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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 6 , Aug 7, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 6 , Aug 7, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        [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 3 of 6 , Aug 7, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          [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.