Gnosticism is a legitimate form of spirituality
Gnosis is the direct experience of knowledge and wisdom. In order to perform Gnosis, the practitioner "finds a way inside themselves". Wherein a connection to the greater mysteries is automatically initiated.
An example of Gnosis is meditation, from which information and growth arise. Another example of Gnosis is flow state. And a third example of Gnosis is mindfulness. What these three examples have in common is self-awareness and an acknowledgement of the value found within firsthand experiences.
An example of Gnosis is meditation, from which information and growth arise. Another example of Gnosis is flow state. And a third example of Gnosis is mindfulness. What these three examples have in common is self-awareness and an acknowledgement of the value found within firsthand experiences.
Comments (88)
Y: Well, I first I turned it off, then I banged the damn thing with a hammer here and here, then I spilled my coffee on the circuit board then...you know what I don't think I can do this again, it's a one-off deal! No repeats!
X: F**k! F**k! F**k!
Y: Indeed! Indeed!
The gate to the Oracle at Delphi bore this inscription : "gnothi seauton" (know thyself). That kind of "direct" (introspective) gnosis is indeed necessary for wisdom. But, pretending to know something via indirect channels -- hidden from Reason & human eyes -- may be wise like a wiley serpent. The ancient Gnostics got a bad reputation for claiming to reveal occult esoteric spiritual truths that are necessary for salvation. And that tactic worked well on gullible people, who put their trust in con-men. But philosophical wisdom must be amenable to Reason, and not just taken on Faith. Confer "Trump Truth". :nerd:
PS__OccultGnosis is indeed "useful" for separating money from naive or emotionally needy people. My trusting sister was just conned into giving-out her bank account information to an Indian Microsoft "expert" who claimed to be able to fix a technical problem with her computer, that was caused by his own virus. I don't think she was so naive, but merely confused & frustrated by the sudden craziness on her computer. Fortunately, she called her skeptical brother, before any real damage was done.
Quoting Bret Bernhoft
I'm not sure how do you mean this. It sounds like "the experience one has from knowledge", which doesn't make much sense to me; I can't get what that could be. But it would certainly make sense to me if you had said "the knowledge that comes from (direct) experience".
Anyway, wouldn't it be better if you had brought in definitions of the term "Gnosis" or at least a more complete description, since it is the key term in this topic?
Well, I will do it for you:
"Gnosis" from ...
Oxford LEXICO: "Knowledge of spiritual mysteries."
Merriam Webster: "Esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth held by the ancient Gnostics to be essential to salvation".
Collins: "Supposedly revealed knowledge of various spiritual truths, esp that said to have been possessed by ancient Gnostics"
Quite confusing, eh? (Although the "spiritual" element is common in every case.) Well, this is maybe because "Gnosis" is not an established tern.
On the other hand, we get much more enlightened from next source:
Wikipedia: "Gnosis is the common Greek noun for knowledge. The term was used among various Hellenistic religions and philosophies in the Greco-Roman world. It is best known for its implication within Gnosticism, where it signifies a spiritual knowledge or insight into humanity's real nature as divine, leading to the deliverance of the divine spark within humanity from the constraints of earthly existence."
But also in Wikipedia, one reads "In chaos magic, gnosis or the gnostic state refers to an altered state of consciousness in which a person's mind is focused on only one point, thought, or goal and all other thoughts are thrust out. The gnostic state is used to bypass the 'filter' of the conscious mind – something thought to be necessary for working most forms of magic. Since it takes years of training to master this sort of Zen-like meditative ability, chaos magicians employ a variety of other ways to attain a 'brief no-mind state' in which to work magic."[/i]
(Note that Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy have no articles on "Gnosis", only on "Gnosticism". Which indicates that it is not a (standard) philosophical subject by itself.)
No wonder then why "Gnosis" is underappreciated ...
***
BTW, I have not voted because the question of the poll --"Is Gnosis a useful source of knowledge ..."-- is inconsistent with your initial description of Gnosis, i.e. that it is an experience of knowledge ...
Thank you so much for doing the effort of research. At least, I have learned something new today and looks like interesting. Nevertheless, I also root for the opinion of Stanford Encyclopaedia. As a quick thought of the information you shared with us it seems to be connected with "mystery" or occultism and it even remembers me to pagan religions from Nordics or Celtics.
