I did need to look him up. :blush: But you are correct. In this day and age, he will suffer the likes of Tucker Carlson though. No one is above smearing if they don't tow the Trump line.

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.

I await the news that he's collapsed from a stroke or died outright. — tim wood

I pray that doesn't happen. He'll then be a martyr and you know damn well it will have been a secret deep state doctor that slipped something into his Big Mac. Then his Brown Shirts will be in open revolt.

Bad joss if he gets away with them. — tim wood

I hope those in the executive know we are watching them. And I don't mean POTUS. Shit better happen and it better not be too late when it does. I'm as 'Murican as any one else and I want justice and I want it NOW!

Then there's that little matter of the stacked court.

: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.

Thank you, cast iron skillet.

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:

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.

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:

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.

This didn't work 65 years ago when my mother told me in church and it won't work now. — T Clark

:100: :lol:

Yes, but listening to others discuss ideas, especially professional philosophers, I feel like I'm missing something. I'm trying to get a handle on that. — T Clark

I've take the view that I take with so many other issues: I can't know it all, and while I will not surrender my right to critically and analytically consider something, I will often suspend it. As stated in another thread, doubt does not preclude action. I'll defer to those I deem experts, in my own arbitrary and subjective vetting process. I've no interest in knowing everything.

I think my "body of work," if I may laughingly call it that, shows I am not afraid to do my own thinking, for better or worse. — T Clark

:100:

:100:

Or financing a stooge for Congress. :grin:

That's true of personal wisdom — Gnomon

And that is how I read the OP.

The continuation of my post which you did not include:

The most useful and authoritative and insightful wisdom I have was/is personally revealed. The idea of sharing it has all the attraction of filming and broadcasting the making of love. — James Riley

And in my second post:

Lay person: I'd like to know what you know;

Gnostic: Try this . . ..

Lay person: Just tell me. I don't want to put in the work.

Gnostic: :smile: — James Riley

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. I would have thought philosophy types would not feel so compelled. Maybe science has infiltrated the ranks, demanding a telling, a writing, and explanation, instead of putting in the real work. And as those words leave my key board, I wonder if maybe I'm beginning to see where a gnostic superiority finds it's roots.

Me no understand question. — praxis

Mongo just pawn in game of life.

Tell us, though, when ignorance was ever an indication that a job would be well done. — tim wood

Sending in a proxy to do some work that you did not want done. CIA.

Yes, the Father was one of my favorite religious philosophers. — T Clark

"Ofillimebonibodi . . .etc."

Yeah, but what about the turds? — T Clark

Ah, my Padawan, you must go into the wilderness and sit before a turd for a month and experience it. Then you will no longer consider it for use as an emoji. :pray: :grin:

I prefer people have the "genuine" thing, instead of joining cults. — Manuel

Indeed. Everyone who has something that others want, gnostic or non, will have a following. Look to the leaders who don't say "Follow me." And if you are a follower, don't run too hard after a leader who is trying to get away.

:up:

Before I knew that philosophy was a thing, I read people that made me think. Turns out, some folks smarter than me called them "philosophers." Edward Abby comes to mind. Then I went to school and took an intro to logic class, and an intro to philosophy class. "The Last Days of Socrates" piqued my curiosity, but mainly because I could not fathom how smart people were 2.5k years ago, especially when 'Murica, and western history had lead me to believe we were the apex, relative to all those Neandertals that came before us. Turns out, not so much. But all this was around 40 years ago. Since then, like you, I've been lazy.

I don't wear lazy like a badge, but I also think that if you can't write something out long-hand, where a mutt like me can understand it, then I'll either have to put in the time like you did, or leave you to what I perceive as your gnostic ramblings. (cross-thread points)

↪James Riley :snicker: — 180 Proof

:cool:

Is it wisdom? I think it depends on how you use it. — Manuel

I tried to confine my consideration to the limitations/definitions specifically outlined in the OP; steering away from other, broader, general, or more traditional (historic) understanding's of the terms. Nevertheless, FOMO is a thing. I get it. Any good little gnostic like myself is happy to have others turn away and go about their business. I'll not be smug about it. The last thing I want is to open a door to potential wannabes, posers and charlatans. On the other hand, there are those on "the other side" who are just as smug, if not worse; looking down their bespectacled nose, with their lab coats on, poo pooing that which they don't understand and won't find in a lab.

Heaven forbid anything should be beyond man's ability to describe. After all, next to the brain housing group, we think our tongue is all that. Maybe gnosis inflames the insecurity, the subliminal jealousy, that causes us to devalue and marginalize all else; and when all else has been neutralized, we start on each other.

I need a little emoji education. — T Clark

It's a gnostic thing. You wouldn't understand. :wink:

:smile:

"James" is a man of strong feeling — Michael Zwingli

or easy to frustrate, and impatient. :cool:

Oh, good. A question I can answer just by providing one of my favorite quotes. One I use on the forum often. This from Franz Kafka:

It is not necessary that you leave the house. Remain at your table and listen. Do not even listen, only wait. Do not even wait, be wholly still and alone. The world will present itself to you for its unmasking, it can do no other, in ecstasy it will writhe at your feet. — T Clark

:up: I agree with that. It is, however, for the likes of me, very hard to do. I found the 40 days and 40 nights in the wilderness hard, but easier than the kitchen table. :yikes:

But it's not their intelligence that we need to look-out for -- it's their motives. — Gnomon

I'd be more concerned with their diseases. Sorry for the digression, because I probably agree with your main point. It's just the unintended can be a real threat.

We both know that you didn't. Right from the onset. — baker

We both know that I did. My turn: Fuck off, and don't mention me again. You aren't worthy.

Lay person: I'd like to know what you know;

Gnostic: Try this . . ..

