Is personal Gnosis legitimate wisdom?
Assuming that the Gnostics were (and still are) "onto something important" with the role of Gnosis in their perception of life, can it be considered legitimate wisdom? In other words, can personally revealed wisdom be considered truthful and authoritative?
For the purposes of this discussion, wisdom is defined as "useful and sound insight(s)".
For the purposes of this discussion, wisdom is defined as "useful and sound insight(s)".
Comments (203)
Probably not.
Yes. Wisdom, unlike science, does not need to be repeatable, shared or reviewed.
The most useful and authoritative and insightful wisdom I have was/is personally revealed. The idea of sharing it has all the attraction of filming and broadcasting the making of love.
Lay person: Say you don't know something. Can you put it into words?
Gnostic: No, of course not.
Lay person: Then how can I tell the difference between you knowing and you not knowing.
Gnostic: Try this . . ..
Lay person: Just tell me. I don't want to put in the work.
Gnostic: :smile:
1. Nothing exists;
2. Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it;
3. Even if something can be known about it, knowledge about it can't be communicated to others.
4. Even if it can be communicated, it cannot be understood[/quote]
:fire: :cool: :fire:
What's so, oxymoron notwithstanding, satanic about a direct, one-on-one, encounter with God, the divine?
As @Jack Cummins and I once discussed, the boundary between good and evil seems to get blurred, almost to the point of nonexistence at certain points in spirituality. I can't explain it but it happens in other areas too: wise fool, mad genius, frenemy, I could go on.
Perhaps gnosticism has links to paganism and its very own pantheon of deities, a clear and present danger to Yahweh as the alpha and omega of all there is and beyond.
It bears mentioning whether the Vatican ever really mulled over the real possibility that Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, all bona fide prophets, had expreiences that could be interpreted as gnostic in character.
Oh, good. A question I can answer just by providing one of my favorite quotes. One I use on the forum often. This from Franz Kafka:
It is not necessary that you leave the house. Remain at your table and listen. Do not even listen, only wait. Do not even wait, be wholly still and alone. The world will present itself to you for its unmasking, it can do no other, in ecstasy it will writhe at your feet.
:up: I agree with that. It is, however, for the likes of me, very hard to do. I found the 40 days and 40 nights in the wilderness hard, but easier than the kitchen table. :yikes:
:up: And even if you kick it away, it'll crawl back to you.
"Gnosis" denotes (ineffable? unintelligible? imaginary?) awareness of – exposure to – cultic secrets (i.e. mysteries). To be "in the know", or initiated; a species of occult, or magical, thinking (e.g. conspiracy theories ... such as Gnosticism (re: 'existence is a prison of which the prisoners are unaware')). :eyes:
Quoting T Clark
:smirk:
Quoting 180 Proof
Smirk. Does that mean you think I'm clever or a boob?
:fire:
Does this mean burned or are you agreeing with me?
And what about those turd emojis? How come we don't have turd emojis?
It's a gnostic thing. You wouldn't understand. :wink:
1. not able to be expressed in words.
"I felt an unspeakable tenderness towards her"
Similar: indescribable; beyond words; beyond description; inexpressible; unutterable; indefinable; beggaring description; ineffable; unimaginable; inconceivable; unthinkable; unheard of; marvellous; wonderful
2. too bad or horrific to express in words.
"a piece of unspeakable abuse"
Similar: dreadful; awful; appalling; horrific; horrifying; horrible; terrible; horrendous; atrocious; insufferable; abominable; abhorrent; repellent; repulsive; repugnant; revolting; sickening; frightful; fearful; shocking; hideous; ghastly; grim; dire; hateful; odious; loathsome; gruesome; monstrous; outrageous; heinous; deplorable; despicable; contemptible
Gnosticism is heresy!
These things are the exceptions to ordinary experience and not everyone can even have them. This isn't to say that they can't be profound or enlightening or deep. But I would be weary of basing my own views on such experiences.
Is it wisdom? I think it depends on how you use it. What I won't admit of, however, is this non-infrequent "superior" attitude in which such a person has a "you just don't get it" attitude or "I have seen further than you'll ever be able to".
That's pretty smug.
I tried to confine my consideration to the limitations/definitions specifically outlined in the OP; steering away from other, broader, general, or more traditional (historic) understanding's of the terms. Nevertheless, FOMO is a thing. I get it. Any good little gnostic like myself is happy to have others turn away and go about their business. I'll not be smug about it. The last thing I want is to open a door to potential wannabes, posers and charlatans. On the other hand, there are those on "the other side" who are just as smug, if not worse; looking down their bespectacled nose, with their lab coats on, poo pooing that which they don't understand and won't find in a lab.
:cool:
Yeah, but what about the turds?
Absolutely. And I have to say that I tend to sympathize with your views more than the bespectacled lab coat person. I think it is just clearly obvious that there are things which science can't touch or explain, which is to science's merit. It explains what it can. If it tried to explain everything, then it would say nothing.
As for FOMO, sure, that's a thing. And it's fine, it isn't everyone's cup of tea. If we all had the same experience life would be very boring. I prefer people have the "genuine" thing, instead of joining cults. But then this brings up the debate about what "genuine" means.
Indeed. Everyone who has something that others want, gnostic or non, will have a following. Look to the leaders who don't say "Follow me." And if you are a follower, don't run too hard after a leader who is trying to get away.
Preach.
:cheer:
Ah, my Padawan, you must go into the wilderness and sit before a turd for a month and experience it. Then you will no longer consider it for use as an emoji. :pray: :grin:
That's true of personal wisdom, as long as you don't try to proselytize. As soon as you tell someone else that you want to pass-on some "secret knowledge" though, you may legitimately be asked to prove it. But Gnostic revelations and Buddhist insights are entirely subjective. So, they can only reply : "try my method and see for yourself". By definition, subjective truth cannot be shared.
But most folks are not inclined to live as monks in silent meditation on a mountaintop. So, they may follow the advice of the Apostle John "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world." The Old Testament is full of stories about deceiving prophets being shown-up as phonies by the "true" prophets, usually in the form of miracles. The moral of such stories is, if you want me to believe your truth, you prove it to me.
However, some Gnostics (and Bhuddists) have not been content to keep their spiritual wisdom to themselves. So, they have responded to skeptical challenges by predicting future events or by performing minor miracles -- usually of the type that were unrepeatable and difficult to disprove. Another private obstacle for Gnostics is how to make sure that their visions & revelations come from the "True" Good God, and not from the "False" Evil God.
Whatever you believe is "legitimate" wisdom for you. But for me, any postulated truths must meet my minimum requirements. And I don't take anyone's word on faith. As they say in Missouri, show me! :cool:
A Course in Miracles and Gnosticism :
https://translatedby.com/you/a-course-in-miracles-and-gnosticism/original/
Quoting Gnomon
And that is how I read the OP.
The continuation of my post which you did not include:
Quoting James Riley
And in my second post:
Quoting James Riley
I perceive, not just in your post but in others in this thread, a certain defensiveness in the need for clarification about charlatans, or those so-called "gnostics" who pretend to superiority or secret. I don't know where that comes from, since it's as easy as breathing for me to spot the pretenders. I would have thought philosophy types would not feel so compelled. Maybe science has infiltrated the ranks, demanding a telling, a writing, and explanation, instead of putting in the real work. And as those words leave my key board, I wonder if maybe I'm beginning to see where a gnostic superiority finds it's roots.
Silence is golden! :chin:
Wrong definition, buddy.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dumb
:rofl:
:rofl:
:smile:
Any insight is personal by nature; the only question is to what extent a personal insight is perceived as having value at a universal level versus at a personal level. This is true across all disciplines, whether hardcore philosophy or Gnosticism. The only difference seems to be the acknowledgement of mysticism (including Gnosticism) of this fact, versus the inability to realize this fact in traditional philosophy.
Given that caveat, I definitely believe that gnosis is a meaningful term that refers to something real. It is the same root word as the Sansrkit Jñ?na (gn- and jn-) and is found in various cultures and different periods. But modern western culture has utterly extirpated the conceptual space in which such terms are meaningful. It still lives on in various dissident or exotic forms, for example, I think to all intents in authentic Buddhism (as distinct from it's westernised and mass-marketed offshots). But it takes effort and commitment to understand it and study it in such a way that it is meaningful. Most of all I think it takes something more than simply thinking and discussing, in the same way that (say) ski-ing or rock-climbing would - it takes engagement with it, preferably under the supervision of a competent teacher, who I think would be a pretty rare breed.
We're sifting through a sea of pathologists here.
A more fitting word would perhaps be unintelligible.
Ergo, cannot be understood through the intellect.
Plato and the (Neo)Platonics said things very similar. Lao-Tze wrote: "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao."
:up:
I don't think there is any robust evidence for revealed wisdom, Gnostic or otherwise.
I cheerfully admit that I'm forever a student of this universe.
Edit:
It also seems relevant to mention that I do believe that personally revealed Gnosis is legitimate wisdom. And that it is able to be validated by science. Which is a nice description of my personal worldview. Ultimately, my singular pursuit in life is the method of science, and the aim of spirituality. That intersection is important to me.
:100:
Quoting Bret Bernhoft
Good that you defined "wisdom". But I think the key word and "unknown" here is "legitimate". It mainly means conforming to the law or to rules. Letting aside laws, what kind of rules do you have in mind? That is, legitimate for whom?
Quoting Bret Bernhoft
Again, truthful and authoritative for whom?
Defending the truth was bred into me, as I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian church. We learned to be critical of other religions' erroneous beliefs -- most based on ancient revelations -- but not so much of our own baseline beliefs. As I matured though, I learned to be objective & analytical toward my own beliefs, and eventually left the church. Since then I have been constructing a belief system (worldview) of my own. It gives me a new baseline for critiquing suspicious "facts". But I don't make any absolute-Truth claims for it.
Consequently, I find it much easier now to spot suspect "truths", especially those hiding behind unverifiable claims of Gnosis. But it's still not that easy, because most strong belief systems are guarded against apostasy by either defensive or offensive reasoning (Theology). Early religions, such as Judaism and Catholicism, didn't have much local competition, since they usually had a monopoly on their home turf. But today, in the Information Age, we are exposed to a long menu of alternative belief systems. And that includes the long-defunct Gnosticism, that was put out of business by the Catholics.
So, my policy is not to adopt any new creed wholesale, but to pick & choose whatever elements fit into my personal worldview. For example, I can accept some general philosophical concepts from Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism, but not their specific religious beliefs & practices. It may be "easy as breathing" for you to "spot the pretenders". That sounds like a simple Black & White worldview. But, since I try to keep an open mind to other perspectives, I have to take a BothAnd approach.