By the way, thank you again because you were more explicit than the OP itself. He did something related in another post but he never answered me... :lol:
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Maybe the OP was referring if we can put Gnosis inside a classical source of knowledge such as a rationalism or empiricism (?)
How do you know if it is a "legitimate" form of spirituality? What does legitimate mean here? Is it sufficient to have an experience and call it Gnosis? Or is there a distinction between believing one has gained access to "greater mysteries" and having such access? Can we tell the difference? Do we even know there is such a thing?
The problem with all such promises is that one must first buy into it in order to seriously pursue it, and then when one fails to realize what is expected the blame is put on the person striving for doing or not doing something.
:up: In other words, as a disciple of Sunzi once said: "A man's got to know his limitations."
(The gnosis of) Don't bullshit thyself. :fire:
:100:
I'm a (modern) Gnostic in the following sense:
[quote=Carl Sagan]I don't want to believe. I want to know.[/quote]
[quote=Albert Camus]I do not want to found anything on the incomprehensible. I want to know whether I can live with what I know and with that alone.[/quote]
[quote=Benedict Spinoza]Deus, sive natura naturans.[/quote]
[quote=Albert Camus]What I know, what is certain, what I cannot deny, what I cannot reject — this is what counts. I can negate everything of that part of me that lives on vague nostalgias, except this desire for unity, this longing to solve, this need for clarity and cohesion. I can refute everything in this world surrounding me that offends or enraptures me, except this chaos, this sovereign chance and this divine equivalence which springs from anarchy. I don’t know whether this world has a meaning that transcends it. But I know that I do not know that meaning and that it is impossible for me just now to know it. What can a meaning outside my condition mean to me? I can understand only in human terms. What I touch, what resists me — that is what I understand. And these two certainties — my appetite for the absolute and for unity and the impossibility of reducing this world to a rational and reasonable principle — I also know that I cannot reconcile them. What other truth can I admit without lying, without bringing in a hope I lack and which means nothing within the limits of my condition?[/quote]
[quote=Hillel the Elder]That which is [harmful] to you, do not do to anyone.[/quote]
I relate to the Carl Sagan quote you shared, thank you for that.
The horror! Sounds like a blockbuster movie plot themed on/around cybercrime.
Readers might wanna look up the Mary's room gedanken experiment.
Thus a particular theism, and equally, a positive atheism are gnostic positions because they make claims about the spiritual, that we agnostics deny can be known.
I look at all those places "whereof one cannot speak" as challenges, to find a way to speak about them. What "whereof one cannot speak" refers to is only temporary, as language evolves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism
I would distinguish insight from knowledge thus; knowledge is the past projected into the future, whereas insight is immediate and present. One cannot share insight, but only relate it as experience from the past, so what one shares is knowledge. But knowledge can only be added to the illusion of those who lack insight - and that is the story of every religion, that the founder has spiritual insight and the followers convert it into knowledge that then becomes dogma.
Thank you for your kind words. I'm glad I could contribute in this topic, well, "by accident", since itself has no well-defined shape, flesh or bones. :smile:
Quoting javi2541997
Yes, it seems it has this color too! :smile:
Quoting javi2541997
Indeed, he doesn't look much of an answering guy ... He didn't answer me neither. Or, simply he is eclectic, because from what I saw, he answered only to @180 Proof ...
Quoting javi2541997
I wouldn't bet on that. If it has not been classifiled, placed anywhere till now, most brobably it simply can't.
Besides, we have already enough philosophical concepts and terms in our store to argue about! :grin:
So, as far as I am concerned, I will continue to consider the word "Gnosis" --as a term and concept-- as something useless, and not talk about it any more.
Hello again, Alkis Piskas. If you do not mind, yesterday I asked through email to Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. what were his thoughts about Gnosis
He answered me with the following opinion:
Gnosticism is not part of philosophy. It is a Christian heresy. It is popular now for people, like Pagels, to think that Gnosticism was the true and proper Christianity, which was suppressed by those evil priests. This is nonsense, but it appeals to people who seem to be materialists and don't believe in miracles, the divinity of Christ, or the Resurrection. Of course, they are free to believe whatever they like, but they don't need to tell me that it is Christianity.
