| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
zen gnostic
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 5:00 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
 |
|
On Jun 28, 11:20 am, zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Jun 28, 11:11 am, Heideana <heide...@pacbell.net> wrote:
On Jun 28, 8:55 am, zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 27, 4:03 pm, Heideana <heide...@pacbell.net> wrote:
On Jun 27, 11:47 am, shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 04:51:20 -0400, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm
wrote:
shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net>:
Yeah, this guy seems neither gnostic nor zen.
Agreed. He _might_ be able to work Zen into his New-Agery.
But gnosticism is a big problem for him.
snipped
Probably because of the psychology of many New Agers - they tend to
exalt nature, the body, the material world - "Creation" generally - to
the point that materiality's inherent evils are (so they say)
neutralized. They tend to exonerate the Creator for incorporating
evil into creation, for not acting to remove evil from the world (as
you've pointed out, this problem disappears if they'll admit that God
the Creator is not all-powerful, but they can't let go of omnipotence
as an essential quality of of God). They don't like having it pointed
out to them that the problem of evil is still a problem. All is
bright, except for a few shadows that are either illusory or in some
other way irrelevant...
- sl -
That problematic of evil just keeps rearing its' ugly
head...seriously, the question of evil does need to be dealt with or
sorted out if you desire true knowledge. At least that is my
"gut"...people don't like to be reminded of it, I totally agree. On
the other hand, lots of folks are spell bound by it in the
media...its' a funny problematic...
That's very true. As in the star wars episode(sorry bout the sci-fi)
the hero must go into the darkness to conquer that which is inside
him. The "demiurge" is not only out in the world but inside our selves
as well. For true gnosis this part of us must be explored. (ie dealt
with). Of course this then destroys the illusion of two gods. Are
there little tiny demiurges in us? The idea is as absurd as a
Catawumpus argument.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
ZG - You might want to check out "The Complete Idiot's guide to the
Gnostic Gospels" by Matkin (http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiots-Guide-Gnostic-Gospels/dp/159257...
) for a birds' eyeview of all the different gnostic schools,
arguments, etc...that Catawampus and SL are getting at to help you
understand the "facts" about what Christian Gnosticism is about. It
was really helpful for me....
In what way?
|
You may want to try this link.
http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/sitemap.html
If you want pagan gnosticism without duality though Catawumpus is your
guy. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Heideana
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 9:49 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Jun 28, 2:15 pm, shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 08:56:53 -0700 (PDT), Heideana
heide...@pacbell.net> wrote:
On Jun 27, 11:44 pm, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net>:
[New Agers]
exalt nature, the body, the material world - "Creation" generally - to
the point that materiality's inherent evils are (so they say)
neutralized. They tend to exonerate the Creator for incorporating
evil into creation, for not acting to remove evil from the world (as
you've pointed out, this problem disappears if they'll admit that God
the Creator is not all-powerful, but they can't let go of omnipotence
as an essential quality of of God). They don't like having it pointed
out to them that the problem of evil is still a problem. All is
bright, except for a few shadows that are either illusory or in some
other way irrelevant...
Exactly. Of course gnosticism sometimes has the same kind
of trouble from the opposite side. When gnostic theology
either fails to distance itself sufficiently from power-worship
or slides back by insisting on God's omnipotence then the
problem of evil immediately re-appears. Something we've agreed
about before.
Another difficulty for New Agers is that gnosticism screws
with their "all rivers flowing to the same ocean" dogma (a
direct quote from ZG). Even if they can negotiate a Merton-ish
rapprochement between, let's say, Catholicism and Zen, the
gnostic outlook remains unassimilable, the exception disproving
their desired rule.
-- Catawumpus
C-wumpus or SL, could talk more about the problematic of evil and free-
choice vs. "fated" predeterminism and inability of the good to ever
make a choice of evil? When all of the good and evil are separated at
the end-of-time, I'm assuming that all of fragments of the "suffering
Christ" will have had enough time on the Karma Wheel here in the world
to decide if the want to choose the Transcedental God's path or not.
