Let whoever wins, win. — Cuthbert

The problem is this. Everybody wins inside politics. The government and the opposition. Pur votes give them power to always win in whatever issues.

Obama and Trump - that should cover most people's idea of the Devil, if not the Bushes and Clinton also). — Bylaw

Most PM are puppets of a few wich really holds the power. It could be interesting to see how effective would be not voting at all. What would happen to those puppets.
Everything is a lie and they made up a system to get seats and earn money without responsibilities. What a shame.

I see that "anarchism" is often related to individualism and it is true because politics tend to be inspired for the group.
I understand your point that we cannot live outside law. We need an order and control to our actions and responsibilities.
Nevertheless, I think it should be important to do something against this insufficient establishment of representative. For now, the act of not voting in the right path to follow.

individualist anarchism is what you want. — Cuthbert

It seems to be a worthy cause against the classical system of representatives...

I don't understand what "being a weasel" means because I am not Anglo-Saxon. I don't have a problem in language or comprehension.
If I use sayings in Spanish I guess you would not understand it. Not because you lack of comprehension but you are used to spanish language.

Maybe it is best to be careful, eh. A healthy skepticism is good for inquiries. — skyblack

You have said it is better to be careful. But what is the point of starting this OP then?
I have debated with @Alkis Piskas and he pointed out that Gnosis and Gnosticism could be two different aspects. Even the original poster, @Bret Bernhoft, said that is related to shamanism.
You call us "weasels" because we jump on one argument to another. But I think this is what is about. To debate each other.
I do not see the effectiveness of being careful of answering if the OP is asking for our opinions (I guess)

What is the clue of this OP then?

It seems op has taken that word and some of what i have said, to change the title as well as the OP. — skyblack

So it looks like the author wants to play with us and he is reading our posts in the shadows and he is changing depending on our opinions. :chin:
That's what Gnosis is about

Maybe the problem is more with representative democracy than voting itself. — NOS4A2

Exactly. Representative democracy is no longer effective because they do not "represent" us. It is a filthy lie to get a seat in the congress and start plotting to rule the state.
The problem here is how to get rid of all of those politicians who do not represent us. It looks like impossible because they approve laws to reinforce their seats.
Conclusion: it is a trap the act of voting itself. So, as you well proposed, I also think that not voting is the only defence we still have against them

But although Gnosticism is connected to Gnosis, it's not the subject of this topic. It is not even mentioned in the OP. — Alkis Piskas

I just checked the OP has changed the title and subject. Not my fault! :lol: Anyway, I also see the difference between both concepts.
Still waiting for an answer from the author though...

Very important OP. Let me tell you that I fully agree with you because of the following arguments:

1. Since the moment politicians don't seem to respect voters in general, it looks like it is not worth at all to go and vote for them. Whenever a politician gains his seat he is no longer operative. I mean he stands there in the parliament doing weird stuff and plotting. They only rule for a few so (for example) 800.000 votes go to the rubbish ban if 10 or 20 still winning their benefit. Clearly, they do not govern for the mass but a few persons with money and power. Then, if a seat gives such power to a politician, we have to do the opposite: Not voting. Simple. At least he no longer will survive thanks to our taxes.
2. About honour and loyalty to the nation. But again, it seems politicians do not respect these basic principles of a wealthy nation either. These politicians think they have the power to rule over my life but they are wrong because I know how to die with honour at least. As Yukio Mishima once wrote in one of his essays:
His name was Kozaburo Eto. This young student killed himself on February 11th, Constitution’s day. He did it lonely in the darkness of his job staying apart from television or looks. It was a solemn and respectful act. This was the main critical action against politics I have ever seen in my life.

Hello again, Alkis Piskas. If you do not mind, yesterday I asked through email to Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. what were his thoughts about Gnosis
He answered me with the following opinion:

Gnosticism is not part of philosophy. It is a Christian heresy. It is popular now for people, like Pagels, to think that Gnosticism was the true and proper Christianity, which was suppressed by those evil priests. This is nonsense, but it appeals to people who seem to be materialists and don't believe in miracles, the divinity of Christ, or the Resurrection. Of course, they are free to believe whatever they like, but they don't need to tell me that it is Christianity.
He also shared a paper in the email that is related to the topic: The Gnostic Gospels

I hope it is helpful for you. After reading those opinions I still defend the same base which involves this topic: Gnosis is not related to philosophy but it could be an interesting topic to debate about.

