There are two different sources of law:

1. Positive law: those laws which are approved and promote by the Congress and Senate thanks to the representation of the people in the chambers.
2. Natural law: basic principles which are inherited in the rule of law in each nation such as "good faith", "moral", "equity" etc... these concepts are not necessarily being expressed in the law itself but they are inside them. It is like their "soul"

We can say that Natural law comes from equity or "equilibrium". Whenever you want to approve a law you tend to reach equal footing.

"Golden" as a characteristic has a deep connection to exclusivity and richness. Nevertheless, Mishima's point of view in his book "The temple of Golden Pavilion" gives another perspective. Their beauty is related to the "sublime" that is even scary for the protagonist (Hayashi Yoken).
[...]Throughout his childhood he is assured by his father that the Golden Pavilion is the most beautiful building in the world, and the idea of the temple becomes a fixture in his imagination.
[...]Mizoguchi tells her about his experiences. She tries to seduce him, but he experiences visions of the temple.
The 'Kinkakuji' is an assemblage of extremely beautiful sentences, and the whole work is filled with an artistic beauty and transiency that holds Kinkaku-ji Temple at its center. Although the Kinkaku-ji Temple itself was a human work, the behavior and feelings of mankind before it were full of sordidness and weakness. However, perhaps transience alone was one thing both did have in common.

I'm not a leftist, but the small impact that trade unions have in the US simply will widen the gap between the rich and the poor and hinder the ability for a larger middle class to grow. — ssu

That's true.

To be honest, I even think that trade unions (as we know it in Europe) do not exist in the USA at all. Probably, this is due to "Truman doctrine" which wanted to erase all "communist" or socialist theories. According to this thesis, trade unions are not allowed in the USA because it is "contrary" to capitalism itself. So, they eradicate all possible interference between a worker with his businessman. It is weird but it looks like they have the thought that "you are poor because you deserve it" and the "businessman doesn't have to pay with his taxes your medicines". They implemented the savage capitalism.

I am agree with you that in Europe, the trade unions had a more impact. All the progress in terms of healthcare system, public education, or the regulation of working hours came thanks to them.
But all of these efforts, have come, from a socialist thesis indeed. It has always been a fight between the businessman against the workers.

Another example: we are currently having a debate in Spain about to increase the minimum income to 1.000 €. The businessmen obviously do not want to but the trade unions are fighting to reach this aim.
I see it as the classical gap between the rich and the poor. The powerful and the servant. Socialism vs conservatives or "traditionalists"

The worst faulty idea about trade unions is that they are a socialist endeavour promoting socialism.

They aren't, actually. They are just a common sense way to deal with your employer. — ssu

I think it depends on the country we are talking about. Here in Spain trade unions are literally a way to promote socialism (or classwork-leftist doctrines) against the entrepreneur or employers.
I am agree with you that it is a group which -supposedly- has the aim to deal with the employer. But this is a leftist position indeed.
For example: in my country there are three key actors who debate about employee's income: government, CEOE (representatives of entrepreneurs) and UGT (Trade unions)
Wherever they debate is so clear that trade unions promote: worker rights vs rich privileges; better salaries; less working hours or gender equality, etc...
These concepts are socialist or at least "social-democrat" doctrine.

Well you can see it yourself in this image. Look the symbols. Trade unions are a promotion for socialism.

What's the difference between our perception of reality in 2022 vs. the ancient Greek perception of reality in _____ year? — Noble Dust

I guess the main difference lies in polytheism vs monotheism. Back in the day, Roman and Greek empires were polytheist and had a different perception of reality. It is easier to make metaphors when you believe in different aspects inside nature rather than being indoctrinated by one God because this view is pretty simplistic.
I even think that since Christianity took part in Roman Empire all the arts and knowledge started to be so simplistic

Greek mythology. — Noble Dust

It is true that Greek mythology and philosophy are different from each other in terms of reasoning and knowledge. Despite the fact that mythology could be -sometimes- extravagant it shows us interesting metaphors. @Agent Smith shared with us Medusa, but I also like Narcisus myth

Narcissus ⚘

Yukio Mishima was almost too much for me in my early twenties, — 180 Proof

I am 25 years old and yes they are too much for me. The first book I have read of him was four years ago, so I am following your path!

I owe his sublime works a rereading – renewed encounter – soon in order to discover how they will affect me now in my late fifties. — 180 Proof

It would be a unique experience. I also want to reread their works some years after. But I personally think that Mishima's art is timeless and this is why his figure still there during the decades

Sounds like we believe in different things. :smile: — Tom Storm

I respect it Tom :smile: thanks you because you always take part in my threads or discussions and I appreciate that

Perhaps traumatizes (i.e. to wound, to disturb, to call-oneself-into-question) — 180 Proof

Yes! I see your point now. I like how you describe it as "call-oneself-into-question". Until we do not experience such state of mind we don't put ourselves into question or doubt. It looks like when a explosion of colours shapes in a white paper.

