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

Re: Relevance (George's definitions)

Expand Messages
  • George Harvey
    ... don t ... that ... other ... to pliroforo ... Hi PMCV, I don t read Greek and didn t know about xero but, if I now understand what you are saying, I do
    Message 1 of 46 , Jun 3, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      > 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.
      >
      > PMCV

      Hi PMCV,
      I don't read Greek and didn't know about "xero" but, if I now
      understand what you are saying, I do agree with your definition
      of "gnosis".

      There is not much more to my explanation. It is simply that from my
      own experience when I read the various ancient "Gnostic" writings I
      felt a deep kinship with those ancient authors. It was as if they
      were putting into words the things I had already experienced. This
      happened two years before I had my first "mystic" experience.

      See, it was helpful for you to explain what you believe "gnosis" to
      mean. If you hadn't I probably wouldn't have thought to mention that
      this was before I had my first "mystic" experience.

      George
    • 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.

        PMCV

        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@y...>
        wrote:
        > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, fred60471 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
        > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...>
        wrote:
        > >
        > > ... 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
        that
        > 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
        the
        > source of all spirit. That is to say, it is a little piece that
        will
        > 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
        in
        > 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.