That's the only solution I see to the problematic? Any insight
greatly appreciated...Hopkins
I'm not much of a philosopher, and I'm sure Catawumpus can reply to
your Gnostic-related questions far better than I. However, I do agree
that choosing the Alien God is the only choice, since compromise with
the "creator's" universe equates to a kind of groveling capitulation.
As Catawumpus has said many times, just as Gnosticism is unassimilable
by creation-creator-loving systems, so too is the Alien God, who
cannot be named but only hinted at by terms such as The Profundity,
The Abyss, The Silence, etc. Again, as Catawumpus has pointed out -
especially in debating with atheists in this group maybe a year or so
ago - "No-Thingness" is part of this deity's attributes. You can't ask
for a less wordly category than that.
- sl -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
What I hear you describing is Levinas' notion of the other and primacy
of the ethical relation as the basis of everything else. Kinda if I
don't you to share language with, then I don't have anything and can't
exist....I require conversation with the other to have any
understanding of "things" in the world. In truth, the other is
completely alien and can never be understood completely...only in some
damaged way where "things" show-up in the "clearing" for us, but its'
only thru my ethical relation with the 'Other" that "clearing" even
exists.....thanks! This is very interesting and I need to set with it
for awhile. Blanchot also writes about the difficulty of talking to
the "other"....
The english translation of "Otherwise than being or beyond essence" is
atrocies, but what you say resonants with his major work. Curiously,
he can't be really used for any new age stuff...his major criticism of
Heidegger was that he believed in pantheism or nature worship. 
Something in me feels that we need to understand gnosticism if we want
to understand and intergrate ourselves fullly into the Western
Traditions hard wired into us by our "mother tongue"...its' nice to
read about and understand eastern thought, buddhism, etc...but you
can't truly understand the eastern tradition unless you were born into
it thru your "mothers' tongue". That is what made me realize that I
really needed to learn about the western traditions rather then new
age pantheism...or something like that...Tee-hee! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Heideana
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:04 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Jun 28, 9:20 am, zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Jun 28, 11:11 am, Heideana <heide...@pacbell.net> wrote:
On Jun 28, 8:55 am, zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 27, 4:03 pm, Heideana <heide...@pacbell.net> wrote:
On Jun 27, 11:47 am, shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 04:51:20 -0400, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm
wrote:
shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net>:
Yeah, this guy seems neither gnostic nor zen.
Agreed. He _might_ be able to work Zen into his New-Agery.
But gnosticism is a big problem for him.
snipped
Probably because of the psychology of many New Agers - they tend to
exalt nature, the body, the material world - "Creation" generally - to
the point that materiality's inherent evils are (so they say)
neutralized. They tend to exonerate the Creator for incorporating
evil into creation, for not acting to remove evil from the world (as
you've pointed out, this problem disappears if they'll admit that God
the Creator is not all-powerful, but they can't let go of omnipotence
as an essential quality of of God). They don't like having it pointed
out to them that the problem of evil is still a problem. All is
bright, except for a few shadows that are either illusory or in some
other way irrelevant...
- sl -
That problematic of evil just keeps rearing its' ugly
head...seriously, the question of evil does need to be dealt with or
sorted out if you desire true knowledge. At least that is my
"gut"...people don't like to be reminded of it, I totally agree. On
the other hand, lots of folks are spell bound by it in the
media...its' a funny problematic...
That's very true. As in the star wars episode(sorry bout the sci-fi)
the hero must go into the darkness to conquer that which is inside
him. The "demiurge" is not only out in the world but inside our selves
as well. For true gnosis this part of us must be explored. (ie dealt
with). Of course this then destroys the illusion of two gods. Are
there little tiny demiurges in us? The idea is as absurd as a
Catawumpus argument.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
ZG - You might want to check out "The Complete Idiot's guide to the
Gnostic Gospels" by Matkin (http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiots-Guide-Gnostic-Gospels/dp/159257...
) for a birds' eyeview of all the different gnostic schools,
arguments, etc...that Catawampus and SL are getting at to help you
understand the "facts" about what Christian Gnosticism is about. It
was really helpful for me....
