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

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

Expand Messages
  • Will Brown
    If I may offer a simple solution to the defining of Gnosis, I would say that it is the occupying of one s awareness of being aware. When one comes to rest in
    Message 1 of 53 , Mar 6, 2003
      If I may offer a simple solution to the defining of Gnosis, I would
      say that it is the occupying of one's awareness of being aware. When
      one comes to rest in one's awareness of being aware, everything else
      is given; there are no spare parts lying around. I call that place
      Home, for it is where I first found myself. It is the returning to
      one's roots, as it were. ----willy

      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      > --- 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
        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Will Brown" <wilbro99@y...>

        > >>Willy, I'm seeing you list different "selves" or at least
        > 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;
        > shorter and to the point. I see the shift in terms of a change in
        > 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
        > 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

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

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