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

Re: [GTh] Help on Modes and Metaphors of Cognition in GTh?

Expand Messages
  • Michael Grondin
    ... 1. Emptiness should, I think, go in the Ignorance column, since one is admonished not to leave the world as empty as one entered it. The opposite
    Message 1 of 6 , Aug 6, 2001
      >COGNITION IGNORANCE
      >Light Darkness
      >Thirst Drunkenness
      >Sight Blindness
      >Revealed Hidden
      >(Apocalypse) (Mysterion)
      >Found Lost
      >Unity Division
      >(One) (Two)
      >Heard Unheard
      >Inside? Outside?
      >Living Dead
      >[? ] World
      >Emptiness? [? ]

      1. "Emptiness" should, I think, go in the 'Ignorance' column, since one is
      admonished not to leave the world as "empty" as one entered it. The
      opposite would presumably be fulness (the Pleroma).

      2. I'd add the pair 'spirit' and 'flesh/body'.

      3. The pair 'apocalypse/mysterion' doesn't seem quite right, unless what is
      meant by 'mysterion' (AKA 'sacrament' in Latin) is that which remains
      hidden to the ignorant, because they aren't "worthy" to receive it/them.
      But 'apocalypse' (as revelation) seems to be of the same order: hidden from
      the ignorant, but revealed to the seeker/knower. So they seem not to fit
      the two columns, because in cognition both are known, but in ignorance
      neither.

      4. The pair 'thirst/drunkeness' is an example of Bill's point, I think. It
      depends on whether what one thirsts for and becomes drunk on is of this
      world or not. It's OK, for example, to be "drunk on the words" or on the
      "living water".

      5. The entry 'world' brings to mind the distinction between 'this aeon' and
      'the other aeon' found in the Gospel of Philip. In GTh, the only opposing
      term I can recall is the phrase 'the new world'.

      Mike
    • Rick Hubbard
      Geeez I wish I had not included this table in my previous post- ... Nevertheless, doing so invited some thought provoking response. [Mike wrote:] 1.
      Message 2 of 6 , Aug 7, 2001
        Geeez I wish I had not included this table in my previous post-


        >COGNITION IGNORANCE
        >Light Darkness
        >Etc.....

        Nevertheless, doing so invited some thought provoking response.

        [Mike wrote:]
        1. "Emptiness" should, I think, go in the 'Ignorance' column,
        since one is
        admonished not to leave the world as "empty" as one entered it.
        The
        opposite would presumably be fulness (the Pleroma).

        Thank you. I've pondered this, unsuccessfully, but to no certain
        conclusion. The question I have is whether one's coming in and
        going out empty is good or bad. In the classical gnostic sense,
        when one comes into the world, one does so as a spark of the
        divine. It is only after one arrives in the world that one
        accumulates the baggage of body and corruption. So, if when one
        dies and leaves that all behind, does one leave empty? Is that
        not a good thing? Does 28.3b have anything to do with this in the
        first place?

        2. I'd add the pair 'spirit' and 'flesh/body'.


        3. The pair 'apocalypse/mysterion' doesn't seem quite right,
        unless what is
        meant by 'mysterion' (AKA 'sacrament' in Latin) is that which
        remains
        hidden to the ignorant, because they aren't "worthy" to receive
        it/them.
        But 'apocalypse' (as revelation) seems to be of the same order:
        hidden from
        the ignorant, but revealed to the seeker/knower. So they seem not
        to fit
        the two columns, because in cognition both are known, but in
        ignorance
        neither.

        What I should have done, in first place, was contrast Greek
        APOKALUPSIS (as revelation) and MYSTERION (as that which is
        hidden). But you still managed to key in on it and make an
        interesting observation. That which is revealed is simultaneously
        hidden except to the seeker/knower (initiated?). The paradox that
        you point out can perhaps be resolved if one distinguishes
        between revelation/mystery as "thing" or as "event." If
        revelation and mystery are "things" then what you say ("in
        cognition both are known, but in ignorance
        neither") is paradoxically correct. On the other hand, if
        revelation is an "event" in which one participates and mystery is
        a condition that maintains a state of hidden-ness, then the
        original juxtaposition holds. Thanks for pointing this out. Now,
        tell me, which one works best, in your thinking?


