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

Re: Whats in a word?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 13 , Jun 1, 2002
    • 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 2 of 13 , Jun 1, 2002
      • 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 3 of 13 , Jun 5, 2002
        • 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 4 of 13 , Jun 5, 2002
          • 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 5 of 13 , Jun 6, 2002
            • 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.