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

The Minnow: Second Wake

Expand Messages
  • wilbro99
    ... mean human society, religion and culture? Or do you mean all of it?
    Message 1 of 13 , May 24, 2002
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      And here is the next wake of the minnow:

      >Your next question on the other hand is more readily dealt with...

      >>What exactly is meant when you use the words "the world"? Do you
      mean human society, religion and culture? Or do you mean all of it?<<

      >(in reference to what is flawed) The "world" is the field of
      opposites, which is removed from infinity by it's dependance on linear
      movement. In other words, "opposites" or "contrast" is a split and
      another term for "split" can be "flaw" if we assume there is something
      that is not "split". Therefore (from our perspective), material
      existance is less than the implication of what is beyond it, and thus
      "flawed". This of course means everything, anything you can concieve,
      feel, think, experience, is experiencable because of the "flaw" or
      "split" from non-time (at least this is the Gnostic perspective, which
      answers the first question again).<

      Oh minnow, minnow, now that you have reified that source of causality
      as the primal source, the disjunction is now between the material and
      the spiritual, where the spiritual is beyond the material. You imagine
      that which is beyond imagination as the real and everything else as
      the flaw. Of course, the whale has another view of what the flaw is;
      the reification of that which is imagined, and that includes one's
      temporal sense of self. The error is not in the creation of the world,
      but in the creation of a temporal sense of self, and it is the
      temporal sense of self that imagines a beyond. In a word, the error
      believes its error is not its error but an error of creation. What a
      hoot!

      And thus we have the minnow's second and last wake; the two remaining
      would be more of the same and I have had my fun. In no way is what I
      have said to be seen as supporting play's position. If I had to choose
      between the lesser of two evils, I would choose the minnow's version.
      In fact, if you let me read the Gnostic system the way I want to read
      it, I can see it as paralleling mine. I think Sharky is the only one
      that will allow that. ----Moby
    • pmcvflag
      Well, if a minnow such as myself is going to survive these wakes, he had better learn to water ski... let me try to skip across them then without being
      Message 2 of 13 , May 25, 2002
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Well, if a minnow such as myself is going to survive these wakes, he
        had better learn to water ski... let me try to skip across them then
        without being toppled.

        >When the act of imagination comes to an end, that place is then
        imagined to be that place where the god of causality hangs out; we
        have returned to the source, that depthless depth from which all
        emanates, the eternal primal Being, aka, absolute infinity.<

        Once again we run into a problem. I understand that by using the
        term "being" you are making one of those concious and necessary
        mistakes that we all must use in order to communicate (since the
        Bythos is in no way a "being" and you made clear that you already
        understand that). However, I still find the term "causality" to do
        more harm than good to the description. Bythos is not the cause any
        more than the silence is the cause of the note when a string is
        plucked. Silence is the source, not the cause (in that the sound is
        a deviation [flaw] from the silence... as is the plucker [cause]).
        That "unmoved mover" of Platonic thought is still only the "Image"
        in Gnostic parlence. In other words, you are bringing together two
        completely different notions (or more accurately, it seems you
        believe it is I who am bringing them together). Barbelo can be seen
        as a "cause", as can Logos, Yaldebaoth, etc., but Bythos is not a
        cause.

        >The minnow places everything in the Either and neglects the Or.<

        "Either"? "Or"? In the words of Paul "all these things shall pass".

        >The error is not in the creation of the world,
        but in the creation of a temporal sense of self, and it is the
        temporal sense of self that imagines a beyond. In a word, the error
        believes its error is not its error but an error of creation.<

        Hmmm, but this statement does not appear internally consistant to
        me. I mean, if there is a "creation", then there is a "beyond"
        creation.... which means it is not imagined. The very term
        explicitly denotes a starting point. I however do not necessarily
        believe in a willed "creation" (not in the way you seem to mean it)
        so I do not necessarily believe in a "beyond".... beyond is still a
        place.

        >In fact, if you let me read the Gnostic system the way I want to
        read it, I can see it as paralleling mine. I think Sharky is the
        only one that will allow that.<

        Oh no, I would not attempt to prevent you from reading the Gnostic
        system how you choose. In fact, I would encourage you to play with
        it, question it, re-mold it, it is _living_ like any good language
        is. However, I assume that you, as someone familiar with complex
        math theories, knows the value of being very clear about the lingo
        and concepts as they were intended by the communicator first. I do
        not ask you to agree with me, or even with the Gnostic system as it
        was originally laid out, only to truely know what it is saying
        before you remold it to suit your system. As with my expertise
        (music) and yours (practical math) one learns the rules first, and
        then it is ones duty to break them (or at least aply them
        creatively). If you don't, then you can't come back and communicate
        to us the results of your experiments. To some extent this is how I
        view this whole conversation, a matter of making the terms (which
        are very technical, and I think our other engineer member, who
        specializes in fluids and thermodynamics, would tell you that these
        concepts can be equally as difficult) more clear for all involved.
        If I presume overly much let me know.

        PMCV
      • wilbro99
        The minnow becomes a shark. So be it. The most I could do now with what you have said is say that I see it differently, but as you said, hail to that
        Message 3 of 13 , May 26, 2002
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          The minnow becomes a shark. So be it. The most I could do now with
          what you have said is say that I see it differently, but as you said,
          hail to that difference. Good surfing; may you catch all the breaks!

