Original post: pae
Seeing in the light of a clear focus, active use of a mind in gnosis, activating the mind in satori, waking up with angels, finding the dome in which the dwarves build objects and play in personal gem assembly.
Where is the integration between all these things, I wonder?
Why is it that we have countless divisions, of what can be seen as similar experiences, preserved differently,
some even fight to keep certain experiences separate.
The idea that i see not so many traces of, is the one that connects all other ideas.
What i do not see is the active use of finding out what others are saying by using the same mind that allows for a personal gnostic experience.
A mind using its inward gnosis in an outward sense, being able to see more clear: the experience that is beyond the words that the other person is using.
the experience which is the experience of the other person
what they are experiencing when they are writing.
Seeing what another's words are, really is improbable,
but imagine moving into their mind as you would move into your own,
communing with angels in order to better commune with the writers intentions
using the same light with which you would see personal revelation and insight.
using that dimension outward, with another human being. imagine that
the lower self seems to solidify and stay in a world that is not the same as the one that holds mystical power, and imagination.
if we were to breech that barrier of self, what could happen?
The gnostic experience, satori, kensho, experience of the elves, angels, exists in such a myriad of ways, my proposal is that we are all expressing it, all the time, in some relative frequency, in some relative amount of its clarity.
it is that experience that another is expressing, that we can reach out and touch, explore, and in some way grasp, with our own mind,
the mind that we are familiar with in our own experience of the divine.
As we view the active world in its way of confusion, it is ingrained in us to accept it as we have seen it in the past, and continue to interact with it according to our fixed, solid way of seeing.
we share our own desires and self centered perspectives.
we tend to remain in line with everyone else and what they are saying:
we use far distant voices, repeating the lack of useful information, and lacking a genuine grounding for the information and experiences that are shared.. all the while doing so in a seemlingly small way to try and find a way to "relate"
and this in turn causes most of what we say to stand as a relic of how completely nuts we all are...
we manage to get along, in this sense ... somehow
imagine tracing others lines back to their sources, with the same feelings you use for your own personal insight, and seeing where each individual expression lies in connection with you and what you can say with them.
it could be right speech in finest form, it would seem.
Cross eyed, cross minded, in satori, gnostic meditation, among angels, demons, fairies and dwarves and elves,
all a similar part of our higher mind which is beyond what we tend to keep as our "own", rational, mindedness.
our whole mind can see with all perspectives,
our higher mind is able to see beyond others words.
thus making for all that can be experienced, as one, simple experience that can cause synergies across time and space, and dances with a different view another person may express.
it's clear to know where it all lies, when we sacrifice what we want,
when we sacrifice our own desires for truth, divine communion, pure healing and learning, when we use the type of understanding that literally moves with us, where ever we are, and where ever we go, it is clear.
what do the others experience in their perspective which they are giving? what is it that is similar to you own truth, and the truth that you have experienced, that they are expressing?
intelligence and imagination appear to be the distant similar sources where these similar experiences of the angels, the dwarves, active gnosis and satori all reside.
in a non seperate way we can say "intelligence" and "imagination", are direct lines to the source which could be referred to as god.
and in using that god sense we can better understand what it is that the other is saying, although perhaps not in line with what the lower, more solid self would usually be hearing, learning, experiencing.
When we are not completely scrambled.
When we are at the core of who we are.
When we see with awe, amazement, awareness, nontriviality, and clarity,
We shall see wholy similar things.
And as self determined human beings, we shall call that experience whatever we wish...
and the proceed to argue it in basic terms, until the end of time
Satori, Gnosticism, Angels, Dwarves and Using The Whole of Your Mind.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Satori, Gnosticism, Angels, Dwarves and Using The Whole of Your Mind.
Original post: pmcv
Hey Pae
Well, I do agree that it is important to recognize common meaning and experience (thought the word "Gnosis" does not technically refer to an experience). I think after so many years of a religious paradigm that was so heavily rooted in declaring its dogma as an absolute, people have reacted against it with a desire to look for common ground.
On the other hand, that can swing overly far in the other direction so as to become equally disrespectful of the very movements it tries to include. We can wind up glossing, burying, or trying to outright destroy the differences that do exist.
Many people don't realize this, but post modern ecclecticism has been nearly as terrible and damaging for Native culture as was direct assult by malevolent expansionists. There is truth to the saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".
Of course, the question that is really important in this forum is just what we mean when we do try to communicate using the word "Gnosis", and we have already had a whole thread dealing with that. I think we found, to everyone's agreement, that there were both imporant similarities in some usages as well as important differences. This middle ground should not disturb us, in my view, but instead helps us realize an even deeper and more subtle communication that includes common ground with important destinctions.
My 2 pennies anyway.
PMCV
Hey Pae
Well, I do agree that it is important to recognize common meaning and experience (thought the word "Gnosis" does not technically refer to an experience). I think after so many years of a religious paradigm that was so heavily rooted in declaring its dogma as an absolute, people have reacted against it with a desire to look for common ground.
On the other hand, that can swing overly far in the other direction so as to become equally disrespectful of the very movements it tries to include. We can wind up glossing, burying, or trying to outright destroy the differences that do exist.
Many people don't realize this, but post modern ecclecticism has been nearly as terrible and damaging for Native culture as was direct assult by malevolent expansionists. There is truth to the saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".
Of course, the question that is really important in this forum is just what we mean when we do try to communicate using the word "Gnosis", and we have already had a whole thread dealing with that. I think we found, to everyone's agreement, that there were both imporant similarities in some usages as well as important differences. This middle ground should not disturb us, in my view, but instead helps us realize an even deeper and more subtle communication that includes common ground with important destinctions.
My 2 pennies anyway.
PMCV
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Satori, Gnosticism, Angels, Dwarves and Using The Whole of Your Mind.
