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

Re: A Dialectical Doodle

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.