Re: Advancing the discussion of "from where" :-D
----- Original Message -----
From: "pmcvflag" <email@example.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 7:31 PM
Subject: [Gnosticism2] Re: Advancing the discussion of "from where" :-
> Only one problem here James, your point is based on the very faith
> you speak against. If the methodology of mathmatical proofs are
> in the way you suggest, then scientific principles such as
> and critical literary analysis should be applied to history as
> well.... and it is this form of thinking that brings into question
> the notion that the historical Pythagoras had any genuine concern
I never stated that Pythagoras had any genuine concern for math.
However, it is clear that he had a concern for number and form.
tetractys. Pythagoras was refered to as 'by him that gave to us the
tetractys, which contains the fount and root of ever-flowing nature.'
This symbol of ten dots aranged in a triangle was not borrowed from
another culture, so to posit Pythagoras as its originator is not such
a great leap of faith.
Clearly the tetractys shows a concern for number and form.
. . .
. . . .
> You see? You have just offered a catch 22.
Not at all. I have merely attempted to to make clear the need to
differentiate between the actual teaching of Pythagoras and the later
distortions created in order to conceal that teaching. Symbols,
catchphrases, and taboos are those aspects of the teaching which were
most widely known and which therefore remained unaltered. Indeed,
they served as the scaffolding upon which the later facade was built.
Yes, beans were not to be eaten, but not because of flattulence, but
rather because they possessed the ideal shape to be used in
structures based on the properties of specific numbers.
- 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 firstname.lastname@example.org, 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"?