gnosis
gno·sis (nō′sĭs)
n.
- Intuitive apprehension of spiritual truths, an esoteric form of knowledge sought by the Gnostics.
[Greek gnōsis, knowledge, from gignōskein, to know. See gnō- in Indo-European Roots.]
It's strange how the origins of words and their associated meanings can be so easily forgotten. Up until recently, I didn't have a word to describe what I practiced - I often referred to it simply as 'the path' or 'the search for enlightenment'. Then, something in my subconscious triggered and I reinvestigated Gnosticism, whence I found the word for which I was at a loss.
So, am I Gnostic? True Gnostic, I mean - not that pseudo-Gnostic brand of Christianity. Perhaps; perhaps not. The truth is, the longer I consider the point at which I am on the path, the more certain I am that it is the destination.
I could bore you with tales of my journey; they are unnecessary. I will, however, give you some of the truth that I have found, and in it, perhaps, expound where I am.
At some point, we all believe something - it is an inherent consequence of our upbringing and human experience. But is what we believe correct? And how do we judge if it is correct? On the surface, the answer seems intuitive - if it works, then it must be correct; but let us delve deeper.
So, am I Gnostic? True Gnostic, I mean - not that pseudo-Gnostic brand of Christianity. Perhaps; perhaps not. The truth is, the longer I consider the point at which I am on the path, the more certain I am that it is the destination.
I could bore you with tales of my journey; they are unnecessary. I will, however, give you some of the truth that I have found, and in it, perhaps, expound where I am.
At some point, we all believe something - it is an inherent consequence of our upbringing and human experience. But is what we believe correct? And how do we judge if it is correct? On the surface, the answer seems intuitive - if it works, then it must be correct; but let us delve deeper.
ax·i·om (ăk′sē-əm)
n.
- a saying that widely accepted on its own merits [syn: maxim]
- (logic) a proposition that is not susceptible of proof or disproof; its truth is assumed to be self-evident
[Middle English, from Old French axiome, from Latin axiōma, axiōmat-, from Greek, from axios, worthy. See ag- in Indo-European Roots.]
The sum of our beliefs can be subdivided into different axioms; together these axioms represent the total of our beliefs. When a person has more than one axiom, however, these axioms also possess relationships to one another - much like sets in set theory.
Let A and B be axioms; then one of the following must be true:
Let A and B be axioms; then one of the following must be true:
- A and B fully affirm one another - A and B are the same belief
- A and B fully contradict one another
- A and B are fully exclusive of one another
- A and B partially affirm one another, and A and B are partially exclusive
- A and B partially contradict one another, and A and B are partially exclusive
- A and B partially contradict one another, and A and B partially affirm one another
- A and B partially contradict one another, and A and B partially affirm one another, and A and B are partially exclusive
- A and B partially affirm one another, and A is partially exclusive
- A and B partially affirm one another, and B is partially exclusive
- A and B partially contradict one another, and A is partially exclusive
- A and B partially contradict one another, and B is partially exclusive
- A and B partially contradict one another, and A and B partially affirm one another, and A is partially exclusive
- A and B partially contradict one another, and A and B partially affirm one another, and B is partially exclusive
When we consider this, we should note that whilst axioms are atomic, this does not mean that they cannot encompass other axioms. Simplistically, consider:
Statement A: All birds have wings.
Statement B: All chickens have wings.
Neither statement could be denied as axiomatic, yet Statement A encompasses Statement B. In this case, the two axioms should be assimilated into the broader axiom: Statement A.
All of the above relationships can be broken down into three themes:
Statement A: All birds have wings.
Statement B: All chickens have wings.
Neither statement could be denied as axiomatic, yet Statement A encompasses Statement B. In this case, the two axioms should be assimilated into the broader axiom: Statement A.
All of the above relationships can be broken down into three themes:
- Affirmation
- Exclusion
- Contradiction
Affirmation is easy to deal with; axioms that affirm one another can be simplified and united into broader axioms. Most people don't bother dealing with exclusion; exclusive beliefs can coexist without turmoil. Contradiction, on the other hand, is something that many people have trouble dealing with in their belief systems.
When contradiction surfaces amongst people's beliefs, many attempt to ignore it. If they cannot ignore it, then generally they work out some heuristic to give one of the beliefs priority over the other. Nonetheless, the contradiction still exists and their solution is one of necessity, not choice.
There is a principle in existence that the most elegant solution is the best. This principle underpins many others including Ockham's Razor (Lt. Occam) and the Action Principle (originally Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis' Principle of Least Action). An elegant belief is one that exhibits simplicity, brevity, consistency and completeness.
To maximize these, one must reduce the number of axioms required to support their belief. In essence, only a belief system founded on a single axiom can guarantee consistency, and only certain self-referencing axioms can guarantee completeness. To reduce the number of axioms required to support a belief system, one is required to broaden their current axioms until they can be unified. Consequently, exclusion becomes a non-factor, and the only relationship that can remain between axioms is contradiction.
Inevitably this leads to further questions... How do we measure one self-consistent belief system against another? How should we deal with axioms that contradict one another? These questions are intrinsically tied into each other as their solutions will prove.
The only true measure of one belief system against another is elegance. In reducing our belief systems to a single axiom, we have removed the factors of simplicity, brevity and consistency from this measure; resultantly, we are left with completeness as the sole measure. When one belief system contains another belief system and more, it is considered to be more complete, hence more elegant. Often, though, our belief systems overlap without one fully encompassing the other. In this case, we should apply the same principles of reducing axioms to find the greater axiom that encompasses both belief systems. Again, though, we are left with the issue of contradiction between axioms.
Applying the aforementioned logic, it is evident that a belief system that contains both a belief and that belief's contradiction is more inclusive than either the belief or its contradiction. Hence the new belief system is more elegant. But how can this be represented as an axiom?
The first belief system that I conceived that did the aforementioned was Dualism. Many of our belief systems are imbued with sayings such as "strength is in weakness". For example, Christianity has the quote:
"And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted." (Mat 23:12)
From a perspective such sayings are true - it takes a true strength of character to show weakness, and by exalting ourselves we leave ourselves open for abasement. Equally, however, it is undeniable that saying the opposite is true; "weakness is in weakness" is a tautology, hence inherently true. How is it possible that both are true? Can we reconcile both into a single belief system?
My solution to this was Dualism. Thought I never stated an axiom to support Dualism, one such as "Two opposite beliefs are equally valid" does it justice. We must remember, though, that contradiction is not always absolute. Hence, whilst Dualism is more elegant than anything that came before it, it is not complete.
To understand the next step on the path, it is helpful to use an analogy. Let us consider beliefs to be shades; we can assign Belief A the shade white, and Belief B the shade black, where Belief A fully contradicts Belief B. If there is a Belief C, such that Belief C partially contradicts and partially affirms both Belief A and Belief B, then Belief C can be represented as a shade of gray. This shade will have white and black components proportional to its affirmation of Belief A and Belief B respectively.
Using this analogy, it is possible to envisage the varying degrees of affirmation and contradiction between beliefs as various shades. Like many analogies, however, this tends to simplify the situation. We must not forget that beliefs do not all contradict and affirm one another on the same axis. Hence, every aspect of every belief can be considered to have its own shade. Equally, we cannot allow our ingrained prejudice to cause us to view one belief as being superior to another based on its shade. The purity of shade and its skew towards one end of the scale or the other is entirely relative.
Extending this analogy, Dualism is the system that represents both black and white. It is necessary for us to find the system that represents all shades. I conceived this system as Relativism.
The axiom of Relativism is: Everything is Relative to Perspective. This was the first truly elegant solution that I found. It is simple. It is brief. It is consistent. And consider its completeness... Everything is Relative to Perspective, even it itself. This is the self-referencing nature of a true axiom, which I referred to previous.
Though this belief system is complete, I still did not feel as though I had reached the end of the path. Somehow, something seemed to be missing.
One notices patterns whilst wandering the path. These are part of the elegance. Notions of symmetry, of extrapolation and interpolation; they're everywhere, and they allow our ascension from one degree of understanding to the next. There are recurring themes; time and time again one encounters the same type of problem, and the solution is obvious before one has even considered the actual problem. This is the development of intuition.
