Care to elucidate? On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 5:20 AM, [email protected] < [email protected]> wrote:
> Heh a belife? Unsubstanciated at that? > > On Apr 26, 8:47 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..- Hide quoted text > - > > > > - Show quoted text -