Aren't there any e.g. works of art, experiences of nature or erotic encounters, javi, which have irreparably changed some aspect of your life, your self-awareness, in large or small ways? — 180 Proof

Completely. Yukio Mishima's books, for example. I have experienced a big change in my awareness in a huge way after reading those. I understand now why I always consider it as "sublime" their works. They changed my way of seeing the life. Before that I didn't even know a basic concept of aesthetics, but afterwards, I have evolved to a different person with different views in arts: Loneliness, self-discipline, ephemeral, the way of samurai, etc...

but this experience can, I think, be objectively described as an experience of beauty. — Noble Dust

Agree and interesting experience you have shared with us

:up: :100:

Bonum (good) ____ (fill in the blank). — Agent Smith

I think "bonum" or "good" is related to ethics rather than aesthetics :chin:

This link to an old post is my general treatment of the topics raised here: — 180 Proof

Thanks for sharing. I would check it out later on :up:

A pleasure so extreme it terrorizes as it fascinates. — 180 Proof

Interesting. You follow the thesis of Edmund Burke then. I respect it indeed. But I don't see why a pleasure can "terrorizes" me. I guess something sublime not only fascinates but gives a context of pure satisfaction. It is far of being terrified.
Nevertheless, I guess you explained it in the link you posted above

I am not aware of any example of perfection in the world, except when the word is used in a quotidian context to subjectively describe the best example of something - eg,' This cake is perfection.' — Tom Storm

But we should not give up on objectively context. The paper I have read yesterday propose that there are some "supernatural" examples which we can consider as "high" or "top quality". Thus, the ones who goes further than just "beauty"
Kant and Otto connected the sublime with objects that are unrepeatable such as Egyptian pyramids.

I have virtually no use for the word beauty in my daily life and although I find some things aesthetically pleasing - this might be because they are striking rather than 'beautiful'. — Tom Storm

Interesting point of view and thanks for answering your aesthetic experience. But I think that even if we don't use the word "beauty", we all have like a basic sense of it... or at least the opposite: ugliness.

sublime - I have no knowledge or experience of a word like this but recognise its romantic and quasi-religious associations for others. — Tom Storm

It is true that the sublime is related to religious themes. Nevertheless, I see it as "perfection". We all should have a basic concept of "beauty" (as you explained in a Platonist view, for example) which is intersubjective (I guess).
But sublime it seems to go beyond. It is something like "supernatural" as Otto stated. An essence we cannot reach and it accommodates in our fantasies and dreams

Find out what life is, then the answer will be obvious. — ArielAssante

What if there is not an answer after all? :chin:

But ultimately, it's not a pointless question to ask what's next since quality of life isn't promised to anyone. And philosophy is the subject that must be open to all things. — TiredThinker

So you want an answer to something which is inevitable? We have to accept that we all have to die one day. Some would do it sooner or later than others. But do not stress yourself so much wondering what happens after all. There are even more probabilities to be noting rather than something

And no, America is not a fake Democracy. — Philosophim

... what?

Also consider where your vote matters more. Local politics often times only take a few individuals to make major changes. Start there. — Philosophim

The problem we are discussing in this thread is that our votes do not matter or count at all. It doesn't matter if we speak about local or national politics. Everything ends up with same issue: ineffectiveness. Whenever they catch their seat they forget why we voted them. It is a system where only a few wins. There are not changes. The issue only changes when those in the power start seeing the problems so close. They do not care about us and I do not want pay them with my taxes

Either you're at the table, and will receive some modicum of respect and consideration, or you're at the kids table while the adults make decisions about your life. — Philosophim

How can I (as a citizen) join the adult's table? Anyone knows the formula? Because it seems to be so opaque inside politics and who are the ones making and ruling the decisions

Take the opposite, that you can't vote at all. That you can't congregate with others to discuss what you're going to vote on. You have absolutely no choice to be run by a few others who have all the power. Do you want that? Is that somehow more favorable? — Philosophim

It is literally the same issue but we don't waste our time to go a poll and vote for politicians. China is a good example to consider of. They do not "vote" there. They just elect their general secretary of Chinese Communist Party. They decide what is convenient to Chinese citizens instead of calling to emptiness elections. We all can be agree here that China is a dictatorship but you have to accept that they are the power ruling the world right now, so they are not doing the things that bad...
Examples as China show us that we are just overrated democracy and the system of representatives. Simple.

Let whoever wins, win. — Cuthbert

The problem is this. Everybody wins inside politics. The government and the opposition. Pur votes give them power to always win in whatever issues.

Obama and Trump - that should cover most people's idea of the Devil, if not the Bushes and Clinton also). — Bylaw

Most PM are puppets of a few wich really holds the power. It could be interesting to see how effective would be not voting at all. What would happen to those puppets.
Everything is a lie and they made up a system to get seats and earn money without responsibilities. What a shame.

