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

Re: "Between here and there"

Expand Messages
  • Will Brown
    ... descriptions of self or aspects of self. Defining self is a philosophical exercise I don t care to get into. lol
    Message 1 of 53 , Mar 13, 2003
      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Will Brown" <wilbro99@y...>
      > wrote:
      > > 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.
      > > ----willy
      >
      >
      > 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 "Hylic," "psychic," and "pneumatic" represent states of self-
      > awareness. But these levels of understanding also represent self-
      > awareness that is not merely solipsistic, mental constructs. A
      > Gnostic path is an experiential one. Hylic awareness perceives with
      > a materialist worldview, not recognizing a spiritual reality or
      > merely relegating claims of such to some mumbo-jumbo, superstitious
      > category. The psychic awareness is that shaky middle ground. Humans
      > with pneumatic awareness (spiritual worldview) recognize, are
      > acquainted with a revealed infinite spiritual reality, but that does
      > not negate the fact that those humans are directly interpreting such
      > ineffable knowledge through images and material human filters (hence
      > there remains also an awareness of hyle and soul as part of being
      > human).
      >
      > I have no idea if you're following me or if I'm even addressing your
      > apparent dilemma. :-)
      >
      > Cari

      >>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
    • 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...>
        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.