Consequently, it takes hard philosophical work to separate the sheep from the goats. As Pilate replied to Jesus, "what is truth?" And that question still founders on the complexity & ambiguity of competing claims to truth. Therefore, you could say that my "religion" is Philosophy : the search for practical wisdom -- pragmatic truth value -- not for comforting illusions or secret ego-boosting beliefs. :smile:
PS__I've never had any personal spiritual insights or Gnostic revelations from above. My mundane belief system is derived from careful analysis of my personal experiences, and those of others, to find what is useful for me, not necessarily absolutely True. Does that sound selfish or egotistical? If so, that's because my personal philosophical Karate is not used for offense, but for self-defense against a world full of false prophets and self-deluded gnostics.
Knowledge (or gnosis) in Sufism refers to knowledge of Self and God. The gnostic is called al-arif bi'lah or "one who knows by God".
Do you accept Jewish, or Christian, or Sufi gnosis as truth? Is their "Truth" the same as yours? Or do you go your own way, with your own personal relationship with God?
Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
I do not have a monopoly on how one arrives at that which I know-but-cannot-articulate. I have met very few people in my life who I knew knew. We know each other when we see each other, but I suspect they don't know how I came to know any more than I know how they came to know. But, like you, I harbor suspicions about those who I have not met, but who claim to know. Especially if they are either trying to explain what they know (as opposed to the how in obtaining that knowledge), or who those who have a following.
There is an innate desire to share beauty when it is found, but that desire is checked, and manifests in a sharing of the how, as opposed to an effort to explain that which cannot be articulated. So, to answer your question, I do not accept anyone else's gnosis of truth unless I know them. And then, while we might discuss the how, I have never personally done so. Knowing is enough. If they came to their knowledge through some Jewish/Christian/Sufi or other gnosis how, that is immaterial to me. I have only shared my how with one other person and they did not want to do the work.
In any event, my understanding of why a person who knows might appear sanctimonious to those who don't, only arose when I see what I perceive (mistakenly?) as a prevalent pre-emptive defensiveness to the idea that another might know something which they can't explain. If the latter is running around lording it over folks, then yes, I get it. As I stated above, I harbor those same suspicions. But I had specifically refrained from trying to share what I know. In my experience, folks who know do likewise.
This is, obviously, an unwieldy subject. I don't feel comfortable talking about it. Like I said in my first post, it feels like filming the making of love with my lover, and then putting it out there for critique. In no way can that explain how it feels, especially to a virgin. I wrote to the author of the OP in a private message, because I don't even want to discuss the how, much less the findings which cannot be articulated. But I have changed my mind and throw out here what I wrote to him, as amended:
The old Missouri “show me” is not science. Science is “show yourself.” If science requires that an experiment be repeatable, then one need only know the experiment. The results need not be articulable, so long as they are known to the individual. Indeed, removing the result adds an additional layer of objectivity to subsequent testing.
So, here’s the deal: Several pages of direction on how, what, where and when can be drafted explaining the experiment. There is no need for the experimenter to tell anyone “Follow me!” If others want to know, they can conduct the experiment themselves.
The time and effort involved might be more than a few scientific experiments, but it can be a whole lot less time and effort than others. So “being lazy” or “just tell me” or “show me” is no excuse for not putting in the time and effort if one wants to know that which cannot be explained.
But here’s a difficulty: Science requires controlled experiment. This experiment will be controlled, but not by the scientist. In fact, this experiment demands that the scientist relinquish control. However, this too can be in accord with sound scientific principle, especially where control = confirmation bias. In this case, the experiment will be double blind.
Relinquished control is not handed over to another scientist, or human, for that matter. Control is handed over to that which cannot be explained (but which the experiment will reveal). The science-minded can call it "circumstance" if it makes them feel better.
I think of this loss of control like this, by analogy: My perusal of pop physics had me reading about quantum entanglement and other phenomena. I read about the notion that the location of a particle was somehow influenced by our having looked for it where we looked. In other words, it was found to be where we looked. Now imagine the reverse of that. Imagine that the particle would somehow not be there simply by our having looked. And the harder you look, the further you will get from seeing what you want to see.
That is similar to a scientist trying to control the experiment I am talking about. In short, if the scientist goes into the woods seeking to know what I know, he/she will most definitely not find it.
My directions on how, what, where and when must be followed to produce the same result I got. There are ways to distract one’s self from looking for what one is looking for. There may be other ways, but I can only speak to my ways. If you can do it at the kitchen table, fine. Or with Jewish, Christian or whatever protocols, fine. Not me. However, if you go looking, you will not find. And the more you want it, the further you will get from it. But just because you can’t find it, does not mean it is not there. And just because it can’t be articulated to your satisfaction, does not mean it does not exist, or that it does not constitute legitimate wisdom.
The burden of proof is only upon me if I am a proponent. I’m not trying to prove anything to anyone. Indeed, if anyone wants to know, they have to get off their intellectually lazy asses and prove it to themselves. I can lead them to knowledge but I can’t make them think. They have to do it on their own.
P.S. Those who know, know each other when they meet. And they don’t know how they know. And they can spot a charlatan. And they aren’t out selling snake oil, or following a snake oil salesman.
P.S.S. I've long said that science seems to be headed in the wrong direction when each question answered elicits more questions. Then I read on this board, recently, a quote by some guy (Buddah or? can't remember) who said something about knowing less instead of knowing more. I think knowing the one thing that can't be articulated may be enough. Maybe "A". Nevertheless, western philosophy has it's hooks in me, so I struggle anyway.
What reasons or evidence do you have for this? There's a Noble Prize going for anyone who can demonstrate this.
I understand your problem with being perceived as sanctimonious. But that's to be expected on a philosophy forum. Greek Philosophy, and its offspring empirical Science, are not in the business of private beliefs, or secret wisdom. Instead, they are attempts to shine a light on beliefs hidden in the darkness of subjectivity. So, they have developed a variety of methods to reveal those inner truths to public scrutiny, in order to share any validated wisdom therein. Of course, I'm no scientist, so I am limited to the ancient philosophical tools of reasoning, as a way to test any proposed truths, before I add them to my personal collection.
Unfortunately for you, Philosophy & Science make it mandatory to defend your own beliefs in a public forum. And it may be that skeptical attitude toward Truth that you perceive as "pre-emptive defensiveness". Because that's what it is : a defense against the "Dark Arts". For example, I just read an article, a moment ago, about a physicist, who has a novel theory to explain Black Holes. Contrary to popular opinion among scientists, he thinks they are actually stars composed of Dark Energy. Unfortunately for him, "Chapline’s papers on this topic have garnered only single-digit citations." His private beliefs at this moment are merely hypothetical, and are met with "defensive" disbelief from his peers. Unlike you, though, as a scientist, he doesn't expect his peers to take his word for the new "wisdom". So, he is not offended, but content to take his time to compile supporting evidence, which is hard to come by.
My purpose in responding to your post is not to ridicule your beliefs, but to make you aware that, on a public philosophical forum, you are expected to defend your assertions. So, explaining that your secret wisdom "cannot be articulated" will not gain you much sympathy here. I "know" that first hand, because some of my feeble attempts at articulation of un-orthodox ideas are also meet with defensive disbelief. We are always on guard to defend Philosophy from Sophistry. :smile:
Quoting James Riley
I feel your pain. You feel the need to somehow share your private wisdom, but analytical & empirical Western Philosophy does not accept your pointing & gesturing as a legitimate argument. Eastern Philosophy may have been somewhat more accepting of personal confidence as evidence of truth, but that won't fly on this forum. Of course, there's a variety of alternative Eastern and New Age forums to choose from on FaceBook, where alternative truths are acceptable. :cool:
The Difference Between Sophistry & Philosophy :
Many people confuse “sophistry” with “philosophy.” They think that philosophers are arrogant charlatans who foolishly think they know something. However, that description better fits those we now call “sophists.”
https://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/2012/09/23/the-difference-between-sophistry-philosophy/
Philosophy vs Sophistry - What's the difference? :
the difference between philosophy and sophistry. is that philosophy is an academic discipline that seeks truth through reasoning rather than empiricism while sophistry is cunning, sometimes manifested as trickery.
https://wikidiff.com/sophistry/philosophy
Note -- Sophistry is a sort of Gnosis that is over-articulated, in an attempt to give the impression of logical argument.
Quoting Gnomon
Unfortunately for them, they fail. Thus, it is not mandatory.
Quoting Gnomon
And that is where you are wrong. I don't expect anyone to take my word for anything. If I did, then I could understand the defensiveness. But, since I have no such expectations, I sense insecurity on the part of those who would try to tease out that which they ignore the opportunity to run through their own tests.
Quoting Gnomon
He and I have the lack of offense in common. We only differ in that he is compiling evidence and I am not. Sounds like at least he's running the experiments. Good for him. A searcher. Hopefully he is not jousting at straw man arguments that have not been made.
Quoting Gnomon
And therein lies a question: what is it that makes you think I don't know that? I've merely questioned the insecurity and defensiveness. I'm pretty familiar with how science and logic work. I just thought they were a little less insecure and defensive; especially about issues that have not been raised.
Quoting Gnomon
Again, no sympathy is sought. It would be nice, however, if, when I have not placed any ideas that cannot be articulated into to play, that human emotion would check itself.
Quoting Gnomon
There is the difference between you and I: I have not endeavored to articulate any un-orthodox ideas. Hence my curiosity about why your initial response launched into an argument as if I had.
Quoting Gnomon
I feel absolutely no such need, but you understandably misunderstand my reference to "A". I have a whole rant regarding that, and it springs from my logical assault on the inability of logic to prove a negative, and the logical reliance upon the idea that something is self-evident. I can articulate that argument quite fine and have done so repeatedly on this board. But that springs from those hooks I referenced, and I have not pointed or gestured to anything at all in this thread. Yet here you are, testing, probing, pointing and gesturing at nothing at all. I suspect that is your insecure, defensive humanity; but not your analytical & empirical Western Philosophy that is doing that.
Quoting Gnomon
I might go there if were interested in doing something you mistakenly perceive that I have done. :wink:
Quoting Gnomon
Quoting Gnomon
And that is where you fail to understand gnosis. There is nothing inherent to the definition of gnosis that requires an attempt to communicate anything to anyone.
I will not make the same mistake as you, charging that "Philosophy is a sort of defensive insecurity, running around presupposing arguments that have not been made." What are those called? Straw men? :smile:
Where is it written that the philosophy here should be western? It's called the philosophy forum. Not the western philosophy forum.
Quoting Bret Bernhoft
Let the troubles begin.
:up:
Knowledge is a problematic word, it's not very precise, it covers a lot of area and we can have it and not even be aware that we do, "knowledge by accident". So I agree with you in that one.