I see that "anarchism" is often related to individualism and it is true because politics tend to be inspired for the group.
I understand your point that we cannot live outside law. We need an order and control to our actions and responsibilities.
Nevertheless, I think it should be important to do something against this insufficient establishment of representative. For now, the act of not voting in the right path to follow.

individualist anarchism is what you want. — Cuthbert

It seems to be a worthy cause against the classical system of representatives...

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.

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)

What is the clue of this OP then?

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

Maybe the problem is more with representative democracy than voting itself. — NOS4A2

Exactly. Representative democracy is no longer effective because they do not "represent" us. It is a filthy lie to get a seat in the congress and start plotting to rule the state.
The problem here is how to get rid of all of those politicians who do not represent us. It looks like impossible because they approve laws to reinforce their seats.
Conclusion: it is a trap the act of voting itself. So, as you well proposed, I also think that not voting is the only defence we still have against them

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...

Very important OP. Let me tell you that I fully agree with you because of the following arguments:

1. Since the moment politicians don't seem to respect voters in general, it looks like it is not worth at all to go and vote for them. Whenever a politician gains his seat he is no longer operative. I mean he stands there in the parliament doing weird stuff and plotting. They only rule for a few so (for example) 800.000 votes go to the rubbish ban if 10 or 20 still winning their benefit. Clearly, they do not govern for the mass but a few persons with money and power. Then, if a seat gives such power to a politician, we have to do the opposite: Not voting. Simple. At least he no longer will survive thanks to our taxes.
2. About honour and loyalty to the nation. But again, it seems politicians do not respect these basic principles of a wealthy nation either. These politicians think they have the power to rule over my life but they are wrong because I know how to die with honour at least. As Yukio Mishima once wrote in one of his essays:
His name was Kozaburo Eto. This young student killed himself on February 11th, Constitution’s day. He did it lonely in the darkness of his job staying apart from television or looks. It was a solemn and respectful act. This was the main critical action against politics I have ever seen in my life.

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.

It is less susceptible to supremacism because Shinto is not based on hierarchical relationships neither sacred figures such as "God", "Muhammad", "Jesus", "Abraham", etc...
They just promote their ritual behavior according to values of nature or culture, society and character of Japanese history/heritage or even Oriental thought. I see them as a community instead of a continuous sacrifice of the individual.
I even think it is impossible to say that Christianity is "anti-supremacist" when they are ruled by a pope in Vatican city. This complex structure of power always leads to supremacism and corruption.

It is true that Japanese nationalists have always been mixed with Shinto religion because they see it as a part of Japan's values and traditions.
But I still think that Shinto is not a supremacist ritual as much as Christianity or Islam, due to the following arguments I have read a few days ago:

Shinto tends to focus on ritual behavior rather than doctrine. The philosophers James W. Boyd and Ron G. Williams stated that Shinto is "first and foremost a ritual tradition", while Picken observed that "Shinto is interested not in credenda but in agenda, not in things that should be believed but in things that should be done."
The scholar of religion Clark B. Offner stated that Shinto's focus was on "maintaining communal, ceremonial traditions for the purpose of human (communal) well-being". It is often difficult to distinguish Shinto practices from Japanese customs more broadly, with Picken observing that the "worldview of Shinto" provided the "principal source of self-understanding within the Japanese way of life".
Nelson stated that "Shinto-based orientations and values[…] lie at the core of Japanese culture, society, and character".

I thank you for sharing it with me. — Average

You are welcome :up:

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 (?)

The average Ph.D. thesis is nothing but a transference
of bones from one graveyard to another - J. Frank Dobie (1888-1964)

A PhD from a top 100 university and with good examiners - — Bartricks

Exactly. I personally think that holding a PhD on philosophy at Harvard university or Oxford (for example) is so worthy and significant.

. If there is a Satan that is when he stepped in. Rome made the religion worse. — Athena

:100: :up:

This is when literally corruption started to flourish

Look at the mess the US is in because it violated human rights and practiced slavery. Or how about global warming and the possibility that our young will not have the good lives we took for granted believing a God takes care of us. The problem is our neighbors who anger the God, who is now angry and instead of heaven on earth, we are getting hell on earth. :rofl: — Athena

Paradoxically, all of those who committed slavery to others are the same who blessed the name of God. Landlords and white supremacist have always been in the side of "holiness" or "God"
This is why I am critical towards the image or idea of God (catholic, Hebrew, Muslim, etc...) because it feels like it is used to pursue some power against others. It is a selfish thought or belief. If we do not believe in God or Christianity we have some chances of being prosecuted or lynched.
I always called "God" as the cosmical dictator for these reasons.

I rather being in Shinto or Asian philosophy side. At least they tend to find an equilibrium or inner peace with nature without impositions.

At least, the pre-Socratic doctrine was related to nature and the search for a connection towards it: fire, water, air, earth, wind, etc...
But since Hebrew Bible or so called old testament, it looks like all depends on a supranatural figure who decides as a judge in a court what is "good" and what is "worng".
In my humble opinion, I guess it is a backwards way of witnessing our lives but I respect there are a lot of people who believe in religion