Wrong definition, buddy.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dumb — Wheatley

: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.

These types of schools are initiatory. Which means, what they teach is given in a context, by being initiated or inducted into them, which requires an interest and a willingness to commit. Like an eye, if it is to be useful, has to be situated as part of the whole organism. Rip it out and put it in a bottle, then it's of no interest, unless you're a pathologist. Whereas nowadays we have access to a smorgasbord of information about 'gnosticism' and much else besides, which we can peruse at leisure and consume along with all the other entertainment products. In that context anything likely to be said about such subjects it just verbiage.

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 Jñāna (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.

Rip it out and put it in a bottle, then it's of no interest, unless you're a pathologist — Wayfarer

We're sifting through a sea of pathologists here.

...trying to work out when the death occured, and what was the cause.... :wink:

Definition of "Unspeakable"

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! — TheMadFool

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:

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? — Bret Bernhoft

I don't think there is any robust evidence for revealed wisdom, Gnostic or otherwise.

:up:

I appreciate everyone's diverse responses. This discussion has been fascinating to read. I don't honestly know what to say at this moment, except that I need time to digest all of the content.

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:

my singular pursuit in life is the method of science, and the aim of spirituality. That intersection is important to me. — Bret Bernhoft

To be the good, thoughtful, as real and realistic as possible man. So should we all.

can it be considered legitimate wisdom? — 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?

can personally revealed wisdom be considered truthful and authoritative? — Bret Bernhoft

Again, truthful and authoritative for whom?

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. — James Riley

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

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? — Gnomon

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.

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. — Bret Bernhoft

What reasons or evidence do you have for this? There's a Noble Prize going for anyone who can demonstrate this.

I do not have a monopoly on how one arrives at that which I know-but-cannot-articulate. . . .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 — James Riley

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:

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. — 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.

Please follow the consistent thread running through the following:

Unfortunately for you, Philosophy & Science make it mandatory to defend your own beliefs in a public forum. — Gnomon

Unfortunately for them, they fail. Thus, it is not mandatory.

Unlike you, though, as a scientist, he doesn't expect his peers to take his word for the new "wisdom" — 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.

So, he is not offended, but content to take his time to compile supporting evidence, which is hard to come by. — 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.

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. — 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.

So, explaining that your secret wisdom "cannot be articulated" will not gain you much sympathy here. — 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.

I "know" that first hand, because some of my feeble attempts at articulation of un-orthodox ideas are also meet with defensive disbelief. — 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.

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. — 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.

Of course, there's a variety of alternative Eastern and New Age forums to choose from on FaceBook, where alternative truths are acceptable. :cool: — Gnomon

I might go there if were interested in doing something you mistakenly perceive that I have done. :wink:

sophistry is cunning, sometimes manifested as trickery. — Gnomon

Note -- Sophistry is a sort of Gnosis that is over-articulated, in an attempt to give the impression of logical argument. — 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:

Eastern Philosophy may have been somewhat more accepting of personal confidence as evidence of truth, but that won't fly on this forum. — Gnomon

Where is it written that the philosophy here should be western? It's called the philosophy forum. Not the western philosophy forum.

I voted 'yes' because I believe personal wisdom is a thing. It is a disposition, a way of being. If it becomes confused and considers itself to be knowledge, the troubles begin.

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. — Bret Bernhoft

Let the troubles begin.

:up:

delete

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.

I agree with you about "gestures at the mystical". That is why I love poetry at least as much as philosophy. Expressing such things should be, and I think indeed is, possible, but by means of metaphor and allusion, not by means of description or proposition.

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.

You might explain how science can convincingly measure first-hand experiences. This would be a hard problem, I would have thought.

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.

I guess we might consider two cases:

(≠) 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.

:clap: :cool: Solipsistically yours!

My private experiences have led me to conclude that personally revealed Gnosis is quite real and valid. — Bret Bernhoft

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".

These are only suppositions, but I'm convinced there is something to it all. — 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.