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

"Between here and there"

Expand Messages
  • lady_caritas
    Willy, I have been reading and rereading your reply, and correct me if I m wrong, but you seem to be describing primarily a change in sense of a human s
    Message 1 of 53 , Mar 13, 2003
      Willy, I have been reading and rereading your reply, and correct me
      if I'm wrong, but you seem to be describing primarily a change in
      sense of a human's perception of our world. I think what is
      important to remember is that although Gnostics believed that this
      shift was an important factor, they nonetheless did believe in
      different natures of humans, which seems to differ from your view, "I
      also see the Error as creating both the tripartite notion and the
      dual nature notion." How can one identify that there has been a
      change without designating different "notions"? You mentioned, "That
      Presence could be seen as spiritual, but I prefer not to call it
      that." Why not, Willy? What else would you consider it to be? Is
      this a material/psychological imaginative manifestation?

      The fact that all this change in sensate self leaves you feeling no
      division, Will, does not negate the fact that you are still a "self"
      in this temporal world. Total dissolution of self does not happen in
      our finite state. At best we would attain a pneumatic awareness to
      approach our physical world. As we have discussed before, we can
      recognize infinity through images and join with that fullness, but
      that awakening does not result in the end of dualities. A
      Gnostic "home" (Pleroma: Fullness) can be interpreted on different
      metaphorical levels, but it is still a unifying, transcendent reality
      to the physical world. The Fullness stands in contrast to our
      existential state. A change in sense of self does not negate the
      reality of our flawed, physical earth, which exists regardless of our
      change in perception. (I don't view Gnosticism as monistic.) Nor
      does a pneumatic change in sense of self negate the animal part of
      our human nature.

      I might be wrong, but I think what PMCV was trying to portray in his
      Message #7248 was that Gnosticism does not involve merely even a
      dualism (body and spirit) as in orthodox faiths, but rather there is
      at least a tripartite notion of body, soul, and spirit. That
      third "psychic" part "in between" the "here," a hylic nature and
      worldview, (body, Kenoma, material world) and the "there," spiritual
      nature and worldview (pneuma, Pleroma, spiritual world) is what can
      be shaky. (PMCV can correct me if I have misinterpreted his words.)
      This is the "place" where humans will be likely to make projections
      and reflections (sometimes referred to as "spiritual" by some) of
      themselves into gods or deities that are separate from them and with
      whom they might attempt in some cases to become "one",... as well as
      attempting to interpret authentic images of a divine reality.

      We are temporal humans with an infinite divine spark that becomes
      revealed for some and needs to be nurtured. But we do not experience
      total dissolution while in our finite state. Then again, maybe I'm
      wrong. Perhaps there are little spiritual-once-human-
      dissolutions "floating" around within or without cells "somewhere" in
      our temporal world typing with spiritual "fingers." ;-)

      Okay, sorry. Maybe we *are* saying the same thing. Maybe we're
      not. And there might be other members who will take issue with what
      I have said. Temporal explanations are at best still limited. I do
      think if you do not agree with what I've said, perhaps you could
      translate into more Gnostic terms that our group would relate to.
      Right now, there still seems to be a terminology barrier that might
      be confusing me greatly.

    • 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.