Re: So where did the Pythagorean School get their "innovations"?
- That could be an interesting subject George, but it may need some
clerification from you as to exactly which "innovations" you are
talking about. In the end, this secret society most likely got
influence form more than one place, and also came up with a few of
thier own ideas.
I don't want to go off the subject too far here, but I thought I
would bring up an interesting example. Where I am from there is a
Native American tribe (Hopi) that has it's cultural, political, and
religious structure heavily dependant on a number of secret
societies. Some of these orders have some rather surprising
similarities with the Greek mysteries, with which I can fairly safely
say they had no contact whatsoever. A possible xplination for this is
that certain aspects of the "secret society" is jsut a fairly common
component to the human mind, and probably goes back into distant
Of course, I'm assuming in this case George, you are talking about
more specific correlations. When we get to the later Neopythagorian
systems, I think that the origin is pretty definitively syncratic.
However, as I say... perhaps you can clarify the question you mean to
raise for club discussion a little here.
There is also a 4th option you didn't offer BTW...
3) Local invention?
4) All of the above?
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "George" <historynow2002@y...>
> I'm still hopeful that PMCV (and others if they like),
> will volunteer some thoughts on where the Pythagorean
> School (if the "real" Pythagoras is more legend than
> truth), got their "innovations" on secret fraternities?
> 1) Egypt?
> 2) Persia?
> 3) Local invention?
- 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"?