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. — Bret Bernhoft

I have heard similar claims from about a dozen people over the decades. These experiences were supposedly derived from sources such as Islam, Christianity, meditation, Hinduism, Kabbalah, Aleister Crowley, whatever. You have settled on Gnosis as the source of your 'glimmers' for reasons as yet inscrutable.

Sounds like this thread was a sly way to slowly get around to your occult visions of the end of times, or are your visions less apocalyptic?

Yes. Wisdom, unlike science, does not need to be repeatable, shared or reviewed. — James Riley

Why should science be repeatable? Reproducible, to use a more experimental approach? God help us if this is really the case!

Why should science be repeatable? Reproducible, to use a more experimental approach? God help us if this is really the case! — GraveItty

:100: :up: Thanks for catching that. I meant reproducible.

P.S. This discloses another example of where science is forced to bow down to nature. If only it could repeat, then it would have all the answers to the past (including personal, subjective experience). But alas, we must settle for the next best thing: reproducible; which is limited to what we, subjectively, consider the "pertinent" or "relevant" facts, and then only to the extent we can recreate/copy them. A "secondary authority" at best.

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". — Gnomon

What's in a preposition? The by makes all the difference. The wisdom and importance of little words, oft neglected by people who think they have big ideas, but don't.

The by makes all the difference. — tim wood

Likewise the "in Sufism." And the "of" preceding the "by." We could also nit pic the definition of "God" by which the knowledge comes. I suppose that in exalting form over substance, we could force those Sufis to articulate their case, under oath, in words we understand. Hopefully we do so with an eye to understanding, and not to build up big ideas that aren't.

If we were really interested in understanding, we could run their tests, instead of ours. But that might take work that we are not willing to do? Not sure. Just spit-balling here.

But that brings up another question. Has science ever accumulated any data points on the number of scientists that went up the river, into the heart of darkness? Did any of them ever come back, still in their lab coats, nit picking the locals? I'm not talking about those who try to drag a sterile lab and biofeedback equipment into the jungle. I'm talking about a scientist who did the work of that heart, "reproducing" it's experiments? Or were those scientists no different than the confirmation-bias missionary, converting the heart? People who think they have big ideas, but don't?

Don't get me wrong. I love me a cast iron skillet. :razz:

The problem with reproducibility though is that it excludes many forms of science. It's a constraining methodological feature imposed on scientific knowledge. Like all methodologies are. No progress can be made if one sticks to the method. Feyerabend has seen this very well.

:100: :up: Another chink in the armor of pretension.

When I first mistakenly said "repeatability" (when I really meant reproducibility), that was just the non-scientist in me tipping my hat to, or stipulating to what I thought science demanded as part of it's protocols.

I love me a cast iron skillet. — James Riley

All right, well, as a brick for Ignatz....

Two sentences:
1) I know God.
2) I know by (via, by means of) God.

Might you agree two very different sentences? Big difference in the direct objects, particular in 1), implied in 2)? And what might we infer is implied in 2)? By presumption, that that can be known.

A god that enables me to know what can be known, not such a bad god. Claiming to know God, on the other hand and without quite a bit of qualification, just delusional.

Viva la difference?

When I first mistakenly said "repeatability" (when I really meant reproducibility), that was just the non-scientist in me tipping my hat to, or stipulating to what I thought science demanded as part of it's protocols. — James Riley

Don't think too admiringly about science though. Or do so, if you want to. That's not upto me. I don't take it too seriously (although it's consequences are, at least, when institutionalized, and all that knowledge provides a good way to do that). It's just one worldview amongst many. Many scientists claim it's the only viable view though. At the expense of others, as science and politics are tightly interwoven in our days. And the old Greek started this attitude (Xenophanes, who reported the existence of one and only reality, one God, independent of us as a reaction to the many present in those good old days). :smile:

A god that enables me to know what can be known, not such a bad god. Claiming to know God, on the other hand and without quite a bit of qualification, just delusional. — tim wood

:up: Oh, I never took issue with the idea that words have meaning. My point was, your quote referenced Sufism. It seemed you were painting all gnosis with the same brush. I've been leaning on the OP which doesn't limit itself to Sufism, Jewish or Christian or 180's definition or color of gnosis (It's a new term for me, so I've been exploring it, but trying to stay within the assumptions requested and definitions provided by the OP). I then pointed out some of the other terms that could trip up an analysis of what the Sufis might have meant.

:100: To me, it's a tool. Like logic. Like a hammer. Like a gun. It's not perfect and a lot depends on who's wielding it and what their motivations are. Using it to explore some things is like using a hammer to cut wood.

The problem with reproducibility though is that it excludes many forms of science. It's a constraining methodological feature imposed on scientific knowledge. Like all methodologies are. No progress can be made if one sticks to the method. Feyerabend has seen this very well. — GraveItty

One way to understand the value is reproducibility is to think of the technology that results, which we prefer to be reliable. In general, science can be understood as a search for the "buttons & levers" of nature (so that we can invent vaccines and airplanes and internets.) (Yes, it's also perhaps a search for relatively useless truth.)

Yeah! Man, I get so tired sometimes if I see how that endless pursuit of scientific, so-called objective knowledge, is emphasized and propagated by our beloved scientists. Now if they like that it's upto them, but they (and they have power) wanna transform the world into one big Lego land and make everyone adopt their worldview. Every colorfull spontaneous young child is trained at our schools and filled with knowledge of the objective reality they have in mind. Though I sound a bit pessimistically or dramatically now! Nevertheless, I have good hope for the future, although my mind tells me that something has to go wrong globally because of that endless inflating pursuit of knowledge going hand in hand with a growing production of goods based on this knowledge. That need for growth has invaded the world (seek hide!)! Accidentally I just saw a small kid who made a new record in dj-ing (having fun though!). The motto seems to be "more, deeper, further, higher, longer, smaller, brighter, heavier, lighter, wtf-er?" nowadays.