In what way?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
The Idiot's guide gives a birds' eye view of which school believed in
docetism and which didn't, who thought what about the demiurge, etc.,
without bogging down in dense writing or source material. From what I
can tell, its' pretty much on the money with the source materials that
I've been reading. I've got a friend who's getting interested in
gnoticism and I sent a copy to her as an intro... |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Heideana
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 1:35 am Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Jun 28, 4:22 pm, shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 14:49:22 -0700 (PDT), Heideana
heide...@pacbell.net> wrote:
On Jun 28, 2:15 pm, shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net> wrote:
snipped
I'm not philosophically informed enough to have encountered the
ethical theories you mention... I was just thinking of "the Alien
God" as "alien" to this universe. I agree that such an entity "can
never be _understood_ completely" - but nonetheless can be _known_
spiritually - if not intellectually. In fact, that's one of
Gnosticism's claims - that we can know our spiritual selves and know
the Gnostic True Father. Spiritually, not just intellectually.
|
I think we're on the same page, its' the problem with the density of
language...the "Other" can never be "known", but can be understood
spirtually where spirituality is making sense of the world and giving
it meaning, i.e. connecting with the transcendent God and
understanding the duality that this god is not the same as the
"creator god". Its' the process of understanding that gives you
access to the "other" thru language or something like that...It really
resonanted with me when you mentioned "the Alien God" and got me
excited!
| Quote: | snipped text
Something in me feels that we need to understand gnosticism if we want
to understand and intergrate ourselves fullly into the Western
Traditions hard wired into us by our "mother tongue"..
Well, I can see wanting to integrate ourselves into the Western
Traditions, as a matter of being historically informed. However,
Gnosticism's "unassimilability" makes it per se unintegratable into
most Western systems I know of. Catawumpus may have some more
detailed thinking on this.
|
I'm sensing that gnosticism is very much a part of the western
tradition's roots, along with Greek thought and hope Catawampus replys
In some way it would seem that orthodox Christianity is a product of
gnosticism (primarily jewish and christian gnosticism, but the other
schools seem to have a pretty stong voice too) and Platonism. I think
what I'm getting at is that all of this early stuff is embedded in our
western languages in a way that can only be totally understood if
you're mother tongue is one of them. That's not to say you can get a
very good understanding and come close if you study Eastern philosophy
and learn one of the Eastern mother tongues...its' just that I don't
think you'd have the same understanding as someone born into that
cultural.
| Quote: | .its' nice to
read about and understand eastern thought, buddhism, etc...but you
can't truly understand the eastern tradition unless you were born into
it thru your "mothers' tongue".
Ummm... not sure I agree with that. I think that learning new
religious modes is like learning new languages. It can, with varying
degrees of difficulty, be done. However, the real proof is in the
practice.
|
Agreed about the real truth being in the practices...it turns out that
Heidegger was quite informed about Eastern thought and the similarity
to some our Western mysticism, etc....however he would never write
about it because of his feelings about being born into a mother
tongue, etc..., despite lots of requests as I recall.
| Quote: | Once you have learned Gnosticism from the inside via the chants,
prayers, meditations, etc., mentioned by Pagels in The Gnostic
Gospels, then you might just experience, first-hand, Gnosticism's
essence. Ditto the Buddhist traditions: after you've read their
scriptures, you perform the practices and in so doing, hopefully
experience the spiritual realities claimed in those scriptures. So I
think it goes beyond "learning a new language" - it gets into
immersing one's self in the spiritual modes offered by a particular
tradition.
|
Agreed, I probably forgot to mention that "language" is what makes up
the "world", or at least our perception of it in most post-modern
thought...a big Heidegger thread. You can't talk, describe, think, or
have anything without language. Levinas's point is that you can't
have language without another person to converse with, which is what
makes the ethical relation primary to him. Sort of you got to take
care of the other if you want to maintain the "world"..then it gets
murky. I'm also am probably thinking about the "western" traditions
as being philosophical thought..sorry if I confused you....
As an aside, is there some controls folks are using to indicate
snipped text and hiding quoted text?