Original post: pae
when you scrap everything until the esssence of the apex of an experience which triggers the language to define it,
you get the same experience that everyone else has had since the beginning of.. what remains to be defined.
some words are more unclaimed and less confused than others.
and it is in them perhaps that a true hint of a true secret of an experience can lie
an attempt to define an experience that one has not had, defining an experience before it has occured within your own being, is potentially toxic to the surrounding envoirnment in terms of how human beings carry language.
in going beforehand, and coming back to see what reflects the genuine experience you've had, you can better refine what more closely resembles the truth that you carry.
aside from that, words are almost as simply defined as what makes you crazy, until you've got a grip on what's beyond them.
when you scrap everything until the esssence of the apex of an experience which triggers the language to define it,
you get the same experience that everyone else has had since the beginning of.. what remains to be defined.
some words are more unclaimed and less confused than others.
and it is in them perhaps that a true hint of a true secret of an experience can lie
an attempt to define an experience that one has not had, defining an experience before it has occured within your own being, is potentially toxic to the surrounding envoirnment in terms of how human beings carry language.
in going beforehand, and coming back to see what reflects the genuine experience you've had, you can better refine what more closely resembles the truth that you carry.
aside from that, words are almost as simply defined as what makes you crazy, until you've got a grip on what's beyond them.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Satori, Gnosticism, Angels, Dwarves and Using The Whole of Your Mind.
Original post: pmcv
Pae
You know, this is ground we already talked about in here. I think you should at least read the other thread before you go on. I have no problem dealing with it all again, but if you wish to I would suggest taking it over to the other thread because it is not nice to have many threads dealing with the same subject in a single forum.
PMCV
Pae
Ah, if only it were that simple. Words have come to be used to mean absolutely different things to different people. For instance, the word "Gnosis" does not mean the same thing in the traditional context as it may to you (and to make it mean "satori" is pretty questionable if you are talking about Gnosis in that conttext... so your meaning of Gnosis may be absolutely unrelated to the one used in this forum). This means that what we communicate with such a word may not always have anything to do with what we mean to communicate.
aside from that, words are almost as simply defined as what makes you crazy, until you've got a grip on what's beyond them.
You know, this is ground we already talked about in here. I think you should at least read the other thread before you go on. I have no problem dealing with it all again, but if you wish to I would suggest taking it over to the other thread because it is not nice to have many threads dealing with the same subject in a single forum.
PMCV
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Satori, Gnosticism, Angels, Dwarves and Using The Whole of Your Mind.
Original post: pae
it really is that simple,
and satori and gnosis do mean the same thing!
their root meaning is similar in the sense that it is a similar experience of god
haven't you remembered yet?
or have you yet to find the angel, demons, dwarves, fairies or elves, to help integrate the word similarities and help you understand the experiences that for which these words only stand as dim reflections.
defining a word beyond its useful limits takes away what we can have with a word without the intellectually accumulated baggage.
although the traditional lore of a sect of religion can be "interesting", it will only be the small parts and aspects of which the religion speaks that will generally enable one to have an experience.
... and as i believe i have stated before, it will only be after the experience when one can reflect on the word and see where the true meaning of its definition truly resides.
aside from that, words are almost as simply defined as what makes you crazy, until you've got a grip on what's beyond them.Ah, if only it were that simple.
it really is that simple,
and satori and gnosis do mean the same thing!
their root meaning is similar in the sense that it is a similar experience of god
haven't you remembered yet?
or have you yet to find the angel, demons, dwarves, fairies or elves, to help integrate the word similarities and help you understand the experiences that for which these words only stand as dim reflections.
defining a word beyond its useful limits takes away what we can have with a word without the intellectually accumulated baggage.
although the traditional lore of a sect of religion can be "interesting", it will only be the small parts and aspects of which the religion speaks that will generally enable one to have an experience.
... and as i believe i have stated before, it will only be after the experience when one can reflect on the word and see where the true meaning of its definition truly resides.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Satori, Gnosticism, Angels, Dwarves and Using The Whole of Your Mind.
Original post: pmcv
Pae
Correction, Pae, they mean the same thing to YOU. Words are subject to context and usage, and are often defined differently for different people. Imagine I use the word "Bacon" to mean what you call "Gnosis" and the word "Gnosis" to mean what you call "Bacon". My word "Bacon" would then be what you call "Satori", and my word "Gnosis" would have absolutely nothing to do with what you call "Satori".
Your usage of the term "Gnosis" to mean "satori" is fine for you, but the word is not the thing it represents, and since we are in a forum that deals with traditional Gnosticism it is also valid for me to point out that in this context the word "Gnosis" may be a little different from your usage.
except for one problem, the root of the word "Gnosis" does not refer to any kind of experience of God. This kind of puts a damper on the notion that their root refers to a similar experience of God.
Understand, your usage of the word "Gnosis" is simply different from the meaning that is used in traditional Gnosticism. For you to imply that your meaning of the word is the only valid one, and that traditional meaning is wrong would not be very friendly in a forum dealing with traditional Gnosticism
PMCV
Pae
and satori and gnosis do mean the same thing!
Correction, Pae, they mean the same thing to YOU. Words are subject to context and usage, and are often defined differently for different people. Imagine I use the word "Bacon" to mean what you call "Gnosis" and the word "Gnosis" to mean what you call "Bacon". My word "Bacon" would then be what you call "Satori", and my word "Gnosis" would have absolutely nothing to do with what you call "Satori".
Your usage of the term "Gnosis" to mean "satori" is fine for you, but the word is not the thing it represents, and since we are in a forum that deals with traditional Gnosticism it is also valid for me to point out that in this context the word "Gnosis" may be a little different from your usage.
their root meaning is similar in the sense that it is a similar experience of god
except for one problem, the root of the word "Gnosis" does not refer to any kind of experience of God. This kind of puts a damper on the notion that their root refers to a similar experience of God.
Understand, your usage of the word "Gnosis" is simply different from the meaning that is used in traditional Gnosticism. For you to imply that your meaning of the word is the only valid one, and that traditional meaning is wrong would not be very friendly in a forum dealing with traditional Gnosticism
PMCV
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Satori, Gnosticism, Angels, Dwarves and Using The Whole of Your Mind.
