Perhaps thoughts aren't real then...;-)... same for love etc.
On Apr 26, 12:47 pm, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> wrote: > To be honest, I really don't want to scan more. I'm not all that interested > in gnosis. I have read enough to convince me that it is a spiritual or > mystical perspective on the universe. While I don't reject the idea that > there are things we don't understand I lean towards a less esoteric view of > the world. > > If ya can't see, feel, touch, taste, or smell it then it ain't real. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > > Do a little more scanning, you should find gnosis and many other > > 'spiritual' oriented paths veer far off course with theism in many ways. > > Ontological reductions toward archetypal figures aren't necessary (gods), > > interestingly I've found the newer pagan paths to be the most advanced and > > flexible. In both, /you/ choose, they seem to be acquainted with the notion > > of many schools, then there's life. Kinda like Taoism's syncretism in that > > respect I guess. You could speak with any of these for hours and know they > > are talking about the sciences but seeking hermetic constructions in all > > angles, with no mention necessary of 'fantastic' stories. I think the term > > is 'eclectic pagan'. That is, for /some/, of course..
