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

Re: A Dialectical Doodle

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 18 , May 24, 2002
      #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 2 of 18 , May 25, 2002
        "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 3 of 18 , May 25, 2002
          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 4 of 18 , May 26, 2002

             

            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 5 of 18 , May 26, 2002
              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 6 of 18 , May 26, 2002
                > > 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 7 of 18 , May 26, 2002
                  --- 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 8 of 18 , May 27, 2002
                    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 9 of 18 , May 28, 2002
                      "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 10 of 18 , May 29, 2002
                        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 11 of 18 , May 29, 2002
                          "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.