Search results

Like how do we explain the need to move beyond factuality, in the terms of a perspective confined to factuality?

And I do think metamodernism is an academic bridge from that state of postmodernism to a sort of postpostmodern gnosis. But along that bridge, you need to expand beyond science and academic discourse, and I don't know if metamodernism touches upon that really. That is I;m not sure if gnosis...

Yeah perhaps postmodernism can be figured as the recoil from the sensation that not all knowledge is confined to factuality. Like if someone needs emprical proof for the existence of god, and just continue to drift into depsondancy and alienation within their overly scientific project of total...

Yeah postmodernism is a sort of apogee of agnosticism.

Actually I'd invite them to learn from us. Otherwise they'll just continue on their agnostic trajectories, much to the peril of many.

Although scientism can be a sort of fanaticism, but I think the point got across. Maybe the other pole can be considered in terms of phychosis, the chaos extremity-perversion as opposed to the order extremity-perversion.

I'd say as the two poles of, what, scientism and fanaticism? Where drifting too close to one seems to make a return less likely.

If I get what you're getting at, then yeah I'd say there is a meaningful correlation there. I tend to frame these kind of correlations, and say archetypally informed knowledge, within gnosis. Arguably metaphor is the basis the gnosis, methodologically. Feeling out the abstract parallels between...

Take @WashYourHands as an example. A healthy balance and interplay between science and gnosis. Informed by facts, but the ambition is not confined to them. Open ends, many of them, proliferating pathways. Seemingly comfortable with an infinitely proliferating network of consequences and...

So any optimal advancement of knowledge would require the mutual compliance between gnosis and science, and very few humans incarnate such mutual compliance. That said, it can be learned. More to @catalog 's point, I think the question of theism is partially external to the question of gnosis...

I tend to think of gnosis and science as the yang and yin of knowledge, seeing as both words can translate to knowledge. And yeah what @luka said, gnosis is immediate where science is mediated. The benefit of mediation here is that you have external references you can reliably defer to to...

And also science is just more expensive too, which is a huge constraint on would-be scientists. You need to play ball with bureaucrats and spend exorbitant amounts of money just to reach the point where you have the proper equipment at your disposal.

The downside of gnosis, from the perspective of science, is that gnosis exhibits an overwillingness to go beyond the facts. The downside of science, from the perspective of gnosis, is that science exhibits an overdetermination in moving even a step.

Like I'd imagine you'd need to already be a thoroughgoing fascist in order to become a psychedelic fascist. Again probably some exceptions, but yeah I don't think its a real threat.

Oh I see, like fascism is almost definitively close-minded, bolstering this one people at the expense of others, etc, whereas psychedelics are supposed to neutralize such boundaries. Admittedly I'm not familiar with the science there, but gnostically that dichotomy makes sense, and this a...

Science is fundamentally hermetic, with only certain narrow and heavy guarded gauntlets that administer the influx of information. We need to be familiar with the gauntlets, the inlets into the Empire of Fact.

We need practically infinite patience and tolerance, in terms of reaching some of these scientists, but such efforts will be well-rewarded.

I understand you aren't fond of operating within factuality (science), and I understand that you are good at operating beyond it (gnosis), but we will not kill them. It is prohibited. You will effectively lose cosmic favor by doing so.

I promised no such thing. Scientism is a pole to be resisted, but science is complementary to gnosis, even if that doesn;t translate culturally.

Not sure I understand the first two lines. What do you mean?