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

Re: A Dialectical Doodle

Expand Messages
  • wilbro99
    ... Nope, I have run out of questions, and just in the nick of time.
    Message 1 of 18 , May 26, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      > > So, … you had another question, Moby?
      > >
      > > Cari

      Nope, I have run out of questions, and just in the nick of time.
    • lady_caritas
      ... enough. ... Willy, your question was not stupid, although it was abstract as you noted before. After rereading your Messages #5914 and 5815, plus Gerry s
      Message 2 of 18 , May 26, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In gnosticism2@y..., Message #5922, "wilbro99" <wilbro99@y...>
        wrote:
        > "Oh heavens, I think I did not ask that last question clearly
        enough.
        > Mea Culpa! It was not a good question, read stupid, in the first
        > place, so I withdraw it; the possible answers are endless."


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

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

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

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

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

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

        or . . .

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

        or . . .

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

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

        Perhaps other members have a different take on this question.

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

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

        Cari
      • wilbro99
        Reply to #5925: Ok, we are back on track. Your understanding is correct. It is about a comprehension of that central point, that bit of crazy glue that cements
        Message 3 of 18 , May 27, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Reply to #5925:

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

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

          Now, all those differing scenarios of comprehension come into play and
          I can not say which is correct; especially because one of the
          scenarios has me as the one missing the boat. Who knows? And, I can
          see any discussion along these lines getting dicey. I had assumed you
          had picked up on that point and had your teeth in me because of that,
          which is why I quickly withdrew the question. Anyway, since I am the
          figment of another's fertile mind, Will Brown being a pseudonym, those
          teeth marks are easily erased. ----Moby
        • lady_caritas
          You see, you have been throwing me curves from time to time by referring to what another poster has said in this matter, and I, in reading what the other has
          Message 4 of 18 , May 28, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            "You see, you have been throwing me curves from time to time by
            referring to what another poster has said in this matter, and I, in
            reading what the other has said, cannot find our central pole in
            it." (Will, #5926)

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

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

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

            Cari
          • wilbro99
            Lady C, a few closing comments before I shift my attention as you suggest. This mind of which I am a prisoner takes every particular exegetic thought I have
            Message 5 of 18 , May 29, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Lady C, a few closing comments before I shift my attention as you
              suggest. This mind of which I am a prisoner takes every particular
              exegetic thought I have and translates it into an abstract form
              capable of holding that particular particular before it will allow the
              particular to enter the scene. It is as if the particular, the actor,
              can only do its thing if the stage is set and a proper entry is
              chalked out. Besides, there is a certain release that comes with
              seeing the particular within a general, as you can attest to.
              Evidently, my thinking process emulates that. A stray thought: is an
              ostrich an emulater? Button, button, who's got the button?

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


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

              > We're definitely not talking "unicorns and the tooth fairy." LOL
              >
              > Cari
            • lady_caritas
              A stray thought: is an ostrich an emulater? (Will, #5943) Hmmm, another stray thought, … is an ostrich (two-toed) an emulator of the emu, rhea
              Message 6 of 18 , May 29, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                "A stray thought: is an ostrich an emulater?" (Will, #5943)

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

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

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

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

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