Best...Hopkins |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
shriven leper
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 2:08 am Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 02:44:40 -0400, Catawumpus <kimmerian@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
| Quote: | shriven leper <bastasch8647@comcast.net>:
[New Agers]
exalt nature, the body, the material world - "Creation" generally - to
the point that materiality's inherent evils are (so they say)
neutralized. They tend to exonerate the Creator for incorporating
evil into creation, for not acting to remove evil from the world (as
you've pointed out, this problem disappears if they'll admit that God
the Creator is not all-powerful, but they can't let go of omnipotence
as an essential quality of of God). They don't like having it pointed
out to them that the problem of evil is still a problem. All is
bright, except for a few shadows that are either illusory or in some
other way irrelevant...
Exactly. Of course gnosticism sometimes has the same kind
of trouble from the opposite side. When gnostic theology
either fails to distance itself sufficiently from power-worship
or slides back by insisting on God's omnipotence then the
problem of evil immediately re-appears. Something we've agreed
about before.
Another difficulty for New Agers is that gnosticism screws
with their "all rivers flowing to the same ocean" dogma (a
direct quote from ZG). Even if they can negotiate a Merton-ish
rapprochement between, let's say, Catholicism and Zen, the
gnostic outlook remains unassimilable, the exception disproving
their desired rule.
-- Catawumpus
|
Very well said. Gnosticism's unassimilability is one of its primary
features. It indeed represents "a raft from the other shore"... to
borrow a Buddhistic, but hopefully not a New Agey, phrase...
- sl - |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
shriven leper
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 2:15 am Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 08:56:53 -0700 (PDT), Heideana
<heideana@pacbell.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Jun 27, 11:44 pm, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net>:
[New Agers]
exalt nature, the body, the material world - "Creation" generally - to
the point that materiality's inherent evils are (so they say)
neutralized. They tend to exonerate the Creator for incorporating
evil into creation, for not acting to remove evil from the world (as
you've pointed out, this problem disappears if they'll admit that God
the Creator is not all-powerful, but they can't let go of omnipotence
as an essential quality of of God). They don't like having it pointed
out to them that the problem of evil is still a problem. All is
bright, except for a few shadows that are either illusory or in some
other way irrelevant...
Exactly. Of course gnosticism sometimes has the same kind
of trouble from the opposite side. When gnostic theology
either fails to distance itself sufficiently from power-worship
or slides back by insisting on God's omnipotence then the
problem of evil immediately re-appears. Something we've agreed
about before.
Another difficulty for New Agers is that gnosticism screws
with their "all rivers flowing to the same ocean" dogma (a
direct quote from ZG). Even if they can negotiate a Merton-ish
rapprochement between, let's say, Catholicism and Zen, the
gnostic outlook remains unassimilable, the exception disproving
their desired rule.
-- Catawumpus
C-wumpus or SL, could talk more about the problematic of evil and free-
choice vs. "fated" predeterminism and inability of the good to ever
make a choice of evil? When all of the good and evil are separated at
the end-of-time, I'm assuming that all of fragments of the "suffering
Christ" will have had enough time on the Karma Wheel here in the world
to decide if the want to choose the Transcedental God's path or not.
That's the only solution I see to the problematic? Any insight
greatly appreciated...Hopkins
|
I'm not much of a philosopher, and I'm sure Catawumpus can reply to
your Gnostic-related questions far better than I. However, I do agree
that choosing the Alien God is the only choice, since compromise with
the "creator's" universe equates to a kind of groveling capitulation.
As Catawumpus has said many times, just as Gnosticism is unassimilable
by creation-creator-loving systems, so too is the Alien God, who
cannot be named but only hinted at by terms such as The Profundity,
The Abyss, The Silence, etc. Again, as Catawumpus has pointed out -
especially in debating with atheists in this group maybe a year or so
ago - "No-Thingness" is part of this deity's attributes. You can't ask
for a less wordly category than that.
- sl - |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
shriven leper
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 4:22 am Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 14:49:22 -0700 (PDT), Heideana
<heideana@pacbell.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Jun 28, 2:15 pm, shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net> wrote:
|
snipped
| Quote: | C-wumpus or SL, could talk more about the problematic of evil and free-
choice vs. "fated" predeterminism and inability of the good to ever
make a choice of evil? When all of the good and evil are separated at
the end-of-time, I'm assuming that all of fragments of the "suffering
Christ" will have had enough time on the Karma Wheel here in the world
to decide if the want to choose the Transcedental God's path or not.