          --- In gnosticism2@y..., pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
          > Well, if a minnow such as myself is going to survive these wakes, he
          > had better learn to water ski... let me try to skip across them then
          > without being toppled.
          >
          > >When the act of imagination comes to an end, that place is then
          > imagined to be that place where the god of causality hangs out; we
          > have returned to the source, that depthless depth from which all
          > emanates, the eternal primal Being, aka, absolute infinity.<
          >
          > Once again we run into a problem. I understand that by using the
          > term "being" you are making one of those concious and necessary
          > mistakes that we all must use in order to communicate (since the
          > Bythos is in no way a "being" and you made clear that you already
          > understand that). However, I still find the term "causality" to do
          > more harm than good to the description. Bythos is not the cause any
          > more than the silence is the cause of the note when a string is
          > plucked. Silence is the source, not the cause (in that the sound is
          > a deviation [flaw] from the silence... as is the plucker [cause]).
          > That "unmoved mover" of Platonic thought is still only the "Image"
          > in Gnostic parlence. In other words, you are bringing together two
          > completely different notions (or more accurately, it seems you
          > believe it is I who am bringing them together). Barbelo can be seen
          > as a "cause", as can Logos, Yaldebaoth, etc., but Bythos is not a
          > cause.
          >
          > >The minnow places everything in the Either and neglects the Or.<
          >
          > "Either"? "Or"? In the words of Paul "all these things shall pass".
          >
          > >The error is not in the creation of the world,
          > but in the creation of a temporal sense of self, and it is the
          > temporal sense of self that imagines a beyond. In a word, the error
          > believes its error is not its error but an error of creation.<
          >
          > Hmmm, but this statement does not appear internally consistant to
          > me. I mean, if there is a "creation", then there is a "beyond"
          > creation.... which means it is not imagined. The very term
          > explicitly denotes a starting point. I however do not necessarily
          > believe in a willed "creation" (not in the way you seem to mean it)
          > so I do not necessarily believe in a "beyond".... beyond is still a
          > place.
          >
          > >In fact, if you let me read the Gnostic system the way I want to
          > read it, I can see it as paralleling mine. I think Sharky is the
          > only one that will allow that.<
          >
          > Oh no, I would not attempt to prevent you from reading the Gnostic
          > system how you choose. In fact, I would encourage you to play with
          > it, question it, re-mold it, it is _living_ like any good language
          > is. However, I assume that you, as someone familiar with complex
          > math theories, knows the value of being very clear about the lingo
          > and concepts as they were intended by the communicator first. I do
          > not ask you to agree with me, or even with the Gnostic system as it
          > was originally laid out, only to truely know what it is saying
          > before you remold it to suit your system. As with my expertise
          > (music) and yours (practical math) one learns the rules first, and
          > then it is ones duty to break them (or at least aply them
          > creatively). If you don't, then you can't come back and communicate
          > to us the results of your experiments. To some extent this is how I
          > view this whole conversation, a matter of making the terms (which
          > are very technical, and I think our other engineer member, who
          > specializes in fluids and thermodynamics, would tell you that these
          > concepts can be equally as difficult) more clear for all involved.
          > If I presume overly much let me know.
          >
          > PMCV
        • pmcvflag
          No shark here Will, just a minnow on water skis. Anyways, I m not even sure I m clear on what you see differently since I wasn t aware that I was disagreeing
          Message 4 of 13 , May 27, 2002
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            No shark here Will, just a minnow on water skis. Anyways, I'm not
            even sure I'm clear on what you see differently since I wasn't aware
            that I was disagreeing with anything lol. I was outlining a basic
            communicative principle by stating that people can't _really_ know if
            they agree or disagree if we didn't communicate it yet.

            Lady Cari boils it down quite nicely when she says

            "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;"

            This is what I was trying to say also. If on the other hand no one
            takes the effort to break the lingo barrier, both sides may continue
            to think they are talking about different things when in fact they
            are not (or may think they are talking about the same thing when they
            are not). Is the connection or lack therof to be intuited only?

            While you two are attempting to traverse the communication barrier to
            a principle that you appear to beleive you basically agree on, I am
            making observations concerning the process of traversing the barrier
            regardless of the validity of the semi-disputed principle. The
            problem I see as a danger (whether or not it applies here) is when
            one side or other connects a word to a connotation that is not
            intended by the other communicator. When this happens, any agreement
            or disagreement one may feel they have reached is illusory since the
            communication barrier has not yet been truely breached. A difference
            or agreement is fine, but it is best served when both parties are
            truely cogniscent of how the communication led there, and what the
            other party genuinely meant to say.

            This becomes even worse when we are speaking the same language, but
            have different philosophical backgrounds. For instance I had a
            conversation with another engineer in which the word "infinity" was
            used. However, in the course of the conversation it became clear that
            we did not both mean the same thing by the word "infinity". As you
            know, in Calculus there are divisions of infinity, but, in the pure
            philosophical notion of infinity as it exists in Kabbalah,
            Gnosticism, or other Platonic ideals, there can logically be no such
            division. Initially this appeared to be a disagreement. However, just
            because we were using different meanings for the same word did not
            mean that we didn't have other words to express the concepts that we
            were trying to communicate, we simply had them mismatched to each
            other's intended meaning. There were other words such as "eternal"
            and "endless" that had variations in meaning that were critical to
            what we were trying to tell each other.

            If I say "Bythos is not a cause, but the undivided Image is", then
            what does that mean to you? Both are "infinite", both are
            our "source". How does one apply these terms to thier understanding,
            and how does that relate to the concepts that the words are
            originally intended to communicate? Is it valid to do so without
            knowing the neuance in the meanings? How far should assumption be
            allowed to exist in a conversation of this magnitude?

