Gnosis

[TeaDidikai]

Thanks to the Greeks we're able to condense the words "Spiritual Knowledge" into a single word when we chat casually amongst ourselves.

Gnosis.

Those Greeks had several different kinds of knowledge in their world view.

But most of what our discussions center on in this guild is Gnosis. Go fig.

For those who aren't familiar, Unverified personal gnosis (also at times titled unsubstantiated personal gnosis) is a term used to address the personal knowledge that is not documented historically or part of common tradition within one's path.

A couple other terms commonly used are Confirmed Personal Gnosis, or Confirmed Gnosis (CPG and CG respectively) and Shared Personal Gnosis or SPG.

Shared Personal Gnosis is that interesting intersection where people come to the same spiritual knowledge independently.

Confirmed Gnosis is the experience where gnosis has been validated externally. This is slightly different from SPG in scope when I use the term. CPG or CG have objective external confirmation. You have gnosis, do research and find it matches to history. SPG is closer to a contemporary validation.

A more recent addition would be RG, or Revealed Gnosis. When one comes across authoritatively sourced information that resonates a deep sense of truth.  

[TeaDidikai]

A fair chunk of time is spent addressing how one tests UPG, in hopes of shifting it from UPG to a form of gnosis that pulls out that annoying Unverified aspect.

Validation is useful. It helps fight fluff when done correctly and it can bring us to a deeper understanding and a more satisfying spiritual life.

When shifting to CG, you'll want to look at quality sources. Historical texts or authoritative sources are going to be what confirms that which was previously unverified.

It's possible to turn UPG into SPG. By seeking the insight of peers and others within your tradition, you may gain the kind of insights that will help to ground any questionable understandings. Sure, CG is likely going to be preferable to SPG- if nothing else, there will likely be a question as to if you're experiencing the same error as the person you are speaking with when it comes to SPG. Contrasted to that, CG is fare more objective.

That doesn't mean SPG is useless though. It makes for a good starting place and has it's own merits. One of said merits that comes to mind is that SPG helps connect a person to those they share that gnosis with. A very useful thing when working with a group in person.

So the initial legwork will likely be in the form of research. Check historical doctuments, talk with people who are on a similar path and keep the salt handy and the BS detector up. I think the best rules of thumb when dealing with SPG would be to appreciate it for what it is, rather than trying to force it into holding the same status as CG.  

[TeaDidikai]

I can almost hear a small objection across the interweb.

What if your path doesn't have primary sources?

Well, the other kinds of tests you can do take the form of experimental tests.
How these are performed will depend mostly on what you are testing and the other information that surrounds the gnosis.

For example, some beings have prohibitions against directly testing them. It would be considered impious for a human to challenge the beings nature or demand proof.

You'd need to have enough information to begin with in order to determine if there will be an issue.

The way the gnosis is experienced will also be a determining factor. Dreams may or may not be tested in the same way a vision might be. How the experience was initially be induced may also be a factor.  

[TeaDidikai]

Long story short, there's a lot to consider.

So I'd like to open this up to folks to talk about their gnosis.
Experiences may be questioned.
Questions may be addressed.

Have at it.  

[Bastemhet]

Thanks for this, Tea. I think for those who are breaking away from an atheistic, purely empirical mindset, it helps to have and understand an equivalent of the scientific method for verification of religious experience.

The term you mentioned, Revealed gnosis, is a great little term to summarize what I was trying to convey about my "meshing well" with Kemetic concepts in whiporwill-o's thread "how does one define their path?"

I do have a question on the wiki entry for gnosis:

Wikipedia on Gnosis

It indicates direct spiritual experiential knowledge[5] and intuitive knowledge, mystic rather than that from rational or reasoned thinking.

Would you please differentiate between the common understanding of reasoned or rational as opposed to a philosophical understanding? I'm a bit rusty on my philosophy and think it would be of help to have this differentiation in the thread anyway.  

[TeaDidikai]

Sophist

The term you mentioned, Revealed gnosis, is a great little term to summarize what I was trying to convey about my "meshing well" with Kemetic concepts in whiporwill-o's thread "how does one define their path?"

Could well be.

Quote:

I do have a question on the wiki entry for gnosis:

Wikipedia on Gnosis

It indicates direct spiritual experiential knowledge[5] and intuitive knowledge, mystic rather than that from rational or reasoned thinking.

Would you please differentiate between the common understanding of reasoned or rational as opposed to a philosophical understanding? I'm a bit rusty on my philosophy and think it would be of help to have this differentiation in the thread anyway.

The link I outlined did this pretty well.

Most of what we're looking at is the source of the knowledge, rather than it's Truth value.  

[Bastemhet]

TeaDidikai

Sophist

I do have a question on the wiki entry for gnosis:

Wikipedia on Gnosis

It indicates direct spiritual experiential knowledge[5] and intuitive knowledge, mystic rather than that from rational or reasoned thinking.

Would you please differentiate between the common understanding of reasoned or rational as opposed to a philosophical understanding? I'm a bit rusty on my philosophy and think it would be of help to have this differentiation in the thread anyway.

The link I outlined did this pretty well.

Most of what we're looking at is the source of the knowledge, rather than it's Truth value.

