Re: A Belated Comment on Methodology
- 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!
--- In email@example.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@y...>
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "George" <historynow2002@y...>he
> > 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
> 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
> Just some thoughts from a nosy bystander. :-)
- 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 email@example.com, pessy@c... wrote:be
> > lady_caritas writes:
> > > contained in this line, "Within the present world, (reputedly)
> > > is good and there is evil, (but) the world's goods are not
> > > good, and its evils not (really) evil." IOW, "reputedly"
> > > or "allegedly" or "so they say" makes me wonder. Would this
> > > Valentinian recounting a more literal, traditional notion of
> > > opposites, "good" and "evil," in comparison to a conception ofbe
> > > world not being (really) black and white? Or OTOH might this
> > > heresiologist relating a view secondhand or rather a novice
> > > an initiation process or even a Valentinian not entirely
> convinced or
> > > in agreement about the concepts of good and evil? Regardless,
> > > think we can at least glean some Valentinian ideas from thisthis
> > > as it speaks to hylic, psychic, and pneumatic natures, and it
> > > certainly reiterates a common theme of resurrection now in
> > > lifetime, not waiting for some later time.last
> > no, it just merans that the world is evil, and good is out of the
> > whereas Zoroastrians see good and bad residing in the world.
> > Klaus Schilling
> Klaus, I suppose that is also a very likely interpretation. (My
> sentence of that paragraph was referring not only to the line justthought
> 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
> when no direct mention is made of them and we don't even know theOr
> original source or context of this whole passage. And, where does
> the passage say that this world is only "evil," as you interpret?
> do you think it is implied somehow?fit
> Also, considering your interpretation of that line, how does that
> within the context of the remainder of the passage, with the author
> defining the "midpoint" -- "**after** this world" -- as "evil"?