Re: Resonating scripture
- First off, the GoT, Chapter 1, verse 3, does say it all in my book.
First, it sets up the distinction between knowing oneself and not
knowing oneself. It calls that not knowing poverty and states that the
one in poverty is that poverty. This second distinction is necessary
because the self that does not know itself must come to an end before
knowing oneself can be. In other words, the self in poverty can not
become the self not in poverty; there is an absolute disjunction
between the two. To say that I was in poverty and am no longer in
poverty is to remain in poverty.
The same disjunction is recast in terms of inner and outer. The self
in poverty has an inner and an outer. Since those two are seen by the
self in poverty as disjunctive, the saying that the kingdom is both
inside and outside will either be misunderstood or not understood, for
the understanding is given when the self in poverty comes to an end,
along with its notion of inner.
To cast this disjunction in terms of presence or absence, as T did, is
another way of casting it. The presence of the self in poverty is the
absence of the Good and in the presence of the Good, the self of
poverty is not. In my book, presence to the Good is simply a
self-presence in which the presence of the absent self cannot get
through the gate. Granted, I do fall from grace often, so who am I to
say this? ----willy
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Unknown <themysteriousmrx@y...> wrote:
> Hi Cari,
> <<How would you describe a kingdom that is inside as well as outside
> Sure, ask me something easy! :) I don't think its so much a matter
of what kingdom is inside and what kingdom is outside but the bringing
together of those kingdoms, the marriage of the spiritual to the
physical is what makes both kingdoms better and more enjoyable.
Unfortunately words transcend description of the kingdoms when they
are good, but I can say it becomes painfully clear when they aren't in
balance or aren't good. Somehow I seem to recognize the absence of the
good moreso than the presence of it, if that makes any sense at all
whatsoever. I can't really explain what they are like when good but
the agonies of life testify clearly to what they are like when they
> Is that a good answer? I think I confused myself trying to explain it.
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
> Because moving away from Latin as the scholars' lingua francaOthers would argue that the movement INTO Latin as the
> was the greatest error throughout the history of European culture.
> This has already been noted by A. Schopenhauer.
scholar's "lingua franca" was the greatest mistake of western
culture... this would include the Greek-speaking composers of much of
the Nag Hammadi library, as well as it's Coptic speaking translators.
Often times both of these languages were very specifically used as
outposts of resistance against Latin cultural oppression. In northern
Egypt the Greek speaking community was second only to the Jews for
their reputation for insurrection (in Alexandria the Greek community
lived just to the south of the walled Jewish quarter, and the
cultural exchange equalled the resentment of occupation. This is the
venue in which Gnosticism was created).
None of these books we are talking about were written in Latin, so
gumming up the works with yet a fourth (unrelated) language in the
mix seemed rather strange is all. Don't get me wrong, Latin is a
wonderful language, and one that is very useful to the scientific
community. It is also something like speaking Hebrew at a Palistinian
knitting club. I have no problem if you want to use latin... knock
yourself out our uptight friend. Now, if we were talking about
Catholicism it would seem perfectly obvious that you should use Latin.
By the way..... Schopenhauer wasn't Gnostic either.