            PMCV

            --- In gnosticism2@y..., "wilbro99" <wilbro99@y...> wrote:
            > The minnow becomes a shark. So be it. The most I could do now with
            > what you have said is say that I see it differently, but as you
            said,
            > hail to that difference. Good surfing; may you catch all the breaks!
            >
          • wilbro99
            CV, let s work our way through this. First, I want to understand what you mean by Prime Source, i.e., what you see the Gnostic term Bythos as meaning. What
            Message 5 of 13 , May 27, 2002
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              CV, let's work our way through this. First, I want to understand what
              you mean by Prime Source, i.e., what you see the Gnostic term Bythos
              as meaning. What does it mean to you? I also have a meaning I read
              into it. First, I'll lay out what I think is your reading, ask a few
              questions, then lay out my meaning, along with a difference that may,
              or may not, be operant here.

              >Bythos is not the cause any more than the silence is the cause of the
              note when a string is plucked. Silence is the source, not the cause
              (in that the sound is a deviation [flaw] from the silence... as is the
              plucker [cause]).<

              I take that to mean that there is a contingent background, without
              which, the foreground would not stand out, i.e., have a source to
              emanate from. In this foreground are both the plucker and the sound
              created by the plucker; i.e., the cause and effect. As to the presence
              of the plucker, I see nothing as to the cause of the effect called the
              plucker; what accounts for the presence of the plucker and what is the
              relation of the plucker to that background? Is the plucker another
              emanatee? Am I asking the wrong question?

              The prime source is that silence inhabited when the imagined self
              comes to an end. In that silence is a presence in which all seems to
              rest and there is an understanding of the structure of the imagined
              self. When that experience, or, if you will, when that touch comes to
              an end, it may well be described as touching the Prime Source. This is
              concrete in that the touch of presence is as concrete as the touch of
              your fingers on the keyboard, although of a different order, which
              then lends itself to being called the spiritual, or the sense of the
              spiritual. There is a counter argument to be made here using the
              so-called God Spot as the central point, but that later since all that
              argument does is shift the same consideration to another level and a
              different question.

              So, we have the event and we have a description of the event. Either
              the description emanates from the event or the description belongs to
              the class of unicorns and the tooth fairy. If the former, that
              description could take many shapes, but at the center of each shape is
              the event. This is why I raised the notion of an essential author as
              opposed to an premise author (see #5915). My question is simply one of
              asking for your comment on what I have said and how you think it
              impinges upon our discussion.


              --- In gnosticism2@y..., pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
              > No shark here Will, just a minnow on water skis. Anyways, I'm not
              > even sure I'm clear on what you see differently since I wasn't aware
              > that I was disagreeing with anything lol. I was outlining a basic
              > communicative principle by stating that people can't _really_ know
              if
              > they agree or disagree if we didn't communicate it yet.
              >
              > Lady Cari boils it down quite nicely when she says
              >
              > "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;"
              >
              > This is what I was trying to say also. If on the other hand no one
              > takes the effort to break the lingo barrier, both sides may continue
              > to think they are talking about different things when in fact they
              > are not (or may think they are talking about the same thing when
              they
              > are not). Is the connection or lack therof to be intuited only?
              >
              > While you two are attempting to traverse the communication barrier
              to
              > a principle that you appear to beleive you basically agree on, I am
              > making observations concerning the process of traversing the barrier
              > regardless of the validity of the semi-disputed principle. The
              > problem I see as a danger (whether or not it applies here) is when
              > one side or other connects a word to a connotation that is not
              > intended by the other communicator. When this happens, any agreement
              > or disagreement one may feel they have reached is illusory since the
              > communication barrier has not yet been truely breached. A difference
              > or agreement is fine, but it is best served when both parties are
              > truely cogniscent of how the communication led there, and what the
              > other party genuinely meant to say.
              >
              > This becomes even worse when we are speaking the same language, but
              > have different philosophical backgrounds. For instance I had a
              > conversation with another engineer in which the word "infinity" was
              > used. However, in the course of the conversation it became clear
              that
              > we did not both mean the same thing by the word "infinity". As you
              > know, in Calculus there are divisions of infinity, but, in the pure
              > philosophical notion of infinity as it exists in Kabbalah,
              > Gnosticism, or other Platonic ideals, there can logically be no such
              > division. Initially this appeared to be a disagreement. However,
              just
              > because we were using different meanings for the same word did not
              > mean that we didn't have other words to express the concepts that we
              > were trying to communicate, we simply had them mismatched to each
              > other's intended meaning. There were other words such as "eternal"
              > and "endless" that had variations in meaning that were critical to
              > what we were trying to tell each other.
              >
              > If I say "Bythos is not a cause, but the undivided Image is", then
              > what does that mean to you? Both are "infinite", both are
              > our "source". How does one apply these terms to thier understanding,
              > and how does that relate to the concepts that the words are
              > originally intended to communicate? Is it valid to do so without
              > knowing the neuance in the meanings? How far should assumption be
              > allowed to exist in a conversation of this magnitude?
              >
              > PMCV
            • pmcvflag
              Ah ok, now you are going to force me to switch gears into my actual interperative perspective. Ok, I ll bite. However, to avoid confusion let me seperate this
              Message 6 of 13 , May 29, 2002
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Ah ok, now you are going to force me to switch gears into my actual
                interperative perspective. Ok, I'll bite. However, to avoid confusion
                let me seperate this a little bit from the other line, and let me
                also point out a fiew historical observations about "Gnosticism", as
                it pertains to the terminology we are about to discuss.

