Re: Whats in a word?
- 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
> to resist "psychologicising" my description, but the Jungian
> 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
> 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
> (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),
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> as a sort of "Gnostic" cosmic salvation.... sort of the "all things
> shall pass".
> Is it time to compare pages?
> --- 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
> > 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
> > what it says literally?
> > http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/defgnost.htm
> > "Gnostic salvation is not merely individual redemption of each
> > 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)."