He also shared a paper in the email that is related to the topic: The Gnostic Gospels
I hope it is helpful for you. After reading those opinions I still defend the same base which involves this topic: Gnosis is not related to philosophy but it could be an interesting topic to debate about.
"Immediate and present", I wonder what that means. I think I see why you say it's that whereof we cannot speak. By the time we speak of anything immediate and present, it is in the past, and not present. And if we speak of the present itself, as a boundary between past and future, it seems like it must consist of a little of both. But that's contradictory. So it appears like there is some validity to your claim concerning an incapacity to speak about this.
But I still think there must be a way to talk about things which are in the past and the future at the same time, or are neither in the future nor the past, and other insightful things. And if we haven't figured out how to speak that lingo, we might be able to learn it, if we try. We could study the spiritual masters, and learn how to speak that sort of language which shares insight rather than sharing knowledge. To begin with, I would say that it doesn't involve thinking up different words, special jargon, or anything like that, it's just a different way of using the well-worn words which we already have
These assessors, thinking they “have it down”, lack the insight, to see, their entire life has been a compromise of integrity, values, ethics: bereft of any standards that a true gnostic will hold themselves to. living an entire life essentially of failures (various kinds) stepped in deceit, lack of love/affection, consideration, violence (all kinds : a life plagued by all kinds of insecurities and failed attempts to mask it…
so these assessors with their many diseases, physical and mental : broken, fragmented, compromised… think they can just put together bits and pieces of collected information from here and there, shifting their positions like weasels, as they glean from others and change their vocabulary, have the audacity to think they “have it down’? lol. And all this is skepticism? Really? Or is all of this conformity to the highest degree? You have confirmed to everything. Your society, to ideologies, to your flag, to religions ( or its opposite), to narratives, to your philosophies, to your world views, to your prejudices and biass, to the apathy of your old age, to your lack of integrity, to your experiences, to your knowledge.
In any case, thatÂ’s that.
....... Un-Gnosis......maybe...
That's it in a nutshell. In my experience, the people keenest on gnosis seem to be theosophists and Jungians who have already determined a pecking order and tend to see themselves as climbing the spiritual status ladder.
Can you point to an example of gnosis being achieved and why it is significant?
So, one is skeptical of any fuss (for or against) about Gnosis. After all it is in the un-gnosis there is any possibility. .... and perhaps then it doesn't really matter....
Your hand sweeps broadly against your perceived opponents. You seem to claim a gnosis of your own against all others.
Donn't be silly. I'm not responsible for your reactions. You have to deal with them.
I don't know what I am reacting to.
You cloak yourself in mystery.
[quote=Matthew 11: 15]He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.[/quote]
If we have the same insight, we can talk about it;
https://alanwatts.org/2-2-5-buddhism-as-dialogue-part-1/
But if you have an insight that I do not, then I will always mistake that which is in you for that which is in me when they are not at all the same. I will be like a blind man using the word 'see' and understanding it as a metaphor "I see what you mean", but can only understand "I see a car coming down the road"as some kind of superior directional hearing type thing, or remote touch, or...
I'm not responsible for your image formations.
Quoting Paine
I' ll take your word for it. You may keep walking now. If you will excuse me, there are more important things that need my attention.
I suppose, the above, is an original response then.
Duh?
So, this 'true gnostic', are you one of that kind?
Well said, sir, even enlightening. :clap: :fire:
:up:
Why do you think that one who is constantly changing positions, would think that they "have it down"? Wouldn't the person who thinks oneself to "have it down", never change positions? And the one who is always changing positions does so because that person does not assume to "have it down".
Quoting unenlightened
I must say that I don't know exactly what you mean by "insight", but wouldn't it be possible to show someone else how to have the same insight as yourself, even if that person does not presently have that insight? Then the two of you could talk about it.
I think that the blind analogy is not quite applicable, because the blind man does not have the capacity to see, and cannot be shown how to see something. The person who does not have the same insight as another might still have the capacity to have that insight, if the way is shown.
Good.