        4. The pair 'thirst/drunkeness' is an example of Bill's point, I
        think. It
        depends on whether what one thirsts for and becomes drunk on is
        of this
        world or not. It's OK, for example, to be "drunk on the words" or
        on the
        "living water".

        Yeah, you mean kinda like the whole business with emptiness?

        5. The entry 'world' brings to mind the distinction between 'this
        aeon' and
        'the other aeon' found in the Gospel of Philip. In GTh, the only
        opposing
        term I can recall is the phrase 'the new world'.

        As I said, I regret including this matrix in the first place, and
        even more I wish I had not included the term "world." This has
        nothing at all to do with modes of cognition (sorry for the
        confusion). On the other hand, "the world" does seem to be an
        object of a cognitive act (the one who has *found* has *found* a
        carcass 56.1). If finding is related to knowing in that they are
        both acts of cognition (as I suggest is the case), then perhaps
        there are qualities of cognition. There is "knowing and there is
        knowing. There is Finding and there is finding. Taking the test
        is not enough, you have to get the right answers (an observation
        made by an acquaintance after he had taken the CPA exam for the
        4th time).

        Thanks for the feedback.

        Rick Hubbard
        Humble Maine Woodsman
      • Rick Hubbard
        [Andrew wrote:] ... Apologies for isolating two words from such a thoughtful post. No apology necessary, Andrew. As I said, I would have served my purpose
        Message 3 of 6 , Aug 7, 2001
          [Andrew wrote:]
          > Inside? Outside?

          Apologies for isolating two words from such a thoughtful post.

          No apology necessary, Andrew. As I said, I would have served my
          purpose better if I had not included the table in the first
          place.

          Neither of these [inside/outside] have anything directly to do
          with modes of cognition, but as you say, the juxtaposition of the
          two is frequent. I'd like to hear more, when you have a chance,
          about how you read it.

          Rick Hubbard
          Humble Maine Woodsman
        • Michael Grondin
          ... Dunno why. Although it may have diverted direct attention from the abstract issue, the mulling over of particulars may also have indirectly clarified the
          Message 4 of 6 , Aug 7, 2001
            [Rick]:
            >Geeez I wish I had not included this table in my previous post-

            Dunno why. Although it may have diverted direct attention from the abstract
            issue, the mulling over of particulars may also have indirectly clarified
            the general issue. I find this often to be so in my own thinking.

            >The question I have is whether one's coming in and
            >going out empty is good or bad. In the classical gnostic sense,
            >when one comes into the world, one does so as a spark of the
            >divine. It is only after one arrives in the world that one
            >accumulates the baggage of body and corruption. So, if when one
            >dies and leaves that all behind, does one leave empty? Is that
            >not a good thing? Does 28.3b have anything to do with this in the
            >first place?

            I think so. Bear in mind the Hymn of the Pearl, wherein the heavenly figure
            is sent to earth to get something of value. Similarly, the reader of GTh is
            evidently supposed to get something out of it - whether some piece(s) of
            wisdom which would prepare him/her for the journey back, or a state of
            being (filled with pneuma) that would facilitate that "journey", or both,
            I'm not sure. In this regard, the saying "If you don't find me while you're
            alive, you won't find me later" (rough paraphrase) seems appropriate. So
            while it's true that it's good to be empty of worldly stuff, it apparently
            ain't good to be empty of (Christian) spiritual stuff when you die. As you
            say, similar to the 'thirsty/drunk' pair in that whether it's good or bad
            depends on the object.

            As to the 'apocalypsis/mysterion' pair, what you say seems right, though
            how it would translate into table-entries, or even whether it should be
            included at all, I'm not sure. Maybe as parenthetical additions, as in
            'hidden (mysterion)' versus 'revealed (apocalypsis)'? But then, if you're
            going to de-emphasize the particulars anyway, you're probably more
            interested in the implications of the discussion of this pair for the
            abstract distinction(s) you're trying to draw.

            Mike

            The Coptic Gospel of Thomas, saying-by-saying
            http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/sayings.htm
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.