In the link it designates Doxa as reasoned knowledge and Gnosis as spiritual knowledge. But what I'm asking is is there a difference between a common understanding of reasoned, i.e. well thought out in an unpsychotic state of mind, logical, given to a true understanding of reality rather than a perverted understanding, etc., and a philosophical one, i.e. a type of intellectual process to come to an understanding of reality? I'm iffy on the philosophical definition, unless there is no differentiation between the two, in which case I wonder if gnosis can be considered a "perverted" or "unreasoned" understanding of reality.  

[TeaDidikai]

Sophist

But what I'm asking is is there a difference between a common understanding of reasoned, i.e. well thought out in an unpsychotic state of mind, logical, given to a true understanding of reality rather than a perverted understanding, etc., and a philosophical one, i.e. a type of intellectual process to come to an understanding of reality? I'm iffy on the philosophical definition, unless there is no differentiation between the two, in which case I wonder if gnosis can be considered a "perverted" or "unreasoned" understanding of reality.

It wouldn't be considered perverted or unreasoned unto itself because the concept that gnosis must remain unsubstantiated isn't really present.

What you would end up with is gnosis combined with episteme.

I mean, hell, doxa isn't reasoned always, it's merely excepted.  

[Bastemhet]

TeaDidikai

It wouldn't be considered perverted or unreasoned unto itself because the concept that gnosis must remain unsubstantiated isn't really present.

Good point.

TeaDidikai

Most of what we're looking at is the source of the knowledge, rather than it's Truth value.

Would the Truth value also depend on what type of knowledge? Are there different ways of confirming a type of knowledge's Truth value? Would the conclusion be objective or subjective, and on what basis would you argue this?  

[TeaDidikai]

Sophist

Would the Truth value also depend on what type of knowledge?

Not in and of itself. See, common Doxa of three thousand years ago said the earth was flat. Common Doxa of today says that planes fly because of aerodynamics. Likewise, some episteme have flaws within their position based on faulty arguments, while gnosis may be correct without being able to be falsified.

Quote:

Are there different ways of confirming a type of knowledge's Truth value?

Since the type of knowledge doesn't really set it's truth value, it wouldn't be universal. But certain tools could be used in some situations better than others.

Quote:

Would the conclusion be objective or subjective, and on what basis would you argue this?

That completely depends on the situation and the foundation for the conclusions.

Verifiable experiences could quantify as objective, while some things that are non-falsifiable would be harder to classify.  

[Fiddlers Green]

I like some ancient Hellenic thought, I really do... however, I'm sorta at a loss on how historical president and popular observation would be considered actual validation.
Implying consensus amongst non-omniscient beings can "verify" or establish as Truth any idea. Also, that expressions thusly rendered would be able to create a common conceptual model that all entities are simultaneous comprehending from the similar enough perspective to be certain that the same concept is being observed.
It seems almost like (what is being called)Confirmed Personal Gnosis is just (UP)G that managed to become (so called)SPG and remain in a large enough sharing circle for long enough. Thus the Doxa seal of approval is placed on it. Episteme may or may not play a role in it, depending on how much reason the Doxa producers placed into establishing their accepteds.
~insert raging rant about the dangers and evils of Rhetors~
Not to quibble over conventional word use, but it seems that Shared Personal Gnosis is almost an oxymoron as it implies that sharing parties would be able to Know they are Knowing the same thing, and thus leaves it conventionally non-falsifiable and thus little more than a pop-culture embryo...
Ultimately, can we ever really be certain we aren't just applying more window dressing to Theoria? Can we comprehend an absolute Truth? Can we express it? We certainly can't sense it in it's entirety as per the limitations of perspective and biology. Do we not shatter it's perfection by labeling it?

As always, I reject scrutiny of Gnosis by non-omniscients, no matter how many of them want in on it, or how sound their Episteme may seem. This doesn't mean I accept all claims, just that neither I, nor any consensus of non-omniscient perceivers, have the Authority to establish or deny it.  

[Bastemhet]

TeaDidikai

Since the type of knowledge doesn't really set it's truth value, it wouldn't be universal. But certain tools could be used in some situations better than others.

I assumed Truth Value meant the value of some idea regarding one person's perception of it. When I look on wiki I see it's a mathematical concept. How does it apply in this context?  

[Bastemhet]

Fiddlers Green

Can we comprehend an absolute Truth? Can we express it? We certainly can't sense it in it's entirety as per the limitations of perspective and biology. Do we not shatter it's perfection by labeling it?

What do you mean by perfect? If we are limited by perspective and biology, how do we know it's perfect?  

[Fiddlers Green]

Sophist

What do you mean by perfect? If we are limited by perspective and biology, how do we know it's perfect?

How do or how can?
I usually mean perfect in the Concept sense, not entirely divorced from what I am familiar of Plato.
Gnosis is perfect, however, our ability to grasp it is not... is my usual position.  

[Bastemhet]

Fiddlers Green

Sophist

What do you mean by perfect? If we are limited by perspective and biology, how do we know it's perfect?

How do or how can?
I usually mean perfect in the Concept sense, not entirely divorced from what I am familiar of Plato.
Gnosis is perfect, however, our ability to grasp it is not... is my usual position.

I figured you meant Plato- I think I need to go over his stuff again. I don't see why having a "perfect" conception of something necessitates its existence in an "objective" sense, although lately I'm wondering if that's even really necessary to have a valid perspective on "reality."