There are some sayings and notions that we are all familiar with, and that when we hear, we know are profound. They've been passed down through the ages, and often we don't remember who said them, or even know them in their exact form, yet they speak with an unquestionable truth. In these sayings, we recognize the patterns that we have learnt.
One such saying is: "It is not the path, but the journey that is important". This was something that was very important to me whilst I was on the path. The truth is that from early on the path it was evident where the end would be - where the path began. It was evident that the path was an illusion, that I was still walking at the location at which I began, and I would finish walking at this location. All I needed to understand was, "how?"
This is one of the patterns to which I referred, which, in turn, led to a symmetry in the problem - it was possible to approach the path of enlightenment from both ends. Needlessly, this begs the question: where is this location? Answered simply, nowhere.
Let us consider Relativism and belief on a deeper level. Belief is restriction. Relativism is absolute belief, hence, absolute restriction. Freedom is in truth, hence Relativism is a mask over truth. I will explain...
If I believe that I cannot fly and I leap from a building, I will plummet to my death. From Relativism, we must accept that the belief that "I cannot fly" is equal to the belief that "I can fly". Hence, logically, belief is restriction - just as the person who believes that they can fly cannot not-fly (please excuse the double negative, but English lacks the weak affirmative), the person who believes that they cannot fly, cannot fly.
Why then can I not simply say "I belief that I can fly", then take off and soar through the air? There are two reasons. Firstly, we have doubt. No matter how hard you attempt to convince yourself that you can fly, the very essence of your human experience has led you to believe otherwise - it is not easy to overcome the beliefs that you have been ingrained with. Secondly, we are subject to collective belief. Like islands, we see ourselves as separate from one another. Beneath the surface, however, we are connected, just as islands are connected by the seabed. This point is deserving of a post of its own, hence I will expand on it later.
Understanding, from Relativism, that all beliefs are equally true, and understanding that belief imposes restriction, we find that we are absolutely restricted. It is here that we come to the conclusion that absolute disbelief brings absolute freedom. Let us reverse the axiom of Relativism; Everything is Relative to Perspective becomes Nothing is Absolute. It is here that we find what I believe is the destination of Gnosis: Nihilism.
Nihilism is the absolute disbelief. There is nothing, not even the possibility of being. In this disbelief comes absolute freedom. And, from this freedom, comes everything - even Gnosticism.
For those who have studied logic, you will know that the saying "All unicorns are pink" is considered True; as unicorns do not exist, anything said of them is True. Much like this, anything said of the nothingness is True. That is, existence is the manifestation of the nothingness.
I do not desire to create a tension with scientists, nor to have my philosophy labeled as pseudoscience, hence I will not attempt to explain such phenomena as science by it. It is, however, obvious that Nihilism is complete and consistent. I will end my discussion of Nihilism in this post at this point, and speak of Nihilism in greater detail in subsequent posts.
So, returning to my original question... Am I Gnostic? Well, I was, but I have not decided with certainty whether I still am.
When contradiction surfaces amongst people's beliefs, many attempt to ignore it. If they cannot ignore it, then generally they work out some heuristic to give one of the beliefs priority over the other. Nonetheless, the contradiction still exists and their solution is one of necessity, not choice.
There is a principle in existence that the most elegant solution is the best. This principle underpins many others including Ockham's Razor (Lt. Occam) and the Action Principle (originally Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis' Principle of Least Action). An elegant belief is one that exhibits simplicity, brevity, consistency and completeness.
To maximize these, one must reduce the number of axioms required to support their belief. In essence, only a belief system founded on a single axiom can guarantee consistency, and only certain self-referencing axioms can guarantee completeness. To reduce the number of axioms required to support a belief system, one is required to broaden their current axioms until they can be unified. Consequently, exclusion becomes a non-factor, and the only relationship that can remain between axioms is contradiction.
Inevitably this leads to further questions... How do we measure one self-consistent belief system against another? How should we deal with axioms that contradict one another? These questions are intrinsically tied into each other as their solutions will prove.
The only true measure of one belief system against another is elegance. In reducing our belief systems to a single axiom, we have removed the factors of simplicity, brevity and consistency from this measure; resultantly, we are left with completeness as the sole measure. When one belief system contains another belief system and more, it is considered to be more complete, hence more elegant. Often, though, our belief systems overlap without one fully encompassing the other. In this case, we should apply the same principles of reducing axioms to find the greater axiom that encompasses both belief systems. Again, though, we are left with the issue of contradiction between axioms.