Original post: pae
there may be no clear parameters of any experience of god, or higher mind,
but some words lie cheerfully close,
simple in beauty that they hold as a tiny word.
using creative words together may create harmony that encourages intriging discussion.
its the experiences in the words that we can potentially see and share more of, which is interesting to me
im not looking for a battle over a word
it could be said that what anyone suggests even on intellectual gounds without the experience, is misleading.
i ask that you discuss the experience.
my standpoint will remain, and what i wish for discussion here, is the experience of how all these things are one experience.
the realtionship of these ideas lay in the view that can be assimilated in order to get a better idea of the experience that one has already had.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism
and respond in relevance to what im wishing to discuss here, or not respond at all.
there may be no clear parameters of any experience of god, or higher mind,
but some words lie cheerfully close,
simple in beauty that they hold as a tiny word.
using creative words together may create harmony that encourages intriging discussion.
its the experiences in the words that we can potentially see and share more of, which is interesting to me
im not looking for a battle over a word
it could be said that what anyone suggests even on intellectual gounds without the experience, is misleading.
i ask that you discuss the experience.
my standpoint will remain, and what i wish for discussion here, is the experience of how all these things are one experience.
the realtionship of these ideas lay in the view that can be assimilated in order to get a better idea of the experience that one has already had.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism
Among the gnostics, gnosis was the privileged "knowledge of the heart" or "insight" about the spiritual nature of the cosmos...
some think Gnosticism is fundamentally pagan in origin...
i ask that you attempt to see this thread in a different lightThe word Gnosis is Greek for "knowledge"...but not any kind of knowledge: Gnosis is knowledge of the divine. In the East, divine knowing is called God-consciousness, Bliss, "Moksha"â??or enlightenment. In the West, ... itâ??s been called many things: Silent Intoxication, Cosmic Consciousness, Godsight. ... Walt Whitman called it the "Body Electric," ... When Plato spoke of Socrates, he called it the "Rapt." Plato wrote that Socrates would stand for hours, even days, in silent awe-struck Rapture.
Jesus himself called it "The Kingdom of God."
and respond in relevance to what im wishing to discuss here, or not respond at all.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Satori, Gnosticism, Angels, Dwarves and Using The Whole of Your Mind.
Original post: edparadise
Pardon me, cause I'm just an old ex-philosopher.
But - in relevance to what we are discussing here - "unity" theory is boring as all get-out. I mean, really? It's all one experience? If it is, then I don't even know why you are bothering to post - since posting and your first birthday and your last crap and what you'll eat on Tuesday are all part of the same glorious mishmash, what can what you say, here, to respond to this or that be in any way important? I mean - there's a totality of reality, there, man!
But, in all seriousness, I'd have to disagree with what I would guess is the fundamental issue of your original post: the idea that "writing" is somehow fundamentally impossible to interpret but that learning to "experience" what another mind went through in order to "write" what that "writing" was will somehow make that interpretation go away.
First of all, I think this theory mashes up against a huge complexity problem. You think parsing a sentence is impossible, but you figure you can get two systems so complex that modern computers still have trouble modeling them correctly to somehow match-up over an effect, and not a cause?
But secondly, and more importantly, I think you have the values that you've assigned to the problem backwards. Language presents difficulties, but the "insurmountable-ness" of those kinds of difficulties is just post-modern pseudo-solipsistic whining, and everyone needs to get over it. This is the facts, people: language is the best thing we've invented so far for doing the job that language has to do.
My advice: learn how to read. Then you don't have to worry about learning how to read the mind of the writer in order to figure out what he said.
-ep
Pardon me, cause I'm just an old ex-philosopher.
But - in relevance to what we are discussing here - "unity" theory is boring as all get-out. I mean, really? It's all one experience? If it is, then I don't even know why you are bothering to post - since posting and your first birthday and your last crap and what you'll eat on Tuesday are all part of the same glorious mishmash, what can what you say, here, to respond to this or that be in any way important? I mean - there's a totality of reality, there, man!
But, in all seriousness, I'd have to disagree with what I would guess is the fundamental issue of your original post: the idea that "writing" is somehow fundamentally impossible to interpret but that learning to "experience" what another mind went through in order to "write" what that "writing" was will somehow make that interpretation go away.
First of all, I think this theory mashes up against a huge complexity problem. You think parsing a sentence is impossible, but you figure you can get two systems so complex that modern computers still have trouble modeling them correctly to somehow match-up over an effect, and not a cause?
But secondly, and more importantly, I think you have the values that you've assigned to the problem backwards. Language presents difficulties, but the "insurmountable-ness" of those kinds of difficulties is just post-modern pseudo-solipsistic whining, and everyone needs to get over it. This is the facts, people: language is the best thing we've invented so far for doing the job that language has to do.
My advice: learn how to read. Then you don't have to worry about learning how to read the mind of the writer in order to figure out what he said.
-ep
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Satori, Gnosticism, Angels, Dwarves and Using The Whole of Your Mind.
Original post: pmcv
Hey Pae
I don't mind discussing experience at all. So, which "experience" do you want to talk about? I thought you wanted to talk about Gnosis, but Gnosis in the traditional Gnostic model isn't exactly an experience (the wikipedia URLs are giving you some false info concerning traditional Gnosticism)
Let me point out, this IS a forum that deals with traditional Gnosticism, so while I am up for dealing with experience we do need to keep it on topic..... and talk about that experience in such a way that it relates to the focus of the forum.
You are talking about connecting to angels and the like, so it seems to me that instead of talking about Gnosis you may be talking about something you wish to compare to connecting to the syzygy. So, did you wish to talk about that rather than Gnosis? If so, let me know and it could be an interesting topic.
PMCV
Hey Pae
it could be said that what anyone suggests even on intellectual gounds without the experience, is misleading.
i ask that you discuss the experience.
I don't mind discussing experience at all. So, which "experience" do you want to talk about? I thought you wanted to talk about Gnosis, but Gnosis in the traditional Gnostic model isn't exactly an experience (the wikipedia URLs are giving you some false info concerning traditional Gnosticism)
Let me point out, this IS a forum that deals with traditional Gnosticism, so while I am up for dealing with experience we do need to keep it on topic..... and talk about that experience in such a way that it relates to the focus of the forum.
You are talking about connecting to angels and the like, so it seems to me that instead of talking about Gnosis you may be talking about something you wish to compare to connecting to the syzygy. So, did you wish to talk about that rather than Gnosis? If so, let me know and it could be an interesting topic.