Lay person: Just tell me. I don't want to put in the work.

Gnostic: :smile:

. . . can personally revealed wisdom be considered truthful and authoritative?

For the purposes of this discussion, wisdom is defined as "useful and sound insight(s)". — Bret Bernhoft

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

The most useful and authoritative and insightful wisdom I have was/is personally revealed. The idea of sharing it has all the attraction of filming and broadcasting the making of love.

What are your thoughts. — Wheatley

There's a saying that "You don't have a soul; you are a soul. You have a body." In agreement with that, I would add to it, saying that soul = life; life = soul. Of course, I'm one of those folks that think's animals have souls. And I go beyond that, to plants and so-called "inanimate objects." Finally, I don't think any are more evolved or better that any other. Some folks refer to the "spark" of life, consciousness, etc. It's all the soul. I've explained the consciousness aspect elsewhere.

Gary Cooper would never be cynical as you sometimes appear to be. Maybe you need to turn in your little tin sheriff's badge and be the deputy instead. — Tom Storm

:clap:

Doesn't everyone except fundamentalists and crack pots? — Tom Storm

:up: True, but only because no one brings doubt into their lives. That can be done, but one has to first quit doubting, and then make them doubt. If they refuse, well, do unto them what they would do unto you.

Doubt does not preclude action.
Embrace the doubt, then ignore it.

You just have to know when and where to subordinate it to the point where it does not get in the way. Until then, argue with people that are smarter than you.

Do any ideas work for everyone? — Tom Storm

:up: My ideas should work for everyone. But they don't. :cry:

But they cannot be nothingness or absence because nothingness or absence mean not-being. If you want to convey that nothingness is "covered" by somethings, the coherent way of doing it could be by pointing out that nothingness is "contained" in somethings as the "content" of empty sets, and not by identifying nothingness with somethings. — litewave

You just made my point. But the better way would be to avoid, altogether, use of the word "things", singularly or as suffix. Likewise, "object." So I'll not get pulled down into that, regardless of how much logic would try. Logic has some work to do in it's own house, before handing out grades to the likes of me.

My concept of All covers every "thing" and every "non-thing" and more; so I just say All. And, unless I make the mistake I made earlier, where I should have used X, my concept of A, or All, is "big" enough to account for the absence of itself. Everyone else's "all" is merely a "thing" or a "non-thing".

It's the same reason I went for universal pantheism over universal panentheism. If there was a "one" over all the others, it would deprive all the others of what they were purported to be. I'll not do that. I'm big enough to allow them to be themselves, but they will have to share my stage whether they want to or not. Likewise, my All is bigger than your all; and that is, in part, because it is not. I can live with that. Logic, apparently, cannot.

The book is still itself and is not nothing, even when it contains references to nothing. — litewave

There you go again, with the tautology. I just stipulated that it is "like referencing a book that contains both concepts (something and nothing) but which is still a thing (book)." That is logic. But, as I said, "I'm talking about the book itself not being itself."

Informally we use . . . — litewave

I'm quite familiar with what "we" use. While "we" are entirely comfortable with the fact that "we" are right, "we" simply can't fathom the fact that "we" are wrong. I'm comfortable with both. Logic is not.

P.S. I understand "logic" is not a person, and it is not the thing it purports to explain. But I use it as the foil, and as shorthand, to avoid a personalization of the argument as I try to avoid offending the disciples of logic. So, logic can argue on it's own two feet when it pretends to engage me. Using logic, I asked logic some questions back in the 80s but so far, crickets.

She just doesn't know she's wearing red, or that the Matrix code is green. — Marchesk

That'll do. :smile:

The thought that humans experience the entire range of conscious experience is silly. Surely there are sensations we have no idea about. — Marchesk

Yeah, when my son was little he came home from school and told me about the Mantis Shrimp. I don't know how we know about what they can see since we can't see it, but regardless, I think they render us "silly" by comparison.

Maybe we should publish it. — Marchesk

I don't know, but whatever you do, please don't illustrate it. Right now, based upon your description, I get the feeling she is hot. Really hot. I'd hate to have my bubble burst.

So in a sense, somethings "cover" or "contain" nothingness or absence but they are not nothingness or absence; — litewave

I know what you mean by "object". And, while you may include non-objects within the category of objects, I try to refrain from using object" or "thing" precisely to avoid that understanding. I don't want you thinking I might be arguing that nothing or absence is a category for reference to what is.

If they are not nothingness or absence then they fail to convey the nothingness or absence that I mean by A = -A. To say that nothing is something simply because it is an idea or concept that must be categorized for reference/contrast to that which exists, is like referencing a book that contains both concepts (something and nothing) but which is still a thing (book).

I'm talking about the book itself not being itself.

I know perfectly well the contradiction and illogical position that you perceive in my argument. But simply repeating the A = A and that A cannot = -A is repetitive and, quite honestly, beneath us. You know perfectly well that I am wrong, but you can't prove it by continuing to show me how A = A, or expressing curiosity about how I could possibly believe that it could also be -A. Rather, you must come up with more. More than anecdote (I could drop a ball a billion times and each time it will all does not mean it will on a billion + 1), or "self-evidence" (because logic says so) or because "I can't prove a negative" (how can I show you what I don't know?).

There is a gentlemen's agreement precisely so you can be relieved of a burden of proof that you can't meet, and we can then proceed on our merry way, inventing widgets and whatnot. All I'm saying is that, at the end of the day, someone might try looking outside the box of logic if they are looking to close in on truth instead of continually moving further from it. It's possible that this has already be done, but those who have done so aren't talking, for whatever reason. Maybe they are just being, and not being, at the same time.

Think of a singularity. If we were in one, right now, and not (heat death) or somewhere in between the two, that would explain a lot, at least to me.