You are IMO underestimating the transition of awareness between different qualities of reaction.
Intuition is the interpretation of a certain quality of knowledge. In its truest sense it is instinctive. Gnosis is not interpretation but “affirmation.” It doesn’t decide a course of action like intuition but instead consciously presents the wholeness of the big picture where discrimination natural for mechanical existence beneath it is secondary. Consider how Father Sylvan puts it:
Gnosis is the experience of this quality of consciousness either by accident or through the understanding of methods that allow us to gradually become able to get out of our own way, our conceptualizations, as suggested above. Our acquired dependency on conceptualization denies both the benefits of intuition and gnosis. I agree with you that intuition as it is commonly understood is overestimated. Both the experience of gnosis and intuition would be extremely beneficial if we could learn to get out of our own way but in modern times under the influence of so much imagination, the value of both is largely ignored in favor of imagination and the mistaken belief that, as we are, we have access to both.
Yes and it is only truly visible in the context of the greater whole when in the light. It is our habitual conceptualization that denies this quality of context or human perspective. This is the essence of Plato’s cave analogy and our attachment to the fetters. The idea exists in Buddhism as Satori as well.
Again the idea that illumination reveals the greater context. It is the presence of this light that appears for what ever reason that reveals gnosis and the perspective it brings.
I remember reading in the classic “Cosmic Consciousness” by Bucke about how Walt Whitman experienced this during the writing of Leaves of Grass. Bucke was friendly with him and they were together at the time.
To experience a keyboard in the presence of this light is something to look forward to for those that care.
Alright so say I am genuinely desiring to experience this light and view the world from outside the ‘cave’ I am supposedly in. How would I go about doing this? Altering my beliefs so that I believe in God and the Gospel?
If so, how do you know your illumination is not merely a fabrication - a psychological state brought on with much the same effect as say, dementia?
You must guide me logically, Nick, else I fear I will be unable to get anywhere. If I must give up logic in order to leave my cave then I would honestly rather stay.
If I “change my mind” or do something different in my life, does that make me someone different? Or the same person, with different ideas?
That is a very important question, we must ask ourselves to get an better understanding of our heavenly Father. What happens when He does something different?
uccisore stated:
The trick here is in the verbiage. People will say “I believe in many truths” or “I don’t believe there is only one right answer”
I think alot of people use such language in order to not offend…
Like let’s take you… you probably believe that christianity is the one true path to god, but know nothing you say about the christian path is going to change the mind of the jew or muslim, would you bother prostelyzing or would you simply without feeling state “I believe in many truths”.
I don’t think anyone actually believes in “many truths”. Such a statement is a clear dichotomy, and creates a paradoxical environment where there are no falsehoods. Clearly you can’t operate in such an environment.
Let’s take me. I think there might be a spiritual path… there might even be a god. I don’t know and you can’t prove it either way. BUT, I think all religions are false religions even mysticism to a great extent. They all mislead the heart and the mind in ways that are subtle. But being human it’s easy to be mislead… and therefore dangerous to believe in universal truth.
Let’s take the statement you made. Both islam and christianity (and or judaism) have a monotheistic stance on god. Does that mean that they are both speaking the truth?
I would say no, simply for the fact that it’s impossible to know whether or not god exists, and if he does, why would he create two completely seperate paths to god that cause his people to fight and kill each other simply because their “holy book” reads differently.
Thanks. I didn’t read the thread, just your opening post. Should I read the rest of it?
Are you really Russian or were you using a turn of phrase? I have two Russian friends. My dad speaks Russian, having been trained to be an interrogator for the Navy. Later in life in a different career he had to interview President Gorbachev for television and said his training came in very useful!
I might need to read your post again but my initial reaction is, I agree with you regarding philosophy being replaced by self justification through argument and the need to ‘need’ and open oneself to meaning and become ‘vulnerable’ in that sense. But I am struggling right now to link this to what we’ve been discussing here. I probably should read it again.
Actually I’m a mix of Russian, Armenian, and British on my father’s side and Italian on my mother’s side. A cousin from Moscow when visiting here said I make a good cocktail.
My Russian side was very close to the Tzar as highly regarded in the Imperial Russian Navy as well as in Art. If interested, drop me a PM and your Father or friend may know the name.
I have read your posts sir, and your confusion is quite common, and even amoung Christians, there is little understanding of a very necessary component: midrash
When the Bible was Romanized in language, then canonized, this most essential ingredient was most astonishingly left out. Hence, the exacting and literalist view of Western Christianity. Which does not necessarily equate to the “actuality” of the biblical theology as a literalist doctrine.
Gnosticism is not heresy or blasphemy. It is the originating mystic branch that was summarily buried by the church, most notably because it lead it’s proponents away from the institutionalization of Y’Shua and further societal constructs of doing so, ie. “the Church”.
