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

Re: A Belated Comment on Methodology

Expand Messages
  • George
    Dear Cari, Ahhh..... It slipped past me that Gerry was a moderator... or is he *the* Moderator? I guess I assumed PCMV was the moderator, because of his
    Message 1 of 170 , Apr 28, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Cari,

      Ahhh..... It slipped past me that Gerry was a moderator...
      or is he *the* Moderator? I guess I assumed PCMV was
      the moderator, because of his approach in recent posts.

      Cari, your suggestion is a perfectly good one. I'll
      be happy to respond to the items that seem to be the
      most mutually interesting and helpful.

      But the "intensity" of his post was so strong, that
      I found it very hard to figure out how many questions
      I was going to have to field that would not create more
      "heat" than "light".... no pun intended :-)

      Thanks for your helpfulness, Cari!

      George


      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@y...>
      wrote:
      > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "George" <historynow2002@y...>
      > wrote:
      > > Mike,
      > >
      > > Thank you for introducing a note of calm at this point.
      > > As I read Gerry's long discussion, I found the energy
      > > level quite intense.
      >
      >
      > So, George, did you find anything else besides an "intense" "energy
      > level"? Mike mentioned that "stepping back would help." I didn't
      > interpret that to mean sidestepping issues.
      >
      >
      > > Gerry, rather than continue to feed and even provoke
      > > greater energy, I thought I would ask you to ask me
      > > which questions or thoughts you are *most* interested
      > > in obtaining from me.
      > >
      > > I promise that I will reply fully to your next post.
      > >
      > > George
      >
      >
      >
      > I haven't seen Gerry responding to this post yet, George, although
      he
      > apparently has been online already today. Perhaps *you* could
      > continue meaningful dialogue by responding to whatever questions or
      > thoughts from his post "*most* interested" *you*. I don't see any
      > need for him to repeat himself. Gerry takes his role as a moderator
      > very conscientiously and seems interested in communicating with you
      > or he wouldn't have taken the time to compose his post in the first
      > place.
      >
      > Just some thoughts from a nosy bystander. :-)
      >
      >
      > Cari
    • Wayne
      The Middle region, when you separate the light from the darkness you enter into the Twilight Zone, the World of the Imagination, Freedom of Mind, Divine Will.
      Message 170 of 170 , Jun 5, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        The Middle region, when you separate the light from the darkness
        you enter into the Twilight Zone, the World of the Imagination,
        Freedom of Mind, Divine Will.

        To Truly be Good you must be Free from the knowledge, from having
        known, experienced wrong doing, you must be innocent.

        Innocence exists only when there is no Evil, a long as Evil exist
        Good is Evil and Evil is good, there is no innocence.

        In between the Light and the Darkness, Parallel Universes, the Two
        Worlds of Reality, One the World of Reality as seen in the light of
        day, the Reality of the Moment, the Here and Now, Reality that exists
        independent of our thoughts concerning it and the World of the
        Imagination, the middle World, the World of Illusion, Sin; Reality as
        seen in the Second light of the Sun, Moon Light, where thinly veiled
        shadowy figures lurk in the Darkest corners of the Mind.

        By the light of the Silvery Moon, Light that is separated out of the
        Darkness, Twice light.

        Illusion Trice Light, Reality hauled up out of the darkest depths of
        the abyss, the imagination.

        A Lie is the Truth, an Illusion is a Reality, Evil is Good, Good is
        Evil, Good and Evil is Evil.


        Yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@y...> wrote:
        > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pessy@c... wrote:
        > > lady_caritas writes:
        > >
        > > > contained in this line, "Within the present world, (reputedly)
        > there
        > > > is good and there is evil, (but) the world's goods are not
        > (really)
        > > > good, and its evils not (really) evil." IOW, "reputedly"
        > > > or "allegedly" or "so they say" makes me wonder. Would this
        be
        > a
        > > > Valentinian recounting a more literal, traditional notion of
        the
        > > > opposites, "good" and "evil," in comparison to a conception of
        > the
        > > > world not being (really) black and white? Or OTOH might this
        be
        > a
        > > > heresiologist relating a view secondhand or rather a novice
        > entering
        > > > an initiation process or even a Valentinian not entirely
        > convinced or
        > > > in agreement about the concepts of good and evil? Regardless,
        I
        > > > think we can at least glean some Valentinian ideas from this
        > passage,
        > > > as it speaks to hylic, psychic, and pneumatic natures, and it
        > > > certainly reiterates a common theme of resurrection now in
        this
        > > > lifetime, not waiting for some later time.
        > >
        > >
        > > no, it just merans that the world is evil, and good is out of the
        > world,
        > > whereas Zoroastrians see good and bad residing in the world.
        > >
        > >
        > > Klaus Schilling
        >
        >
        > Klaus, I suppose that is also a very likely interpretation. (My
        last
        > sentence of that paragraph was referring not only to the line just
        > previously discussed about "good" and "evil," but to other comments
        > in the GPh passage as a whole.) However, I guess my point was,
        > perhaps we could only assume the line related to Zoroastrian
        thought
        > when no direct mention is made of them and we don't even know the
        > original source or context of this whole passage. And, where does
        > the passage say that this world is only "evil," as you interpret?
        Or
        > do you think it is implied somehow?
        >
        > Also, considering your interpretation of that line, how does that
        fit
        > within the context of the remainder of the passage, with the author
        > defining the "midpoint" -- "**after** this world" -- as "evil"?
        >
        >
        > Cari
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.