Yes, wisdom is a thing. The difficult part is in trying to express the insights you have into some form of coherent argument, in as far as that is possible at all.
It takes talent to do it well. Which is why my favorite part of all of Wittgenstein, for example, are the last few pages of the Tractatus, in which he kind of gestures at the mystical.
But expressing these things should not be impossible, in whatever manner one can.
My private experiences have led me to conclude that personally revealed Gnosis is quite real and valid. As well, it also seems only a matter of time before science will conclusively measure firsthand experiences, or already can.
These are only suppositions, but I'm convinced there is something to it all.
I think the simple answer is "biofeedback". There is already real science behind using biofeedback to understand "what" someone is experiencing. As well as how they're going about it. And then we add omniscient Artificial Intelligence into the mix, and we have the ingredients for understanding the real-time, total data stream of someone's firsthand experiences.
It would also be prudent to mention the rise of Computer-Brain Interfaces (CBIs), which (once publicly available) will dwarf anything we can muster today in terms of measurement and understanding. The sciences and technologies needed to quantify firsthand experiences are emerging quickly. I observe the industry forming in the present day.
(?) the experience ? the experienced (the Sun, other people, extra-self world, ...)
(=) the experience = the experienced (feelings, impulses, self, ...)
Say, when I experience my neighbor, the neighbor isn't identical to my experiences thereof (?).
And, when I experience joy, the joy itself is the experienced (=).
So:
• subjective idealism (solipsism) is mistaking = for ?
• hallucination is mistaking ? for =
Since experiences are involved in both cases, subjective idealism is an easy (gross) pitfall/trap.
Under the (ordinary) assumption that we're sufficiently similar, each of our introspections might also be sufficiently similar, so we might learn about others via introspection (like empathy).
The extra-self world is normally associated with a "physicalistic" reality, filled with all kinds of wibbly-wobbly interaction/transformation.
Errors are can be found either way, so I'm thinking that includes mysticism and weird introspective experiences (perhaps in particular); it's not like we're "perfect" perceivers or anything.
No one-size-fits-all answer I guess; sometimes, sometimes not?
My 2¢s on this quiet weekend; your mileage may vary.
The problem with this (as I am sure you know) is that this is merely a claim. And it sits alongside all kinds of claims people make such as "I can talk to dead people" and "I can see auras".
Quoting Bret Bernhoft
People are frequently convinced about things which are untrue, as history has demonstrated. Have you had a personal experience of revealed wisdom yourself? How do you know that this is what it is?
I understand and validate what you're saying, that personal experiences can be hallucinations. As well as my statements being only claims, made without any evidence. Thus, my comments should only be taken seriously in so much that they are data points in the larger picture of what's happening right now in our world.
And yes, I do feel I've had a personal experience of revealed wisdom. I came to the conclusion that my experience was Gnosis in that the insights gained reliably foresaw future events and circumstances. The whole things has me rather perplexed.
I have heard similar claims from about a dozen people over the decades. These experiences were supposedly derived from sources such as Islam, Christianity, meditation, Hinduism, Kabbalah, Aleister Crowley, whatever. You have settled on Gnosis as the source of your 'glimmers' for reasons as yet inscrutable.
Sounds like this thread was a sly way to slowly get around to your occult visions of the end of times, or are your visions less apocalyptic?
Why should science be repeatable? Reproducible, to use a more experimental approach? God help us if this is really the case!
:100: :up: Thanks for catching that. I meant reproducible.
P.S. This discloses another example of where science is forced to bow down to nature. If only it could repeat, then it would have all the answers to the past (including personal, subjective experience). But alas, we must settle for the next best thing: reproducible; which is limited to what we, subjectively, consider the "pertinent" or "relevant" facts, and then only to the extent we can recreate/copy them. A "secondary authority" at best.
Likewise the "in Sufism." And the "of" preceding the "by." We could also nit pic the definition of "God" by which the knowledge comes. I suppose that in exalting form over substance, we could force those Sufis to articulate their case, under oath, in words we understand. Hopefully we do so with an eye to understanding, and not to build up big ideas that aren't.
If we were really interested in understanding, we could run their tests, instead of ours. But that might take work that we are not willing to do? Not sure. Just spit-balling here.
But that brings up another question. Has science ever accumulated any data points on the number of scientists that went up the river, into the heart of darkness? Did any of them ever come back, still in their lab coats, nit picking the locals? I'm not talking about those who try to drag a sterile lab and biofeedback equipment into the jungle. I'm talking about a scientist who did the work of that heart, "reproducing" it's experiments? Or were those scientists no different than the confirmation-bias missionary, converting the heart? People who think they have big ideas, but don't?
Don't get me wrong. I love me a cast iron skillet. :razz:
The problem with reproducibility though is that it excludes many forms of science. It's a constraining methodological feature imposed on scientific knowledge. Like all methodologies are. No progress can be made if one sticks to the method. Feyerabend has seen this very well.
:100: :up: Another chink in the armor of pretension.
When I first mistakenly said "repeatability" (when I really meant reproducibility), that was just the non-scientist in me tipping my hat to, or stipulating to what I thought science demanded as part of it's protocols.
Don't think too admiringly about science though. Or do so, if you want to. That's not upto me. I don't take it too seriously (although it's consequences are, at least, when institutionalized, and all that knowledge provides a good way to do that). It's just one worldview amongst many. Many scientists claim it's the only viable view though. At the expense of others, as science and politics are tightly interwoven in our days. And the old Greek started this attitude (Xenophanes, who reported the existence of one and only reality, one God, independent of us as a reaction to the many present in those good old days). :smile:
:up: Oh, I never took issue with the idea that words have meaning. My point was, your quote referenced Sufism. It seemed you were painting all gnosis with the same brush. I've been leaning on the OP which doesn't limit itself to Sufism, Jewish or Christian or 180's definition or color of gnosis (It's a new term for me, so I've been exploring it, but trying to stay within the assumptions requested and definitions provided by the OP). I then pointed out some of the other terms that could trip up an analysis of what the Sufis might have meant.
:100: To me, it's a tool. Like logic. Like a hammer. Like a gun. It's not perfect and a lot depends on who's wielding it and what their motivations are. Using it to explore some things is like using a hammer to cut wood.
One way to understand the value is reproducibility is to think of the technology that results, which we prefer to be reliable. In general, science can be understood as a search for the "buttons & levers" of nature (so that we can invent vaccines and airplanes and internets.) (Yes, it's also perhaps a search for relatively useless truth.)
Yeah! Man, I get so tired sometimes if I see how that endless pursuit of scientific, so-called objective knowledge, is emphasized and propagated by our beloved scientists. Now if they like that it's upto them, but they (and they have power) wanna transform the world into one big Lego land and make everyone adopt their worldview. Every colorfull spontaneous young child is trained at our schools and filled with knowledge of the objective reality they have in mind. Though I sound a bit pessimistically or dramatically now! Nevertheless, I have good hope for the future, although my mind tells me that something has to go wrong globally because of that endless inflating pursuit of knowledge going hand in hand with a growing production of goods based on this knowledge. That need for growth has invaded the world (seek hide!)! Accidentally I just saw a small kid who made a new record in dj-ing (having fun though!). The motto seems to be "more, deeper, further, higher, longer, smaller, brighter, heavier, lighter, wtf-er?" nowadays.
Indeed. STEM should follow Liberal Arts like school should follow free range play.
I apologize if I misunderstood your intentions. But if you were not "endeavoring " to postulate or defend any debatable or "unorthodox" ideas, why were you posting on a Philosophy forum?
Were you merely seeking for like-minded people? There may be a few closet Gnostics on this forum, but I suspect you would find more of them on the alternative truth forums. Perhaps, on such platforms they can share feelings, without enduring any critiques or challenges. Personally, I enjoy the civilized give & take of this forum. That's even though my personal philosophical position may be in the minority. :smile:
PS__You might find some compatible community on a Quaker forum. Their services are characterized by sitting silently until the spirit ("light of God") moves them to speak. Such messages -- sometimes called a "word of knowledge" (i.e. gnosis) -- are usually received without critique, since it is presumed to be literally the Word of God (amen).
Apology accepted.
Quoting Gnomon
Read posts 1, 3 and 5.
You missed the point. I was not denigrating Eastern philosophy, which I find often enlightening. Instead, I was merely noting that TPF is usually not very "accepting of personal confidence as evidence of truth". Instead, any confident assertions are expected to be supported by articulated argument. Although, some seem to think that this is a scientific forum, and demand empirical evidence. :smile:
Now here I fully agree. It would be quite frustrating if airplanes would suddenly open up underneath, hough parachutes could be helpful here. If their ropes don't turn into gum suddenly, that is (unless this happened each time). It would be very frustrating if vaccines were suddenly eaten by viruses suddenly. Or if the internet turned wild. Luckily Nature is reproducible in some cases. But most things are simple not reproducible (like the human mind, though attempts are made to reproduce even that in the incompatible form of computers). Though many things are. But why always constructing new reproducible structures? What's the big deal?
Why not? Distrust?
No. Philosophical skepticism. As Reagan responded to a Russian nuclear-proliferation treaty : "trust but verify". :smile:
Skepticism :
Some people believe that skepticism is the rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse “skeptic” with “cynic” and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas — no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe.
https://www.skeptic.com/about_us/
Life is, among other things, a competition, an arms race. To say so isn't to celebrate or denigrate.
Nah, assumption of equality of people.
Wisdom to write on a tile and hang it proudly on your living room wall.
The same wisdom can be applied to the world of ideas and various realities that roulette still in our world. I say still because many of them are simply killed by the scientific reality. Those that represent them, that is. Science and political power are still happily married, like the state and religion once were. It's time we get freed from this unholey alliance to give all children in the world a better future, if still possible.
Strange assumption.
There's a difference between equality before the law (in this case, rules) and intellectual/spiritual equality, for instance.
Peer-review and exposure to criticism lets inferior ideas die by exposure.
What's the alternative? Self-anointed spiritual masters competing for simps? "Jingle saves."
Quoting hanaH
What evidence for what truth are you talking about?
What, by the way, do the self-anointed compete for?
I think there's a kind of performative contradiction at the intersection of critical philosophy and elitist spirituality. The trans-rational elitists often can't help offering reasons that they deserve more recognition by plebeian rational humanists. "Can't you see that my spiritual genius is invisible?"
That's an illogical either/or assumption. The same as 'Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know.' There is always the possibility that self-anointed spiritual masters don't compete. That self-anointed spiritual masters aren't known. That peer-review and exposure to criticism realizes it's own inferiority, and itself dies by exposure. That those who know speak. That those who speak do know. Or any other possibilities of which we are unaware.
