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

trolling

Expand Messages
  • Will Brown <wilbro99@yahoo.com>
    Ok, I sit me down to collect what wits I have and define Gnosticism for myself. If I follow the learned portion of this group, read as all but myself, there
    Message 1 of 3 , Jan 11, 2003
      Ok, I sit me down to collect what wits I have and define Gnosticism
      for myself. If I follow the learned portion of this group, read as all
      but myself, there are as many varieties of it as there are ways to
      dance. At its base is the notion that there is something out of kilter
      and that there is a way to fix it. Now, I am not here to judge the
      accuracy of such a notion, since being out of kilter is not defined.
      And that gets me to my next point. That base is so broad that it even
      includes the kitchen sink, and the purpose of any good –ism, if it is
      to be called an –ism, is to separate itself from the crowd so as to
      stand alone. This means that it must define what out of kilter means
      and how fix it.

      The second notion pins that something down to being oneself. It is
      oneself that is out of kilter and it is oneself that needs fixing.
      This notion fits the first rule of any –ism, i.e., the ability to be
      identified with; and what better thing to identify with than oneself.
      Now, that oneself is out of kilter has two faces; that out of kilter
      is purely oneself or that out of kilter includes the world one finds
      oneself in. There are –isms that fit the first and there are –isms
      that fit the second, but an –ism that treated the two as one would
      have the advantage of taking in a more inclusive identity. What
      remains to be done is separate the particular –ism from other –isms,
      and that is where Gnosticism comes in; it defines that which is out of
      kilter, how it became out of kilter, and how to fix it.

      The fact that both faces are to be seen as one brings about the
      difficulty of the definition, for those two faces have a way of
      separating one from the other, even when made one. The fact that the
      first face, that being that that being out of kilter is oneself, can
      be seen in the two-faced description, where the second face is seen as
      a metaphor, allows those such as myself to see Gnosticism as one of
      the many –isms that speak to the self as that which is out of kilter.

      So, having reached a place where I may reflected upon what I have
      said, let the definition rest here for now. I think I have said, so
      far, that the many separate dances that make up Gnosticism results
      from the attempt to make those two faces one. ---- willyorwonty
    • Mike Leavitt
      Hello pmcvflag ... The record in Multiple Personality disorder is 14 separate and distinct personalities I believe, so you have a lot of room to maneuver.
      Message 2 of 3 , Jan 11, 2003
        Hello pmcvflag

        On 12-Jan-03, you wrote:

        > hmmmm, I wonder why so much energy would have to be expended to
        > connect a cosmic fault with a personal one. Wouldn't it seem that
        > science has told us that we are the product of the natural world? I
        > mean, the attributes of a larger category imply those of the
        > categories it contains.
        >
        > At the same time, if it is just the "ourselves" that is the
        > something out of kilter, well that is what the industry of
        > "psychology" is wont to tell us as well.
        >
        > Two faces could be the schizophrenic masks presented to a varied
        > public, or the faces of Janus that see into two levels of reality.
        > And maybe there are more than two faces.
        >
        > PMCV

        The record in Multiple Personality disorder is 14 separate and
        distinct personalities I believe, so you have a lot of room to
        maneuver.

        Regards
        --
        Mike Leavitt ac998@...
      • pmcvflag
        hmmmm, I wonder why so much energy would have to be expended to connect a cosmic fault with a personal one. Wouldn t it seem that science has told us that we
        Message 3 of 3 , Jan 11, 2003
          hmmmm, I wonder why so much energy would have to be expended to
          connect a cosmic fault with a personal one. Wouldn't it seem that
          science has told us that we are the product of the natural world? I
          mean, the attributes of a larger catagory imply those of the
          categories it contains.

          At the same time, if it is just the "ourselves" that is the something
          out of kilter, well that is what the induustry of "psychology" is
          wont to tell us as well.

          Two faces could be the schitzophrenic masks presented to a varied
          public, or the faces of Janus that see into two levels of reality.
          And maybe there are more than two faces.

          PMCV

          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Will Brown <wilbro99@y...>"
          <wilbro99@y...> wrote:
          > Ok, I sit me down to collect what wits I have and define Gnosticism
          > for myself. If I follow the learned portion of this group, read as
          all
          > but myself, there are as many varieties of it as there are ways to
          > dance. At its base is the notion that there is something out of
          kilter
          > and that there is a way to fix it. Now, I am not here to judge the
          > accuracy of such a notion, since being out of kilter is not defined.
          > And that gets me to my next point. That base is so broad that it
          even
          > includes the kitchen sink, and the purpose of any good –ism, if it
          is
          > to be called an –ism, is to separate itself from the crowd so as to
          > stand alone. This means that it must define what out of kilter means
          > and how fix it.
          >
          > The second notion pins that something down to being oneself. It is
          > oneself that is out of kilter and it is oneself that needs fixing.
          > This notion fits the first rule of any –ism, i.e., the ability to be
          > identified with; and what better thing to identify with than
          oneself.
          > Now, that oneself is out of kilter has two faces; that out of kilter
          > is purely oneself or that out of kilter includes the world one finds
          > oneself in. There are –isms that fit the first and there are –isms
          > that fit the second, but an –ism that treated the two as one would
          > have the advantage of taking in a more inclusive identity. What
          > remains to be done is separate the particular –ism from other –isms,
          > and that is where Gnosticism comes in; it defines that which is out
          of
          > kilter, how it became out of kilter, and how to fix it.
          >
          > The fact that both faces are to be seen as one brings about the
          > difficulty of the definition, for those two faces have a way of
          > separating one from the other, even when made one. The fact that the
          > first face, that being that that being out of kilter is oneself, can
          > be seen in the two-faced description, where the second face is seen
          as
          > a metaphor, allows those such as myself to see Gnosticism as one of
          > the many –isms that speak to the self as that which is out of
          kilter.
          >
          > So, having reached a place where I may reflected upon what I have
          > said, let the definition rest here for now. I think I have said, so
          > far, that the many separate dances that make up Gnosticism results
          > from the attempt to make those two faces one. ---- willyorwonty
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.