The measurement of what you are saying ( a response to what i had said) is determined by the motive behind any 'amendments'. If the amendments are done to upgrade one's weaponry, or to create a patched blanket to weather the assault of debate/regimentation, or to create a mental intellectual crutch etc.....which are the usual reasons why weasels amend.... are usually done to strengthen the image that one has it down. And to project that image outwards.
However, if there is genuine doubt,a healthy skepticism (which means no positions), a desire to know 'what is' the fact, a willingness to 'learn' ( which is not the same as 'accumulation') then yes, the possibility of genuine amendments do arise.
However, considering the rarity of the second possibility, as evidenced by observing what is going on around us (an observation available to all), the likelihood of the second possibility was discarded in light of the common occurrences of the first possibility.
How is self-knowledge related to poverty and wealth? Is it the inverse of the popular belief that being wise leads to financial wealth? That those who are rich are poor in spirit?
You are characterizing the person who changes one's position as a "weasel", instead of seeing the person as open minded, and ready to accept change. There are two principal reasons for changing one's position, one is the "weasel" reason, the other the open minded reason.
Quoting skyblack
Ever think that perhaps you misinterpret the situation around you? You see people all around you changing their positions, and you conclude that they are all weasels, because you have some predisposition to judge them this way. The weasel changes its position, therefore the person who changes position is a weasel. But in reality many of them are just open minded people.
What would cause you to see these people in this way? Is it because that's the reason why you would change your position, you are a weasel?
That's what i just said. You don't have to stand on my shoulders. Broaden yours.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
"I" am not relevant. One makes a deduction based on available facts. As to your 'personal' question : i don't change positions. That should be evident from my history here, as you well know. The reason for me not changing positions is like i said before, i don't have one to begin with.
To jump from a topic or a point, to the person, (Or to fixate on someone) is, clearly, a reactive weasely action, not to mention an unhealthy habit. Don't be a weasel.
I assume that everyone I converse with here is a person, so "I" is very relevant because a person has personality. And if you are a bot, or in some other way not a person, then "I" in that case, is even more relevant.
Ok. And i just showed it to you, and others, that you have a weaselly "I". You're welcome, adios.
You're no fun. Every time you think you see a weasel you run and hide.
Not really. After i see a weasel, i first slap them a bit. ya know, kind of put them in their place sort of thing. After that i usually go about more pressing business. I mean this is not hard to see, right? Its all over my profile.
But if you want more fun, you know where to find me. The offer made to 'Praxis' is open to anyone who wishes to take me up. He couldn't, but maybe you can? let's have some fun on neutral grounds. Don't let me stop you. Maybe you can learn the many ways weasels squirm, eh. Alright, now run along. Dad has other things to do.
I'm game. What's this offer to Praxis?
Go to my profile and keep scrolling back my post history until you find it.
Give me a break. Are you going to produce your offer or not?
That's what i thought. So long then.
In terms of an example of Gnosis and its significance, we can look to all of Shamanism. Direct revelation is the name of the game when it comes to the work of any genuine Shaman. It's significant because Shamanism is the root of all spirituality and religion.
So are hearing voices, having visions and magical thinking :sparkle: :roll:
Indeed.
Right. But although Gnosticism is connected to Gnosis, it's not the subject of this topic. It is not even mentioned in the OP. And, in contrast with Gnosis, it is a well-defined and commonly/widely accepted term.
And I know about the Gnostic Gospels. A very long time ago I was quite interested in and read a couple of them.
Quoting javi2541997
OK.
I just checked the OP has changed the title and subject. Not my fault! :lol: Anyway, I also see the difference between both concepts.
Still waiting for an answer from the author though...
Right. Weasels jump on any leads given to them. That was one of my original points.
Thanks for clarifying.
So it looks like the author wants to play with us and he is reading our posts in the shadows and he is changing depending on our opinions. :chin:
That's what Gnosis is about
No, that's what weasel-ness is about. I doubt anyone here knows what gnosis is about. But yes, a weasel, will not hesitate to make an absolute sounding claim of "what it is about"/ or what it isn't. Maybe it is best to be careful, eh. A healthy skepticism is good for inquiries.
But @Alkis Piskas has correctly noted the possibility of a distinction between Gnosticism and Gnosis. And in interest of letting you folks continue i'm not even going to mention Un-Gnosis.
What is the clue of this OP then?
Not sure what you are asking.