When someone gives you two choices, pick the third; if only to check someone who thinks they are a peer, or who thinks they are the self-anointed experts on peer-review and exposure. Vet those who would vet. Have they been up the river? If not, what the hell do they know?
Critical thinking takes more than being a critic. It takes analysis. Too many critics jump the gun.
Damned! Sounds like the inquisition! Inferior ideas? What are these? Who are the so often quoted peers that review? They are people too. Who says their own ideas are not "inferior"? You mean scientific ideas? Other non-scientific ideas about the structure of reality,usually dismissed as non-sense and not corresponding to the scientific reality, which is just one among many. Now I don't care if these kinds of scientists consider their own ideas superior to those of others but they have the power to kill those other ideas. They wanna rob other people, with non-scientific ideas, from the very ideas that give meaning to their life. You can see people like a highly organized collection of elementary rishons, or like light and shiny undivisible forms of blueish elf-stuff, to name something. If one has the last perception of reality, then who are scientists to say that they fool themselves? Xenophanes still rules suppreme, so it looks.
I grant that possibility, and personally I'd find something like a transcendence of rationality more plausible in those who had transcended the need for their "arguments" to be recognized by irreligious humanists.
To me scientific knowledge is finally or potentially practical ability, demonstrable and reliable power in the world.
Quoting James Riley
If this just means that critical types are slow to believe religious claims, I don't see how that's jumping the gun (in fact it looks like the opposite.)
I'm all for analysis. Let's count. Let's compare. Set up controlled experiment. Sift for correlations in data. Let's circumvent our cognitive biases, use our network nervous systems to learn about and improve those nervous systems with traditions of mutual criticism and education, etc.
"Hey guys, I can cure cancer. Just drink this goo!"
https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/products-claiming-cure-cancer-are-cruel-deception
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
https://www.avert.org/infographics/sex-virgin-will-not-cure-hiv
Quoting GraveItty
Personally I don't evangelize, nor do I expect religion or conspiracy theory to go away. FWIW, I've also read The Conquest of Abundance. Good stuff but not the last word.
I know next to nothing about Islamic terminology and philosophy. But from a general perspective, the key term in respect of the esoteric spiritual traditions, of which Sufism is one, is 'realisation'.
Realisation has several overlapping meanings. One is to comprehend something - 'I realised that...'. Another is to make something real - 'The construction company realised the vision of the architect...'
In this context, 'realisation' has both aspects. The 'realised being' both comprehends and exemplifies the Supreme Being. That is the culmination of the spiritual path, or 'self realisation'. Casting around for references, I found a published dissertation, The Sufi Journey towards Nondual Self Realisation which explains the topic in contemporary terms. Also an Interview with Henry Bayman.
:100: :up: I agree. Let's do that.
Once upon a time there was X. He came down from the hill stop and said “I have created cold fusion!” Everyone raised an eyebrow, and rightly so. Some of the stupid people said “Prove it, X!” to which X replied “There is no way in hell I can prove anything to you, my child. For science knows full well that if you want to know something, you have to convince yourselves. That is why I have provided my protocols to the real scientists, who are already back at their labs, trying to replicate and satisfy themselves that I am either FOS, or that I might be on to something. That is how science works.”
On another mountain sat Y. A scientist crawled up the mountain and asked “What do you know that I don’t know?” Y responded, “To know what, if anything, that I might know that you don’t know, you will have to become me. Or, barring that, you must do what I do.” And the scientist said “Fuck that! I’m not going to sit up here on a sharp rock, freezing my ass off, starving and thirsty!” And Y just smiled and said “That is a good thing. For if you were to come here looking, you would not find. If you want to find, quit looking.” And the scientist crawled back down the mountain, smug in his knowledge that Y is FOS.
Two observations:
1. Both sides of this equation can be smug.
2. Science is not always willing to put in the work, replicate, and run the test.
Two questions:
1. What is science afraid of?
2. Has science ever had anyone go off the reservation and then return? If so, what did the returnee have to say about what, if anything, that Y might know that they didn’t know before he/she left? What are the numbers? Scientific minds might want to know.
Cold fusion matters because we want a better deal on energy than we have now. So the proof for the masses is that the lights stay on without anyone having to burn coal. Similarly, a correct(-enough) theory of aerodynamics is there in the plane that safely and reliably transports passengers over mountains and lakes.
Quoting James Riley
Sure, humans are vain, smug, etc. And science doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's part of an economy. The incentive structure in academia could use some adjustment perhaps. Figuring out how to do so is probably something a scientist would be good at. But nobody was promised a utopia. If things are still flawed, they were even worse before (generally speaking.)
Quoting James Riley
I think science boils down to the practical. A fake "cure" for cancer might lead to the death of person who should have trusted an actual treatment. More on your theme, though, a desperate person might spend the dregs of their bank account on spiritual seminars when their problem could be solved by diet, exercise, and a puppy. In my view, economy is central. Resources, including time, are finite. So it's not only about avoiding disaster. It's also about avoiding wasted motion.
My theme appears to have missed it's mark. :smile:
Anyway, I tried to create a parable about scientists who pretended to intellectual curiosity, and not a desperate person. The need for me to work on my writing is proven once again. :sad: :smile:
But why assume that those with scientific attitude aren't curious about religion, for instance?
Imagine a person who tried various spiritual fads and classics in their 20s and found them all wanting. Or we can think of a mundane spirituality that doesn't even need a fancy word for itself. She loves her mate, her pets, quality in all the little objects and tools in her life, mountain paths, good stories on TV, etc.
For me a scientific attitude is something like doing more with less, staying with the undeniable basics, working and thinking from there. Perhaps it's elitist in its way, like riding a bike with no hands. It annoys people who can't do it or just don't want to.
A reasonable distinction; but you cannot know that you "know by God". unless you know God, or?
Yes. Some people attribute their own personal intuitions & instincts to a mysterious outside (extrinsic) source. When someone says he "trusts his gut", he's probably simply referring to the emotional heart rather than the rational head.
However, some literally believe that they are in communication with some spiritual realm : god, or jnana, or "inner knowledge of dharma", or Akashic Record, or spiritual gnosis. But most Western educated science-based thinkers simply assume that subconscious instincts & intuitions are the result of eons of incremental Darwinian programming into perpetuating genes. Which is more Believable, depends, I suppose, on innate or acquired individual preferences. Which is more True though, remains debatable on philosophical forums. However, there seems to be an interesting parallel between Paranoia (unwarranted feelings) and Intuition (gut feelings). :cool:
Trust your gut… That’s God speaking through you
http://hannahebroaddus.com/trust-your-gut-thats-god-speaking-through-you/
Difference between paranoia and intuition :
Paranoia is defined as: Suspicion and mistrust of people or their actions without evidence or justification. And here's the definition of intuition: The ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=intuition+vs+paranoia+cheating
Carl Jung on Gnostic, Gnosis, Gnosticism :
That right there is closer to what I was talking about, especially if they replicated in the experiment. That, of course, might be defeated if part of the replication involved not trying. On other words, those who go outward in search of what is inside, or those who go inward in search of what is outside, may not be replicating in the experiment. But I'd like to know if science has studied this, or at least logged some data points for future study.
Quoting hanaH
With all the time and money dumped into long-term scientific studies, in the field and in the lab, I find that an unwillingness to follow some simple protocols from a simple person to be indicative of fear, laziness, insecurity or snobbery. Annoying? Only when they put on their critic shoes, sans analysis. It's not like it takes a lot of time or money to go off the reservation and up the river for a year or less.
Pardon my intrusion, but I googled it, and this is one explanation :
"This Man is the one who has fulfilled his 'reason to be'. He has purified himself in readiness to receive the supreme mystic knowledge . . .:
http://www.almirajsuficentre.org.au/qamus/app/single/168
When I was young I spent 15 years respectfully trying to understand revealed wisdom and higher consciousness, spending my time in the company of theosophists, self-described Gnostics, Buddhists, devotees of Ouspensky/Gurdjieff, Steiner, etc. What I tended to find was insecure people obsessed with status and hierarchy who had simply channeled their materialism into spirituality. There were the same fractured inter-personal relationships, jealousies, substance abuse and chasing after real estate and status symbols that characterise any secular person. I have since taken the view that the nature of human beings doesn't change, no matter what their professed metaphysics.
That sounds so predictable. And it highlights what seems to me to be an oxymoronic (emphasis on moronic) problem with the idea of being "in the company of" whilst pursuing what the OP referred to as "personally revealed wisdom". It's like the distinction between spirituality and religion. In my limited experience anyway, personally revealed wisdom was totally personal.
Quoting Tom Storm
That is true not only for those with professed metaphysics, but professed physics, science or what have you. Of course you allowed for that with your inclusion of secular people. In other words, people is people. If you want personally revealed wisdom, you might want to put some distance between yourself and other people. It's also been my experience that many folks don't want to do that because they can't stand having themselves around.
It's very curious. I haven't seeked wisdom in East as it were. But I do know some Buddhists, who were kind enough and not in-you-face like many Christians, who can be really freaking' annoying.
But, I've also met a few of them who did try to show me stuff that supposedly led to enlightenment, or something like this. When I looked at the material, as it was, it looked to me like pretty low quality thinking. When I said this in a nice manner, they would take this attitude of "I have access to something you won't get". I did not like that.
On the other hand, people who practice Zen or who read classical figures seriously, don't bother me at all. They seem to me to be respectable enough. It's when others (less talented) try to ram it down your throat that it becomes a problem.
That's so true. Good line.
I have nothing against people who follow contemplative paths. Who am I to get in other's way? And naturally there are sincere and good people involved. But I have noticed some of these folk do enjoy (if that's the correct verb) looking down on secular folk as unsophisticated yokels. That's what I would expect from the more strident atheist apologists for scientism.
The one figure I found interesting was Jiddu Krishnamurti who was likely no freer of base instincts, lust, materialism and celebrity worship than anyone else. But he dispensed some good ideas.
I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. ... The moment you follow someone you cease to follow Truth.”
? J Krishnamurti
[quote=Krishnamurti]I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. ... The moment you follow someone you cease to follow Truth.”[/quote]
Had a big impact on me, that speech. No path, maybe, but a mountain nonetheless. From a few paragraphs further down:
[quote=Krishnamurti]Truth cannot be brought down, rather the individual must make the effort to ascend to it. You cannot bring the mountain-top to the valley. If you would attain to the mountain-top you must pass through the valley, climb the steeps, unafraid of the dangerous precipices. [/quote]
Yes. It's rather strange. It's as if the ends meetup in the same place. The hard line scientistic sides and the really far gone (vulgarized, popularized) Eastern types end up looking at you either as a lover of woo or as a dry closed-minded nim wit, respectively.
