— SteemCN

ankapolo (59) · 5 years ago (edited)

hmmm, well that's certainly is a label to reckon with :) If I'm not mistaken, does that mean that you believe there is supernatural or some sort of divine mechanism? or do you simply accept that there is esoteric knowledge that doesn't really comply with any scientific scrutiny, but has a ton of doppy mystic imagery? (im down with the imagery of course) :)

I've always had difficulty understanding the gnostic stance... it seems to bear the burden of proof since there is a claim to knowledge... then again the word 'knowledge' in this regard can be really tricky, after all, metaphysics and astrology are 'knowledges' that represent some pattern recognition... the tricky part is that patterns can be perceived to occur where there are none...

$0.00

1 vote

[-]

logiczombie (57) · 5 years ago

The key aspect of GNOSTICISM is that you should NEVER follow a book or a person (priest or prophet or sage).

NEVER.

If you didn't experience it for yourself, you should be extremely skeptical.

$0.02

4 votes

[-]

practicalthought (65) · 5 years ago

That point was one of the grabbing turns in the book Siddhartha by Herman Hesse. The main character told the Buddha that the flaw in his teaching others was he could never convey the experience of enlightenment to his followers with his words, it could only be experienced.

$0.00

1 vote

[-]

logiczombie (57) · 5 years ago

I agree. There are aspects that are necessarily unique to each Gnostic experience. Although the descriptions can be somewhat useful for identifying people with broadly similar experiences.

$0.00

1 vote

[-]

practicalthought (65) · 5 years ago

That is epic, thank you. I laughed a lot through the first half, as I've never been one to meditate like many others. I identified with the thoughts he was having. I found for myself that I meditate when I am in an act of doing, or in stressful/dangerous situations.

The only difference I saw in my interpretation from his was I didn't lose my sense of identity, it felt more like an connection with everything else. There was a joy attached to it as well for myself. Guessing the difference is based on the experiences/lenses we all drag with us wherever we go.

$0.00

1 vote

[-]

logiczombie (57) · 5 years ago

The only difference I saw in my interpretation from his was I didn't lose my sense of identity, it felt more like an connection with everything else.

It's sort of a sliding-scale in some ways but not always a case of "this" cannot be "that" simultaneously.

$0.00

1 vote

[-]

logiczombie (57) · 5 years ago

...or do you simply accept that there is esoteric knowledge that doesn't really comply with any scientific scrutiny, but has a ton of doppy mystic imagery? (im down with the imagery of course) :)

Probably more of that.

It's sort of a catch-all category for all non-scientific, unfalsifiable claims.

It's the same as someone telling you they had a dream about some strange and personally significant place or thing.

It's certainly important to them, but nobody else can tell if their "revelation" is "true" for anyone other than themselves.

$0.00

2 votes

[-]

ankapolo (59) · 5 years ago (edited)

i totally get that, personal experiences can be very profound, and regardless of whether there is truth in them, they can change your life and leave you a different person... Of course, adding a dash of mysticism can amplify the effect of such experiences... but it is as you said, hardly ever convincing or matters to others.
I've writen about the topic before in an old post, that is still waiting for it's 'part II'... https://steemit.com/writing/@ankapolo/how-to-trust-knowledge-or-part-1 figured i'd share since we are both passionate about logic and believes...

$0.00

1 vote

RE: the bible is real and YHWH is the one true god, now what?

You are viewing a single comment's thread from: