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. — unenlightened

Well said, sir, even enlightening. :clap: :fire:

:up:

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’? — skyblack

Why do you think that one who is constantly changing positions, would think that they "have it down"? Wouldn't the person who thinks oneself to "have it down", never change positions? And the one who is always changing positions does so because that person does not assume to "have it down".

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... — unenlightened

I must say that I don't know exactly what you mean by "insight", but wouldn't it be possible to show someone else how to have the same insight as yourself, even if that person does not presently have that insight? Then the two of you could talk about it.

I think that the blind analogy is not quite applicable, because the blind man does not have the capacity to see, and cannot be shown how to see something. The person who does not have the same insight as another might still have the capacity to have that insight, if the way is shown.

Why do you think that one who is constantly changing positions, would think that they "have it down"? Wouldn't the person who thinks oneself to "have it down", never change positions? And the one who is always changing positions does so because that person does not assume to "have it down". — Metaphysician Undercover

Good.

The measurement of what you are saying ( a response to what i had said) is determined by the motive behind any 'amendments'. If the amendments are done to upgrade one's weaponry, or to create a patched blanket to weather the assault of debate/regimentation, or to create a mental intellectual crutch etc.....which are the usual reasons why weasels amend.... are usually done to strengthen the image that one has it down. And to project that image outwards.

However, if there is genuine doubt,a healthy skepticism (which means no positions), a desire to know 'what is' the fact, a willingness to 'learn' ( which is not the same as 'accumulation') then yes, the possibility of genuine amendments do arise.

However, considering the rarity of the second possibility, as evidenced by observing what is going on around us (an observation available to all), the likelihood of the second possibility was discarded in light of the common occurrences of the first possibility.

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? — Paine

How is self-knowledge related to poverty and wealth? Is it the inverse of the popular belief that being wise leads to financial wealth? That those who are rich are poor in spirit?

The measurement of what you are saying ( a response to what i had said) is determined by the motive behind any 'amendments'. If the amendments are done to upgrade one's weaponry, or to create a patched blanket to weather the assault of debate/regimentation, or to create a mental intellectual crutch etc.....which are the usual reasons why weasels amend.... are usually done to strengthen the image that one has it down. And to project that image outwards. — skyblack

You are characterizing the person who changes one's position as a "weasel", instead of seeing the person as open minded, and ready to accept change. There are two principal reasons for changing one's position, one is the "weasel" reason, the other the open minded reason.

However, considering the rarity of the second possibility, as evidenced by observing what is going on around us (an observation available to all), the likelihood of the second possibility was discarded in light of the common occurrences of the first possibility. — skyblack

Ever think that perhaps you misinterpret the situation around you? You see people all around you changing their positions, and you conclude that they are all weasels, because you have some predisposition to judge them this way. The weasel changes its position, therefore the person who changes position is a weasel. But in reality many of them are just open minded people.

What would cause you to see these people in this way? Is it because that's the reason why you would change your position, you are a weasel?

There are two principal reasons for changing one's position, one is the "weasel" reason, the other the open minded reason. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's what i just said. You don't have to stand on my shoulders. Broaden yours.

Ever think that perhaps you misinterpret the situation around you? You see people all around you changing their positions, and you conclude that they are all weasels, because you have some predisposition to judge them this way. The weasel changes its position, therefore the person who changes position is a weasel. But in reality many of them are just open minded people.

What would cause you to see these people in this way? Is it because that's the reason why you would change your position, you are a weasel? — Metaphysician Undercover

"I" am not relevant. One makes a deduction based on available facts. As to your 'personal' question : i don't change positions. That should be evident from my history here, as you well know. The reason for me not changing positions is like i said before, i don't have one to begin with.

To jump from a topic or a point, to the person, (Or to fixate on someone) is, clearly, a reactive weasely action, not to mention an unhealthy habit. Don't be a weasel.

I assume that everyone I converse with here is a person, so "I" is very relevant because a person has personality. And if you are a bot, or in some other way not a person, then "I" in that case, is even more relevant.

I assume that everyone I converse with here is a person, so "I" is very relevant because a person has personality. And if you are a bot, or in some other way not a person, then "I" in that case, is even more relevant. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ok. And i just showed it to you, and others, that you have a weaselly "I". You're welcome, adios.

You're no fun. Every time you think you see a weasel you run and hide.

You're no fun. Every time you think you see a weasel you run and hide. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not really. After i see a weasel, i first slap them a bit. ya know, kind of put them in their place sort of thing. After that i usually go about more pressing business. I mean this is not hard to see, right? Its all over my profile.

But if you want more fun, you know where to find me. The offer made to 'Praxis' is open to anyone who wishes to take me up. He couldn't, but maybe you can? let's have some fun on neutral grounds. Don't let me stop you. Maybe you can learn the many ways weasels squirm, eh. Alright, now run along. Dad has other things to do.

The offer made to 'Praxis' is open to anyone who wishes to take me up. He couldn't, but maybe you can? let's have some fun on neutral grounds — skyblack

I'm game. What's this offer to Praxis?

I'm game. What's this offer to Praxis? — Metaphysician Undercover

Go to my profile and keep scrolling back my post history until you find it.

Give me a break. Are you going to produce your offer or not?

Give me a break. Are you going to produce your offer or not? — Metaphysician Undercover

That's what i thought. So long then.

In terms of an example of Gnosis and its significance, we can look to all of Shamanism. Direct revelation is the name of the game when it comes to the work of any genuine Shaman. It's significant because Shamanism is the root of all spirituality and religion.

Gnosis and its significance [ ... ] because Shamanism is the root of all spirituality and religion. — Bret Bernhoft

So are hearing voices, having visions and magical thinking :sparkle: :roll:

Indeed.

Gnosticism is not part of philosophy. It is a Christian heresy. — javi2541997

Right. But although Gnosticism is connected to Gnosis, it's not the subject of this topic. It is not even mentioned in the OP. And, in contrast with Gnosis, it is a well-defined and commonly/widely accepted term.
And I know about the Gnostic Gospels. A very long time ago I was quite interested in and read a couple of them.

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. — javi2541997

OK.

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...

I just checked the OP has changed the title and subject. — javi2541997

Right. Weasels jump on any leads given to them. That was one of my original points.

In the highly unlikely (since i had read all prior posts before posting) event i may be mistaken (or someone else chooses to edit trier posts), yours truly was the first poster to use the word 'gnosis' on this thread. It seems op has taken that word and some of what i have said, to change the title as well as the OP.

In terms of an example of Gnosis and its significance, we can look to all of Shamanism. — Bret Bernhoft

Thanks for clarifying.

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

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 — javi2541997

No, that's what weasel-ness is about. I doubt anyone here knows what gnosis is about. But yes, a weasel, will not hesitate to make an absolute sounding claim of "what it is about"/ or what it isn't. Maybe it is best to be careful, eh. A healthy skepticism is good for inquiries.

But @Alkis Piskas has correctly noted the possibility of a distinction between Gnosticism and Gnosis. And in interest of letting you folks continue i'm not even going to mention Un-Gnosis.

What is the clue of this OP then?

What is the clue of this OP then? — javi2541997

Not sure what you are asking.

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)

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) — javi2541997

Well, if you don't understand what the expression "being a weasel" means then you can Google it. If you don't understand what a collaborative "inquiry" means, you can Google it as well as see some my older posts. And if you don't understand what "healthy Skepticism" means, you can read my previous posts on this very thread.

I can't help you with your language or comprehension issues. You will have to work on it yourself.

But now that you have clarified, clearly your questions need to be directed at op and Alkis. So sort it between yourselves.

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.

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. — javi2541997

Don't sweat it.