Quoting skyblack
You have said it is better to be careful. But what is the point of starting this OP then?
I have debated with @Alkis Piskas and he pointed out that Gnosis and Gnosticism could be two different aspects. Even the original poster, @Bret Bernhoft, said that is related to shamanism.
You call us "weasels" because we jump on one argument to another. But I think this is what is about. To debate each other.
I do not see the effectiveness of being careful of answering if the OP is asking for our opinions (I guess)
Well, if you don't understand what the expression "being a weasel" means then you can Google it. If you don't understand what a collaborative "inquiry" means, you can Google it as well as see some my older posts. And if you don't understand what "healthy Skepticism" means, you can read my previous posts on this very thread.
I can't help you with your language or comprehension issues. You will have to work on it yourself.
But now that you have clarified, clearly your questions need to be directed at op and Alkis. So sort it between yourselves.
I don't understand what "being a weasel" means because I am not Anglo-Saxon. I don't have a problem in language or comprehension.
If I use sayings in Spanish I guess you would not understand it. Not because you lack of comprehension but you are used to spanish language.
Don't sweat it.
'Show me the way, O, great one' says the earnest follower of every religion. But insight is present or it is absent, and there is no method, or training, or process or 'way' towards it. That is mere knowledge that is accumulated over time. Indeed there is an inversion, that the more greedily and earnestly one seeks insight, the less likely one is to attain it - as if one were chasing after stillness, or a dog chasing its tail.
All this is fairly orthodox and widespread - one goes to the church for comfort, but to the monastery for insight, and at the monastery one finds discipline, hard work, and silence, which is no more a path to enlightenment than a hot day is a path to a thunderstorm.
Well, it's like I said, I don't really understand what you mean by "insight". How can there be no way or process toward it? Is its appearance magical? Or are you saying that it's something one is either born with or not? If so, would a young child have insight? And if a child cannot have insight, how is it developed, if not through magic?
It becomes more and more difficult to convey. it does not develop. There is no 'how'. Nothing 'happens'.
Have you ever had a puzzle or a problem that you have tried to work out for a long time without success, and then suddenly, without effort, you have the answer, clear and simple? Is that magic?
Do you not see that this exchange is exactly what I have described, that there is an understanding that cannot be conveyed - I say some words, but I cannot make room in you for a new idea. You need to have an insight!
Well, you did mention it! :grin: It's too late now. You must tell us about it and not just leave us in mystery!
First, i couldn't care less for the "us". I could care about 'you', but that depends.
Does mystery bother you? Or does it move you?
Mystery can create various effects: from despair to frustration to indifference to wondering to interest to thurst for knowledge ... The mystery I mentioned had nothing to do with any of them. It was just a figure of speech. :smile:
Yes, i had figured. But it is usually better to ask. It also gives the other a chance to process more.
I do think the message is about the "the inverse of the popular belief that being wise leads to financial wealth and the idea that those who are rich are poor in spirit." That is consonant with many other passages in the New Testament.
What is different about Gospel of Thomas is the emphasis upon betraying one's own being as the danger involved. The proximity between what can kill you or give you life.
Can you briefly explain what this means?
I'm with Tom. An explanation would be helpful.
I agree with you if we are considering discursive speech. The spiritual has to do, not with observation of particulars, logical relations or propositional discourse, but with affect; the sense of being illuminated.The arts, and poetry particularly, can speak to the spiritual, by way of evocation. If those who find themselves illuminated, or those who would be illuminants mistake their altered states of feeling and sense of understanding for determinate knowledge, all kinds of problems follow.
You make 'the spiritual' sound like 'the emotional'. (that's not intended as an adverse criticism, just an observation).
I wouldn't take it as a criticism.Wittgenstein thought that nothing (propositional, that is inter-subjectively corroborable) could be said about mystical (religious, spiritual), aesthetic or ethical experience or judgement. I'm not sure about the ethical category, but the others have that in common as far as I have been able to tell.
Say you have an experience where you think you have encountered God. Since God is not a visible, audible or tactile entity, what could that experience consist in? I'd say it consists in the sense (feeling) of a presence one imagines or even feels one knows, to be God. Note the "feels one knows"; this is the realm of affect: I don't see what else it could be. Can you think of an alternative?