That's the only solution I see to the problematic? Any insight
greatly appreciated...Hopkins
I'm not much of a philosopher, and I'm sure Catawumpus can reply to
your Gnostic-related questions far better than I. However, I do agree
that choosing the Alien God is the only choice, since compromise with
the "creator's" universe equates to a kind of groveling capitulation.
As Catawumpus has said many times, just as Gnosticism is unassimilable
by creation-creator-loving systems, so too is the Alien God, who
cannot be named but only hinted at by terms such as The Profundity,
The Abyss, The Silence, etc. Again, as Catawumpus has pointed out -
especially in debating with atheists in this group maybe a year or so
ago - "No-Thingness" is part of this deity's attributes. You can't ask
for a less wordly category than that.
- sl -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
What I hear you describing is Levinas' notion of the other and primacy
of the ethical relation as the basis of everything else. Kinda if I
don't you to share language with, then I don't have anything and can't
exist....I require conversation with the other to have any
understanding of "things" in the world. In truth, the other is
completely alien and can never be understood completely...
|
I'm not philosophically informed enough to have encountered the
ethical theories you mention... I was just thinking of "the Alien
God" as "alien" to this universe. I agree that such an entity "can
never be _understood_ completely" - but nonetheless can be _known_
spiritually - if not intellectually. In fact, that's one of
Gnosticism's claims - that we can know our spiritual selves and know
the Gnostic True Father. Spiritually, not just intellectually.
| Quote: | only in some
damaged way where "things" show-up in the "clearing" for us, but its'
only thru my ethical relation with the 'Other" that "clearing" even
exists.....thanks! This is very interesting and I need to set with it
for awhile. Blanchot also writes about the difficulty of talking to
the "other"....
The english translation of "Otherwise than being or beyond essence" is
atrocies, but what you say resonants with his major work. Curiously,
he can't be really used for any new age stuff...his major criticism of
Heidegger was that he believed in pantheism or nature worship.
|
Thanks for the info - it's all new to me...
| Quote: | Something in me feels that we need to understand gnosticism if we want
to understand and intergrate ourselves fullly into the Western
Traditions hard wired into us by our "mother tongue"..
|
Well, I can see wanting to integrate ourselves into the Western
Traditions, as a matter of being historically informed. However,
Gnosticism's "unassimilability" makes it per se unintegratable into
most Western systems I know of. Catawumpus may have some more
detailed thinking on this.
| Quote: | .its' nice to
read about and understand eastern thought, buddhism, etc...but you
can't truly understand the eastern tradition unless you were born into
it thru your "mothers' tongue".
|
Ummm... not sure I agree with that. I think that learning new
religious modes is like learning new languages. It can, with varying
degrees of difficulty, be done. However, the real proof is in the
practice.
Once you have learned Gnosticism from the inside via the chants,
prayers, meditations, etc., mentioned by Pagels in The Gnostic
Gospels, then you might just experience, first-hand, Gnosticism's
essence. Ditto the Buddhist traditions: after you've read their
scriptures, you perform the practices and in so doing, hopefully
experience the spiritual realities claimed in those scriptures. So I
think it goes beyond "learning a new language" - it gets into
immersing one's self in the spiritual modes offered by a particular
tradition.
| Quote: | That is what made me realize that I
really needed to learn about the western traditions rather then new
age pantheism...or something like that...Tee-hee!
|
There's value in the Western stuff, particularly the mystical-union
claims of people like Meister Eckhart...
- sl - |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
shriven leper
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 7:14 am Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 18:35:16 -0700 (PDT), Heideana
<heideana@pacbell.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Jun 28, 4:22 pm, shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 14:49:22 -0700 (PDT), Heideana
heide...@pacbell.net> wrote:
On Jun 28, 2:15 pm, shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net> wrote:
snipped
I'm not philosophically informed enough to have encountered the
ethical theories you mention... I was just thinking of "the Alien
God" as "alien" to this universe. I agree that such an entity "can
never be _understood_ completely" - but nonetheless can be _known_
spiritually - if not intellectually. In fact, that's one of
Gnosticism's claims - that we can know our spiritual selves and know
the Gnostic True Father. Spiritually, not just intellectually.
