X: Yes, yes, that's it! Do it again! Do it again! Quick! Quick!

Y: Well, I first I turned it off, then I banged the damn thing with a hammer here and here, then I spilled my coffee on the circuit board then...you know what I don't think I can do this again, it's a one-off deal! No repeats!

X: F**k! F**k! F**k!

Y: Indeed! Indeed!

Is Gnosis a useful source of knowledge and/or wisdom? — Bret Bernhoft

The gate to the Oracle at Delphi bore this inscription : "gnothi seauton" (know thyself). That kind of "direct" (introspective) gnosis is indeed necessary for wisdom. But, pretending to know something via indirect channels -- hidden from Reason & human eyes -- may be wise like a wiley serpent. The ancient Gnostics got a bad reputation for claiming to reveal occult esoteric spiritual truths that are necessary for salvation. And that tactic worked well on gullible people, who put their trust in con-men. But philosophical wisdom must be amenable to Reason, and not just taken on Faith. Confer "Trump Truth". :nerd:

PS__OccultGnosis is indeed "useful" for separating money from naive or emotionally needy people. My trusting sister was just conned into giving-out her bank account information to an Indian Microsoft "expert" who claimed to be able to fix a technical problem with her computer, that was caused by his own virus. I don't think she was so naive, but merely confused & frustrated by the sudden craziness on her computer. Fortunately, she called her skeptical brother, before any real damage was done.

Sounds like a hobby to me.

Gnosis is the direct experience of knowledge and wisdom. — Bret Bernhoft

I'm not sure how do you mean this. It sounds like "the experience one has from knowledge", which doesn't make much sense to me; I can't get what that could be. But it would certainly make sense to me if you had said "the knowledge that comes from (direct) experience".
Anyway, wouldn't it be better if you had brought in definitions of the term "Gnosis" or at least a more complete description, since it is the key term in this topic?

Well, I will do it for you:

"Gnosis" from ...

Oxford LEXICO: "Knowledge of spiritual mysteries."

Merriam Webster: "Esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth held by the ancient Gnostics to be essential to salvation".

Collins: "Supposedly revealed knowledge of various spiritual truths, esp that said to have been possessed by ancient Gnostics"

Quite confusing, eh? (Although the "spiritual" element is common in every case.) Well, this is maybe because "Gnosis" is not an established tern.
On the other hand, we get much more enlightened from next source:

Wikipedia: "Gnosis is the common Greek noun for knowledge. The term was used among various Hellenistic religions and philosophies in the Greco-Roman world. It is best known for its implication within Gnosticism, where it signifies a spiritual knowledge or insight into humanity's real nature as divine, leading to the deliverance of the divine spark within humanity from the constraints of earthly existence."

But also in Wikipedia, one reads "In chaos magic, gnosis or the gnostic state refers to an altered state of consciousness in which a person's mind is focused on only one point, thought, or goal and all other thoughts are thrust out. The gnostic state is used to bypass the 'filter' of the conscious mind – something thought to be necessary for working most forms of magic. Since it takes years of training to master this sort of Zen-like meditative ability, chaos magicians employ a variety of other ways to attain a 'brief no-mind state' in which to work magic."[/i]

(Note that Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy have no articles on "Gnosis", only on "Gnosticism". Which indicates that it is not a (standard) philosophical subject by itself.)

No wonder then why "Gnosis" is underappreciated ...

***

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 ...

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 (?)

How do you know if it is a "legitimate" form of spirituality? What does legitimate mean here? Is it sufficient to have an experience and call it Gnosis? Or is there a distinction between believing one has gained access to "greater mysteries" and having such access? Can we tell the difference? Do we even know there is such a thing?

The problem with all such promises is that one must first buy into it in order to seriously pursue it, and then when one fails to realize what is expected the blame is put on the person striving for doing or not doing something.

The gate to the Oracle at Delphi bore this inscription : "gnothi seauton" (know thyself). That kind of "direct" (introspective) gnosis is indeed necessary for wisdom. — Gnomon

:up: In other words, as a disciple of Sunzi once said: "A man's got to know his limitations."

(The gnosis of) Don't bullshit thyself. :fire:

But, pretending to know something via indirect channels -- hidden from Reason & human eyes -- may be wise like a wiley serpent. The ancient Gnostics got a bad reputation for claiming to reveal occult esoteric spiritual truths that are necessary for salvation. And that tactic worked well on gullible people, who put their trust in con-men. But philosophical wisdom must be amenable to Reason, and not just taken on Faith.