We know the Paul message because that is what became the church. The focus upon the end of days was paramount. You were either in the salvation life raft or you were not.
The emphasis upon being who you truly are in the gospel of Thomas is not an outright objection to the Pauline view. But it is not a great fit otherwise. If one has the source of what is worthy in their own being, looking for it is different from a war between one cosmos or another, as imagined by Paul.
I just call it the ineffable. But I generally agree with you. For some believers I suspect there is a recognition of transcendence that sits above and beyond emotion and is more in keeping with apophatic traditions.
Ok. I just aren't sure how this explains the language in your quote below. But that maybe my problem as I generally need language to be very clear in order to follow the thread.
Quoting Paine
(fixed typo)
Yes, I recognize my statement is provocative.
On the other hand, have you read the text? It is very short.
That's what I've heard called "the eureka moment". I can't say I've ever really experienced anything like the way it is described. Sometimes with a problem, if I let it go completely out of my head, then something will come into my head later which reminds me of the problem, but from a different perspective. That something can sometimes hold the solution. So it's like the solution comes to me only after I quit thinking about the problem, and having the solution makes me remember the problem. It's like when you're looking for something you've misplaced, and just give up because you can't find it. Then, later when you're doing something else, you'll see something, or otherwise remember something which reminds you exactly where the misplaced thing is. There's some sort of trigger. Also, quite often things come to me in my sleep, like the eureka moment, sometimes in dreams, other times I just wake up and the solution, or creative idea is right there, in my mind.
Quoting unenlightened
Well, we can go around and around in circles, encircling the idea in many different ways, with you always saying "No! That is not what I mean". After my mind gets hit with a whole lot of No's, I might say, "all right, I give up, I'll never understand". Then I'll go off, and have a snooze, and bang! It hits me. "That's what unenlightened meant". You might say that it just came to me, "bang!", as insight, but I would say that it is really the product of all those no's, and going around in circles. The solution never would have come to me if I hadn't gone through that process of elimination first.
Did you mean apophatic? I looked up apophenic and it relates to apophenia, which is "the tendency to perceive a connection or meaningful pattern between unrelated or random things (such as objects or ideas)".
There is a distinction in philosophy between transcendental and transcendent, where the former is understood to signify the "meta-empirical" conditions for experience (phenomenology) or the possibility of experience (Kant), and the latter signifies a postulated metaphysical or supernatural reality. Kant said we have very good (practical, not pure) reasons to believe in God, freedom and immortality, but not to reify those by believing that they are transcendent realities.
The former (transcendental) perspective seems to have more in common with apophatic stances, and the latter (transcendent) with the cataphatic, but I must admit that the more I try to think about this distinction the more it seems to dissolve into a kind of fog, and it starts to look like a fudge.
Oops, typo, yes I did.
Quoting Janus
I think this is right. I also think one needs to believe for this to 'work'.
Right.
I can accept that - the secret of success is effort and failure, followed by coincidence, or something like that, but the point I would make is that the explanation doesn't produce a method one can employ; it doesn't actually explain anything better than 'magic' or 'a eureka moment' or 'insight', because it is unrepeatable and unverifiable. It's a explanation of last resort, that you would not have thought much of coming from me. "But how does one have a coincidence?" I seem to hear you say.
But that is why monks practice a discipline and work and meditate; to prepare the mind for that unknown thing that might just happen, at least seemingly, of its own accord and without effort. something that they call 'grace' in the christian tradition, or 'liberation'.
Looking at the state of the modern human world, seemingly headed for complete self-destruction guided by secular science, it is apparent to me that the total contempt for religion that is so fashionable may be leading to the neglect of something important. I call it 'insight', and emphasise that it is something one cannot control or produce at will, but something that comes to one perhaps, or does not. It is something personal, but not of the self. This is not a contradiction of science, but it is beyond the scope of the scientific method, which without it becomes inhuman and mechanical and leads to destruction. In the small, it is a sudden understanding of something; in the large, it is a 'road to Damascus' transformation of one's life. It would be a serious mistake, if one has such a moment, to imagine that one has deserved or achieved it; that would be to add to the self when one should subtract.
