Subject: THUNDER ...
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 18:33:40 PDT


"Isn't gnosis then, a kind of rust?  If it is what makes communication 
impossible, why do we refer to the _language_ of gnosis?" (Don Socha, 
8/15).

" ... perhaps the antithetical assertions of _Thunder_ are a way of 
asserting the totally otherworldly transcendence of the revealer" 
(George W. MacRae, in _The Nag Hammadi Library_ 1978, p. 296).


Rust is a covering that does not conceal.  The metallic object which, 
after coming into contact with oxygen, develops a coating of rust, is 
still identifiable as "itself" -- only with a coating of rust.  This 
rust exists on the very "periphery" of the border between the _subject_ 
and the _object_, the inside and the outside, as it were.  The rust is 
part of the subject, to which it acts as an object.  It is impossible 
for rust to exist on its own, just as it is impossible for an interior 
language to communicate with the outside; for a metallic object can only 
avoid rust by being covered with some sort of protectant -- by putting a 
barrier between the metallic object, and the world around it.  There can 
never be direct contact (communication) between the metallic object and 
the air that surrounds it.  If such a thing is attempted, rust forms 
almost immediately.

It is impossible for an interior language, gnostic language, to 
communicate with the outside.  I stated, in previous texts, not that the 
language of gnosis makes communication impossible, but that gnostic 
language is the impossibility that makes communication possible.  So the 
language of gnosis is not really like rust, but rather like the force 
which causes rust to form.  "One cannot decide to appropriate such a 
thing, because it is not part of the self, or subject ..." (Don Socha, 
8/15).


MO(O)RE ? ....





______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com