Agnostic Gnostics; Anti-Illuminist Illuminists
-
One thing I’m learning...
People may call themselves “gnostic,” implying the ability to know, and people may call themselves “Scientific Illuminists,” implying the ability to be personally illuminated, but make the mistake of even just sounding like a question has been settled for yourself through personal experience, and they’ll resent you and think you a fool - all the while, calling themselves “gnostics” and “Scientific Illuminists.”
-
I see a concern or a complaint but without any specific concerns or complaints being made, I just see a general dissatisfaction. There is no feedback or agreement I can make other than this: if you are feeling persecuted, it is possible you need to be persecuted and it is possible you are being abused. If you believe you are illuminated, I wonder what mirror you hold up to be sure this is true. This applies to not only you and me, but those whom you allude to as persecuting those who claim a claim or whatever it is.
It could also be, "make a mistake of believing anything is ever settled, even through experience, and you might just be a fool." But I don't know, are we talking about one's preference in authors, or are we discussing dogmatic needs? Without specifics, I g-no g-nothing.
-
Well, first, let’s forget me and let it stand as a challenge in its own right. This is true. Gnostics and Scientific Illuminists can be and sometimes are conflicted about their own ability to know reality through personal experience, yet it is the primary assumption of both Gnosticism and Illuminism.
So first, that. Let it be a challenge to self-awareness.
——-
Second. Yeah, I have an ideal of remaining open, but some stuff is settled. We are all connected “by Spirit” or “in Consciousness.” Settled. Within myself? Forget it. Break you mind against my certainty of that. I offer you no evidence. I do not ask you to believe me. I merely exert my right to feel confident about what I know. Get over it.
——-
Third. What? Do I need to feign uncertainty for social lubrication? So I don’t trigger people? I have a strong need to be authentic to myself. But this may not serve me socially.
I’m pondering alternative social behaviors and politely non-triggering responses. I have to admit, it kind of irks me.
Thoughts are welcome.
-
I think I'm gaining an understanding of what the concern/issues are and possibly even the theater in which these concerns/issues are coming out for you and what you have (Had) been doing and now what you might decided to start doing about it.
We are living in interesting times. Things that are definitely religious in cannon, spiritually influenced, and/or at the very least hit at the core of personal and private are now non-taboo subjects out in the open. These now not-taboo subjects are also some of the very engines of popular elections these days! So interesting! Food courts are rife with "impolite conversation." Interesting times.
So what do we do? We all have our convictions. Some of us have long been "spiritually motivated" (I'll describe it as such) toward all of our opinions and directions in even the most mundane spheres of our lives; many of us have not been so motivated and they rather tended to drone on in life - until now.
Now people are seeing red hair everywhere they want to look. That red hair might be orange, it might be blazing clownish or it might be blazing whorish red. Incited indeed are these times. And strangely, so are all things Satanic too. Gone are "well, this won't ever make mainstream noise." So now.... well....
everyone is in the conversation. What to do?
We live in interesting times, and China is laughing all about it.
-
@Hermitas said
"Gnostics and Scientific Illuminists can be and sometimes are conflicted about their own ability to know reality through personal experience, yet it is the primary assumption of both Gnosticism and Illuminism."
Both of them (like all schools of thought) are ridiculous, ultimately.
"So first, that. Let it be a challenge to self-awareness."
It isn't. Interpretation or comprehension by the mind might encounter such a challenge and be foiled by it, but it's not a challenge to actual Self-awareness.
"This Knowledge is not for all men; few indeed are called, but of these few many are chosen."
- Liber Porta Lucis, v. 9
"——-
Second. Yeah, I have an ideal of remaining open, but some stuff is settled."
Cool.
"We are all connected “by Spirit” or “in Consciousness.” Settled. Within myself?"
"Within yourself."
It depends upon one's apprehension of what it means to be "by Spirit" or "in Consciousness." If these are just intellectual comprehensions, then they are complete rubbish. Garbage. Filth. Ugh.Beyond that...ask...
PS
Takamba's second response here is absolutely fantastic! (for what my endorsement may be worth...)