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

"Between here and there" (Was: Re: quack)

Expand Messages
  • lady_caritas
    ... view ... depends ... the ... Terje, I find your comments very interesting in light of recent conversation with a materialist friend of mine. There are
    Message 1 of 53 , Mar 3, 2003
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:

      Terje wrote:
      > > In Platonism epistemology expands beyond the realm of phenomena,
      > what follows is our "idealism" where we speak of principles -
      > not "held", but revealed, and in their revelation directly
      > interfering with the world of phenomena as it is perceived by us;
      > these principles reveal themselves in a consitent manner, revealing
      > also their interrelationship with others - chiefly and supremely in
      > and through Man. Man is *not* a fixed entity or structure in the
      view
      > of the ancients because Man does not consist of a complex fleshly
      > body which inhabit this and the other characteristic
      > dubbed "cognition", "sensation", "emotional
      > activity", "sense", "reason" etc. - he consists in a trichotomy of
      > Body,Mind and Soul and sometimes viewed as inhabiting even more
      > parts; such is the case with the Sethians whose scriptures we now
      > have access to in the Nag Hammadi Library. Consequently, the
      > hypothesis of a transcendent "platonic ideal" structure with
      > principles and powers interfering with the world of phenomena
      depends
      > on both the Identity and the epistemological/cognitive/sensate
      > apparatus of the observer: in fact the sense of identity, the
      > appreciation of what one consists in, the conscious _priority_ of
      the
      > observer prior to any revelation or discovery of such powers and
      > principles - determine the result and shapes the revelation.>

      Terje, I find your comments very interesting in light of recent
      conversation with a materialist friend of mine. There are
      materialists in today's world who, although not generally subscribing
      to a concept of ideal "Man," do not view the human being as "a fixed
      entity or structure," at least in a material sense. Rational
      existence as we know it is a surface experience, and what we
      consciously know of ourselves is most likely but a minuscule part of
      what we are (and not just in a psychological sense). Now, this
      mystery for a materialist would be investigated via material means,
      for instance, how matter is organized that makes us kinetic beings.
      The idea of "revealed" principles you mention ("in Platonism
      epistemology") that is so important to Gnostics as revealed "in and
      through Man" is occasionally, according to some others, equated with
      superstition, delusion, or at the very least an overactive (even
      dangerous) imagination. Occam's Razor is sometimes applied with
      abandon.

      How does one recognize gnostic revelation? One cannot experience
      another person's revelation in a direct sense. I suppose we could
      rely on intuitive recognition or consider how these
      principles "revealed in a consistent manner" are manifested in
      humans. Of course, often there might be sufficient grounds for
      questioning "revealed truth," if this "truth" is based on faith in
      someone else's "truth." Is having a "conscious _priority_" a
      contrived or learned priority of the observer or does it stem from an
      authentic sense of identity? What determines an emerging pneumatic
      realization vs. a psychic understanding? Also, the three parts (or
      more) of humans are not always clearly delineated. We're not born
      with an instructional manual tied to our toes. As PMCV states below,
      the third part of the human being "creates some shaky ground." "What
      is in between here and there"? Terje, you mention that according to
      Platonistic epistemology, revelation directly interferes "with the
      world of phenomena as it is perceived by us." So, as one embarks on
      a path of experiential discovery that blends rational and nonrational
      perception with the guidance of numinous principles, "shaky" may be
      an understatement, huh? LOL


      > PMCV wrote:
      > Absolutely with ya there. While I do think that the notion of a
      > tripartite person is still in the back of the average persons head
      > (almost on a subconcious level) it seems to often seems to find
      it's
      > way into a description almost by accident (or Freudian slip).




      PMCV, would you be able to give us an example of an "average" person
      demonstrating awareness of "notion of a tripartite person"?



      On the
      > more concious level we are likely to see the two part homo sapien
      of
      > mind and body (generally touted as one-part being all body and the
      > mind simply an advance organ. However, the lack of seperation never
      > seems to survive the descriptive process once we start talking
      about
      > motivations), or the two part human of body and spirit (that we see
      > in nearly every modern protastant church). That would on the
      surface
      > seem to jibe with the supposed "dualism" of Gnosticism, but I"m
      > frankly not so sure that this dualism (at least in a strict sence)
      > was even always a component of "Gnosticism". That third part of the
      > human being creates some shakey ground, philosophically speaking,
      to
      > the simple yes vs no, and opens up the notion of what is in between
      > here and there.
      >
      > I guess I should leave it there before my post gets to long (though
      I
      > have many more thoughts to ponder on the issue). I'm sure many
      others
      > here have opinions on the subject as well.
      >
      > PMCV


      Ditto. ;-)


      Cari
    • lady_caritas
      ... different ... much ... the ... Gnostic; ... Will, if you re still reading, you should know that I certainly am aware that you are describing a shift in
      Message 53 of 53 , Mar 14, 2003
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Will Brown" <wilbro99@y...>
        wrote:

        > >>Willy, I'm seeing you list different "selves" or at least
        different
        > descriptions of "self" or aspects of "self." Defining "self" is a
        > philosophical exercise I don't care to get into. lol<<
        >
        > I do think this defines our central difference better than I did;
        much
        > shorter and to the point. I see the shift in terms of a change in
        the
        > sense of self, and you see what I am doing as a philosophical
        > exercise. Place chuckle here! If we are speaking to the same
        > experiential process, our views of it are of such a different order
        > that we have been going in circles. Reminds me of a merry-go-round.
        > I'll get off here. Thanks, Alice, for the education on things
        Gnostic;
        > it's been the most! ----willy


        Will, if you're still reading, you should know that I certainly am
        aware that you are describing a shift in sense of self based on your
        life experience, and I do not see what you are doing as being just a
        philosophical exercise. You are making an incorrect assumption most
        likely based on my frustration that we cannot seem to come to agree
        on a common lingo. And because of that, I don't want to get into a
        trap of just general philosophical definition debates instead of
        agreeing on a common language for discussion.

        Since this is a Gnostic group, I have tried to use Gnostic terms, so
        when you read what I say and reinterpret it to your understanding and
        vocabulary, sometimes your interpretation of what I have said is
        either not understandable to me or it is possibly even skewed. For
        instance, when you say, "I think the first problem is that I find the
        spiritual self in that place and you find the temporal self in that
        place," I don't understand you. "Self in that place?" I could in
        return try to translate into Gnostic lingo what you say, but I feel
        that is not appropriate. I feel that is your job in order to
        eliminate misinterpretation that I might make as a mere translator of
        your experience. IOW, if you were indeed interested in whether your
        experience relates to classical Gnosticism (which is what our list is
        about), it would help to first understand terminology, etc.
        Continuing to speak in two different languages and you trying to
        guess what our differences or similarities are becomes certainly very
        much like a merry-go-round. It would help if *you* could see if your
        experience translates into Gnostic terms during discussions in our
        group.

        In any case, I do enjoy our conversations. Thank you for the
        exchange of ideas and experiences.

        Cari
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.