Quoting Tom Storm
He was interesting in several ways. He has a few good lines and spoke reasonably well. Sure, there's something to gain from most things.
What you are missing here, it seems to me, is the wild plurality of ways of going off reservation, and the wild plurality of error. There are far more wrong ways to do something than right ways.
How did you find The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? How was your experiment with Scientology? Did Jainism live up to your expectations? Have you done your "research" on the claims of Q?
Do you see my point?
I do understand this point but Alan Watts is a great example of physician heal thyself, hey? Anxiety ridden, addicted to booze. Really he was a mess. God love him. His book on Zen started me thinking about higher consciousness and different ways of seeing decades ago. I always wished I had met him on his big boat. Did you even meet him?
Well aware of that. Back in the day, early twenties, I used to drive a cab. I picked up some ultra-cool American dude to take him to the airport. Trying to impress him, I talked about Alan Watts for a bit. Silence. Then, 'did you know he died an alcoholic?' I didn't know that, and was shocked by it. Later I read Monica Furlong's book, sold here under the title Genuine Fake. So, yes, he was dissolute, sexually promiscuous, with a terrible alcohol problem. Unlike me, who has lived on a remote mountain top subsisting on nettle soup and owning only a blanket for my whole adult life.
That sounds absurd to me. Look around and see the profusion of healers and gurus and visionaries now available without leaving your home. I doubt that the world has ever offered such a spiritual buffet to the average person, along with the lifespan and leisure to enjoy such things.
The "tyranny" that troubles some may be the absence of tyranny, namely the freedom of others to be unimpressed by their claims of spiritual status or insight.
Consider also that irreligious humanism is likely at least as rare as "spiritual but not religious."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-04/spiritual-supernatural-realities-australians-weig-in-this-easter/100046122
Also:
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/07/20/the-global-god-divide/
I'm not missing that at all. In fact, I think science is somewhat like that. There are more misses than hits. In fact, some even try to intentionally exhaust the misses first, in order to explore the remainder. Why would science expect to be exempt from one area of enquiry, but not another?
Quoting hanaH
The point I'm not getting is the link between LDS, Scientology, Jainism (or any other religion) and "personally revealed wisdom." See OP. Or, as I said a few posts up: "And it highlights what seems to me to be an oxymoronic (emphasis on moronic) problem with the idea of being "in the company of" whilst pursuing what the OP referred to as "personally revealed wisdom". It's like the distinction between spirituality and religion. In my limited experience anyway, personally revealed wisdom was totally personal.
All very appealing to the consumer. It's the 'spiritual supermarket'. Try typing 'mindfulness' into the Amazon search bar. But that doesn't obviate the critique, although I don't know if I want to try and spell it out in detail right at the moment.
I like that you stress professed metaphysics and looked at how these "spiritual" types actually lived. There's a place reserved in my heart for something like the true mystic or the true saint...but I've only ever met flawed human beings in pursuit of the Cure rather than in possession of it. To be fair, the sense that one is on the way to the treasure is itself a form of treasure. Beginnings are sexy, but they don't last, hence the next big thing, the mutation or guide that/who finally gets it right. I mention "Cure" but I don't even accept that there's a disease. We did get smart enough, after centuries of work, to suspect that we didn't come with instructions from some perfect father-creator writ large.
You and @baker both seem to be echoing Nietzsche's disgust with the last man.
https://academyofideas.com/2017/10/nietzsche-and-zarathustra-last-man-superman/
My general view is that modern liberal culture normalises a kind of aberrant state. Whereas traditional cultures make moral demands on the individual, that has been reversed in the ascent of liberalism, whereby the individual, buttressed by science and economics, is the sole arbiter of value, and individual desire is placed above everything else. Nihil ultra ego, nothing beyond self. But, saying that, I also recognise myself as part of that same order. I'm a supermarket-shopping, wage-and-salary-earning middle-class consumer, so I'm not wanting to paint myself as somehow above all of that, or superior to it. But I see the critique, at least, and am prepared to acknowledge it.
Quoting hanaH
From one of the theosophical philosophers I've encountered on this forums:
[quote=Vladimir Solovyov]Imagine a group of people who are all blind, deaf and slightly demented and suddenly someone in the crowd asks, "What are we to do?"... The only possible answer is "Look for a cure". Until you are cured, there is nothing you can do. And since you don't believe you are sick, there can be no cure.”[/quote]
Devoid of a share, single sense perhaps, but rife with many different senses of over-arching purposes. We have the leisure and freedom to explore and discuss such things. Frankly I don't trust what I see as a kind of nostalgia. Sure, we have hot water, air conditioning, Novocain and plenty of food, but we are "condemned to be free" when there "ought" to be a kindler, gentler theocratic hand at the helm.
Quoting Wayfarer
I think you are right, and that that aberrant state is (relative) wealth, health, and freedom. (Of course there are still and always will be things to complain about.)
Quoting Wayfarer
The freed slave misses a simpler world? Or does the master miss his slaves? I think it's both, in all of us perhaps. Sartre, if you can peer through his lingo, is good on this stuff.
Were people in less scientific and more impoverished times less selfish? And are we really such immoralists today ? Because it's acceptable to buy nice things that we don't strictly need? Because, inheriting religious liberty, we use it?
Quoting Wayfarer
Read this in another way and it's just madness.
A otherwise healthy man decides that not only he but everyone around him suffers from an undefinable malady. He tries to spread the news but has trouble getting himself taken seriously, since the "disease" seems to be no more than a vague restlessness, a suspicious nostalgia, and an allergy to freedom (other people's, that is.)
The wisecracks the man should have expected after all did not shake the man's faith in the invisible sickness. Instead he realized that the delusion that one was not sick was in fact its most worrisome symptom.
No, that's not what I mean. We have made astounding technological progress and economic advancement, I'm not questioning that. Generally, I endorse material progress, economic and philosophical liberalism as the least worst option in terms of political philosophy. And Steve Pinker is all about that. But from a review of one of Pinker's earlier writings:
Do you recognise that sense of 'existential unease' which she refers to as 'the human condition'? That, no matter our material circumstances, there can be a sense of un-ease, which can't be eradicated by simply adjusting to it?
Quoting hanaH
It's a saying very characteristic of gnosticism. Gnostics believe that the world that the ordinary person inhabits is illusory - that provides illusory comforts, one that ultimately will bring no real happiness. Sure, this can often mean that gnosticism is, from our comfortable vantage point, an alien and even repellent philosophy, but to understand what they are driving at requires an understanding of what is at stake. And it is to those who think 'nothing is at stake' that Solovyov's aphorism is directed.
Sure, though I wouldn't say there's just one. Angst, ennui, melancholy. Each name a general flavor of the inability to enjoy physical health and security. I'm guessing most people are hit with one these occasionally, but in general I think the average person is caught up in life, worrying about rent, potential boyfriends, taxes, a growth on the skin, fear of violent crime, luminous and bouncy hair, the pesticides on whole wheat bread, and so on and so on. Life is care. Life is a hustle, a hassle. We complain about it, but then we cling to it when somebody tries to take it away.
I like Pinker but I love his favorite philosopher Hobbes. First, back to the madness.
Now for "real happiness."
The point being that "real happiness" strikes me as a pot of gold at the hypothesized end of the rainbow. For there is no such thing as perpetual Tranquillity of mind, while we live here. Just think of ordinary, healthy people eating good food, making love, sleeping in and taking strong coffee in bed, morning sun streaming through the windows. I pity anyone who doesn't regularly find themselves in a state of pleasure. I also distrust anyone who claims that they never suffer or think so little of ordinary pleasures that they would call them unreal. (Do they suffer from anhedonia? Can they not taste apple pie?)
Same holds for me. I don't expect science to go away. I don't take it very seriously though (but many seem so) If it helps my mum with her backpack, Allright (though the urge to cut up and divide frightens me somehow). Is the Earth flat. Seems so from a plane. Is the Earth a ball? Seems so from outer space. When I walk in the forrest it's neither. Unluckily, thanks to science, and it's immersion in economy, most forrests in the world have been mowed down, or replaced, and science walks behind it to find out how bad the consequences will be. I don't have to be a scientist to know that! But I live in this world. And have to make the best of it. I think it's a pity though that so much culture and nature is gone. Though material culture has never been richer.
Sure. But the issue is what kind of experience spirituality is understood to offer. I'm asking about intensity and duration. And I'm also interested in the intensity and duration of angst, ennui, the sense of meaningless. We are bags of water and fire on stilts. Of course mood will fluctuate, so I'm interested in something like the average, as well as the highs and lows. A good life involves frequent satisfactions (very much including the pleasures of romantic love and/or friendship) without too much misery. If a well-fed, relatively secure person is still troubled by dissatisfaction, anxiety, or anhedonia, ... then religion might help, but so might other therapies. Religious freedom means we get to experiment and hopefully find something that works. Personally I'm no longer interested in that kind of therapy, though sacred texts do have value as manifestations and comment upon human nature.
So it goes, the pretty and the ugly. We have the leisure to worry about forests we will mostly never see (I also care about these forests and the biosphere.) A richer material culture is theoretically more capable of benevolent intervention.
Digression? An asteroid may one day be nuked that would otherwise cause a great extinction event, so that wicked humanity, rapist of the environs, ends up a hero after all, thanks to its promethean-technological arrogance and eagerness.
Quoting GraveItty
You're asking why is it that TPF is usually not very "accepting of personal confidence as evidence of truth". You suggested the reason for this was distrust.
I'm suggesting that it is the assumption of equality of people that leads those who assume such equality to not accepting personal confidence as evidence of truth.
If we're all equal in some relevant way, then why should I accept your personal confidence as evidence of truth, notably when you differ from me?
Equality implies intolerance/rejection.
I used to be a "seeker" (god, I hate the word). I looked into several major and minor religions. I was always told, in more or less (usually less) polite ways that I "don't have what it takes".
And while even some religious/spiritual people themselves told me that what looks like materialism, insecurity etc. among the religious/spiritual (and that I should thus dismiss it as faults, imperfections), I've never been convinced by that. Instead, I took a different route: What if the way religious/spiritual people usually are, actually is precisely the way a religious/spiritual person is supposed to be? Why ignore the obvious? So, yes, by these criteria, Donald Trump is a deeply religious/spiritual person. Yes, I know this isn't going to earn me any brownie points. That's what they get for telling me that I don't have what it takes.
Or not. Consider virtue epistemology: It was popular with the ancients. Then it pretty much died out. And then it resurfaced again in the early 2000's, picking up pace.
Quoting hanaH
That's their circus, their monkeys. Not mine.
What did they expect when they told people "You don't have what it takes"?
Quoting hanaH
No, those are just the torments of Tantalus. All those "goodies" might indeed seem like they are at your fingertips -- but when you reach for them, you can never reach them, or they disappear altogether.