It is less susceptible to supremacism because Shinto is not based on hierarchical relationships neither sacred figures such as "God", "Muhammad", "Jesus", "Abraham", etc...
They just promote their ritual behavior according to values of nature or culture, society and character of Japanese history/heritage or even Oriental thought. I see them as a community instead of a continuous sacrifice of the individual.
I even think it is impossible to say that Christianity is "anti-supremacist" when they are ruled by a pope in Vatican city. This complex structure of power always leads to supremacism and corruption.

It is true that Japanese nationalists have always been mixed with Shinto religion because they see it as a part of Japan's values and traditions.
But I still think that Shinto is not a supremacist ritual as much as Christianity or Islam, due to the following arguments I have read a few days ago:

Shinto tends to focus on ritual behavior rather than doctrine. The philosophers James W. Boyd and Ron G. Williams stated that Shinto is "first and foremost a ritual tradition", while Picken observed that "Shinto is interested not in credenda but in agenda, not in things that should be believed but in things that should be done."
The scholar of religion Clark B. Offner stated that Shinto's focus was on "maintaining communal, ceremonial traditions for the purpose of human (communal) well-being". It is often difficult to distinguish Shinto practices from Japanese customs more broadly, with Picken observing that the "worldview of Shinto" provided the "principal source of self-understanding within the Japanese way of life".
Nelson stated that "Shinto-based orientations and values[…] lie at the core of Japanese culture, society, and character".

I thank you for sharing it with me. — Average

You are welcome :up:

Thank you so much for doing the effort of research. At least, I have learned something new today and looks like interesting. Nevertheless, I also root for the opinion of Stanford Encyclopaedia. As a quick thought of the information you shared with us it seems to be connected with "mystery" or occultism and it even remembers me to pagan religions from Nordics or Celtics.

By the way, thank you again because you were more explicit than the OP itself. He did something related in another post but he never answered me... :lol:

BTW, I have not voted because the question of the poll --"Is Gnosis a useful source of knowledge ..."-- is inconsistent with your initial description of Gnosis, i.e. that it is an experience of knowledge ... — Alkis Piskas

Maybe the OP was referring if we can put Gnosis inside a classical source of knowledge such as a rationalism or empiricism (?)

The average Ph.D. thesis is nothing but a transference
of bones from one graveyard to another - J. Frank Dobie (1888-1964)

A PhD from a top 100 university and with good examiners - — Bartricks

Exactly. I personally think that holding a PhD on philosophy at Harvard university or Oxford (for example) is so worthy and significant.

. If there is a Satan that is when he stepped in. Rome made the religion worse. — Athena

:100: :up:

This is when literally corruption started to flourish

Look at the mess the US is in because it violated human rights and practiced slavery. Or how about global warming and the possibility that our young will not have the good lives we took for granted believing a God takes care of us. The problem is our neighbors who anger the God, who is now angry and instead of heaven on earth, we are getting hell on earth. :rofl: — Athena

Paradoxically, all of those who committed slavery to others are the same who blessed the name of God. Landlords and white supremacist have always been in the side of "holiness" or "God"
This is why I am critical towards the image or idea of God (catholic, Hebrew, Muslim, etc...) because it feels like it is used to pursue some power against others. It is a selfish thought or belief. If we do not believe in God or Christianity we have some chances of being prosecuted or lynched.
I always called "God" as the cosmical dictator for these reasons.

I rather being in Shinto or Asian philosophy side. At least they tend to find an equilibrium or inner peace with nature without impositions.

At least, the pre-Socratic doctrine was related to nature and the search for a connection towards it: fire, water, air, earth, wind, etc...
But since Hebrew Bible or so called old testament, it looks like all depends on a supranatural figure who decides as a judge in a court what is "good" and what is "worng".
In my humble opinion, I guess it is a backwards way of witnessing our lives but I respect there are a lot of people who believe in religion

To the western way of seeing things they are supernatural, but in Shinto they are part of the natural world. — Fooloso4

Exactly and this is one of the aspects I really like about the Japanese culture. The way they respect the natural world. Japanese tend to have an awareness of the place the live in and try to conserve it the best they can.
Shinto tries to explain that all the things around us have a meaning.
There are a lot of examples such as florist or the keeper of a port. They work with a different spirit and subtle.