PMCV
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Satori, Gnosticism, Angels, Dwarves and Using The Whole of Your Mind.
Original post: pae
it is my experience that gnosis is :completely: associated with the experience of angels.
it is my experience that everything i have ever read referring to gnosis in the sense that i am referring to, has been completely on the money in their reference.
it is my experience that any so called "traditional" sense of any experience is completely irrelevant, seeing as it is the present experience of a higher mind which is critical for its understanding.
it is my experience as i have stated before, that reflection and intellectual exploration of any historical tradition can be :interesting:, but does not give you an expericence unless you explore it with the higher mind that is the mind that i am referring to as an experience of gnosis
i am not removing or disassociating the more detailed aspects of how gnosticism exists and has existed, but it is the experience of the divine referrered to as gnosis that i am suggesting for intriging discussion here.
if you have another version of how gnosis can be defined, you may as well accept what i am presenting and what other sources have presented, as an alternative, acceptable, and equally true definition. In that acceptance you might find useful communication with others who also adhere to what you are seeing as the incorrect definition.
if you don't want to hear my words, and you dont want to engage in or witness conversation in what i am willing to talk about, then please delete this post, and ill respect and explore your views of traditional gnosticism, here in this forum.
it is my experience that gnosis is :completely: associated with the experience of angels.
it is my experience that everything i have ever read referring to gnosis in the sense that i am referring to, has been completely on the money in their reference.
it is my experience that any so called "traditional" sense of any experience is completely irrelevant, seeing as it is the present experience of a higher mind which is critical for its understanding.
it is my experience as i have stated before, that reflection and intellectual exploration of any historical tradition can be :interesting:, but does not give you an expericence unless you explore it with the higher mind that is the mind that i am referring to as an experience of gnosis
i am not removing or disassociating the more detailed aspects of how gnosticism exists and has existed, but it is the experience of the divine referrered to as gnosis that i am suggesting for intriging discussion here.
if you have another version of how gnosis can be defined, you may as well accept what i am presenting and what other sources have presented, as an alternative, acceptable, and equally true definition. In that acceptance you might find useful communication with others who also adhere to what you are seeing as the incorrect definition.
if you don't want to hear my words, and you dont want to engage in or witness conversation in what i am willing to talk about, then please delete this post, and ill respect and explore your views of traditional gnosticism, here in this forum.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Satori, Gnosticism, Angels, Dwarves and Using The Whole of Your Mind.
Original post: pmcv
Pae
>>"it is my experience that gnosis is :completely: associated with the experience of angels.
it is my experience that everything i have ever read referring to gnosis in the sense that i am referring to, has been completely on the money in their reference."<<<
Sure, they may well be on the money within their own references, but you pointed out yourself that there are other references in which a word may have a different meaning. We can only communicate if we are using the same meaning. For all you know, I could use the word "gnosis" to talk about riding a bike, right? Just because we use the same word does not mean we are talking about the same thing. Let me explain a little better after your next point.
Absolutely, Pae, you are welcome to use the word "Gnosis" to talk about whatever you wish it to be. I never said this is wrong, and I do fully accept that your version is valid in it's own context. I am absolutely willing to talk about what you call "gnosis", but I think it is also valid to expect you to try to understand what the Gnostics call "Gnosis". Isn't it helpful if you know the lingo of the people you are communicating with? If you as a single person use a definition that is different from the larger community that you are talking to, is it really communicating your point to them? Imagine we were talking about the Gnostic "Sophia" and a person came in talking about Sophia Loren thinking that it is what we were talking about as well. It would be confusing until we figured it out. At some point we would need to agree on what we are talking about in order to communicate.
If you look closely at the name of this forum, you will see it very directly says that it is about "traditional Gnostic studies". No one is invalidating your definition of "Gnosis", only pointing out that it is not the same thing as "Gnosis" generally means in Gnostic studies.... and that made it momentarily confusing. So, just as I accept your context of the word for your usage, do you also accept the traditional Gnostic meaning of the word for it's usage? After all, you are right that my ability to accept other usages can help me communicate, but the same principle applies to you.
PMCV
Pae
>>"it is my experience that gnosis is :completely: associated with the experience of angels.
it is my experience that everything i have ever read referring to gnosis in the sense that i am referring to, has been completely on the money in their reference."<<<
Sure, they may well be on the money within their own references, but you pointed out yourself that there are other references in which a word may have a different meaning. We can only communicate if we are using the same meaning. For all you know, I could use the word "gnosis" to talk about riding a bike, right? Just because we use the same word does not mean we are talking about the same thing. Let me explain a little better after your next point.
if you have another version of how gnosis can be defined, you may as well accept what i am presenting and what other sources have presented, as an alternative, acceptable, and equally true definition. In that acceptance you might find useful communication with others who also adhere to what you are seeing as the incorrect definition.
Absolutely, Pae, you are welcome to use the word "Gnosis" to talk about whatever you wish it to be. I never said this is wrong, and I do fully accept that your version is valid in it's own context. I am absolutely willing to talk about what you call "gnosis", but I think it is also valid to expect you to try to understand what the Gnostics call "Gnosis". Isn't it helpful if you know the lingo of the people you are communicating with? If you as a single person use a definition that is different from the larger community that you are talking to, is it really communicating your point to them? Imagine we were talking about the Gnostic "Sophia" and a person came in talking about Sophia Loren thinking that it is what we were talking about as well. It would be confusing until we figured it out. At some point we would need to agree on what we are talking about in order to communicate.
If you look closely at the name of this forum, you will see it very directly says that it is about "traditional Gnostic studies". No one is invalidating your definition of "Gnosis", only pointing out that it is not the same thing as "Gnosis" generally means in Gnostic studies.... and that made it momentarily confusing. So, just as I accept your context of the word for your usage, do you also accept the traditional Gnostic meaning of the word for it's usage? After all, you are right that my ability to accept other usages can help me communicate, but the same principle applies to you.
PMCV
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Satori, Gnosticism, Angels, Dwarves and Using The Whole of Your Mind.
