RE: [GTh] Help on Modes and Metaphors of Cognition in GTh?
- Geeez I wish I had not included this table in my previous post-
>COGNITION IGNORANCENevertheless, doing so invited some thought provoking response.
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.
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
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
hidden to the ignorant, because they aren't "worthy" to receive
But 'apocalypse' (as revelation) seems to be of the same order:
the ignorant, but revealed to the seeker/knower. So they seem not
the two columns, because in cognition both are known, but in
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
depends on whether what one thirsts for and becomes drunk on is
world or not. It's OK, for example, to be "drunk on the words" or
Yeah, you mean kinda like the whole business with emptiness?
5. The entry 'world' brings to mind the distinction between 'this
'the other aeon' found in the Gospel of Philip. In GTh, the only
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
Thanks for the feedback.
Humble Maine Woodsman
- [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
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.
Humble Maine Woodsman
>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 andI think so. Bear in mind the Hymn of the Pearl, wherein the heavenly figure
>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
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.
The Coptic Gospel of Thomas, saying-by-saying