Re: Valentinian anthropology
> > betty wrote:the
> >> > i have a hard time reconciling the rigidity of the Valentinian
> >> > system, and the necessity for the psychic category. you have
> >> > hylic at one end, and the pneumatic at the other, two naturesin
> >> > opposition. then in the middle is the psychic, who basicallyhas
> >> > either hylic tendencies or pneumatic tendencies? sort ofdilutes
> >> thefactors?
> >>> whole idea of chosen/elect. and what are the determining
> >>> for me the three natures are more symbolic of potentials thanwhether
> >>> judgement about ones eternal fate.
> >> Cari wrote:
> >> Betty, do you feel that we all have all these potentials,
> > orto
> >> not realized, or rather that some people are limited by nature
> > theto
> >> hylic or psychic possibilities?
> >> And then, do you view these various natures in any way related
> > anif
> >> eternal or infinite upshot?
> > Hi Cari,
> > upon thinking this more thoroughly, perhaps all these natures are
> > potentials within us, but one nature eventually predominates. for
> > indeed we all have a spark/shard of the divine, does that notimply
> > potential? then i keep coming back to, how is it that sometranscend
> > the lower levels? and why do some stay bound to those natures? fornecessary
> > myself, i can say that i have lingered in the lower levels in my
> > life. fortunately, i never got comfortable, but not without misery
> > and suffering. in hindsight, experientially, that was very
> > in shaping the awareness i have now. maybe what is meantby "chosen"
> > is the grace to be in the midst of the lower natures, internallyand
> > externally but not to succumb, but to recognize and observe. howMike wrote:
> > would one know light without the contrast of darkness?
> Betty, I have to compliment you for a very well thought out reply.Hi Mike!
thank you, you are very kind. have a wonderful day! the Sun is
shining here, after many days of dreary, rainy weather. i'm going to
play in my garden.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "eyeambetty" <eyeambetty@y...>
> Hello Gerry,
> previous to any spiritual context, i thought my inclination towards
> introspection, and preference for solitude were products of my
> upbringing. i've always felt alienated from others, painfully so
> my family, i turned inward and developed a relationship with myselfamount
> early on. i don't think anyone escapes internalizing a certain
> of the "darkness", meaning those raging, critical voices thatout
> manifest out of false concepts, that have been shaped by external
> influences during the development of our consciousness. it seems
> of necessity, that i began to question and reflect in order tocombat
> those insidious voices that prodded at me to do this or that inorder
> to be good, worthy, lovable and on and on... all i found waspain
> emptiness in those pursuits, but the experiences were valuable
> lessons because of the awareness i had. in my twenties, i began a
> process of going thru all the garbage, finding the sources of my
> and suffering, alongside new experiences, really distinguishingrevising
> between my true self and my false self. studying fine art, and
> becoming an artist is what gave me a model for expanding and
> my concepts and a voice/tool with which to express/communicate myunwittingly
> so now in my thirties, having created a space inside, and
> prepared myself to recieve a series of transformational experienceshave
> that eventually lead me to find Gnosticism, i can't help but think
> that i was always headed in this direction. however, if you would
> have told me 2 or 3 years ago this is where i would be, i would
> surely laughed.And a perfectly topical testimonial it was, Betty. :-)
> sorry, i didn't mean to write a testimonial...
I very much relate to much of your experience, although for me, I
don't think the introspection and preference for solitude were as
much products of my upbringing as simply genetic. Two other members
of my immediate family are the same way, and I see numerous examples
in the extended family as well.
Your concluding remarks, also, I find have an especially familiar
ring. In many ways, I can look back over the course of my life and
see how differently my views have changed, but at the same time, even
though I would have had no idea what Gnosticism was all about way
back then, I feel as though there was always something "different" in
the way I saw things, and that I was always being drawn in this
direction. Odd, since my somewhat conventional upbringing was never
so steeped in the mainstream as to ever make me really comfortable
with orthodox beliefs, and yet, those beliefs that I *did* have
weren't exactly like what we're discussing here today, eithersort
of like realizing that deep within there must have always existed a
gemstone in the rough. Chipping away at the crust around it takes us
back to Mike's comment about the "refined perception."