Indeed. STEM should follow Liberal Arts like school should follow free range play.

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. — James Riley

I apologize if I misunderstood your intentions. But if you were not "endeavoring " to postulate or defend any debatable or "unorthodox" ideas, why were you posting on a Philosophy forum?

Were you merely seeking for like-minded people? There may be a few closet Gnostics on this forum, but I suspect you would find more of them on the alternative truth forums. Perhaps, on such platforms they can share feelings, without enduring any critiques or challenges. Personally, I enjoy the civilized give & take of this forum. That's even though my personal philosophical position may be in the minority. :smile:

PS__You might find some compatible community on a Quaker forum. Their services are characterized by sitting silently until the spirit ("light of God") moves them to speak. Such messages -- sometimes called a "word of knowledge" (i.e. gnosis) -- are usually received without critique, since it is presumed to be literally the Word of God (amen).

I apologize if I misunderstood your intentions. — Gnomon

Apology accepted.

But if you were not "endeavoring " to postulate or defend any debatable or "unorthodox" ideas, why were you posting on a Philosophy forum? — Gnomon

Read posts 1, 3 and 5.

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

You missed the point. I was not denigrating Eastern philosophy, which I find often enlightening. Instead, I was merely noting that TPF is usually not very "accepting of personal confidence as evidence of truth". Instead, any confident assertions are expected to be supported by articulated argument. Although, some seem to think that this is a scientific forum, and demand empirical evidence. :smile:

One way to understand the value is reproducibility is to think of the technology that results, which we prefer to be reliable. In general, science can be understood as a search for the "buttons & levers" of nature (so that we can invent vaccines and airplanes and internets.) (Yes, it's also perhaps a search for relatively useless truth.) — hanaH

Now here I fully agree. It would be quite frustrating if airplanes would suddenly open up underneath, hough parachutes could be helpful here. If their ropes don't turn into gum suddenly, that is (unless this happened each time). It would be very frustrating if vaccines were suddenly eaten by viruses suddenly. Or if the internet turned wild. Luckily Nature is reproducible in some cases. But most things are simple not reproducible (like the human mind, though attempts are made to reproduce even that in the incompatible form of computers). Though many things are. But why always constructing new reproducible structures? What's the big deal?

I was merely noting that TPF is usually not very "accepting of personal confidence as evidence of truth". — Gnomon

Why not? Distrust?

@Wayfarer

The gnostic is called al-arif bi'lah or "one who knows by God". — Gnomon

Hi Wayfarer. Are you able to deconstruct for us "al-arif bi'lah"? Not to translate, but if possible to lay out what it means? For my own slight forays into translation v. meaning have left me a skeptic as to translation. And I'm thinking the "by" is significant. What if anything do you come up with?

Why not? Distrust? — GraveItty

No. Philosophical skepticism. As Reagan responded to a Russian nuclear-proliferation treaty : "trust but verify". :smile:

Skepticism :
Some people believe that skepticism is the rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse “skeptic” with “cynic” and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas — no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe.
https://www.skeptic.com/about_us/

But why always constructing new reproducible structures? What's the big deal? — GraveItty

Life is, among other things, a competition, an arms race. To say so isn't to celebrate or denigrate.

I was merely noting that TPF is usually not very "accepting of personal confidence as evidence of truth".
— Gnomon

Why not? Distrust? — GraveItty

Nah, assumption of equality of people.

Life is, among other things, a competition, an arms race. To say so isn't to celebrate or denigrate. — hanaH

Wisdom to write on a tile and hang it proudly on your living room wall.

The same wisdom can be applied to the world of ideas and various realities that roulette still in our world. I say still because many of them are simply killed by the scientific reality. Those that represent them, that is. Science and political power are still happily married, like the state and religion once were. It's time we get freed from this unholey alliance to give all children in the world a better future, if still possible.

Nah, assumption of equality of people. — baker

Strange assumption.

Nah, assumption of equality of people. — baker

There's a difference between equality before the law (in this case, rules) and intellectual/spiritual equality, for instance.

Peer-review and exposure to criticism lets inferior ideas die by exposure.

What's the alternative? Self-anointed spiritual masters competing for simps? "Jingle saves."

Like you said:

Life is, among other things, a competition, an arms race. To say so isn't to celebrate or denigrate. — hanaH

Nah, assumption of equality of people. — baker

What evidence for what truth are you talking about?

Like you said: — baker

What, by the way, do the self-anointed compete for?

I think there's a kind of performative contradiction at the intersection of critical philosophy and elitist spirituality. The trans-rational elitists often can't help offering reasons that they deserve more recognition by plebeian rational humanists. "Can't you see that my spiritual genius is invisible?"

What's the alternative? Self-anointed spiritual masters competing for simps? — hanaH

That's an illogical either/or assumption. The same as 'Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know.' There is always the possibility that self-anointed spiritual masters don't compete. That self-anointed spiritual masters aren't known. That peer-review and exposure to criticism realizes it's own inferiority, and itself dies by exposure. That those who know speak. That those who speak do know. Or any other possibilities of which we are unaware.

When someone gives you two choices, pick the third; if only to check someone who thinks they are a peer, or who thinks they are the self-anointed experts on peer-review and exposure. Vet those who would vet. Have they been up the river? If not, what the hell do they know?

Critical thinking takes more than being a critic. It takes analysis. Too many critics jump the gun.