Original post: pae
agreed, and i do appreciate your reply
and i do wish to understand gnosticism from both perspectives.
in order to clarify the idea, if it isnt too much trouble, could you post here what you think the jist of traditional gnosticism is?
i understand that there are other discussions from the past pertaining to that matter, but for the sake of my understanding and clarity of what you are liking to see as discussion in this subforum, it would be easier for me to see it summed up as you see fit, in this thread.
agreed, and i do appreciate your reply
and i do wish to understand gnosticism from both perspectives.
in order to clarify the idea, if it isnt too much trouble, could you post here what you think the jist of traditional gnosticism is?
i understand that there are other discussions from the past pertaining to that matter, but for the sake of my understanding and clarity of what you are liking to see as discussion in this subforum, it would be easier for me to see it summed up as you see fit, in this thread.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Satori, Gnosticism, Angels, Dwarves and Using The Whole of Your Mind.
Original post: edparadise
((((I like Gnosticism; I'm doing a bunch of research, etc. I feel a spanking coming on, but in all seriousness, does every thread have to devolve into definition of Gnosis itself? To Ed, the point raised in the above ramble is essentially one about the fundamental difference between communication and experience. The idea seems to want to supply a methodology of experience that will transcend communication. Gnostic experience, as supplied by an initiation directed by any paricular tradition can accomplish this for a group; they have other methods of reinforcing the direction this experience will take and most likely also have a well-defined terminology for communicating about the problems with comparing the experiences. But I for one find the general assertion philosophically problematic regardless, as stated above. To me, this is all by way of escaping discussing the actual point --- and in fact, I would contend the opposite of the original post. All that an "experience" like this will do is create a personal object more difficult to communicate than other such objects.))))
((((ep))))
((((I like Gnosticism; I'm doing a bunch of research, etc. I feel a spanking coming on, but in all seriousness, does every thread have to devolve into definition of Gnosis itself? To Ed, the point raised in the above ramble is essentially one about the fundamental difference between communication and experience. The idea seems to want to supply a methodology of experience that will transcend communication. Gnostic experience, as supplied by an initiation directed by any paricular tradition can accomplish this for a group; they have other methods of reinforcing the direction this experience will take and most likely also have a well-defined terminology for communicating about the problems with comparing the experiences. But I for one find the general assertion philosophically problematic regardless, as stated above. To me, this is all by way of escaping discussing the actual point --- and in fact, I would contend the opposite of the original post. All that an "experience" like this will do is create a personal object more difficult to communicate than other such objects.))))
((((ep))))
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Satori, Gnosticism, Angels, Dwarves and Using The Whole of Your Mind.
Original post: pmcv
Edparadise, consider yourself spanked :shock:
Pae, Ed actually does make an important point in that it sometimes seems we always come back to the subject again. That is why we created two specific stickies at the top of this forum. So, let me point you to them to help....
Concerning the definitions of lingo you may see here, including what the word "Gnosis" means, here is the lexicon.... http://www.occultforums.com/showthread.php?t=5437
Concerning exactly what technically fits the category of "Gnosticism" here is a brief outline.... http://www.occultforums.com/showthread.php?t=14360
Understand, these are not meant to say that your own usages are false, only to help define for those who may wonder about what we are talking about here.
Let me know if these pages seem confusing for any reason, and I will do my best to clerify (and maybe fix them so they will be more helpful for others in the future).
PMCV
Edparadise, consider yourself spanked :shock:
Pae, Ed actually does make an important point in that it sometimes seems we always come back to the subject again. That is why we created two specific stickies at the top of this forum. So, let me point you to them to help....
Concerning the definitions of lingo you may see here, including what the word "Gnosis" means, here is the lexicon.... http://www.occultforums.com/showthread.php?t=5437
Concerning exactly what technically fits the category of "Gnosticism" here is a brief outline.... http://www.occultforums.com/showthread.php?t=14360
Understand, these are not meant to say that your own usages are false, only to help define for those who may wonder about what we are talking about here.
Let me know if these pages seem confusing for any reason, and I will do my best to clerify (and maybe fix them so they will be more helpful for others in the future).
PMCV
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Satori, Gnosticism, Angels, Dwarves and Using The Whole of Your Mind.
Original post: ChaosTech
Poor Gnostics. Ever sense Peter Carroll got a brain fart to use the word gnosis to describe altered states of conscious experience, due to the fact of it's meaning of "insight," inward knowlege/mystical experience, or quite simply direct experience from magical/mystical workings, you folks have to repeatedly deal with conversations like the above.
Gnosticism is a label for various religions, or more accurately a collection of various Christian and non-Christian mystical esoteric paths, birthed around the Hellenistic era of the ancient Mediterranean folks. It has nothing to do with "gnosis," as in subjective first hand knowlege/wisdom, past what every other magical/mystical path does.
Poor Gnostics. Ever sense Peter Carroll got a brain fart to use the word gnosis to describe altered states of conscious experience, due to the fact of it's meaning of "insight," inward knowlege/mystical experience, or quite simply direct experience from magical/mystical workings, you folks have to repeatedly deal with conversations like the above.
Gnosticism is a label for various religions, or more accurately a collection of various Christian and non-Christian mystical esoteric paths, birthed around the Hellenistic era of the ancient Mediterranean folks. It has nothing to do with "gnosis," as in subjective first hand knowlege/wisdom, past what every other magical/mystical path does.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Satori, Gnosticism, Angels, Dwarves and Using The Whole of Your Mind.
Original post: Jeremy Faulkner
Actually, Gnosis does mean "direct, experiential knowledge", but to understand that, you must have the Gnosis of it! :roll:
Remember that all of the sacred writings have an exoteric and an esoteric value. We reject the tendency of identifying solely with the exoteric values of any given sect or order. What is important are their ESOTERIC or better said AUTHENTIC values.
Actually, Gnosis does mean "direct, experiential knowledge", but to understand that, you must have the Gnosis of it! :roll:
Remember that all of the sacred writings have an exoteric and an esoteric value. We reject the tendency of identifying solely with the exoteric values of any given sect or order. What is important are their ESOTERIC or better said AUTHENTIC values.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Satori, Gnosticism, Angels, Dwarves and Using The Whole of Your Mind.