I imagine I would spend at least some time and effort trying to find out if I was truly alone, but from where I sit now I don't think the search would be desperate. — Fooloso4

Interesting point of view. Are you referring to the fact of having empirical proofs of being alone?
Because an individual can feel be alone even when he is surrounded with people around.

what you say makes me wish I could live with the Japanese who maintain those concepts. I might have a better sense of belonging with them. There is so much I can not talk about in the west because the western mind is so closed. — Athena

:up: :100:

I am so sure that is wrong. It goes with believing our purpose is to keep nature healthy. That is I would work on my relationship with everything around me, and I think I would gather mannequins for dinners and meetings. What a wonderful opportunity to create an imaginary ideal reality.

Your image of reality is full of aesthetics and honour. Let me be honest with you, I tend to make similar actions as yours. I never thought on mannequins (very good idea though) but other elements around me. Developing contact with everything which is around us is important to ensure a meaningful life.
For example: I have scheduled in my Google calendar all the "big moons" that appears in 2022. Whenever this day comes, I look so precisely the moon above my house. This situation gives some vibes of writing some poems or stories, but when I finish them I feel they are not well enough.
Nevertheless, I still think it is important to put an anime to all the elements.

I am inspired by Japanese tradition of shinto (神道): Shinto is polytheistic and revolves around the kami, supernatural entities believed to inhabit all things. The link between the kami and the natural world has led to Shinto being considered animistic....
In Shinto, kannagara ("way of the kami") describes the law of the natural order, with wa ("benign harmony") being inherent in all things

How does one do Gnosis and can you provide an example of it in action? — Tom Storm

Good question. I was wondering exactly the same.

which appears to be a common thread — Bret Bernhoft

I guess the big issue here is to specify where this "common thread" comes from and why it is the origin of the doctrines

Can wars be avoided?

No, and sometimes they are even necessary. War and violence are two important elements of human nature. The world as we know it today is made due to wars that established the map and geopolitics.

Can revolutions be avoided?

It depends on people and their needs. If you cannot put some order in your house or local spaces don't ask for a revolution. I think those can be avoided if at least the citizens can live with basic necessities and lack uncertainty. But I understand that humans are complex and tend to love to express their war spirit as I typed previously.

Is freedom something we can engineer?

I would sound pretty totalitarian but trust me, freedom is one of the fatal issues of our government. The citizens or Societies are not ready to live with freedom yet. Most of the politicians or state parasites use the formula to just live thanks to our taxes. They say it is ok and important to vote for them. But no, they are lying. This democratic system about representatives is a lie. They built up as a mask to keep living a good life. I clearly see that the most democratic country is less pure. Why? Because democracy makes the wrong action to allow literally everything. If you want to keep the peace it would be necessary to put some restrictions. Do not worry. We will not see this kind of fatalism where the democracies are gone because people are so obsessed with it and we any longer have original authors or philosophers to make something different.

Make a favour to yourself and do not vote in the next elections. You would feel better and would think: This is how the real change begins

What about our prosperity or our independence?

We no longer have any of these hippy concepts. We are not independent of anything or anybody. What prosperity or independence are you asking if we do not know our values and culture?
I personally think death is the real of independence from our world.

Destra e sinistra (Right and Left) by Norberto Bobbio.

The Sound of Waves, Yukio Mishima (三島 由紀夫)

Novelist as a Vocation, Haruki Murakami (村上 春樹)

For instance, certain far left wingers think that right wing governments actually make left wing values winning out in the long run, as they increase disatisfaction in the long run with the status quo (which for the far left is by necessity right wing), where as voting left forstalls the change in the status quo away from the right to the left. — RolandTyme

This is how modern politics works. We don't see candidates with good rhetoric or ambitious plans to the citizens. They just plan some strategies to get benefits from our disappointment and angry. When years pass by it is understandable that the government still losing popularity. But instead of making a national plan, the opposition take some advantage of this issue to "steal" old voters from the government.
Then, I can't see if there still "ideologies" like in the past. I guess we just have some public representatives doing weird stuff without challenges

The dark side of moralism is fascism. — Jackson

Hmmm... :chin:

Witness in Christianity is exactly like witness of beauty given by artists: their witness doesn’t prove anything, because art is a subjective experience. — Angelo Cannata

I think we are, somehow, saying similar things. I wanted to mean that a witness or "believer" doesn't need to prove anything because they start with the basic point that God already exists. This is why I have said they seem to believe so blindly.
It is true that there were some theists or philosophers around the history that wanted to prove the existence of God (Aquinas).
They just believe it. Simple.