                To start with I would like to point out that "Bythos" is not a term
                that all Gnostics used, as far as we know. I would also point out
                that many Gnostic terms are used very differently by different
                groups. For instace, in the Nag Hammadi we see the word "Barbelo"
                used by one text to mean the lower Sophia, in another it is the
                Higher Sophia, and in yet a third text it is the undivided Image. By
                the same token, we see "Abraxas" as the Demiurge, one of the four
                light beings, and as a sort of cross between the horos and the Image
                of the Bythos. My point is that it is innacurate for you or I to talk
                about the "Gnostic system" in the way we have previously if we are
                going to really try and hash out the terms. Instead we will pretty
                much have to limit it to one or two of the many Gnostic systems. One
                las word of caution though, something to keep in mind, the concepts
                that we are attatching to these words are reletively consistant
                through the verius Gnostic outlines, it is more often just word
                usages and mythological perspectives that change. Having said that,
                let me jump into the questions.

                >First, I want to understand what you mean by Prime Source, i.e.,
                what you see the Gnostic term Bythos as meaning.<

                Let me then start by dedicating my concentration to a specific
                book... "A Valintinian Exposition". Here is a passage...

                "He is a spring. He is one who appears in silence, and he is Mind of
                the All dwelling secondarily with Life. For he is the projector of
                the All and the very hypostisis of the Father, that is, he is the
                Thought and his descent below."

                At first this appears to be the Bythos right?. It is the source of
                the all. Other passages state of this "Father" that nothing was
                before it, it is unbegotton, ineffable, eternal, infinite, etc. It
                dwells in the "Dyad" of "Silence", and all the "eminations" in
                turn "rush forth from it like a spring". This is the absolute source
                right? All the eminations that we are talking about came from
                this "Father"... but wait. The passage just prior to this states that
                this father is in fact "the Son, Father of the All". This "Son" is
                first introduced to us with the phraze "God came forth: the Son, Mind
                of the All, that is, it is from the Root of the all that even his
                thought stems, since he had this one in Mind." (that is a pretty
                difficult passage lol). Anyways, I outlined it this way for a reason.
                The point being that there are multiple things called the "source".
                To read the meaning of a Gnostic text like this, one must be very
                careful. It is very easy to assume that a passage is talking about
                the "Bythos" and then ascribe those connotations to the term when in
                fact the passage was talking about something else.

                Let me Jump back to Plato for a second. "Prime Source" is not in fact
                a Gnostic term, it is Platonic. However, Plato is talking about
                the "unmoved mover" when he uses the term. To accurately transfer
                Plato's "Prime source" we would be talking about this "Son, father of
                the all". Valintinus seems to have carried this notion over
                for "Bythos" but to many Gnostics the problem seems to have quickly
                become evident that the dyad of Bythos and Sige could not
                philosophically represent the end of the line no matter how infinite
                (in the literall sense of the word) that "Depth" (bythos) is.
                Irenaeus tells us that the Valintinians hotly disputed this notion.
                One group maintained this dyad of Bythos as the prime source, and the
                other made a philosophical leap (the way the outhor of the book I'm
                now working from does) to stating the "source of the all" a monad
                that dwells in "silence" (previously one half of the dyad, but now a
                dyad of it's own) is simply a reflection of something that has no
                emenations, or connection to existance. Only the "father" is dealt
                with as the source, but it's source (now the Prime source) fosters it
                only as a reflection. In other words, Bythos becomes a pure apophatic
                philosophical infinity, where the source of the all becomes that
                infinite practical source of the eminations that comes from the
                Bythos only as a reflection (not an emination) of it.... like the sky
                on water.

                Now, let me cut and paste something else you said...

                >The prime source is that silence inhabited when the imagined self
                comes to an end. In that silence is a presence in which all seems to
                rest and there is an understanding of the structure of the imagined
                self.<

                In reflecting on the historical Gnostic system I just presented, I'm
                sure you can see what that looks like from the perspective of the
                author of "A Valintinian Exposition". It appears that you are talking
                about that monad, Father of the All, the Son, which dwells in in the
                silence and is the end of the opposites (imagined self?), but can
                still be reffered to as a "presence" (but which isn't THE "Prime
                Source" which isn't conciously causal). Is this what you mean to
                refer to? Or have I gotton lost? In response to your last querry "My
                question is simply one of asking for your comment on what I have said
                and how you think it impinges upon our discussion.", I suppose I
                first have to ask the same of you since technically the goal of this
                conversation must be to get me to understand the philosophical point
                you are making, and then figure how that would be expressed in
                Gnostic terms. So, how did I do? Am I on the same page still?

                PMCV
              • wilbro99
                Reply to #5939: CV, I have put together more than several posts and have wiped each out in turn. If this one survives, you will see it, i.e., the one you see
                Message 7 of 13 , May 30, 2002
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Reply to #5939:

                  CV, I have put together more than several posts and have wiped each
                  out in turn. If this one survives, you will see it, i.e., the one you
                  see is the one that survived. Since I must, in an ethical sense,
                  answer your question, this one is the first one that survived.

                  I made the statement: "The prime source is that silence inhabited when
                  the imagined self comes to an end. In that silence is a presence in
                  which all seems to rest and there is an understanding of the structure
                  of the imagined self." You responded: "It appears that you are talking
                  about that monad, Father of the All, the Son, which dwells in the
                  silence and is the end of the opposites (imagined self?), but can
                  still be reffered to as a "presence" (but which isn't THE "Prime
                  Source" which isn't conciously causal). Is this what you mean to refer
                  to?"