Original post: pmcv
Say Jeremy
Different groups use the word "Gnosis" to mean very different things. In that sense we can't really say that "Gnosis" has one definitive meaning since in Chaos Magick it means one thing, and for Sylvia Browne it means something else. However, this particular forum deals with traditional Gnosticism so when confronted with words like this we tend to try to stick to a definition that would be familiar in a text like the Gospel of Thomas, or perhaps the Tripartite Tractate.
PMCV
Say Jeremy
Actually, Gnosis does mean "direct, experiential knowledge", but to understand that, you must have the Gnosis of it!
Different groups use the word "Gnosis" to mean very different things. In that sense we can't really say that "Gnosis" has one definitive meaning since in Chaos Magick it means one thing, and for Sylvia Browne it means something else. However, this particular forum deals with traditional Gnosticism so when confronted with words like this we tend to try to stick to a definition that would be familiar in a text like the Gospel of Thomas, or perhaps the Tripartite Tractate.
PMCV
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Satori, Gnosticism, Angels, Dwarves and Using The Whole of Your Mind.
Original post: Demetrios
[QUOTE=pae]
Why is it that we have countless divisions, of what can be seen as similar experiences, preserved differently,
[/QUOTE]Quite simply, because we keep on asking "why".
[QUOTE=pae]
Why is it that we have countless divisions, of what can be seen as similar experiences, preserved differently,
[/QUOTE]Quite simply, because we keep on asking "why".
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Satori, Gnosticism, Angels, Dwarves and Using The Whole of Your Mind.
Original post: Demetrios
[QUOTE=pmcv]Hey Pae
Well, I do agree that it is important to recognize common meaning and experience (thought the word "Gnosis" does not technically refer to an experience). I think after so many years of a religious paradigm that was so heavily rooted in declaring its dogma as an absolute, people have reacted against it with a desire to look for common ground.
On the other hand, that can swing overly far in the other direction so as to become equally disrespectful of the very movements it tries to include. We can wind up glossing, burying, or trying to outright destroy the differences that do exist.
Many people don't realize this, but post modern ecclecticism has been nearly as terrible and damaging for Native culture as was direct assult by malevolent expansionists. There is truth to the saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".
Of course, the question that is really important in this forum is just what we mean when we do try to communicate using the word "Gnosis", and we have already had a whole thread dealing with that. I think we found, to everyone's agreement, that there were both imporant similarities in some usages as well as important differences. This middle ground should not disturb us, in my view, but instead helps us realize an even deeper and more subtle communication that includes common ground with important destinctions.
My 2 pennies anyway.
PMCV[/QUOTE]
Oh goodie, here we go again!, what does Gnosis mean!?
Just couple additions to what I've said in earlier discussions:
1.) Plato uses the word 'gnosis' at the end of Kratylos, in the sense of real knowledge that participates in metaphysical ideas.
2.) The soteric discussion: one gnostic Christian defined saving knowledge thus:
"We are not only saved by baptism, but by the knowledge of
Who we were and where we came from,
Where we have been and where we have come to,
Where we are going and from what we have been freed,
What is birth and what is rebirth."
(Clement of Alexandria, Excerpts from Theodotus, 78.2)
http://www.helsinki.fi/teol/hyel/gnosti/english/gnosticism.html
On another note, I don't share your prejudice towards postmodernism, which to me seems to be coming from a certain socio-cultural background and traditionalist nostalgic considerations, not from Gnostic views. As I understand it, postmodernism is part of the Heraclitean paradigm, that (at least on the wordly level) the only fundament is the current of change and variation, that in truth there is nothing unchanging, nothing undialectic to hold on to, except false believes. The postmodern idea that change and variation and mingling is natural and inescapable for all cultures and languages, including those called "native", is IMHO well in accordance with Gnosticism and other related religions.
[QUOTE=pmcv]Hey Pae
Well, I do agree that it is important to recognize common meaning and experience (thought the word "Gnosis" does not technically refer to an experience). I think after so many years of a religious paradigm that was so heavily rooted in declaring its dogma as an absolute, people have reacted against it with a desire to look for common ground.
On the other hand, that can swing overly far in the other direction so as to become equally disrespectful of the very movements it tries to include. We can wind up glossing, burying, or trying to outright destroy the differences that do exist.
Many people don't realize this, but post modern ecclecticism has been nearly as terrible and damaging for Native culture as was direct assult by malevolent expansionists. There is truth to the saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".
Of course, the question that is really important in this forum is just what we mean when we do try to communicate using the word "Gnosis", and we have already had a whole thread dealing with that. I think we found, to everyone's agreement, that there were both imporant similarities in some usages as well as important differences. This middle ground should not disturb us, in my view, but instead helps us realize an even deeper and more subtle communication that includes common ground with important destinctions.
My 2 pennies anyway.
PMCV[/QUOTE]
Oh goodie, here we go again!, what does Gnosis mean!?
Just couple additions to what I've said in earlier discussions:
1.) Plato uses the word 'gnosis' at the end of Kratylos, in the sense of real knowledge that participates in metaphysical ideas.
2.) The soteric discussion: one gnostic Christian defined saving knowledge thus:
"We are not only saved by baptism, but by the knowledge of
Who we were and where we came from,
Where we have been and where we have come to,
Where we are going and from what we have been freed,
What is birth and what is rebirth."
(Clement of Alexandria, Excerpts from Theodotus, 78.2)
http://www.helsinki.fi/teol/hyel/gnosti/english/gnosticism.html
On another note, I don't share your prejudice towards postmodernism, which to me seems to be coming from a certain socio-cultural background and traditionalist nostalgic considerations, not from Gnostic views. As I understand it, postmodernism is part of the Heraclitean paradigm, that (at least on the wordly level) the only fundament is the current of change and variation, that in truth there is nothing unchanging, nothing undialectic to hold on to, except false believes. The postmodern idea that change and variation and mingling is natural and inescapable for all cultures and languages, including those called "native", is IMHO well in accordance with Gnosticism and other related religions.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Satori, Gnosticism, Angels, Dwarves and Using The Whole of Your Mind.
