Jazz

My question would be this: did Gnosticism as a unified philosophy exist before Christianity? Did they call themsleves Gnostics or were they just people who aligned themselves with mystic thought? I am very interested in this subject, Gnosticism is something I have been really needing to learn more about.

Well, I hope I don't sound equally smartassed with my answer, because this is really how I think. Or rather, truly how I think. "Truth" is a word to describe the same concept that you used for the word "facts". You wouldn't call something a "fact" unless you believed it to be "true". Yes? No?

As is religion itself in my book, but that's another story... I think it depends on how you approach religion Jazzmoose. If you approach it as a placebo used to perpetuate cultural myths and a comfortable self image then I would agree. If you approach it as an honest search for truth then I would disagree.

Hmm. I thought that the specific religion of Gnosticism originated from Christianity about a couple hundred years or so after the death of Christ. Mysticism/Esotericism has definitely been around much longer than Christianity. That is to say, the idea of divine enlightment or, lacking a divinity, enlightment from a spiritual source rather than through reasoning or logic. I always thought that Gnosticism was a type of mysticism that arose specifically from the Gospels. Am I completely mistaken?

Then God is a complete asshole. He sets up his plan so that Judas betrays Jesus, and then blames Judas for playing his part? Well to answer that question I would have to know how God judged Judas, and I don't know that. Jesus did say "forgive them for they know not what they do". But, as a general concept, yeah I believe God has the right to judge how he chooses regardless. Look at the example of Pharaoh, when his heart was hardened against the slaves. If that describes a God you dislike (or hate) then that is definitely your decision. I don't want to say too much more about this because, to be honest, I am not confident in the truth of what I believe. I could totally be misrepresenting God and that is not something I desire to do at all.

Oh and about pre-destination. If you want to look at it that way you definitely could, but I still think there is a certain amount of choice involved as far as our own actions go. Remember, things like "pre-destination" and "free-will" are just simplistic concepts used by people who want things to be easily quantified.

Thank you for expanding Jazzbo! Since you would obviously be a good person to ask, please correct me if I am mistaken on any of these definitions. Atheist - Anyone who disbelieves in a higher power for lack of proof. Higher power includes any "God" concept, the idea of a "soul", reincarnation etc etc... Gnosticism - An esoteric philosophy that centers around divine enlightenment and the belief that truth is arrived at through spiritual means rather than reasoning. I also understand that Gnosticism has certain Christian roots and a pretty long history but unfortunately I am unfamiliar with these. Therefore, I know for certain my understanding of Gnosticism is pretty limited.

Serious question from a non-Christian: Exactly how "pre-ordained" was it? I mean, I know there is a lot of debate regarding free will, etc., in religion ... how do Christians who believe in free will reconcile that with the idea this was all pre-ordained? I personally believe this question is moot. I believe that God ultimately chooses who to hold responsible regardless of whether they were compelled, pre-ordained, or in the complete excercise of their free will in whatever action they take.

I think the Gnostics invented the phrase "If you have to ask, you'll never know." --eric I was just under the impression that gnosticism and atheism were mutually exclusive viewpoints.

Well, I'm just trying to say that having control over a situation, having created every element of that situation, having pre-ordained that situation for symbolic purposes--that's different than having the opportunity to defend yourself. Dispensing blame here just seems complete beside the point. --eric I guess that just isn't the logic I get out of the Bible. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. Also, the whole point is that Jesus' death paid for the sins of everyone including the people who crucified him. I'm not sure where this blame assigning that you and Alex are talking about is coming from. That was my point.

a gnostic atheist??? What does it MEAN??

Where were you when the Manson trial was going on? aha!!

Okay then. Since JESUS had the ability to defend himself and didn't it absolves his killers of responsibility. Right?

Wow good point Alex. If someone has the power to defend themselves but chooses not to (like, say a black belt martial artist) it absolves their murderer of the responsibility of the crime.

That's so unfair! I want a spanish N!

I know I'm late to this party, and I didn't get the chance to read all of the thread so please forgive me if someone pointed this out already. The reasons that the chord is definitely and unquestionably a G+9 chord are as follows: 1) The context. As someone else said, it totally depends on the context. If you are in a C minor blues, and you play a chord with G as the root with B natural and F natural, it is ALWAYS going to be heard as the dominant V chord. It's the tritone you see, the western ear will pick out the tritone and interpret it as the 3rd and the 7th. This means that the third of the chord is major, making the other note A#, not Bb. In other words, the third of the chord is what gives the chord it's quality (major/minor). A chord can either be major or minor. The ear accustomed to tonal music ALWAYS chooses one over the other. If the ear hears the chord as major (dominant, augmented) then the ear is interpreting the third of the chord as a major third, even if both thirds are technically in there. Sometimes the line gets blurry, as different ears interpret things differently, but there's not much room for interpretation in a blues. 2) Even outside of context the chord would probably be called a G+9, again, because of the tritone. Ever since Bach's era the tritone resolution has become the strongest resolution present in the western tonal system (strong enough for anyone, everyone to instantly recognize it no matter how little they listen to music. The only context I can think of that would defeat the tritone (and I really don't know that much so that isn't saying anything) is an atonal context, in which the chord wouldn't be named anything it would just be a collection of tone clusters. In reality though, everyone is right. The note is both the #9 AND the minor third. The way we name it has more to do with understanding the FUNCTION of the notes - the role they are playing in the intricate dance of tonal music - rather than having an arbitrary name for the note itself. WHEW! Man, I can't play worth crap, but I'm sure good at what my theory prof used to call "mental gymnastics". Heh.

I think that one's already taken by another poster on this thread... D'oh! Can't blame me, I'm just a goober! And yet peacocks, which have many plumes extruding from their posteriors, are considered quite dignified. Oh the irony.

what a coincidence. My backslash also. My hypothesis is that I hit the backslash at least twice in accident when I go for the backspace key. And, my nose. It's big and it's got wicked long hairs growing from it that I can use to scare the ladies.

Some of those definitions are simply brilliant. My fav? definition provided by Hot Diggity. The definition of goober or other words, or any other opinions expressed by Hot Diggity do not represent the sentiments of this poster or the Organissimo posting forums. The surgeon general has determined that definitions may cause loose stool. Void where prohibited.

I second Monk and Coltrane. Uber-hip.

The reigning memory in my life of buttermilk is a faint recalling of a scene in a movie called Time Flyer, a movie I watched often when I was young. The 30's era pilot of some magic airplane, who my mind casts as Christopher Lloyd, knocks back a swig of buttermilk and says something like "ahh, buttermilk. It's the bees knees!". I always wanted to try buttermilk after seeing that. Think I did once. Can't recall my reaction. Seriously though, how can anyone dislike something that's the bees knees?

I didn't know we could get our own titles!!! I now officially put in my request for the "Villiage Idiot" designation. Sincerely, Your Friendly Village Idiot

Welcome back, Tom!

Tom, I feel so horrible about missing this thread. I haven't been able to really spend much time on the net lately. Please accept my heartfelt condolences to you and your family. You have always been a standup guy in your posts (to me or anyone else). I hope you don't mind if I keep you in my prayers.

If what you say is true, Harold, about a sub genre then that really changes the way I look at Jazz history. I'll have to check out the Three Blazers and see what they sound like. Another question: Does anyone know of other artists with small ensembles in the later 30's through the 40's?