                  I am not referring to "that monad, Father of the All, the Son, which
                  dwells in the silence and is the end of the opposites (imagined
                  self?), but can still be reffered to as a "presence" (but which isn't
                  THE "Prime Source" which isn't conciously causal)" unless you are
                  speaking metaphorically about the sense of presence that comes into
                  being when one's imagined sense of self goes South, which presence can
                  only be known in the knowing, thus making it esoteric to the
                  experience of it.

                  You could take the above paragraph, turn it around, and make the same
                  point. To be neutral about it, let's call it the X-experience. Since
                  the description of this X-experience reveals what we see it revealing
                  and we disagree on what we see it revealing, what are we then to make
                  of that? I think I remember reading in several places that Gnosis
                  refers only to the revelation that describes itself in terms of
                  Gnosticism and the spiritual world it contains. If the X-experience is
                  specific to what is revealed, then we have subscript experiences and
                  can only gossip over the fence, as it were.

                  If it is one experience and we interpret it differently, another
                  difficulty arises. It is this difficulty, when reached an all of my
                  other posts, that caused me to throw the post away. I think Lady C and
                  I surmounted that difficulty, but I cannot say in a few words what
                  that difficulty is other than pointing at it. It has to do with the
                  effect of the description upon the describer and the necessity for
                  there to be the "nourishment" wherein the describer/described complex
                  sets itself aside, as it were. It is that one act that I see as saying
                  the X-experience is a singular experience. Well, it seems as I have
                  cleared that hurdle and this post will survive.

                  You stated: "I suppose I first have to ask the same of you since
                  technically the goal of this conversation must be to get me to
                  understand the philosophical point you are making, and then figure how
                  that would be expressed in Gnostic terms."

                  OK, so let's go directly to my philosophical point. There is an
                  experience process in which one comes upon a sense of presence that is
                  of a different order, and in that process, the "wrong" sense of self
                  is exposed as a temporal sense of being. The following three points,
                  with site references, are basic to my point,. The system I have
                  created around my experience has only these basic points in common
                  with Gnosticism. It was this basic form that brought me in here to see
                  if there is possibly one self-knowing that gets expressed in many a
                  way. Turn to your experience of Gnosis and tell me if your basic
                  experience is basic to mine, the meaning of the terms be damned. If it
                  is, then we can turn to the description of it, what the terms mean,
                  and dance around that singular pole.

                  http://www.gnosis.org/gnintro.htm

                  "Gnosis is undoubtedly an experience based not in concepts and
                  precepts, but in the sensibility of the heart."

                  http://gnosis.org/valentinus.htm

                  "Something is wrong. Somewhere, somehow, the fabric of being at the
                  existential level of human functioning has lost its integrity."

                  "Humans live in an absurd world that can be rendered meaningful only
                  by Gnosis, or self-knowledge."
                • pmcvflag
                  Say Wilbro, I think I see what you mean. SInce it is going to take more than a few lines to reflect, and I have to go to work, let me get back at you with it
                  Message 8 of 13 , May 31, 2002
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Say Wilbro, I think I see what you mean. SInce it is going to take
                    more than a few lines to reflect, and I have to go to work, let me
                    get back at you with it this evening or tomorrow.

                    PMCV

                    --- In gnosticism2@y..., "wilbro99" <wilbro99@y...> wrote:
                    > Reply to #5939:
                    >
                    > CV, I have put together more than several posts and have wiped each
                    > out in turn. If this one survives, you will see it, i.e., the one
                    you
                    > see is the one that survived. Since I must, in an ethical sense,
                    > answer your question, this one is the first one that survived.
                    >
                    > I made the statement: "The prime source is that silence inhabited
                    when
                    > the imagined self comes to an end. In that silence is a presence in
                    > which all seems to rest and there is an understanding of the
                    structure
                    > of the imagined self." You responded: "It appears that you are
                    talking
                    > about that monad, Father of the All, the Son, which dwells in the
                    > silence and is the end of the opposites (imagined self?), but can
                    > still be reffered to as a "presence" (but which isn't THE "Prime
                    > Source" which isn't conciously causal). Is this what you mean to
                    refer
                    > to?"
                    >
                    > I am not referring to "that monad, Father of the All, the Son,
                    which
                    > dwells in the silence and is the end of the opposites (imagined
                    > self?), but can still be reffered to as a "presence" (but which
                    isn't
                    > THE "Prime Source" which isn't conciously causal)" unless you are
                    > speaking metaphorically about the sense of presence that comes into
                    > being when one's imagined sense of self goes South, which presence
                    can
                    > only be known in the knowing, thus making it esoteric to the
                    > experience of it.
                    >
                    > You could take the above paragraph, turn it around, and make the
                    same
                    > point. To be neutral about it, let's call it the X-experience.
                    Since
                    > the description of this X-experience reveals what we see it
                    revealing
                    > and we disagree on what we see it revealing, what are we then to
                    make
                    > of that? I think I remember reading in several places that Gnosis
                    > refers only to the revelation that describes itself in terms of
                    > Gnosticism and the spiritual world it contains. If the X-experience
                    is
                    > specific to what is revealed, then we have subscript experiences
                    and
                    > can only gossip over the fence, as it were.
                    >
                    > If it is one experience and we interpret it differently, another
                    > difficulty arises. It is this difficulty, when reached an all of my
                    > other posts, that caused me to throw the post away. I think Lady C
                    and
                    > I surmounted that difficulty, but I cannot say in a few words what
                    > that difficulty is other than pointing at it. It has to do with the
                    > effect of the description upon the describer and the necessity for
                    > there to be the "nourishment" wherein the describer/described
                    complex
                    > sets itself aside, as it were. It is that one act that I see as
                    saying
                    > the X-experience is a singular experience. Well, it seems as I have
                    > cleared that hurdle and this post will survive.
                    >
                    > You stated: "I suppose I first have to ask the same of you since
                    > technically the goal of this conversation must be to get me to
                    > understand the philosophical point you are making, and then figure
                    how
                    > that would be expressed in Gnostic terms."
                    >
                    > OK, so let's go directly to my philosophical point. There is an
                    > experience process in which one comes upon a sense of presence that
                    is
                    > of a different order, and in that process, the "wrong" sense of
                    self
                    > is exposed as a temporal sense of being. The following three
                    points,
                    > with site references, are basic to my point,. The system I have
                    > created around my experience has only these basic points in common
                    > with Gnosticism. It was this basic form that brought me in here to
                    see
                    > if there is possibly one self-knowing that gets expressed in many a
                    > way. Turn to your experience of Gnosis and tell me if your basic
                    > experience is basic to mine, the meaning of the terms be damned. If
                    it
                    > is, then we can turn to the description of it, what the terms mean,
                    > and dance around that singular pole.
                    >
                    > http://www.gnosis.org/gnintro.htm
                    >
                    > "Gnosis is undoubtedly an experience based not in concepts and
                    > precepts, but in the sensibility of the heart."
                    >
                    > http://gnosis.org/valentinus.htm
                    >
                    > "Something is wrong. Somewhere, somehow, the fabric of being at the
                    > existential level of human functioning has lost its integrity."
                    >
                    > "Humans live in an absurd world that can be rendered meaningful
                    only
                    > by Gnosis, or self-knowledge."
                  • pmcvflag
                    Ok Moby, I m back :) let me jump right in (surely we are beyond formalities ;)) ... Ok, but surely you can see how I would have gotton the impression. I mean
                    Message 9 of 13 , Jun 1, 2002
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Ok Moby, I'm back :) let me jump right in (surely we are beyond
                      formalities ;))

