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.

If it's all just opinion, then why aren't we just gossiping about preferences and hunches here? — hanaH

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.

Ultimately we gained more control of nature, fending off a serious threat. — 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!"

or example, how can being be realized? Or the Supreme Being be exemplified, or that as "culmination" of a path, or self realized? — tim wood

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

Unlike you, I was always at the bottom of the hierarchy, I never made it up to some position of any relevance. — baker

So, what 'position of relevance' in which organisation do you think I attained?

Grand priest.

Preferences and hunches are to be found in every knowledge system. — GraveItty

: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.

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. — 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.

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. — 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 agree with Popper that creativity is crucial, so that science even grows in the soil of poetry. But we have to test those hunches. — hanaH

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?

I don't personify nature. I am a Western personality, a child of the Enlightenment, — 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.

It's just that focusing on the microorganisms was more effective — hanaH

And how do you know that? You did the investigation?

"Dogma of science" strikes me as a crude phrase. — 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.

And how do you know that? You did the investigation? — GraveItty

Google it. Look at some data. As mentioned, I recently read Enlightenment Now. You'd probably hate it, which doesn't make it wrong.

You don't sound pretty enlightened. As a child of it. — GraveItty

I think I'm OK with that.

I like creativity, but I don't consider it crucial. — 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.

Why? Because you are an atheist, and don't like the dogmas of church? Like the church has dogmas, so does science. — GraveItty

It's a sloppy metaphor.

There is even the central dogma of biology. We are just vessels of genes and memes in urge to propagate them. So it goes. — 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?

Now what a view! Damned, do they really think this? — GraveItty

Let's get more specific.

All life on Earth shares a last universal common ancestor (LUCA)[10][11][12] that lived approximately 3.5–3.8 billion years ago.[13] The fossil record includes a progression from early biogenic graphite,[14] to microbial mat fossils,[15][16][17] to fossilised multicellular organisms. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped by repeated formations of new species (speciation), changes within species (anagenesis) and loss of species (extinction) throughout the evolutionary history of life on Earth.[18] Morphological and biochemical traits are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct phylogenetic trees.[19][20]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Google it. Look at some data. As mentioned, I recently read Enlightenment Now. You'd probably hate it, which doesn't make it wrong. — hanaH

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 like to see how little I can do with, ride the bike with no hands. — hanaH

I've never dared let go, myself.

Is it so bad to be an animal that evolved? — 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:

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. — Julian Huxley

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

The worldview of this book arose when the author was in his teens, and became naively enraptured with evolutionary biology. The intellectual stimulation derived from the works of Darwin and other evolutionists was pitted against that arising from reading Dostoyevsky, to a lesser extent Tolstoy, and philosophers such as Solovyov and Bergson. Some sort of reconciliation or harmonization seemed necessary. The urgency of finding a meaning of life grew in the bloody tumult of the Russian Revolution, when life became most insecure and its sense least intelligible... Whatever expertness I may possess is in ... evolutionary genetics. This is no warrant for embarking on speculations in the realms of philosophy and religion... This is not an attempt to derive a philosophy from biology, but rather to include biology in a Weltanschauung.

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.

So, what 'position of relevance' in which organisation do you think I attained? — Wayfarer

The one that afforded you this:

/.../ in late 2017 when I gave some talks at a couple of Buddhist centres. — Wayfarer

You sat on a podium and all that, no?

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? — Bret Bernhoft

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?

I guess it just depends from "who" that person is.
For example Nietzsche's "personal gnosis" was much more than just "legitimate" wisdom.

You sat on a podium and all that, no? — baker

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.

I voted yes for the simple reason that insight, an understanding of the true nature of something, can inform judicious action.

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. — Wayfarer

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 never had any kind of experience of being discriminated against or patronised by any organisation, was never really part of one.

I suppose things are easier for men, esp. men with advanced degrees.

plus i’m in Australia. Much less class oriented than many places.

plus i’m in Australia. Much less class oriented than many places. — Wayfarer

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.

Thanks. Good advice.

Is personal Gnosis legitimate wisdom? — Bret Bernhoft

"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'.

I would say absolutely. Why wouldn't personally revealed wisdom, lets say a meditative experience, be explainable by mechanical processes of the brain? Any argument against the usefulness of personal revelation is very short sided when it comes to our current and future understanding of consciousness.

Gnosis(Γνωση)means knowledge. Knowledge by definition is objective(in agreement with current objective facts). Personal claims are subjective thus they do not qualify as knowledge.