They reap what they sowed.
Quoting hanaH
Not Nietzsche's. While I'm no fan of consumerism, I don't agree with Nietzsche either.
Awww, typical right-winger lamentation, "Oh, poor übermenschen us, that we have to endure being accosted by the untermenschen!"
Quoting hanaH
Are you sure? Right-wing political options are on the rise, and so is poverty.
There are two trends within individualism: expansive/entitled individualism, and defensive individualism. The former is in roundabout what you describe above. Defensive individualism is what being left to oneself and being solely blamed for oneself looks like. Defensive individualism is a reaction to the decay of society.
Spiritual types tend to say that they have the real thing while others are fakes. To secular outsiders this is one of the turn-offs of the spiritual hustle. In the end many of us just don't think there's any secret worth bothering too much about.
No brownie points, but it did make me laugh. If you did have what it takes - what is it you are meant to have?
Oh, I still think there's a secret. I've just mostly given up on it.
How could I possibly tell you if I don't have it?
I actually used to hope that they would teach me how to have faith -- but no, they didn't.
I never had that experience. My experience was, I believed that through meditation, a state of insight would spontaneously arise which would melt away all my negative tendencies and weaknesses. I persisted with trying to maintain a daily meditation practice for a lot of years, although this has fallen into abeyance the last couple of years. Early on, I did have a real conversion experience, which I interpreted in a Buddhist framework (mainly through this book.) I formally took refuge in 2007. But in the long run I found are some hindrances that are very hard to overcome. This sense culminated in late 2017 when I gave some talks at a couple of Buddhist centres. I'm quite well-versed in the subject and can talk intelligibly about it. But I felt like a phony, speaking from the position of being dharma teacher. When I was describing the paramitas (Mah?y?na virtues) I realised how conspicuously lacking I was in them. And I went to a Buddhist youth organisation conference around that time, and sadly realised that I thought a lot of well-intentioned Buddhists were also phony. Seemed like a costume drama. For a couple of years after that, I started attending a Pure Land service. The whole idea of Pure Land is that you acknowledge that your own efforts to attain enlightenment are futile and rely solely on the saving power of Amitabha. In a sense, it's rather like Christianity, although the belief system is completely different (although I've since learned that the Pure Land sanghas were massively influenced by Christian outreach in the 20th Century so they modelled some of their liturgical practices on them, particularly their hymns.) But COVID-19 put an end to those, and the local minister was also issued with a notice by the Council that his residence could not be used for public religious services.
But nobody ever told me I didn't have what it takes, I figured that out all by myself. Although through all this, something inside has definitely shifted, even despite my many typical middle-class and middle-aged failings. I guess at the end of the day, I have to acknowledge that I really do have faith in the Buddha, even though the western intellectual side of me doesn't want anything to do with 'faith'. :vomit:
This suggests an absolute truth, equal for all. Equal in some relevant way? What on Earth are you talking about?
Platonism believed that we're a fusion of soul and body. A lot of people will say it's 'bronze age mythology'. But my view is that all of those ancient texts are symnbolically or allegorically conveying truths about the human condition, as you go on to acknowledge.
Platonism (which is to all intents traditional Western philosophy) believed that reason was the faculty through we could gain insight into the imperishable, that which was not subject to change and decay. The problem is the modern, post-enlightenment mind has thrown out the baby of that traditional wisdom with the bathwater of religious dogmatics. Even though Greek philosophy belongs to an earlier age, I think what it is saying still conveys a profound truth, and one largely forgotten - so much so that we've don't even know what it is that has been forgotten, we can't conceive of it any more because our thinking is structured differently.
Quoting hanaH
Of course! Couldn't agree more.
How many times my mum said that! "So it goes". That's just the way it is. And we can do nothing about it. Everyone can do something about it. The grip of science is just too strong, as I have noted here too, reading various comments. But that's just the way it is. From where comes this eager to know, to cut up, to analyze, to solve problems, to invent formal schemes, to categorize, standardize, normalize, reduce, integrate, differentiate, function, rationalize, epistemize, be logical, etc? These things can be fun, but why do these things have the upper hand these days? Of course I'm abstracting here myself now, but it's a philosophy forum, so...
But did you meet anyone whom did not seem phony to you?
Because if not, then how can a "actual" enlightened subject ever recognize another one? If there is no way to tell, then everyone is only pretending to have something they in fact do not.
:up: As Gary Snyder calls it: "the power vision in solitude". I tried some of that in my twenties; living in a beaten down old fisherman's shack in the bush, and hiking in the mountains on my own various times for up to ten days. I have to say there is much to be said for solitude as opposed to "group" spirituality. In relation to the latter, I worked with a Gurdjieff organization for about 15 years, and later short stints with Zen and Tibetan Buddhist organizations; I found the same old human shit, fascination with hierarchy and "climbing the slippery ladder" everywhere.
All of that said Snyder also advocated for the "common work of the tribe".
For me it wasn't metaphysics, but spiritual pursuits I also hoped for a great transformation of that kind. Now I just accept that I should settle for piecemeal improvement.
Quoting Wayfarer
I respect the honesty, and I can relate to the sense of being a phony when talking about virtue from a position of mastery. Anything that has to be said in this regard is already suspect perhaps. The life should say it.
:100: :up:
The only part of this subject that I find worth talking about is the OP. Specifically,
"Assuming that the Gnostics were (and still are) "onto something important" with the role of Gnosis in their perception of life, can it be considered legitimate wisdom? In other words, can personally revealed wisdom be considered truthful and authoritative?
For the purposes of this discussion, wisdom is defined as "useful and sound insight(s).
Is personal Gnosis legitimate wisdom?" [Emphasis added.]
Not all gnosis is inexplicable, but as to that which is, I think it is foolish to think another human could explain the inexplicable. I think it's foolish to try. But it's also foolish to think that just because one doesn't know anything that is inexplicable, then no one else could either. That sounds like a logician and, as far as I'm concerned, logic has it's own 'splaining to do.
I don't think leather ybags of firewater on a couple of stalks have evolved so that every moment of their brief lives is a pleasure. If you like, the world is open sore. But it's less open and bleeding than it used to be. And we can and are trying to improve things every day (well some of us, sometimes.)
Sure. One might say that the soul is no more of a fiction than the liver. In both cases we are looking a human being in terms of parts that we ourselves delineate. The individual organism might also be viewed as a kind of fictional organ of the species.
One of the things that interest me is our deeply-held tradition that each body "contains" or "manifests" or "incarnates" exactly one soul. I suspect this is related to imposing upon a body a responsibility for its actions. "The soul is the prison of the body." (Or, better, the most trainable part of the body.)
I've 'read spiritual books' and gone to very many talks and sessions over the years. I saw Father Bede Griffiths speak in the 1980's not long before he died. He was very frail and elderly but spiritually radiant. Fr Ama Samy struck me as a very authentic teacher. He's a Zen Jesuit (which believe it or not is a sub-genre nowadays.) I probably saw a lot more speakers and teachers that I've forgotten about. I went to the first Science and Non-duality Conference in San Rafael in 2009 and it was a mixture! Some of the speakers struck me as obviously phony, while others seemed authentic.
As for 'who is enlightened', that's a very difficult question to pronounce on. But those whom I regard as genuine embody or convey a senseof authenticity. Some of them are quite ordinary people, but then, both in Christianity and Zen, there's an 'ordinary mind' of enlightenment. It's not necessarily a big deal, outwardly, not all cosmic fireworks and ecstacy. That's what drew me to S?t?. Suzuki-roshi, who founded San Francisco Zen Centre, would say 'strictly speaking, there are no enlightened people, only enlightened activities'.
I was enormously impressed by Lama Yeshe who visited Sydney in 80's - he too didn't live long after that, he died from a congenital heart condition.
He was a very charismatic speaker, albeit with rustic English. But he seemed bubbling over with joy. That talk from him, along with the books I was reading at the time, precipitated the conversion experience I mentioned. That said, I never signed up to his school - some years later, the Vajrayana Institute which was started by his students had a rented place about half a block from me, but I didn't really warm to it. (That has now become the FPMT, Foundation for the Preservation for the Mah?y?na Tradition.) The only Buddhist group I've been part of was a kind of 'friendship group' that met monthly or bi-monthly from around 2008 to 2017 or so, aside from going to Pure Land services.
Quoting hanaH
Well, what is soul? Buddhists technically don't endorse any such idea (although it's complex - I did an MA thesis on that topic.) Suffice to say, I understand the soul to be simply 'the totality of the being'. The ego, which is your self-idea, is one aspect, but, in Western terms, there's the unconscious, subconscious and so on. There are also aims, drives, proclivities, destiny, past memories - I think the expression 'soul' denotes all of that. Not as if the soul is an entity or a thing of any kind - it can't be captured objectively as it's never an object of cognition. There's a lovely term in Buddhist philosophy, 'citta-sant?na', which means 'mind stream'. I think of it like that.
The Platonic idea is, of course, different to that. It goes back to that ancient Greek word, translated as nous (preserved in vernacular English as uncommon common sense, 'she has nous, that one'.) It is nous which 'sees what truly is', and it is that which is associated with the immortal aspect of the being.
Thanks for sharing that.
I think there's very much something to that "authenticity" feeling. It's a bit hard to pin down in words, but one can certainly feel it when around such people. It's a bit of a shame lots of these things can't be expressed well with words.
Then again, I suppose that's what makes it a challenge and interesting too.
For me, it's another one of those things that cannot be satisfactorily articulated. It's just known.
By an inverse analogy, in a certain profession there are those in the community who have what is called "the look." If you see it in a man's eyes, there is absolutely no doubt about it. You know. There are a lot of pretenders out there; some of them are even accomplished within the community. These poser might practice "the look." But it just doesn't work. And everyone knows it. I don't have it, I've never pretended to have it, I absolutely would not want it, and I've only seen it twice. But I knew when I saw it, and so did everyone else. Nobody fucks with those men; at least not with any quarter.
Anyway, that's just an example, if an opposite type of situation.
When one enlightened subject meets the other, there is really no need to engage because there is nothing to say, even if it could be articulated. They just know. I can count on one hand the number I've seen. Then again, I have not had the exposure that many others (Wayfarer?) have had. I've never travelled in those circles. For instance:
Your word "enlightened" sometimes says way too much. It can conjure all kinds of attributes (especially in the insecure or jealous mind) that simply are not possessed by one who has come to know something that cannot be articulated. In my case, it is simply something important to me in my perception of life; to me it is legitimate wisdom, personally revealed, truthful and authoritativeto me, providing useful and sound insight(s). (Taken from OP.) When seen in this light, there is really no need for anyone to feel insecure or jealous or to mount their steed and coming charging at me with demands for logical proof of something I never teased them with in the first place. I don't pretend to the Dali Llama or some sage or zen master. Those boys are a different animal.