                      >I am not referring to "that monad, Father of the All..."<

                      Ok, but surely you can see how I would have gotton the impression. I
                      mean your lingo was almost identical. So, now I have to step back
                      again and try and see what you _were_ talking about. If I get it
                      wrong again please be patient, I was only making inferences based on
                      the lingo I am familiar with, and the fact that this lingo has proven
                      valid in my experience.

                      >To be neutral about it, let's call it the X-experience.<

                      It is the fact that you refer to an experience that still makes me
                      think of the Image, but your resistance to the idea makes me have to
                      step back and see if there are other similarities (I'm not willing to
                      simply say to myself "well, he is really still talking about the
                      image, and just doesn't know it!"). So, let me outline what we have
                      so far (barring the parts that have not worked for us)....

                      >Since the description of this X-experience reveals what we see it
                      revealing and we disagree on what we see it revealing<

                      Er.... what exactly do we see it revealing again? Since I assumed
                      initially that you were talking about an experience of the image, I
                      described one form of mystical experience that I thought you were
                      refering to. Since you believe you are in fact referring to something
                      else, I don't remember giving my perspective on it.

                      >If the X-experience is specific to what is revealed, then we have
                      subscript experiences and can only gossip over the fence, as it were.<

                      But we _do_ have subscript experiences, it is called "context". No
                      matter how all encompassing and persona removing ("person" BTW,
                      literally means "mask". A true mystical experience does in fact
                      remove some of that "mask" of self and social perception), it is not
                      truely fully gone or you would be able to pass on the experience by
                      your mear presence. But I would not over estimate the power of the
                      fence, to do so would only be to deny the validity of the thing that
                      even pervades the illusion that makes the fence a barrier instead of
                      a foothold for climbing.

                      I started to answer many other points directly, but since you go into
                      the direct philosophical points let me skip the rest as merely likely
                      to confuse the issue (perhaps I should have even skipped what I wrote
                      already)

                      >OK, so let's go directly to my philosophical point. There is an
                      experience process in which one comes upon a sense of presence that
                      is of a different order, and in that process, the "wrong" sense of
                      self is exposed as a temporal sense of being.<

                      Absolutely agreed so far. That is one step in the initiatory process
                      (though not the final one).

                      >The following three points, with site references, are basic to my
                      point,. The system I have created around my experience has only these
                      basic points in common with Gnosticism.<

                      Ok, the word I use (As do the Gnostics of old) for that
                      is "Initiation". That can be formalized, but can happen spontaniously
                      as well.

                      >I think I remember reading in several places that Gnosis
                      refers only to the revelation that describes itself in terms of
                      Gnosticism and the spiritual world it contains.<

                      Hmmm, yes and no. (I bring this down to your description because it
                      seems to directly relate to the following criteria you placed as
                      basic to your experience)

                      >"Gnosis is undoubtedly an experience based not in concepts and
                      precepts, but in the sensibility of the heart."<

                      Yes and no again

                      This is a good area to start.... on just what "Gnosis" is. Contrary
                      to many popular books and articles ("Gnosis" is not in fact a public
                      event, so you can disregard much of what you read by "outsiders"),
                      Gnosis is an initiatory concept (and I can provide contextual proofs
                      for that concept). This means that it comes in stages, rather than
                      being a single "experience". It is much easier to recognize when some
                      one completely lacks "Gnosis" than it is to see now many pieces
                      of "Gnosis" an individual may have truely obtained. It is entirely
                      possible for a non-Gnostic to gain thier measure of "Gnosis", there
                      is no reason to assume otherwise. In fact, when you look at certain
                      other esoteric strains, even ones that are entirely unrelated
                      (historically), there are undeniable common grounds. Gnosticism, even
                      in it's earliest inception, is syncratic and able to recognize these
                      common strains (so that is the "no" part of the above statements).
                      However, This "sensibility of the heart" is in fact only one portion
                      of Gnosis, and one half of the process. If then you equate this
                      _part_ of Gnosis as "Gnosis" itself, then you would be talking about
                      something different than I, and what I would view as an incomplete
                      system.

