Ironic in many ways. You speak with certitude while trashing certitude. You did a masters for something I got for free.
The real masters is when you find the real gnostics. They don't claim certainty. In fact, they run from it.
Your MA appears to have been from a religious school, perhaps a seminary. Can you imagine a conflict of interest, had you written anything outside of their narrative?
your epistemology needs some work.
there is no contradiction is acknowledging I am not the source/weilder of knowledge itself, and yet i can perceive its light
i’ve spent untold hours and most of my life in the pursuit of that light.
perhaps all that work, paddling towards it gives me a better look
I earned what little gnosis i have by adversity. **_Something_** (I think God) has saved my life over and over... But I doubt the story is believable, so I'll keep it to myself.
gnosis isn’t just knowing something. it’s a specific dynamic or relation between you and knowledge.
to use it in that way is like saying house cat means wild tiger.
I think Jesus laid it out pretty well. Simply : gnosis is humility. And humility means your searching without assumptions. IMO that's the key he was talking about in that spat with the lawyerish pharisees.
There is a cosmology in Gnosticism - several, actually, and they don't agree with each other - but that's allegory for psychological processes and spiritual speculation. The conflict between Gnosticism and the churches is basically that Gnosticism rejects answers, while the churches promulgate specific answers that are fraudulent upon inspection.
You've surely found how Christian beliefs have mutated over time... Right?
you’re an anarcist? in what way do you mean?
Anarcho capitalist most correctly describes my anarchism. And less emphasis on the -ism : I've heard the priests' argument against all isms, and I agree, though I don't agree that that should entail a blind faith in their particular brand of... ism... Lol.
Anarchy just means no rulers. As the phrase goes, "no rulers, not no rules."
Its really just respect... I don't violate your rights, and I expect not to have my rights violated. That means theft is intolerable ; property should be inviolable ; participation should be consensual and contractual - and all of that means 'capitalism.' But since isms are bad, "free market" may be better.
yeah, that idea of “no rulers” is turd in the anarcist’s punch bowl.
it’s a logically invalid anthropology: what it means to be human, what a human being is
you cannot make the individual prime
the individual is only coherent as a concept under an umbrella of social relations.
man is intersubjective
so necessarily we exist in a hierarchy
and the hierarchy means someone is on top, what is that if not a “ruler”?
other anarcists describe an aversion to non-voluntary relations of power, and since those relations are literally baked into human existence, the goal of getting rid of them is another way of saying they want to remove the stain of human nature.
it’s just not a valid account if reality.
it’s just another version of “wouldn’t it be nice if reality wasn’t reality”
don’t take my word for it.
do the logic yourself
following the truth leads to the same destination
The same argument can be used against Christianity - trying to wipe away the stain of sin is absurd, since sin is literally the disease of human nature.
An ideal is not invalid because its difficult - being difficult is what makes it worthy of being an ideal.
Besides, anarchism has already been figured out, and sporadically implemented. The American Constitution is an example of anarchism in the real world. Should we abandon it completely, now that oligarchs control the government?
not trying to scrub anything out of nature. which is what gnostic thought attempts.
it’s just dumb
there is no point engaging with you, u have no interest in principled thought.
As Aristotle would say, from this point on, you are but a plant.