In this process, faith is anyway necessary, because, as I said, this kind of witness has nothing to do with the scientific kind of evidence. — Angelo Cannata

We have here two different aspects. This is why faith and witness are not connected each other. Faith comes from a subjective nature. You have faith in X and their existence and dogma, etc... because you need a subterfuge to believe in something or finding a worthy path in this life.
But... witness and evidence are there and doesn't matter if you "believe" or "not believe".
For example: the basic evidence that Pluto does exist. There is big evidences about this dwarf planet. You cannot say here "you don't have faith about Pluto's existence" because it literally exists thanks to evidence.
But it is different towards God... you believe in this subterfuge thanks to faith. You believe when there are not proofs of the existence itself.

(What if Hitler could have been snuggled to death as a baby?) — Merkwurdichliebe

Nazism would be able to exist anyway. Hitler was not the only chain of Nazi Germany. The führer could be elected on Goebbles or Himmler, for example. There are some facts inside history that looks like unavoidable.
WWIII and Nazism had to exist to take a good lesson from it. I mean, soon or later, this kind of world issues happen.

What if Putin could have been snuggled to death as a baby? ... well I guess another Russian oligarch with another name would have attacked Ukraine too.

In traditional Japanese culture, there is also the concept of rebirth tied in with suicide; there, suicide isn't seen as the total end of one's existence, the way it is usually seen in secular Western culture. — baker

Exactly, I think Japanese culture (as an overall) doesn't see death as an ending and I think that is so respectful and aesthetic. I sometimes miss the freedom of speaking about death because soon or later I will experience it. I don't want to see it as a taboo topic or so dramatic. I want to understand it as a natural process.

Which "witness" and which "testimony" secures the reproduction of faith such that at the end of the night, those in favor of witnessing will also be compelled to "witness" to others?

Witness and testimony cannot be connected to faith. All these three concepts are contradictory to each other. Faith comes from the point that you believe in something so blindly. You (supposedly) do not need any kind of proof because "God" and Jesus Christ already exist. I mean, you as a believer, start with the fundamental principle that they do exist and this is why you believe in Christianity and their dogma.
Asking for a "witness" or a "testimony" could be risky. You see these actions as a root of securing the potential of Christianity. But, I would not be that sure. Trying to spread the image of Christ through their testimony could be an act of impose or "imperialistic" as Bryan Stone tried to explain. A practice that most of the Western empires promoted back in the day when they "discovered" the new lands in America or Oceania. Building a church and then teaching the Christian dogma.
This issue could end up in an interesting vicious question: If the testimonial or witness of Christ is not solid enough... Should I be able to doubt his existence?

All of these debates about faith are more simplistic than you theists think. You just believe or not believe. Simple. This is what faith is all about. I believe this because I do so, without any witnesses.

Who knows if AI will somehow be created to "feel" and script it? — Josh Alfred

It is possible, indeed. But I think their feelings would be limited by his developer's. The machine would only be able to script a few feelings according to a specific human.
For example: I really enjoy rainy days. Probably the developer hates rainy days. Then, a machine would have a different feeling from mine not reaching a "standard" feeling because that's impossible.

Can you substantiate your claim with empirical evidence, or is it just conjecture? — baker

It is just a conjecture because, sadly, I am not able to know what is inside of a suicidal mind. Some defend that those commanders committed suicide trying to avoid being captured. Others defend the thesis that the killed themselves as an act of honour.
The second thesis, I completely believe it related to Japanese commanders. They did Seppuku as an act of honour towards the emperors for not winning the WWII.

So you don't think they can simulate emotions? There could be programs that write text, in such a way as to make the reader feel. — Josh Alfred

Write a text, yes but just copying some empty words. Whenever you try to write a book or poem you spread all your emotions in them. I could tell a machine my thoughts and order to copy it in a "Word" page. But they would still be my thoughts and emotions.
I can't see neither imagine a machine having emotions itself because this issue is inherent to us, humans.
We love to write stories or poems about autumn or sunset. A machine couldn't understand this feeling.

I would point out all of those jobs which need the "essence" of human nature fulfilled by emotions. For example: A writer or editor. Imagine writing a history about the holidays of this summer which you have spent with family and friends. A robot would not be able to do that because it is full of emotions and memories. I don't even imagine an engineer or programmer putting this information in an IA.
Complex feelings such as sadness and nostalgia are only upon us and how we use and make art with those feelings.