                      >"Something is wrong. Somewhere, somehow, the fabric of being at the
                      existential level of human functioning has lost its integrity."

                      "Humans live in an absurd world that can be rendered meaningful only
                      by Gnosis, or self-knowledge."<

                      These two I am in absolute agreement with.

                      >Turn to your experience of Gnosis and tell me if your basic
                      experience is basic to mine, the meaning of the terms be damned. If
                      it is, then we can turn to the description of it, what the terms
                      mean, and dance around that singular pole.<

                      If then these are the basic three points that have come to outline as
                      common between your system and "Gnosticism", we are in emphatic
                      agreement on two thirds of them. The only point that needs hashing
                      out then is on just how we view the first one. And, it apears to me
                      now that it may come down to the differance between the terminology
                      of the Sophiac experience of the heart, and Gnosis itself. This may
                      be more than simply semantics though, since it implies just where the
                      experience fits in a line of experiences. In other words, I may agree
                      with you on the experience, maybe just not on where it is placed
                      within the system.

                      PMCV
                    • wilbro99
                      CV, what is this difference between the Sophiac experience of the heart and Gnosis of which you speak? Since I am equating the first part of Gnosis with
                      Message 10 of 13 , Jun 1, 2002
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        CV, what is this difference between the Sophiac experience of the
                        heart and Gnosis of which you speak? Since I am equating the first
                        part of Gnosis with Gnosis, I am willing to bet right now that we will
                        come out of this with you seeing my system as incomplete. Here is
                        something I just found online. Is this what you mean and do you take
                        what it says literally?

                        http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/defgnost.htm

                        "Gnostic salvation is not merely individual redemption of each human
                        soul; it is a cosmic process. It is the return of all things to
                        what they were before the flaw in the sphere of the Æons brought
                        matter into existence and imprisoned some part of the Divine
                        Light into the evil Hyle (Hyle)."
                      • pmcvflag
                        Wilbro, you ask CV, what is this difference between the Sophiac experience of the heart and Gnosis of which you speak? . I would tend to resist
                        Message 11 of 13 , Jun 5, 2002
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Wilbro, you ask "CV, what is this difference between the Sophiac
                          experience of the heart and Gnosis of which you speak?". I would tend
                          to resist "psychologicising" my description, but the Jungian analysis
                          seemed to work well between you and Lady Cary so let me try that.
                          Don't take my description to directly here, as I am simply trying to
                          start from a sort of physical perspective in my description.

                          Ok, imagine your experience (I don't mean you special experience,
                          just experience as a whole), what does it take for that experience to
                          become a cogniscent thing? Gnostics have tended to see it this
                          way.... you have certain elements to your understanding, one is
                          experience, one is your personal perspective of it, and to offset
                          your personal understanding there is the context given by the learned
                          (and hopefully more objective) critical perspective. We can leave
                          personal perception (and the perspective that follows) out of this
                          since not only is it self explanitory, but I think we are in
                          agreement that it is also (at least in part) illusory. What we are
                          left with is the direct effect of the experience, the sort of
                          intuited, experiential, "knowledge of the heart", and the severe
                          critical examination that ballances it.

                          To look at "Gnosis" in a Jungian sence then, what we see are two
                          guides that lead us to it. The first is Sophia, she is the
                          experience, the emotive, the event that changes our perspective
                          directly by showing us things like... our insignificance against the
                          reflection of the Bythos, our interconnection with other humans (or
                          maybe "lack of differentiation" would be a better way to put it), our
                          inner stumbling blocks, personal epiphanies, etc. The next guide is
                          the Logos, who teaches through parable, by example, revelation,
                          communication etc.

                          With two guides we see to aspects of Gnosis, niether of which is
                          complete without it's mate (in fact, it is because Sophia attempts to
                          concieve without her propper mate that the world is said to have
                          fallen in Gnostic myth). True Gnosis then is when both guides are
                          active in ones spiritual understanding, lack of one or the other is
                          not "Gnosis".

                          As far as your webpage link, this looks like what Gnosticism may look
                          like to a Catholic who thinks we are speaking in the same way they
                          would. It is also how Manicheans believed things worked. Unlike
                          Manicheans, Gnostics have not tended to believe that the "divine
                          light" is in fact in all things. Instead, what you are more likely to
                          see in the sources is the belief that most of the world is in fact
                          not salvagable, and that only humans are "saved" and only on a very
                          individual basis... through "Gnosis".

                          On the other hand, if there is a "Big Crunch" (or the thermodynamic
                          equalization would work as well if it meant the end of life,
                          cognition, in the field of time) then one could very readily see that
                          as a sort of "Gnostic" cosmic salvation.... sort of the "all things
                          shall pass".

                          Is it time to compare pages?

