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

Re: "Between here and there"

Expand Messages
  • Will Brown
    So, we have a dilemma of sorts. Either we are speaking to the same thing and describe it in such a way that it seems as if we are not, or we are not speaking
    Message 1 of 53 , Mar 13, 2003
      So, we have a dilemma of sorts. Either we are speaking to the same
      thing and describe it in such a way that it seems as if we are not, or
      we are not speaking to the same thing and our description of it gives
      an impression that we are. Considering the long discourse we had on
      coming to rest in what we called a "place," I have a hunch that it is
      the former. I cannot find a way of explaining the latter. I just got
      an glimpse from reading what you have just written to the effect that
      we see a different self as being grounded in that Place. At the least,
      I see a way of putting us in the same place with a disjunctive view of
      the who that is in this place. A perhaps advantage of the form I see
      here is that this place can be seen as either concrete or abstract and
      be the same place. In a word, I think it is a terminology barrier that
      has more to do with the self reflected upon in that place.

      I think the first problem is that I find the spiritual self in that
      place and you find the temporal self in that place. It depends upon
      whether or not we look at that place from a phenomenological viewpoint
      or a bodily, or material, viewpoint. Let me toss this back to you for
      your comment. If this is our difference, then I think I know what our
      difference is. You say that the self has a spiritual component and I
      say that the self /is/ the spiritual, and, if that is our difference,
      it would go a long way to explaining our different views if this.

      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      > 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.
      > 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.