I think we're on the same page, its' the problem with the density of
language...the "Other" can never be "known", but can be understood
spirtually where spirituality is making sense of the world and giving
it meaning, i.e. connecting with the transcendent God and
understanding the duality that this god is not the same as the
"creator god". Its' the process of understanding that gives you
access to the "other" thru language or something like that...It really
resonanted with me when you mentioned "the Alien God" and got me
excited!
|
Glad to hear it... yeah, language density is one of the problems, esp.
in religion talk...
| Quote: | snipped text
Something in me feels that we need to understand gnosticism if we want
to understand and intergrate ourselves fullly into the Western
Traditions hard wired into us by our "mother tongue"..
Well, I can see wanting to integrate ourselves into the Western
Traditions, as a matter of being historically informed. However,
Gnosticism's "unassimilability" makes it per se unintegratable into
most Western systems I know of. Catawumpus may have some more
detailed thinking on this.
I'm sensing that gnosticism is very much a part of the western
tradition's roots, along with Greek thought and hope Catawampus replys
|
It certainly seemed to motivate Marcion, whose collection-editing of
scripture is said to have pressed the church to finalize its canon.
| Quote: | In some way it would seem that orthodox Christianity is a product of
gnosticism (primarily jewish and christian gnosticism,
|
I don't know to what extent ortho Xty was a Gnostic product, but it
seems to at least be a reaction to Gnosticism - look how it treated
Gnostics, Marcion included. One poster to this group who hasn't been
active lately, Klaus Schilling, maintained that the original Jesus was
a Gnostic spirit docetically projected into the earthly plane.
I suppose that is one way that Xty could be viewed as a Gnostic
product: maybe it was a spinoff, along with other systems - a reaction
to the docetic Christ. However, early on, according to Schilling, it
divested itself of its otherworldly garments and falsely began to
identify itself with the "this-worldly" claims of Judaic religion. It
sought to find its roots not in experience of the Gnostic Jesus, but
in "the teachings of (Jewish-hylic) men," exemplified by the
Apostles...
| Quote: | but the other
schools seem to have a pretty stong voice too) and Platonism. I think
what I'm getting at is that all of this early stuff is embedded in our
western languages in a way that can only be totally understood if
you're mother tongue is one of them. That's not to say you can get a
very good understanding and come close if you study Eastern philosophy
and learn one of the Eastern mother tongues...its' just that I don't
think you'd have the same understanding as someone born into that
cultural.
|
I see now what you mean.
| Quote: | .its' nice to
read about and understand eastern thought, buddhism, etc...but you
can't truly understand the eastern tradition unless you were born into
it thru your "mothers' tongue".
Ummm... not sure I agree with that. I think that learning new
religious modes is like learning new languages. It can, with varying
degrees of difficulty, be done. However, the real proof is in the
practice.
Agreed about the real truth being in the practices...it turns out that
Heidegger was quite informed about Eastern thought and the similarity
to some our Western mysticism, etc....however he would never write
about it because of his feelings about being born into a mother
tongue, etc..., despite lots of requests as I recall.
Once you have learned Gnosticism from the inside via the chants,
prayers, meditations, etc., mentioned by Pagels in The Gnostic
Gospels, then you might just experience, first-hand, Gnosticism's
essence. Ditto the Buddhist traditions: after you've read their
scriptures, you perform the practices and in so doing, hopefully
experience the spiritual realities claimed in those scriptures. So I
think it goes beyond "learning a new language" - it gets into
immersing one's self in the spiritual modes offered by a particular
tradition.
Agreed, I probably forgot to mention that "language" is what makes up
the "world", or at least our perception of it in most post-modern
thought...a big Heidegger thread. You can't talk, describe, think, or
have anything without language. Levinas's point is that you can't
have language without another person to converse with, which is what
makes the ethical relation primary to him. Sort of you got to take
care of the other if you want to maintain the "world"..then it gets
murky. I'm also am probably thinking about the "western" traditions
as being philosophical thought..sorry if I confused you....
|
That's okay, I'm usually confused anyway...
| Quote: | As an aside, is there some controls folks are using to indicate
snipped text and hiding quoted text?