:100:

I'm a (modern) Gnostic in the following sense:

I don't want to believe. I want to know. — Carl Sagan

I do not want to found anything on the incomprehensible. I want to know whether I can live with what I know and with that alone. — Albert Camus

Deus, sive natura naturans. — Benedict Spinoza

What I know, what is certain, what I cannot deny, what I cannot reject — this is what counts. I can negate everything of that part of me that lives on vague nostalgias, except this desire for unity, this longing to solve, this need for clarity and cohesion. I can refute everything in this world surrounding me that offends or enraptures me, except this chaos, this sovereign chance and this divine equivalence which springs from anarchy. I don’t know whether this world has a meaning that transcends it. But I know that I do not know that meaning and that it is impossible for me just now to know it. What can a meaning outside my condition mean to me? I can understand only in human terms. What I touch, what resists me — that is what I understand. And these two certainties — my appetite for the absolute and for unity and the impossibility of reducing this world to a rational and reasonable principle — I also know that I cannot reconcile them. What other truth can I admit without lying, without bringing in a hope I lack and which means nothing within the limits of my condition? — Albert Camus

That which is [harmful] to you, do not do to anyone. — Hillel the Elder

I relate to the Carl Sagan quote you shared, thank you for that.

My trusting sister was just conned into giving-out her bank account information to an Indian Microsoft "expert" who claimed to be able to fix a technical problem with her computer, that was caused by his own virus. — Gnomon

The horror! Sounds like a blockbuster movie plot themed on/around cybercrime.

As long as there's an epistemic gap between a description of eating ice cream and actually chowing down on one, I believe gnosis won't go away.

Readers might wanna look up the Mary's room gedanken experiment.

I am agnostic myself. That is to say that I regard anything experienced and anything known to be aspects of the physical and thus not spiritual. This is not to deny the reality of the spiritual, because such would be a gnostic claim to know the unreality of the spiritual. Rather I would place the spiritual in that place 'whereof one cannot speak'.

Thus a particular theism, and equally, a positive atheism are gnostic positions because they make claims about the spiritual, that we agnostics deny can be known.

Rather I would place the spiritual in that place 'whereof one cannot speak'. — unenlightened

I look at all those places "whereof one cannot speak" as challenges, to find a way to speak about them. What "whereof one cannot speak" refers to is only temporary, as language evolves.

Ok, go on, you are not alone, but neither am I - "The tao that can be told is not the eternal tao."

Gnostics considered the principal element of salvation to be direct knowledge of the supreme divinity in the form of mystical or esoteric insight. Many Gnostic texts deal not in concepts of sin and repentance, but with illusion and enlightenment.

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

I would distinguish insight from knowledge thus; knowledge is the past projected into the future, whereas insight is immediate and present. One cannot share insight, but only relate it as experience from the past, so what one shares is knowledge. But knowledge can only be added to the illusion of those who lack insight - and that is the story of every religion, that the founder has spiritual insight and the followers convert it into knowledge that then becomes dogma.

Thank you for your kind words. I'm glad I could contribute in this topic, well, "by accident", since itself has no well-defined shape, flesh or bones. :smile:

it seems to be connected with "mystery" or occultism — javi2541997

Yes, it seems it has this color too! :smile:

He did something related in another post but he never answered me — javi2541997

Indeed, he doesn't look much of an answering guy ... He didn't answer me neither. Or, simply he is eclectic, because from what I saw, he answered only to @180 Proof ...

Maybe the OP was referring if we can put Gnosis inside a classical source of knowledge such as a rationalism or empiricism (?) — javi2541997

I wouldn't bet on that. If it has not been classifiled, placed anywhere till now, most brobably it simply can't.
Besides, we have already enough philosophical concepts and terms in our store to argue about! :grin:
So, as far as I am concerned, I will continue to consider the word "Gnosis" --as a term and concept-- as something useless, and not talk about it any more.

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.

In the Gospel of Thomas, self-knowledge is related to poverty and wealth. Whether you follow a denomination or not, this idea is a powerful player in the way we view outcomes. Can my understanding change my fate?

...whereas insight is immediate and present. One cannot share insight, but only relate it as experience from the past, so what one shares is knowledge. — unenlightened

"Immediate and present", I wonder what that means. I think I see why you say it's that whereof we cannot speak. By the time we speak of anything immediate and present, it is in the past, and not present. And if we speak of the present itself, as a boundary between past and future, it seems like it must consist of a little of both. But that's contradictory. So it appears like there is some validity to your claim concerning an incapacity to speak about this.