                          PMCV



                          --- In gnosticism2@y..., "wilbro99" <wilbro99@y...> wrote:
                          > CV, what is this difference between the Sophiac experience of the
                          > heart and Gnosis of which you speak? Since I am equating the first
                          > part of Gnosis with Gnosis, I am willing to bet right now that we
                          will
                          > come out of this with you seeing my system as incomplete. Here is
                          > something I just found online. Is this what you mean and do you
                          take
                          > what it says literally?
                          >
                          > http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/defgnost.htm
                          >
                          > "Gnostic salvation is not merely individual redemption of each
                          human
                          > soul; it is a cosmic process. It is the return of all things to
                          > what they were before the flaw in the sphere of the Æons brought
                          > matter into existence and imprisoned some part of the Divine
                          > Light into the evil Hyle (Hyle)."
                        • wilbro99
                          CV, there was two paragraphs here full of questions that I have just wiped out for the reason the next paragraph will reveal. Then you say that Sophia, the
                          Message 12 of 13 , Jun 5, 2002
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            CV, there was two paragraphs here full of questions that I have just
                            wiped out for the reason the next paragraph will reveal.

                            Then you say that Sophia, the experience, is to reveal things to us,
                            and the Logos, which I assume is the critical examination, is supposed
                            to do something else that I can't figure out. And then you fall back
                            completely into the Gnostic-speak, and I throw up my hands. That
                            doesn't mean that they may not be true, they just haven't flowered
                            into true cognizance yet (I borrowed this line from your reply to
                            Play). I can see no way to make progress here, and, more importantly,
                            there is the sense that it is time to move on, I want to thank the
                            crowd here for putting up with me. I shall now wink out of existence.
                            Sharky, here's to that Place where the "Spirit" dwells!


                            --- In gnosticism2@y..., pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                            > Wilbro, you ask "CV, what is this difference between the Sophiac
                            > experience of the heart and Gnosis of which you speak?". I would
                            tend
                            > to resist "psychologicising" my description, but the Jungian
                            analysis
                            > seemed to work well between you and Lady Cary so let me try that.
                            > Don't take my description to directly here, as I am simply trying to
                            > start from a sort of physical perspective in my description.
                            >
                            > Ok, imagine your experience (I don't mean you special experience,
                            > just experience as a whole), what does it take for that experience
                            to
                            > become a cogniscent thing? Gnostics have tended to see it this
                            > way.... you have certain elements to your understanding, one is
                            > experience, one is your personal perspective of it, and to offset
                            > your personal understanding there is the context given by the
                            learned
                            > (and hopefully more objective) critical perspective. We can leave
                            > personal perception (and the perspective that follows) out of this
                            > since not only is it self explanitory, but I think we are in
                            > agreement that it is also (at least in part) illusory. What we are
                            > left with is the direct effect of the experience, the sort of
                            > intuited, experiential, "knowledge of the heart", and the severe
                            > critical examination that ballances it.
                            >
                            > To look at "Gnosis" in a Jungian sence then, what we see are two
                            > guides that lead us to it. The first is Sophia, she is the
                            > experience, the emotive, the event that changes our perspective
                            > directly by showing us things like... our insignificance against the
                            > reflection of the Bythos, our interconnection with other humans (or
                            > maybe "lack of differentiation" would be a better way to put it),
                            our
                            > inner stumbling blocks, personal epiphanies, etc. The next guide is
                            > the Logos, who teaches through parable, by example, revelation,
                            > communication etc.
                            >
                            > With two guides we see to aspects of Gnosis, niether of which is
                            > complete without it's mate (in fact, it is because Sophia attempts
                            to
                            > concieve without her propper mate that the world is said to have
                            > fallen in Gnostic myth). True Gnosis then is when both guides are
                            > active in ones spiritual understanding, lack of one or the other is
                            > not "Gnosis".
                            >
                            > As far as your webpage link, this looks like what Gnosticism may
                            look
                            > like to a Catholic who thinks we are speaking in the same way they
                            > would. It is also how Manicheans believed things worked. Unlike
                            > Manicheans, Gnostics have not tended to believe that the "divine
                            > light" is in fact in all things. Instead, what you are more likely
                            to
                            > see in the sources is the belief that most of the world is in fact
                            > not salvagable, and that only humans are "saved" and only on a very
                            > individual basis... through "Gnosis".
                            >
                            > On the other hand, if there is a "Big Crunch" (or the thermodynamic
                            > equalization would work as well if it meant the end of life,
                            > cognition, in the field of time) then one could very readily see
                            that
                            > as a sort of "Gnostic" cosmic salvation.... sort of the "all things
                            > shall pass".
                            >
                            > Is it time to compare pages?
                            >
                            > PMCV
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > --- In gnosticism2@y..., "wilbro99" <wilbro99@y...> wrote:
                            > > CV, what is this difference between the Sophiac experience of the
                            > > heart and Gnosis of which you speak? Since I am equating the first
                            > > part of Gnosis with Gnosis, I am willing to bet right now that we
                            > will
                            > > come out of this with you seeing my system as incomplete. Here is
                            > > something I just found online. Is this what you mean and do you
                            > take
                            > > what it says literally?
                            > >
                            > > http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/defgnost.htm
                            > >
                            > > "Gnostic salvation is not merely individual redemption of each
                            > human
                            > > soul; it is a cosmic process. It is the return of all things to
                            > > what they were before the flaw in the sphere of the Æons brought
                            > > matter into existence and imprisoned some part of the Divine
                            > > Light into the evil Hyle (Hyle)."
                          • pmcvflag
                            ... throw up my hands.
                            Message 13 of 13 , Jun 6, 2002
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              > And then you fall back completely into the Gnostic-speak, and I
                              throw up my hands.<

                              Er, well, yes... this is a Gnostic club after all. Anyways, no one
                              can say you didn't give it a go. Bon voyage, and happy hunting.

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