You, seeming to be a very erudite theorist, should be able to understand the conflict created by the omission of midrash, and it’s inherent affects on those who are now completely unaware of it’s interplay in the language of the Bible, which leads many astray.
I can't see myself saying I believed in many truths, it would be pretty dishonest. If I wasn't an armchair philosopher who had taken a vocal stand against such attitudes and phrases again and again, I might be tempted to say that though, so I can see what you mean. The problem is that it's too often taken literally, and this thing we say to avoid saying what we really mean has been re-interpreted to be an actual position.
Yes! And in fact, I think most pluralists believe as you do at heart. What they really believe is that there is no path to truth- or at least, that none of the paths practiced by men are correct. However, they themselves practice one anyway, because of tradition, or culture, or familial affection. To avoid being big fat hypocrites who say "All religions are wrong" even as they go to Church, instead they say "All religions are true", which honestly amounts to the same thing.
Right, I only meant that from my perspective as a Christian- my religion, the 'right one' teaches that there is one God, so I can say that any religion that teaches there is one God 'has an element of truth' in it. I'm still very much an exclusivist by saying so, because I'm measuring all other faiths truth by how similar they are to mine, which I believe is the right one. In other words, even a very dogmatic sort can say "There are elements of truth in almost every religion" without compromising their own dogmatism, if only they apply a little common sense.
exactly, my point. I think any relativist is being dishonest with themselves. (or they are truly confused.)
You can’t look at all the religions of the world (in their modern forms) and say that all have an equal “truth” to reality…
I would think so, otherwise like I said, they are being dishonest with themselves. It’s impossible (as we both agree) to believe in universal truth, because what you are actually saying is:
There are no falsehoods.
there is no truth.
The only thing I would add to my previous statement, is that I think it is possible to have sense and goodness without god as an absolute, and still avoid the filter problem. The trick is realizing when you are using the filter and when you are using “common sense”.
I think it is important to find some sort of compromise… we’ve all got to live on and in this world together. The problem is, will the staunch fundamentalists be willing to bend? I have a feeling they are more like the tree that breaks in the wind.
And I think you can find commonality among your beliefs (even with an atheist or agnostic) without giving up your belief wholesale… there’s no reason that once we agree we have common beliefs that we can’t compromise where we don’t.
In Canada for instance, even though they “okayed” homosexual marriage, they are allowing the religious to still speak against it, and to not allow it in there churches.
I think this is a good compromise. I personally can’t stand when we are forced to change the language or action to avoid offending someone.
Or they are playing a game that isn’t about truth in the first place. There are relativists here, who if you asked them for justification, would say they are relativists because it fosters peace and harmony in the world to view things that way. Whether or not they are right about that interests me very little, but the fact they are no longer after the same thing as me (truth) interests me very much.
I may or may not agree- can you tell me what you meant by ‘universal truth’ here? I certainly believe that there is a particular ‘way things are’, and I’ve called that ‘universal truth’ in the past.
I agree with you practically, but not metaphysically. That is, I think it's possible for a person to behave in ways that their neighbors will find agreeable, and even exemplary, without reference to God as a reason why. I think it only gets murky when one wants to call this behavior 'good' in any objective sense. That's very similar to what you're saying about common-sense, I think.
Well, I think most of the compromise should come about through behavior- that is, I can believe you are dead wrong without blowing up a bus full of your friends. The problem with that is that behavior is informed by believe in humans- the Muslim who blows people up and the Muslim who would never do that must believe different things with respect to human life and what the Koran is telling them. [i]That[/i] difference of belief is something that has to be settled, too. Sadly, as a philosophy I can't accept the standard that "Any belief that leads to people blowing each other up must be wrong", or I'm guilty of the same thing I described above- whatever it is I'm shooting for, it's not truth anymore.
That sounds like a decent compromise. In America, though, to much is about top-down decision and the notion of hate-speech, though. With the current set up, I can’t see a situation in the US in which homosexuality is accepted without it’s opposition being demonized or even outlawed, or vica versa.
That and a few visits to Israel and some time with Kabbalah, then go back to your standard readings and see with eyes anew. Most often, this brings a depth of measurement to faith.
I am struck by the implied judgements you both make about truth. So, if I should say that there is no external truth, no one-behind-many ideal truth, what does that mean?
I would offer that my truths are a product of my experience mediated by thinking and feeling. What is truth for me is definitely my truth, but I have no illusions that what I have cast in stone for myself has anything to do with anyone else.
Isn’t this the crux of the endless questions about what is the nature of God (or if there is one)?
I would suggest that the honest position is to acknowledge that our ‘truths’ are personal only, and apply to no one but ourselves.
Uhh… duh. Of coarse it is. We Christans are just too good to make everyone feel bad by telling them they’re going to hell all the time. We just do it most of the time.
I know this because Christianity is the religion of America and Americans are the chosen people. Look it up some time.