I like this idea, "something personal, but not of the self". It seems very consistent with what I was arguing in the "Is there an external world?" thread. In that thread, the view of the thinking mind, from secular science, is a model from "systems theory". The systems theory places a boundary between the system and the external, to model sense perception. So I inquired as to why there is not also a boundary between the system and the internal, to account for everything internal which is not part of the system. But systems theory does not allow for this, everything inside the boundary between the system and the external, is part of the system, internal to the system. So the possibility of something coming from the inside, which is not part of the system ( something personal, but not of the self) cannot be part of that model.
I belief that this is similar to the way that Plato resolved the often cited "interaction problem" of dualism. He placed a medium between the immaterial and the material. So the realm of human thinking and activity, which he called passion (or some such word), is intermediate in relation to the external material world, and the internal immaterial world. Instead of placing boundaries between these two, the external and the internal, I prefer to view these as two different directions. One could look outward for external objects, or look inward for insight.
as to internal boundaries, I'm not at all clear what you mean. I think there are internal boundaries, but I tend to have a fairly negative view of them, as divisions and conflicts of thought, and the idea of 'self' as the first source of such divisions. But we are going off topic; perhaps another thread sometime.
Consider the "thinking self" as a type of system. There are external things which influence the self, some you've mentioned like knowledge and the empirical causes of experience. So as a matter of analytic convenience we assume a boundary between the self and the external world. These things which are external to the self have causal influence over the self, and there is a separation between cause and effect which requires a boundary, or a medium, as a principle of separation, to understand the temporal order.
But then there is the other thing you mentioned, "insight", which cannot be placed in that category of external influences because it is an internal influence on the self. Since it influences the self, but is not part of the self ("something personal but not of the self"), then for analytic convenience we could assume a boundary, medium, or principle of separation, between the self and the internal world, just like we assume a boundary between the self and the external. Then we might develop a better understanding of the temporal order between the internal reality, and the self.
Yeah, I'm stuck on this first bit. I can see the body as a system, or the brain as a system or subsystem, but the thinking self as I understand it is more like a habit - something a system usually does. But I don't even much favour that way of talking, because to me systems talk is material talk and mind talk is not. It's like playing Monopoly on a Risk board.
It's not quite like that, because we don't really have the game yet which I want to try to play on the Risk board. My goal was to try and find a way to speak about that place which you designated the place 'whereof one cannot speak'. So I've produced the Risk board. But I do not want to play Risk, I want to play a different game, using the same old board, but a completely different set of rules; a set of rules which we could design and formulate to get us into that place. You're unwilling to play. Maybe you think that Risk is the only game which can be played on the Risk board. Or, maybe because you've already designated that place as "whereof one cannot speak', you see no point in trying.
I'm not wedded to it. I suggest a new thread. Try and describe the thinking self in system theoretic terms, and let's see if we can make sense it. What are the boundaries, inputs, outputs, and internal functions? Have you read Bateson's "Steps to an Ecology of Mind"? It's old, but might make a good starting point. But, word to the wise, it does tend to get associated with some odd stuff if you're googling ( beware Neuro-Linguistic Programming). But I can see the self as a complex system within the ecosystem of mind, and the mind as an element of the eco-system that is civilisation - it needs laying out.
No, I think I'll leave that for now. I believe there are better options than systems theory. As I said, I'm not into boundaries myself. I'd prefer to look at internal and external as directions, inward and outward. That is why this thread is a little better, because gnosis is a form of knowledge derived from turning one's attention inward, looking in an inward direction, rather than looking outward.
We are more accustomed to looking outward, with our senses, and speaking with each other about things which are external, which we share (or fight over), so we have language which has evolved to be useful for that purpose. If we compare (through metaphor perhaps) looking inward with looking outward, then we can see the need to have internal things which are not private or personal, things we share and in that way are independent from us, which we can talk about with each other. So we have shared internal things just like we have shared external things. And of course, we might fight over the internal things like we fight over the external.
Understanding these internal things is not a matter of creating boundaries between oneself and the things to be understood, just like understanding external things is not a matter of creating boundaries between oneself and the external things. On the contrary, understanding internal things is a matter of creating a unity between oneself and the internal thing, 'bring it into your fold', just like understanding an external thing is a matter of creating a sort of unity between oneself and the thing to be understood.