Re: A Dialectical Doodle
- --- In gnosticism2@y..., Message #5922, "wilbro99" <wilbro99@y...>
> "Oh heavens, I think I did not ask that last question clearlyenough.
> Mea Culpa! It was not a good question, read stupid, in the firstWilly, your question was not stupid, although it was abstract as you
> place, so I withdraw it; the possible answers are endless."
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
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
- 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
- "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:
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
- 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
> 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
- "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 :-)