Yes. Can confirm from my experience too.
Quoting James Riley
I don't want to convey the impression that I'm asking for something I am missing. And I totally accept your feelings of insight, I've had them too, in very different circumstances from Eastern traditions. I mean, lots of people swear by these experiences, to the point of death.
I call these types of things "mystical", others can use "gnostic", or "spiritual", it matters little what terminology is used.
I do however also understand others who have not had this experience, ask for some articulation, and when it is not given, I understand the skepticism that comes with that. But, it is what it is. Not much too do about that.
I get that too. Especially if someone dangles it in front of them. That is why, at least in my limited experience, it's pretty stupid to dangle.
There may be an initial excitement and a desire to share, but it does more harm to try to say the unsayable, than to just STFU and let it ride.
But there is no harm in defending the idea of personal experience generally, and it having personal meaning to you that is on par with anything else you've picked up, whether from your fellow man in a lab coat, or teaching philosophy in a university. There are no gatekeepers on wisdom, and there is no such thing as insubordination.
Insecurity and jealousy may play a role, but so does embarrassment at a lack of tact or humility. You mention the 'look' in your post. I get that. Call it charisma or comportment or whatever. It does the real work. If someone with charisma uses a grand word (enlightenment, transcendence, etc.), then one is more likely to believe, admire and perhaps envy. If one without charisma uses the grand word, it contributes to an association of grand words with those who don't even cut it in the usual way. This is where I relate to @baker and the idea that religion should be exclusive or difficult, not something a person needs you to believe. That need is evidence against the salesmen being in on something great. Need is base. Need is ordinary. Don't cast pearls before swine, right? But that cuts in every direction (bigger than spirituality). There's a time and place for laying down the intricate stuff, the slippery stuff.
Quoting James Riley
I think there's a non-fancy non-explicitly-spiritual version of this that happens all the time. Two people meet and hopefully recognize one another as cool, noble, attuned, graceful, poised, legit, whatever. If forced to do so, either can squeeze out reasons for their general approval, but the decision for all its complexity and speed is automatic. (I'd break it down into two positive categories. The easier standard is a decent person I can trust and be friendly with, not exciting but fine. The harder standard is that of the peer I can learn from, who will keep me on my toes. Very exciting. One conversation with them is worth a month of small talk. )
It's a beautiful system-myth-theory. The eternal is immaterial and intelligible. Or the intelligible is immaterial and eternal. Or the immaterial is eternal and intelligible. How do mortal beings connect to something immortal? Through some hidden immortal and immaterial part of themselves.
I think we can more concretely say that language and what it accumulates (concepts) is that which is relatively immortal. This is where human communication so far surpasses that of the other animals we invent a special non-biological organ for ourselves. If, however, this organ is immaterial and private, we really can't be rational or scientific about it. I'm not saying that mind is only brain and behavior, but it makes sense that we'd prioritize those aspects of the concept in rational-scientific investigations. Even in ordinary life, it makes sense to look at how people actually act as opposed to how they merely describe themselves.
There's been a very instructive thread on the Phaedo which discusses the immortality of the soul.
Quoting hanaH
I think the key thing that must elude, or precede, any science, is meaning. It's our capacity to interpret and discern meaning that differentiates us from other animals. That's why I'm coming to appreciated C S Peirce, about whom I've learned a ton on this forum. (We have a great exponent of Peircian biosemiotics on this forum.)
WTF are ybags (I'm not America, speaking of which, I just woke up from a terrible dream; election time in America and Trump was making a big chance,,, I felt fear. Saw the end of the world...Thank you science!). Whatever they are (I searched and only saw men with silly ears, in the form of an y?). Why can't they evolve so every moment in their lives is a pleasure (I'm not expecting a scientific answer). I don't like the world be open sore, whatever you mean by that. The world is more open and bleeding than it used to be. We try to improve things every day, but it seems to get worse every day.
Absolutely.
The idea is to try to keep level headed about this stuff, otherwise anyone starts believing they have something that makes them really special over anyone else, and it goes both ways meaning mystical vs. scientist.
We do the best we can trying to be clear in our intentions, when possible.
In hindsight, I think where I was most different from the religious/spiritual people is that they were authoritarian to the core, while I was not. Specifically, right-wing authoritarianism appears to be the personality trait which is of such importance that if one doesn't have enough of it, one cannot be religious/spiritual.
(Why do you think religious/spiritual people tend to affiliate themselves with right-wing political options?)
In order to be religious/spiritual, one needs to be willing and able to destroy others, in every way, psychologically, physically; one needs to see oneself as the arbiter of another's reality, one needs to be able to say, "I am the one who decides what is real for you. I define who you are."
If one isn't like that, one won't be able to keep up with the religious/spiritual people.
I never had that. My approach to religion/spirituality was all about finding The Truth, the How Things Really Are (and at first, my quest was conceptualized as trying to answer the question "Which religion is the right one?"). I was sure that once I'd figure out what The Truth is, everything else would fall into place.
But I also wasn't very concerned about my behavior to begin with, because as someone who had no trouble not smoking, not drinking alcohol, not doing drugs, not being promiscuous etc., the things that people usually struggle with when they approach religion/spirituality didn't apply to me. (Later on, I actually had to teach myself to swear and to use lowly language because even that didn't come naturally to me.)
Quoting Wayfarer
I rarely think that anyone is phony. But then, of course, my basic assumption is that people generally act strategically.
With most of the religions/spiritualities I looked into, I started off by reading their books, getting familiar with their doctrine. It was only if and after I had felt comfortable enough with those and hopeful enough that I went to meet "the people". That was always a "culture shock" that nothing in the books I read and the talks I heard prepared me for. Often, it was like highschool all over again, with all the popular people, the cliques, the misfits, the games. Or the social dynamics were like those between rich and poor people. I thought being either of those ways was a waste of time, but found myself alone in that opinion.
Unlike you, I was always at the bottom of the hierarchy, I never made it up to some position of any relevance. No matter how long I lasted in a group, the members there always felt comfortable to look down on me, like I'm an imbecile or a domestic animal. (I'm surprised to this day that nobody actually patronizingly patted me on the head.)
I guess I do have faith in the Buddha as well. It kind of has a life of its own, regardless of what I do.
But unlike you, I have no Western intellectual qualms about having faith.
In some religions/spiritualities, the standard answer to the above is "It takes one to know one".
The enlightened ones can recognize eachother. And the unelightened are a dozen a dime anyway, so it's not like anyone really cares about them.
Good to read! And, what's your impression about it?
The world has got much better in the last few centuries. Yeah, we still have problems, and, as evolved bags of slow-burning water stilts, there's no reason to expect some final tranquillity, some state of the world where we can no longer see room for improvement. We can, if we please, gossip about our feelings. But if we aren't just comparing feelings, we should discuss a metric for the state of the world. For example, Pinker uses various stats to argue that it is improved. One can of course object to his or any framework, criterion, or metric. It's up for endless debate and revision.
I can relate to this. To me that's more a mark of the philosopher or scientist. Anyway, I was also attracted to religion as a kind of ultimate science of reality.
The question was not for me, but a possible answer is the centrality of a prophet/sage and his texts in most religions (monarchy-patriarchy happens to be baked in to many of them.) If one opens up a religion to democratic control and individual rights, the result is something like the US Constitution. (It's as if the mainstream way of being, with its religious tolerance, is an exploded religion of little anarchists who tolerate only minimal control of their spiritual activities --each their own king and pope on a little island in archipelago, with money as the ocean that connects them.)
Already here we disagree. Of course scientist bring the examples of vaccines, airplanes, computers, TV's, or whatever fruits hanging on the trees of science, to the defense front, but the very fact that it has become the standard worldview on the planet (together with western democracy, a phony one because other cultures aren't allowed to live life as they see it fit for them), enforced with the power emerging from them same trees (a weapon arsenal, capable of destroying the whole surface of our precious Earth, with the god-given wonder of life on it, from which I don't get my morals, by the way) imposing it. The world is turning in one big panopticon. What a prospect!
Quoting hanaH
Still? They only grow! And I'm sure you think science has the solution to solve them all. Aaaah yes, problem-solving. How efficiently the young are trained already in this. Instead of the elders providing them with a means for a living. As far as I can see, the future is looking dim and every light at the end of the tunnel turns out to be another train coming. The economic train is loaded heavier and heavier and grows longer and longer, like the body of scientific knowledge. Seems the driver doesn't see the deep cliff ahead. But hey, people have marshmallow brains.
quote="hanaH;612260"]there's no reason to expect some final tranquillity, some state of the world where we can no longer see room for improvement.[/quote]
Why not. Covid did well! I liked it! There is always room for improvement!
Quoting hanaH
Why should we gossip about our feelings? I'm not that interested in the feelings of others nor do I wish to state mine exorbitantly.
Pinker might use various stats, but according to his metrics, which are scientific. One can endlessly debate about the wonders and achievements of science but it's just one view amongst others. With no special position, such as the only culture in contact with reality. With scientific reality that is. As defined by science. But there are many more human cultures and ways of living. To deny them, call them unreal or superstitious, or to prohibit them to flourish (as it is, in practice), would be inhumane.
So then it is evident to someone who's on the outside when a "fake" is speaking to someone who is enlightened?
Or do you need to be around such people to tell?
Quoting GraveItty
If it's all just opinion, then why aren't we just gossiping about preferences and hunches here? I don't think all opinions are equally accurate or useful. It's absurd to have to say so, since in practical life we constantly evaluate claims for their trustworthiness. Counting to see how many babies survive childhood or looking at how long the average human lives in time and place are not esoteric metrics. For me the scientific approach is something like refined common sense, which is to say a kind of basis we have in common. It's not some strange flower. Germ theory was inspired by a microscope, by seeing anthrax germs and hypothesizing them as a cause of disease...then testing that hypothesis. Ultimately we gained more control of nature, fending off a serious threat.
"It takes one to know one" means that in order to recognize an enlightened person, one must be enlightened as well. Only an arahant can recognize another arahant.
An outsider definitely cannot recognize an enlightened person.
Can an outsider spot a fraud, or do they camouflage themselves well?
No.
It's not clear it has to do with camouflage. The idea that religious/spiritual people would knowingly pose and try to present themselves as more religiously/spiritually advanced than they know they are seems implausible.
I think people just go along with what seems easiest, most comfortable, what they like (and sometimes, this means going for whatever brings them a rush of adrenaline).
I don't understand this obsession with figuring out who's a phony or a fraud, and who's genuine. I think this distinction is only relevant for those who try to operate in blind faith.