Original post: Demetrios
[QUOTE=pmcv]
We can only communicate if we are using the same meaning.
[/QUOTE]
Strangely enough, I would say the exact opposite is true:
We can only communicate if we are not using the same meaning.
Obviously, if we share the same meaning, there is no need for communication.
Sure, some degree of similarity of meanings is usefull for funtional communication, but that's a different story...
[QUOTE=pmcv]
We can only communicate if we are using the same meaning.
[/QUOTE]
Strangely enough, I would say the exact opposite is true:
We can only communicate if we are not using the same meaning.
Obviously, if we share the same meaning, there is no need for communication.
Sure, some degree of similarity of meanings is usefull for funtional communication, but that's a different story...
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Satori, Gnosticism, Angels, Dwarves and Using The Whole of Your Mind.
Original post: edparadise
[QUOTE=Demetrios]Strangely enough, I would say the exact opposite is true:
We can only communicate if we are not using the same meaning.
Obviously, if we share the same meaning, there is no need for communication.
Sure, some degree of similarity of meanings is usefull for funtional communication, but that's a different story...[/QUOTE]
Linguistically speaking, I'd have to disagree with you. This claim is like saying that two computers can share information without a link as long as the information is the same.
I.e., the claim that communication is not necessary is based on the assumption that the operations are continuing in parallel and require no check; the simple fact is that this is not the case - if I don't know what you mean by word X, then when you use it, I have to check, and this requires communication:
B: Bla, Bla, Bla, Idea X, Bla, Bla, Bla...
A: Query X: Definition list match my X (information stream)?
B: Response to X: Definition list matches!
A: I understand. Continue!
-ep
[QUOTE=Demetrios]Strangely enough, I would say the exact opposite is true:
We can only communicate if we are not using the same meaning.
Obviously, if we share the same meaning, there is no need for communication.
Sure, some degree of similarity of meanings is usefull for funtional communication, but that's a different story...[/QUOTE]
Linguistically speaking, I'd have to disagree with you. This claim is like saying that two computers can share information without a link as long as the information is the same.
I.e., the claim that communication is not necessary is based on the assumption that the operations are continuing in parallel and require no check; the simple fact is that this is not the case - if I don't know what you mean by word X, then when you use it, I have to check, and this requires communication:
B: Bla, Bla, Bla, Idea X, Bla, Bla, Bla...
A: Query X: Definition list match my X (information stream)?
B: Response to X: Definition list matches!
A: I understand. Continue!
-ep
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Satori, Gnosticism, Angels, Dwarves and Using The Whole of Your Mind.
Original post: Demetrios
[QUOTE=edparadise]Linguistically speaking, I'd have to disagree with you. This claim is like saying that two computers can share information without a link as long as the information is the same.
I.e., the claim that communication is not necessary is based on the assumption that the operations are continuing in parallel and require no check; the simple fact is that this is not the case - if I don't know what you mean by word X, then when you use it, I have to check, and this requires communication:
B: Bla, Bla, Bla, Idea X, Bla, Bla, Bla...
A: Query X: Definition list match my X (information stream)?
B: Response to X: Definition list matches!
A: I understand. Continue!
-ep[/QUOTE]
Well I don't share your meaning of "meaning", so communication continues.
Computers are really poor analogy, since linguistic meaning is not binary or any other form of discreet information, but holistic and dynamic system.
And at least so far computers don't do "meaning", they are machines, not sentient.
[QUOTE=edparadise]Linguistically speaking, I'd have to disagree with you. This claim is like saying that two computers can share information without a link as long as the information is the same.
I.e., the claim that communication is not necessary is based on the assumption that the operations are continuing in parallel and require no check; the simple fact is that this is not the case - if I don't know what you mean by word X, then when you use it, I have to check, and this requires communication:
B: Bla, Bla, Bla, Idea X, Bla, Bla, Bla...
A: Query X: Definition list match my X (information stream)?
B: Response to X: Definition list matches!
A: I understand. Continue!
-ep[/QUOTE]
Well I don't share your meaning of "meaning", so communication continues.
Computers are really poor analogy, since linguistic meaning is not binary or any other form of discreet information, but holistic and dynamic system.
And at least so far computers don't do "meaning", they are machines, not sentient.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Satori, Gnosticism, Angels, Dwarves and Using The Whole of Your Mind.
Original post: pmcv
Demitrios
Perhaps even the word "communication" is in despute here as well. I would have said "I don't share your meaning of "meaning", so attempts at communication continue". Since the meanings of words have not reached across the bridge, communication has not yet been achieved. Or, more accurately, shallow levels of communication have been working while more specific and deep communication is still failing. The problem is to make that lower communication the base for ever more advanced and abstract communication.
I am definately not a traditionalist *lol*. I would point out that the term "postmodernist" means different things to different people. It is a word that has unfortunately never quite gained a genuine cohesive meaning... so you are probably right that I should find another. When I used it previously I essentially mean a sort of absolute relativism that crosses the line into a form of solipsism. I believe, Demitrios, you will have a hard time presenting a case for this kind of relativism in traditional Gnostic thought. Instead, I think Gnostic thought does admit a certain level of subjectivity, but also believes in a sort of absolute truth that is in contrast with absolute relativism (which I termed "post-modernism").
PMCV
Demitrios
Well I don't share your meaning of "meaning", so communication continues.
Perhaps even the word "communication" is in despute here as well. I would have said "I don't share your meaning of "meaning", so attempts at communication continue". Since the meanings of words have not reached across the bridge, communication has not yet been achieved. Or, more accurately, shallow levels of communication have been working while more specific and deep communication is still failing. The problem is to make that lower communication the base for ever more advanced and abstract communication.
On another note, I don't share your prejudice towards postmodernism, which to me seems to be coming from a certain socio-cultural background and traditionalist nostalgic considerations, not from Gnostic views.
I am definately not a traditionalist *lol*. I would point out that the term "postmodernist" means different things to different people. It is a word that has unfortunately never quite gained a genuine cohesive meaning... so you are probably right that I should find another. When I used it previously I essentially mean a sort of absolute relativism that crosses the line into a form of solipsism. I believe, Demitrios, you will have a hard time presenting a case for this kind of relativism in traditional Gnostic thought. Instead, I think Gnostic thought does admit a certain level of subjectivity, but also believes in a sort of absolute truth that is in contrast with absolute relativism (which I termed "post-modernism").
