Re: So where did the Pythagorean School get their "innovations"?
- --- In email@example.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
> Hello Georgeunless
> On 03-May-03, you wrote:
> > PMCV,
> > I should have noticed that "All of the Above" response.
> > My apologies for missing it.
> > Going back to my list, however:
> >> 1) Egypt?
> >> 2) Persia?
> >> 3) Local invention?
> >> 4) All of the above?
> > Frankly, I have yet to read any information that
> > suggests that ANY Mesopotamian or Persian content
> > regarding secret fraternities.
> > At this time, all I can see is Egyptian models.
> > It's going to be hard to defend syncratism if no
> > one provides any information for something OTHER
> > than Egyptian, yes?
> > George
> Maybe, but the existence of such societies among the Hopi in the
> American Southwest is suggestive of the possibility of an indigenous
> origin. Clearly such societies have existed outside of Egypt,
> somehow Egyptians managed to get to the American Southwest.Thank you, Mike.
> Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
George, I suppose I'm a bit confused here. May I assume you're still
talking about Pythagorean secret fraternities? In Post #7673 you
say, "My SPECIFIC interest is his organization of secret
fraternities, and then his interest in ethical systems" You were
referring specifically to Pythagoras.
Then you state in Post #7677, "Frankly, I have yet to read any
information that suggests that ANY Mesopotamian or Persian content
regarding secret fraternities.
At this time, all I can see is Egyptian models."
I would be curious what information you are reading, if you haven't
run across ANY suggestions that there could be more than Egyptian
I just made a quick search and came up with this link, for instance,
and there are more. One doesn't even have to agree with anything or
everything presented, but the fact is there IS information
suggesting other than ONLY Egyptian content.
And whether or not one agrees with the information in this link, it
does discuss a Pythagorean synthesis from more than one tradition:
As far as secret societies in general, here is an article you might
find interesting, due to your interest in Freemasonry:
- 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"?