Re: [Mind's Eye] Re: Given that it is almost impossible to be an individual

Care to elucidate?

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 5:20 AM, leerevdouglas@googlemail.com <lee@rdfmedia.com> wrote:

Heh a belife?  Unsubstanciated at that?

On Apr 26, 8:47 pm, Chuck Bowling <aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com>
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 <ashkas...@gmail.com> 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 -