Re: So where did the Pythagorean School get their "innovations"?
>I should have noticed that "All of the Above" response.My apologies for missing it.<
It's ok George... but I hope you are aware that this is becominng a
recuring motif. Not to slam you on this, but it really is important
to be careful in reading each other's posts.
>Frankly, I have yet to read any information thatsuggests that ANY Mesopotamian or Persian content
regarding secret fraternities.<
Gee, that is very odd. I'm not sure what you have been reading then.
There are secret elements in Zoroastrainism, Manichaeans were very
secretive, and they were heavily Persian. You yourself mentined the
probable Persian origin of the name Adonis, and it's relation to the
Greek Mysteries (though the evidence is that the Mysteries themselves
existed before this borrowing). Many orders of uncertain origin also
have these tendencies... including the Yezidis, the Mandaeans, etc.
The existance of secret orders in Celtic society and Asia is well
attested to also. We know full well that there was a Celtic migration
to the Greek mediteranian, but you are not arguing a Celtic influence.
>At this time, all I can see is Egyptian models.<This is the part that is confusing me, because I have in fact offered
other every bit as much valid evidence as you have for Egypt (which
is admitedly not a whole lot in either case)
>It's going to be hard to defend syncratism if noone provides any information for something OTHER
than Egyptian, yes?<
Not at all. Some level of syncratism has been outright proven in the
late antiquities (from whence we get most of our version of
Pythagoras), and Gnosticism is certainly a product of this. Now, as
far as prior Pythagoian thought, not only is syncratism difficult to
demonstrate, but so is the content of the thought itself. In that
case, the Egyptian origin is equally hard to demonstrate as is
- 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"?