But I still think there must be a way to talk about things which are in the past and the future at the same time, or are neither in the future nor the past, and other insightful things. And if we haven't figured out how to speak that lingo, we might be able to learn it, if we try. We could study the spiritual masters, and learn how to speak that sort of language which shares insight rather than sharing knowledge. To begin with, I would say that it doesn't involve thinking up different words, special jargon, or anything like that, it's just a different way of using the well-worn words which we already have

The ego seems to be out of control. The audacity of the egoists to think that their assessment of what is/what isn’t gnosis is accurate, and to think of passing value judgments, with the laughable implication that their assessments matter (or have some kind of value), is mildly interesting in a comical way.

These assessors, thinking they “have it down”, lack the insight, to see, their entire life has been a compromise of integrity, values, ethics: bereft of any standards that a true gnostic will hold themselves to. living an entire life essentially of failures (various kinds) stepped in deceit, lack of love/affection, consideration, violence (all kinds : a life plagued by all kinds of insecurities and failed attempts to mask it…

so these assessors with their many diseases, physical and mental : broken, fragmented, compromised… think they can just put together bits and pieces of collected information from here and there, shifting their positions like weasels, as they glean from others and change their vocabulary, have the audacity to think they “have it down’? lol. And all this is skepticism? Really? Or is all of this conformity to the highest degree? You have confirmed to everything. Your society, to ideologies, to your flag, to religions ( or its opposite), to narratives, to your philosophies, to your world views, to your prejudices and biass, to the apathy of your old age, to your lack of integrity, to your experiences, to your knowledge.

In any case, that’s that.

....... Un-Gnosis......maybe...

The problem with all such promises is that one must first buy into it in order to seriously pursue it, and then when one fails to realize what is expected the blame is put on the person striving for doing or not doing something. — Fooloso4

That's it in a nutshell. In my experience, the people keenest on gnosis seem to be theosophists and Jungians who have already determined a pecking order and tend to see themselves as climbing the spiritual status ladder.

Can you point to an example of gnosis being achieved and why it is significant?

....... Un-Gnosis......maybe... — skyblack

So, one is skeptical of any fuss (for or against) about Gnosis. After all it is in the un-gnosis there is any possibility. .... and perhaps then it doesn't really matter....

Or is all of this conformity to the highest degree? You have confirmed to everything. Your society, to ideologies, to your flag, to religions ( or its opposite), to narratives, to your philosophies, to your world views, to your prejudices and biases, to the apathy of your old age, to your lack of integrity, to your experiences, to your knowledge. — skyblack

Your hand sweeps broadly against your perceived opponents. You seem to claim a gnosis of your own against all others.

Your hand sweeps broadly against your perceived opponents. You seem to claim a gnosis of your own against all others. — Paine

Donn't be silly. I'm not responsible for your reactions. You have to deal with them.

I don't know what I am reacting to.
You cloak yourself in mystery.

But I still think there must be a way to talk about things — Metaphysician Undercover

He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. — Matthew 11: 15

If we have the same insight, we can talk about it;

There’s a poem which says when two Zen masters meet each other on the road they need no introduction. Thieves recognise one another instantaneously.

https://alanwatts.org/2-2-5-buddhism-as-dialogue-part-1/

But if you have an insight that I do not, then I will always mistake that which is in you for that which is in me when they are not at all the same. I will be like a blind man using the word 'see' and understanding it as a metaphor "I see what you mean", but can only understand "I see a car coming down the road"as some kind of superior directional hearing type thing, or remote touch, or...

You cloak yourself in mystery. — Paine

I'm not responsible for your image formations.

I don't know what I am reacting to. — Paine

I' ll take your word for it. You may keep walking now. If you will excuse me, there are more important things that need my attention.

Lame response.

Lame response. — Paine

I suppose, the above, is an original response then.

What?

What? — Paine

Duh?

These assessors, thinking they “have it down”, lack the insight, to see, their entire life has been a compromise of integrity, values, ethics: bereft of any standards that a true gnostic will hold themselves to. living an entire life essentially of failures (various kinds) stepped in deceit, lack of love/affection, consideration, violence (all kinds : a life plagued by all kinds of insecurities and failed attempts to mask it… — skyblack

So, this 'true gnostic', are you one of that kind?