritas
                          A stray thought: is an ostrich an emulater? (Will, #5943) Hmmm, another stray thought, … is an ostrich (two-toed) an emulator of the emu, rhea
                          Message 12 of 18 , May 29, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            "A stray thought: is an ostrich an emulater?" (Will, #5943)

                            Hmmm, another stray thought, … is an ostrich (two-toed) an emulator
                            of the emu, rhea (three-toed), or vice versa?

                            Ah, methinks Mother Rhea wins the emulation award for her ability to
                            make a stone emulate Zeus and thus fool the ravenous Cronus.

                            And certainly those ostriches don't really put their heads _in_ the
                            sand; .. it seems that behavior is reserved for some gods.

                            Anyway, … fare thee well, Sir Moby, in your divine doodle journeying
                            through mythology . . . singin' Polly Wolly Doodle all the day . . .

                            Lady C :-)
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.