Re: What are the Sources for the Pythagorean "fraternity"?
> Mike,I understand your willingness to see the Hopi as
"proving" (?) that the Pythagorean school MUST have
had some Mesopotamian influences in organizing their
George, not to speak for Mike here... but I can't help but jump in on
this one. What you just stated is not even close to what Mike
actually said. I need to re-iterate... twisting peoples words is only
going to cause frustration. Mike stated that the instance of secret
societies in unrelated locals demonstrates that it is not necessary
for there to have been a source for secrecy in the Pythagorian
school, other than thier own desire to be secretive. If you are
familiar with the basic principles of logic, then you know that
Occam's razor tells us very clearly that you would have to prove
something beyond the most obvious explination. If Egypt is not
necessary as a source, then it is up to you to prove it was a source.
The fact that Egypt may have had secret societies is irrelevent, it
in no way demonstrates Egypt as an origin.
to repeat his statement..... "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, unless somehow Egyptians managed to get to
the American Southwest."
Now where in that did you come up with him saying that it proves a
> But without at least an attempt to obtain evidence fromMesopotamian sources, I think this is not the most persuasive
> Note: Anyone just coming upon this thread would certainly besurprised, I think, to see the need for me to even explain this,
don't you? In other words.... considering the broad range of
informed research represented by this list, it is surprising to me to
be reading more about the Hopi fraternities than ones we might have
actually read about in the ancient near east.<
I think you missed the point there George. The inclusion of the Hopi
orders here does prove that Egypt (or any other particular source) is
nothing more than a case of "multiplying entities" and thus a logical
flaw if you don't provide direct evidence.
What does this boil down to? It means, unless you can show
specifically that there WAS an Egyptian influence, there is no reason
to assume that the Pythagorian secret society was anything other than
thier own 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"?