Best...Hopkins
|
There must be, but I'm as ignorant of computering as I am of
philosophy. Maybe Cat would have the kindness to inform us.
- sl - |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 12:46 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
Heideana <heideana@pacbell.net>:
| Quote: | C-wumpus or SL, could talk more about the problematic of evil and free-
choice vs. "fated" predeterminism and inability of the good to ever
make a choice of evil? When all of the good and evil are separated at
the end-of-time, I'm assuming that all of fragments of the "suffering
Christ" will have had enough time on the Karma Wheel here in the world
to decide if the want to choose the Transcedental God's path or not.
That's the only solution I see to the problematic? Any insight
greatly appreciated...Hopkins
|
I'd be glad to talk about it, but some clarification could
be helpful. Maybe if we narrowed things down, for the time
being, to one particular form of gnosticism. Are you thinking
about a specific mythology? Hard to deal with all the
complexities at once. For now I'll say this: rather than evil
and free-will vs. predestination, try providence vs.
imprisonment and liberation vs. _heimarmene_, meaning fate, the
rule of the cosmic powers.
-- C-Wump |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 12:49 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
zen gnostic <borgersbrent@yahoo.com>:
| Quote: | him. The "demiurge" is not only out in the world but inside our selves
as well. For true gnosis this part of us must be explored. (ie dealt
|
You've misrepresented the gnostics and gnosticism so often
and so glaringly it's obvious you're in no position to
pontificate about "true gnosis," as your comments below confirm.
| Quote: | with). Of course this then destroys the illusion of two gods.
|
Gnosis is in part the knowledge of two gods: that is, the
recognition the Creator's claim to be the only god is a
falsehood and the awareness of a god above him. As Pagels puts
it, "What gnostics know is that the creator makes false
claims to power ('I am God, and there is no other') that derive
from his own ignorance." _Gnostic Gospels_ 37. You say
you're in agreement with Pagels and the Valentinians (the folks
she's referring to), but your beliefs are opposed to the
Valentinians' as they're described in the sources and in Pagels'
summary.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 1:04 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
shriven leper <bastasch8647@comcast.net>:
| Quote: | I was just thinking of "the Alien
God" as "alien" to this universe. I agree that such an entity "can
never be _understood_ completely" - but nonetheless can be _known_
spiritually - if not intellectually. In fact, that's one of
Gnosticism's claims - that we can know our spiritual selves and know
the Gnostic True Father. Spiritually, not just intellectually.
|
Heideana <heideana@pacbell.net>:
| Quote: | What I hear you describing is Levinas' notion of the other and primacy
of the ethical relation as the basis of everything else. Kinda if I
don't you to share language with, then I don't have anything and can't
exist....I require conversation with the other to have any
understanding of "things" in the world. In truth, the other is
completely alien and can never be understood completely...
|
I never got far enough with Levinas to find out how far he
goes with otherness, but the thought was around before
becoming a cliche of post-modernism. Barth, for example, talks
about a radically other God. Or he tries to. Nice enough
idea, but he's referring to the same old same old one, Mr. I Am
That I Am.
In gnosticism, as Shriven is explaining, the idea is taken
much more seriously. The otherness of God lies in his
relationship with the cosmos as a whole; in Leper's words, he's
alien to the universe. The "alien God" is first of all a
reference to Marcion's deity, but the phrase applies to gnostic
theology in general.
Of course there's an epistemological aspect: God can't be
adequately described or categorized. Since he radically
transcends the world, he can't be captured in its understanding.
But just as importantly he isn't the God of this world.
Unlike certain other forms of negative theology which deify the
Creator, gnosticism puts the divine in opposition to the
cosmos. In Marcion's terms, the God of Creation is not the God
of Salvation.
