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

Re: Advancing the discussion of "from where" :-D

Expand Messages
  • James Lambert
    ... From: pmcvflag To: Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 7:31 PM Subject: [Gnosticism2] Re: Advancing the
    Message 1 of 170 , May 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "pmcvflag" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
      To: <gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 7:31 PM
      Subject: [Gnosticism2] Re: Advancing the discussion of "from where" :-
      D


      > Only one problem here James, your point is based on the very faith
      > you speak against. If the methodology of mathmatical proofs are
      valid
      > in the way you suggest, then scientific principles such as
      sceptical
      > 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
      for
      > math.

      I never stated that Pythagoras had any genuine concern for math.
      However, it is clear that he had a concern for number and form.
      Consider the
      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.

      James Lambert
      http://web.telecom.cz/Gnostradamus/
    • 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.