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

Re: [Gnosticism2] Re: Advancing the discussion of "from where" :-D

Expand Messages
  • James Lambert
    ... From: pmcvflag To: Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2003 2:35 AM Subject: [Gnosticism2] Re: Advancing the
    Message 1 of 170 , May 7, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "pmcvflag" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
      To: <gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2003 2:35 AM
      Subject: [Gnosticism2] Re: Advancing the discussion of "from where" :-D

      > However, James, serious question has been brought up in the course of
      > this discussion as to whether Pythagoras DID in fact "give to us the
      > tetractys".

      Serious question? Perhaps. But consider the process by which the original
      teachings become veiled beneath an alternative interpretation. Suppose we
      have a secret society, which isn't entirely secret, like the Masons perhaps.
      What do outsiders know of the Masons? They know that they have secret
      handshakes, they might also recognize the symbols of the order, those sacred
      tools of wall-building. And there are also some sort of rituals which must
      performed by the initiates. These are the aspects which are well known by
      the people of the era. These aspects exist above the waterline. What goes on
      beneath the waterline is anyone's guess.

      Consider Christianity. The life of Jesus. John the Baptist in the Gospels is
      an alternative Messiah, with a powerful leadership of his own. Why include
      him within the account, this potential competitor to Jesus? He was included
      because his presence was too well remembered to be excised. John the Baptist
      existed above the waterline. What was altered was his place within the nest
      of relationships.

      The tetractys was retained for much the same reason.

      > That is the purpose of our critical hystorical analysis
      > here on this subject. When we are dealing with the history, we don't
      > assume.

      You are also making assumptions. In your view Pythagoras contributed
      nothing, employed no symbols, and considered nothing taboo. There was no
      Pythagoras at all. He never existed and everything credited to his name was
      actually contributed by others.

      > On the other hand, if there is an important esoteric function
      > it isn't rally relevent if it came from Pythagoras or not. A
      > legendary account can certainly still be valid in it's own way, and
      > we recognize this within the function of this club. What we do not
      > recognize though is the confusion of that with a literal accurate
      > history. "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" kind of history doesn't stand up
      > here.

      Meaning what exactly? That any attempt to present material in an interesting
      manner will be squashed by the moderators?

      > I am not saying.... Pythagoras did not practice numerology, or
      > genuine arithmatic, or philosophy, or even that perhaps he really
      > didn't want people to eat beans. I am however pointing out that all
      > these things are certainly seriously in question, and one should not
      > build too much on something so questionable.

      Anything can be called into question. You may choose to doubt that
      Pythagoras employed the tetractys, but I am fairly confident that no new
      information is going to come to light any time soon confirming either your
      position or mine. Hence this question will never be conclusively decided.

      Do note however, that my position is not that everything written about
      Pythagoras should be accepted uncritically. Not at all. There are three
      issues concerning Pythagoras which I do accept. The first is the prohibition
      against beans, though I lean heavily towards the garbanzo bean theory. The
      second is the importance of number. And the third is the tetractys. I
      maintain that these three aspects originated with the original Pythagoras.
      If you find that objectionable then consider the Pythagoras of which I speak
      to be solely a fictional entity, though one which is claimed to be free from
      neoplatonic influences.

      Your position holds that unless there is a hundred percent certainty that
      something was so, any sort of speculation along those lines is a waste of
      time. I find your position to be untenable.

      > Now, if we are going to talk MEANING, that is a different story
      > altogether.

      Why not talk PURPOSE instead.

      James Lambert
    • 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
        > a
        > > > Valentinian recounting a more literal, traditional notion of
        > > > opposites, "good" and "evil," in comparison to a conception of
        > the
        > > > world not being (really) black and white? Or OTOH might this
        > 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,
        > > > 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
        > > > 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
        > 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
        > 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?
        > do you think it is implied somehow?
        > 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"?
        > Cari
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.