Apologies in advance if I'm telling you things you already
know.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 1:08 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
zen gnostic <borgersbrent@yahoo.com>:
| Quote: | You may want to try this link. http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/sitemap.html
|
Very bad advice. Maybe intentionally bad advice. Instead
of linking to the primary sources on Valentinus and his
followers, ZG's URL goes to the highly unreliable set of essays
about them he quoted before, articles that are directly
contradicted by the historical evidence. The author, a certain
David Brons, falsely contends Jesus' body is never an
apparition to the Valentinians, wrongly says that "the demiurge
certainly could not be considered evil," etc. Gnosis.org
_does_ have alot of useful stuff on-line, including most of the
Nag Hammadi texts (both gnostic and otherwise), some
miscellaneous gnostic writings, and info on gnosticism from the
Fathers, all of which ZG ignored.
| Quote: | If you want pagan gnosticism without duality though Catawumpus is your
guy.
|
More misinformation from ZG. He might have been sincerely
confused when he first arrived here but by now he's simply
lying. Instead of "pagan gnosticism without duality," I filled
him in on the dualities in Christian gnosticism -- the
Valentinian perspective, in specific -- for example God vs. the
demiurge, incorruptibility versus corruption, the divine realm
vs. the demiurge's Creation, spirit vs. matter, eternity
versus time, infinity vs. finitude, and reality versus illusion.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 1:15 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
Heideana <heideana@pacbell.net>:
| Quote: | I'm sensing that gnosticism is very much a part of the western
tradition's roots, along with Greek thought and hope Catawampus replys
|
I have to disagree with you there. Seems to me gnosticism
runs directly counter to the basics of Western thinking.
Consider the gnostics' relation to Greek philosophy: inversion
of values. Even Socrates, who views life in this world
critically, teaches faith in its gods and in the justice of the
cosmos. So if the Greeks put down the roots of Western
culture then the gnostics tried to pull them up, much like "the
Other," Elisha ben Abuya, the dissenting Jewish sage who's
said in the Talmud to have "mutilated the shoots," i.e., ripped
up the roots of tradition.
| Quote: | In some way it would seem that orthodox Christianity is a product of
gnosticism (primarily jewish and christian gnosticism, but the other
schools seem to have a pretty stong voice too) and Platonism.
|
The idea that Christian orthodoxy defined itself partly in
reply to gnosticism is reasonable. Not sure what you mean
when you call it a product of gnosticism, since the two of them
are antithetical. You mean it developed as a heresy of the
original gnostic Christianity, or are you saying something else
here?
| Quote: | As an aside, is there some controls folks are using to indicate
snipped text and hiding quoted text?
|
That's Google's screwed-up idea of what Usenet is supposed
to look like. They've done a good thing by saving the old
DejaNews archive and keeping it freely available, but what they
did _to_ the place isn't helpful. If you have standard
internet access, I'd suggest dumping GoogleGroups and switching
to a newsreader (frex Free Agent for Windows or one of the
Newswatcher family for the Mac) rather than working through the
web.* If you're stuck with Google I can't offer you much
advice, since I only go there for searches, not for reading and
posting.
*Those are free programs, so don't worry about what they'd
cost you.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 1:18 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
Heideana <heideana@pacbell.net>:
| Quote: | Something in me feels that we need to understand gnosticism if we want
to understand and intergrate ourselves fullly into the Western
Traditions hard wired into us by our "mother tongue"..
|
shriven leper <bastasch8647@comcast.net>:
| Quote: | Well, I can see wanting to integrate ourselves into the Western
Traditions, as a matter of being historically informed. However,
Gnosticism's "unassimilability" makes it per se unintegratable into
most Western systems I know of. Catawumpus may have some more
detailed thinking on this.
|
There's some later things in the same line: Manichaeanism
followed by the Paulicians, Bogomils, and Cathars (not to
mention the Frankists), but to me that's all the same tradition.
Heckler: "It all sounds the same!" Neil Young: "It's all
one song!" (_Year of the Horse_.) There are also some obvious
points of comparison (truth vs. reality in Plato and in
Nietzsche, world-rejection in Schopenhauer, alienation anywhere
you look, frex Heidegger), but nothing that occurs to me is
compatible on the whole -- definitely not the philosophies I've
listed.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 1:22 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
shriven leper <bastasch8647@comcast.net>:
| Quote: | Gnosticism's unassimilability is one of its primary
features. It indeed represents "a raft from the other shore"... to
borrow a Buddhistic, but hopefully not a New Agey, phrase...
|
How about "the news from nowhere"? The title of a William
Morris novel I've never read.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
