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

Re: Relevance (George's definitions)

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    Hey George.... It isn t exactly that I disagree,
    Message 1 of 46 , Jun 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Hey George....

      <<<<Hi PMCV,
      If we can't agree that Gnosis is knowledge by experience then I don't
      see how I can proceed.>>>

      It isn't exactly that I disagree, George, but that I figured at that
      point you are boiling it down to the absolute most simple
      possibility. I figured you were sort of outlining the basic Greek,
      and not yet attempting the Gnostic/Platonic usage. So, I thought I
      would wait.

      It is my impression that "gnosis" in the original Greek did mean an
      experinetial knowledge of sorts, but more particularly one of
      recognition within, or overall comprehension of, a subject. In other
      words, in my understanding there are other Greek words that could
      imply an experiential knowledge, such as "xero", which is also a
      direct familiarity kind of knowing that seems closer to how so many
      people are trying to use the word "gnosis" as opposed to "pliroforo"
      (sp?), which is informational.

      So, you see why I say that while I agree with you, that I did so a
      bit cautiously. The term "Experiential knowledge" could be used to
      remove certain important qualities of "gnosis" and I believe that
      perhaps this is why so many people have mistakenly equated "Gnosis"
      with the mystical experience.

    • pmcvflag
      You are so patient, Cari, but my post was so explicetly about the afterlife in Gnosticism and the lack of continuation of the self identity with the
      Message 46 of 46 , Jun 9, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        You are so patient, Cari, but my post was so explicetly about
        the "afterlife" in Gnosticism and the lack of continuation of the
        self identity with the rejoining into the Source, that I don't think
        Fred really missed my point so badly as to think I was talking about
        some form of Buddhist monastic ego death. I think instead he is
        purposfully taking my words out of context to be trite (something he
        has already been reprimanded for). *sigh* He will be able to post
        again when he is ready for serious conversation.


        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@y...>
        > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, fred60471 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
        > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...>
        > >
        > > ... I know that this concept is very scary to a lot of
        > > people who can't deal with the notion of loss of the self ...
        > >
        > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag also wrote:
        > >
        > > ... I do know ...
        > > ... I think if ...
        > > ... I have known ...
        > > ... I know that ...
        > >
        > > PMCV
        > Fred, I don't understand your point. I don't see PMCV as saying
        > we "presently" lose our sense of self. The sentence before your
        > first quote reads, "You see, the "spirit", according to Gnostic
        > thought, is not part of what we call "us". It is not part of one's
        > personal identity, but instead it is a little reflective shard of
        > source of all spirit. That is to say, it is a little piece that
        > rejoin with a larger whole EVENTUALLY." [emphasis added]
        > Personally, I view ego "death" as an oxymoron in this present
        > existence. We all have egos. We need a sense of self to function
        > this world. That is not the same as saying that we all are
        > egotistical though.
        > Cari
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.