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

Re: Whats in a word?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 ├ćons brought
      > > matter into existence and imprisoned some part of the Divine
      > > Light into the evil Hyle (Hyle)."
    • pmcvflag
      ... throw up my hands.
      Message 2 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.