So a person claims to be a guru, a spiritual master, claims that he has found The Truth. So now what?
Apparently, now nothing. I don't expect insight from such a person in the form of propositions or articulable knowledge. Kind of trying to imagine what that would be like, but it's not really possible.
Simply curious to see how people inside these traditions thinkin about these things.
Again, and it's tiring a bit, you don't understand. I'm a quite patient guy but sometimes I can't understand why people don't see the obvious. I don't say it's all just an opinion. Preferences and hunches are to be found in every knowledge system. That of religion, that of the Inuit, or that of the astrologist. They are a welcome addition to knowledge though, and the pseudo science of today can be the normal of tomorrow. If I believe Covid is caused by a non-viral entity, then who are you to say I'm wrong? "Because you are wrong", I hear you say. And that's where you are wrong. In the present science based world it comes in handy though. The virus approach to the disease. Science is the cause for the global outbreaks, so it should be used for cure too. But there are legitimate other approaches to the cure of the disease and on top of that, the covid-affair is highly overrated. I myself believe a virus did the job indeed. You would say that it is the virus only that did the job. People of different outlook don't see viruses at all, and I know that it's hard for you to imagine that this could be not so for others. Everyone likes his own reality to be universal, and we are trained that there can be only one reality. But so thought the old Greek who saw gods walking on the Olympos. The concept of one unchangeable reality was introduced by Xenophanes (as I already mentioned). He replaced the old reality by one almighty God, unknowable to man, approximate though. An idea overtook in mathematical form by Plato. And still loudly sounding in these days. So however usefull science may be, it hasn't got a sole right on ontology matters. If someone sees a disease as an imbalance of the cholera or flegmatic fluid, and has means for curing it (and there are numerous examples where science fails, and alternative succeeds, because science gives a pretty distorted, incoherent, and disconnected view of living beings, not to mention the many mistakes and failures made in hospitals, but you seem to overlook these), then who is science to exclude them. And they are excluded, although they can operate on the border of society. In a truly free society the should be given equal privilege.
So again, propaganda babble.
Quoting hanaH
A serious threat? Are there non-serious ones too. This word is often heard too in propaganda babble. More control over nature? You mean more control over human beings. Nature has lost control over itself and is replaced by crazy human inventions. Control over Nature... Speaking about humbleness. Nature gave you the gift of life. TmYou have the same attitude of the separation of man and Nature as is posed by the dogma of science. I'm not a guy who is all natural or something like that. I'm a physicist myself and I like science. I don't have the attitude though that my reality is the one for all, although I belief my knowledge can be objective. Be it like it is, I'm gonna watch the Dalek, from 1966. "Exterminate, exterminate!"
Read something from or about the teachings of Ramana Maharishi, even if just the wikipedia entry on him. He's a genuine guru, I'm not. He's representative of the Hindu path of 'Advaita Vedanta'. Another first-hand account can be found in Krishnamurti's Notebook. He's not an adherent or advocate of any school or sect, although in some respects overlaps with Buddhism. But I could't possibly convey the gist of any of that, I'm not qualified to do so.
The other thing to bear in mind is that it’s not ‘religion’ as we know it. Our culture tends to categorise the territory in a particular way as a consequence of its own history That results in a certain kind of pre-packaged response, based on the classification of these ideas with ‘religion’.
See http://veda.wikidot.com/dharma-and-religion
So, what 'position of relevance' in which organisation do you think I attained?
Grand priest.
:up:
I agree with Popper that creativity is crucial, so that science even grows in the soil of poetry. But we have to test those hunches.
Quoting GraveItty
I'm not such a rigid realist. I have a soft spot for instrumentalism. The virus theory is cashed out in applications, in relatively reliable techniques. Examine the miasma theory. It's fairly reasonable, and I bet that it did help present disease. It's just that focusing on the microorganisms was more effective.
Quoting GraveItty
I don't personify nature. I am a Western personality, a child of the Enlightenment, an atheist. I am aware that there are others ways to be in the world. "Dogma of science" strikes me as a crude phrase. What seems to offend you about my attitude is all the stuff I don't believe in, don't take seriously. I don't care whether one says that quarks (and so on) "really" exist or whether they are just part of a calculation system that helps us practically. I prefer a minimal, relentlessly ordinary ontology. I like to see how little I can do with, ride the bike with no hands.
I don't agree. Why should it? I like creativity, but I don't consider it crucial. In the sciences it welcome, But if one want to stick to the status quo, why not?
Quoting hanaH
Allright. You don't personify nature. Good for you. I don't either, though sometime call it mother Nature and talk about her as if she is female. There are many creatures living in it though. They are our fellow beings and have a face just like you and me. Like a consciousness. I don't have a problem killing them, but the way science and its application, in that relentless pursuit of knowledge, has wiped them out, tortured them (for which some scientists are paid well or even get a medal), changed or destroyed their habitat, etc. is simply too much. You don't sound pretty enlightened. As a child of it.
Quoting hanaH
And how do you know that? You did the investigation?
Quoting hanaH
It is a crude phrase? Why? Because you are an atheist, and don't like the dogmas of church? Like the church has dogmas, so does science. There is even the central dogma of biology. We are just vessels of genes and memes in urge to propagate them. So it goes. Now what a view! Damned, do they really think this?
However. Good luck as a child of enlightenment.
Google it. Look at some data. As mentioned, I recently read Enlightenment Now. You'd probably hate it, which doesn't make it wrong.
Quoting GraveItty
I think I'm OK with that. Quoting GraveItty
Perhaps read Popper? I meant for that for the advance of science hunches and metaphysical notions can be useful. Ideas can come into focus and slowly become testable & practical.
Quoting GraveItty
It's a sloppy metaphor.
Quoting GraveItty
Well that's your take on the theory. You know you aren't the first to dislike Darwin's "dangerous idea."
Is it so bad to be an animal that evolved?
Quoting GraveItty
Let's get more specific.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
I Googled but couldn't find data about it. I think the virus approach is best in the short run. I think modern science has a pretty distorted picture of the human body. Cut up, disconnected, and reductive. The non-scientific approach addresses the body like it is. I'm glad my mother gets surgery though. She has been in pain for a few months now. Reparing her damaged place is science pretty good at. So thank the doctors! I had my eyes radially keratotomized. A technique applied in the former USSR on the wagon line. But my insurance wouldn't pay! Damn that greedy company, who steal money from me every month! And I even have to pay my daily methadone dose myself (upto 380).
Let me be even more specific. Thanks to the rotating of the Earth, facing the heat and the cold periodically, the slow changing of the heat flow daily, gave rise to dissipate, non-reversable structures, continually interacting to give rise, in a reproductive way, to the beautifully diversity and interconnectedness of life we see nowadays. We are the only naked species but have gained a creative freedom. But fundamentally we are the same as any other creature. The universe was created by gods when they had nothing to do. So it's a fancy of the gods. I damn them for it! How could they have made a universe with a form of life that's so violent and tyrannical? I thank them at the same time. For having made it.(yes, they have made you too, via evolution) It's beautiful!
I've never dared let go, myself.
Quoting hanaH
Nope. One of my favourite books about ten years back was Your Inner Fish, which was a fantastic exposition of the evolutionary history of h. sapiens back to it's ancient ancestral form as a billions of years old proto-fish species.
But even knowing all of that, h. sapiens has crossed an existential boundary, or horizon, by becoming self-aware. Heck, even some evolutionary biologists realise that:
[quote=Julian Huxley; https://reasonandmeaning.com/2014/02/24/evolutionary-biology-and-the-meaning-of-life/]Man is that part of reality in which and through which the cosmic process has become conscious and has begun to comprehend itself. His supreme task is to increase that conscious comprehension and to apply it as fully as possible to guide the course of events. In other words, his role is to discover his destiny as an agent of the evolutionary process, in order to fulfill it more adequately.[/quote]
He says elsewhere that 'in man, evolution becomes conscious'.
However - this is a big 'however' - unlike his more mystically-inclined brother, Alduous, he held staunchly to the view that only through science could humans meaningfully realise this power. No time for all that mystical blather his brother was into.
My sketchy understanding of what gnosticism represents, is that the gnostic is also aware of him/herself as a kind of conscious embodiment of the Universe. This is one meaning of the ancient gnostic and hermetic aphorism 'as above, so below'. But because this is mystical, rather than scientific, then it is not realised through the exercise of arms-length, mathematically-predictive scientific reason (although it's not necessarily incompatible with that). It is more immediate, intimate, and alive than what science can bring us. It is a realisation of a 'higher' sense of identity - as an embodiment of the Universe, or its source. That is what is behind the mythology of gnostic insight, in my understanding.
Interestingly, Theodosius Dobzhansky, who was one of the architects of the modern evolutionary synthesis, and the originator of the well-known phrase '"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution'. He also wrote a book, which I've never gotten hold of, called The Biology of Ultimate Concern, in the preface of which he wrote
I think it's in this sense that the human can realise itself as something more than or other than simply a creature. That, to me, is what the ancient intuition of 'the soul' is attempting to convey.
The one that afforded you this:
Quoting Wayfarer
You sat on a podium and all that, no?
Where's the catch in this OP?
Why ask such a question? Out of fear of being duped? Or is it based on the concern that personal gnosis is, essentially, a case of epistemic luck?
For example Nietzsche's "personal gnosis" was much more than just "legitimate" wisdom.
It made me most uncomfortable to do so. I gave casual talks, to small audiences, several times over the years. Is that 'a position of status'? I did an MA in the subject, from which nothing material ever eventuated. I never had any kind of experience of being discriminated against or patronised by any organisation, was never really part of one.
Sure, it's a position of status. You could have picked up from there and move up the hierarchical ladder.
There's a saying -- Better to be a fallen brahmana than a good sudra.
I suppose things are easier for men, esp. men with advanced degrees.
Indeed.
Anyway, and I don't mean this to belittle you, my point is that you work yourself up over very little. So you realized that your sila is lacking. It's very common. It's no reason to give up on the practice or to drastically change one's religious inclinations or affiliations. The idea that it is better to be a fallen brahmana than a good sudra speaks to one's pride, one's ego, it's easy on the ego. Admitting that one is a beginner can be extremely difficult to come to terms with because it can be perceived as so offensive. But it's where things begin. And one has to start somewhere, if one is to move from the spot.
"Legitimate" for whom? (If only "personal", how does it differ from mere "faith" or more quixotic "solipsism"?)
By what standard is this "legitimacy" measured?
"Wisdom" to be, do or become what?
NB: Btw, philosophers 'love wisdom' precisely because they are self-aware, reflective fools for whom 'wisdom' is unattainable; only (charlatans &) sophists, however, claim to attain, or have, 'wisdom'.