PMCV
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Satori, Gnosticism, Angels, Dwarves and Using The Whole of Your Mind.
Original post: Demetrios
Well yeah. Being bit of a snotty smart-ass here I know, but I find it amusing and perhaps even usefull to go to basics some times. Communication presupposes dualism and separateness, hence communicators can never share or exist in the same total meaning. But attempts at communication are noble!
Honestly, can you show me any non-relativistic axiom anywhere to buid upon? If the Absolute Truth is absolutely not showable or expressable, why bother talking about it?
Hey, perhaps you haven't seen this! Stephan Hoelle,Profile of a postmodern heretic (!)
http://www.gnosis.org/LAWeekly.htm
pmcv wrote:Demitrios
Perhaps even the word "communication" is in despute here as well. I would have said "I don't share your meaning of "meaning", so attempts at communication continue". Since the meanings of words have not reached across the bridge, communication has not yet been achieved. Or, more accurately, shallow levels of communication have been working while more specific and deep communication is still failing. The problem is to make that lower communication the base for ever more advanced and abstract communication.
Well yeah. Being bit of a snotty smart-ass here I know, but I find it amusing and perhaps even usefull to go to basics some times. Communication presupposes dualism and separateness, hence communicators can never share or exist in the same total meaning. But attempts at communication are noble!
OK, I don't mind calling post-modernism absolute relativism, or calling myself absolute relativist. So, which absolute truth should I believe in to pass for a Gnostic, trad. or other?I am definately not a traditionalist *lol*. I would point out that the term "postmodernist" means different things to different people. It is a word that has unfortunately never quite gained a genuine cohesive meaning... so you are probably right that I should find another. When I used it previously I essentially mean a sort of absolute relativism that crosses the line into a form of solipsism. I believe, Demitrios, you will have a hard time presenting a case for this kind of relativism in traditional Gnostic thought. Instead, I think Gnostic thought does admit a certain level of subjectivity, but also believes in a sort of absolute truth that is in contrast with absolute relativism (which I termed "post-modernism").
PMCV
Honestly, can you show me any non-relativistic axiom anywhere to buid upon? If the Absolute Truth is absolutely not showable or expressable, why bother talking about it?
Hey, perhaps you haven't seen this! Stephan Hoelle,Profile of a postmodern heretic (!)
http://www.gnosis.org/LAWeekly.htm
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Satori, Gnosticism, Angels, Dwarves and Using The Whole of Your Mind.
Original post: edparadise
[QUOTE=Demetrios]Well I don't share your meaning of "meaning", so communication continues.
Computers are really poor analogy, since linguistic meaning is not binary or any other form of discreet information, but holistic and dynamic system.
And at least so far computers don't do "meaning", they are machines, not sentient.[/QUOTE]
Since I don't use the word "meaning" in the above post, and you fail to characterize the difference between what I mean and what you mean by meaning, not only do I doubt the usefulness of your claim that this is so, but I would also claim that communication here has failed, because I would interpret the "meaning" of the first clause as "meaningless".
Computers don't fail as analogy either because the transmission mechanism is binary or discreet. This is simply the transmission system, and has nothing to do with the information. Your criticism is on the order of saying that written words cannot possibly be in English because they don't have the right accent.
BTW, all holistic means is "considered as a whole". A computer's transmission system isn't necessarily missing anything that is part of it's whole. All that dynamic means is that it moves and changes, and is the opposite of static; a computer represents different states, processes information - these are both dynamic processes.
As for your final clause, computers do meaning in a big, big way. There's nothing about the transmission of meaning that requires sentience. Your claim that computers do not process meaning is akin to saying that sound waves are not carried through the air because nitrogen cannot be concious of grammar.
To be clear: sentience is not a prerequisite for operations on meaning.
And by the way, even though this wasn't my bailiwick to start, criticism of the generic post-modern world view (whatever that might entail) does not imply a traditionalist or historically conservative world view or stance. This type of argument has allowed itself the fallacy of the type of progressivism, or, if I may explain - it is rooted in something like the belief that a current idea is correct, and that all criticisms of that idea are necessarily reactionary (an idea that can be gunned down simply be noticing the possibility of - magically - having another thought).
-ep
[QUOTE=Demetrios]Well I don't share your meaning of "meaning", so communication continues.
Computers are really poor analogy, since linguistic meaning is not binary or any other form of discreet information, but holistic and dynamic system.
And at least so far computers don't do "meaning", they are machines, not sentient.[/QUOTE]
Since I don't use the word "meaning" in the above post, and you fail to characterize the difference between what I mean and what you mean by meaning, not only do I doubt the usefulness of your claim that this is so, but I would also claim that communication here has failed, because I would interpret the "meaning" of the first clause as "meaningless".
Computers don't fail as analogy either because the transmission mechanism is binary or discreet. This is simply the transmission system, and has nothing to do with the information. Your criticism is on the order of saying that written words cannot possibly be in English because they don't have the right accent.
BTW, all holistic means is "considered as a whole". A computer's transmission system isn't necessarily missing anything that is part of it's whole. All that dynamic means is that it moves and changes, and is the opposite of static; a computer represents different states, processes information - these are both dynamic processes.
As for your final clause, computers do meaning in a big, big way. There's nothing about the transmission of meaning that requires sentience. Your claim that computers do not process meaning is akin to saying that sound waves are not carried through the air because nitrogen cannot be concious of grammar.
To be clear: sentience is not a prerequisite for operations on meaning.
And by the way, even though this wasn't my bailiwick to start, criticism of the generic post-modern world view (whatever that might entail) does not imply a traditionalist or historically conservative world view or stance. This type of argument has allowed itself the fallacy of the type of progressivism, or, if I may explain - it is rooted in something like the belief that a current idea is correct, and that all criticisms of that idea are necessarily reactionary (an idea that can be gunned down simply be noticing the possibility of - magically - having another thought).
-ep