Applying the aforementioned logic, it is evident that a belief system that contains both a belief and that belief's contradiction is more inclusive than either the belief or its contradiction. Hence the new belief system is more elegant. But how can this be represented as an axiom?
The first belief system that I conceived that did the aforementioned was Dualism. Many of our belief systems are imbued with sayings such as "strength is in weakness". For example, Christianity has the quote:
"And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted." (Mat 23:12)
From a perspective such sayings are true - it takes a true strength of character to show weakness, and by exalting ourselves we leave ourselves open for abasement. Equally, however, it is undeniable that saying the opposite is true; "weakness is in weakness" is a tautology, hence inherently true. How is it possible that both are true? Can we reconcile both into a single belief system?
My solution to this was Dualism. Thought I never stated an axiom to support Dualism, one such as "Two opposite beliefs are equally valid" does it justice. We must remember, though, that contradiction is not always absolute. Hence, whilst Dualism is more elegant than anything that came before it, it is not complete.
To understand the next step on the path, it is helpful to use an analogy. Let us consider beliefs to be shades; we can assign Belief A the shade white, and Belief B the shade black, where Belief A fully contradicts Belief B. If there is a Belief C, such that Belief C partially contradicts and partially affirms both Belief A and Belief B, then Belief C can be represented as a shade of gray. This shade will have white and black components proportional to its affirmation of Belief A and Belief B respectively.
Using this analogy, it is possible to envisage the varying degrees of affirmation and contradiction between beliefs as various shades. Like many analogies, however, this tends to simplify the situation. We must not forget that beliefs do not all contradict and affirm one another on the same axis. Hence, every aspect of every belief can be considered to have its own shade. Equally, we cannot allow our ingrained prejudice to cause us to view one belief as being superior to another based on its shade. The purity of shade and its skew towards one end of the scale or the other is entirely relative.
Extending this analogy, Dualism is the system that represents both black and white. It is necessary for us to find the system that represents all shades. I conceived this system as Relativism.
The axiom of Relativism is: Everything is Relative to Perspective. This was the first truly elegant solution that I found. It is simple. It is brief. It is consistent. And consider its completeness... Everything is Relative to Perspective, even it itself. This is the self-referencing nature of a true axiom, which I referred to previous.
Though this belief system is complete, I still did not feel as though I had reached the end of the path. Somehow, something seemed to be missing.
One notices patterns whilst wandering the path. These are part of the elegance. Notions of symmetry, of extrapolation and interpolation; they're everywhere, and they allow our ascension from one degree of understanding to the next. There are recurring themes; time and time again one encounters the same type of problem, and the solution is obvious before one has even considered the actual problem. This is the development of intuition.
There are some sayings and notions that we are all familiar with, and that when we hear, we know are profound. They've been passed down through the ages, and often we don't remember who said them, or even know them in their exact form, yet they speak with an unquestionable truth. In these sayings, we recognize the patterns that we have learnt.
One such saying is: "It is not the path, but the journey that is important". This was something that was very important to me whilst I was on the path. The truth is that from early on the path it was evident where the end would be - where the path began. It was evident that the path was an illusion, that I was still walking at the location at which I began, and I would finish walking at this location. All I needed to understand was, "how?"
This is one of the patterns to which I referred, which, in turn, led to a symmetry in the problem - it was possible to approach the path of enlightenment from both ends. Needlessly, this begs the question: where is this location? Answered simply, nowhere.
Let us consider Relativism and belief on a deeper level. Belief is restriction. Relativism is absolute belief, hence, absolute restriction. Freedom is in truth, hence Relativism is a mask over truth. I will explain...
If I believe that I cannot fly and I leap from a building, I will plummet to my death. From Relativism, we must accept that the belief that "I cannot fly" is equal to the belief that "I can fly". Hence, logically, belief is restriction - just as the person who believes that they can fly cannot not-fly (please excuse the double negative, but English lacks the weak affirmative), the person who believes that they cannot fly, cannot fly.
Why then can I not simply say "I belief that I can fly", then take off and soar through the air? There are two reasons. Firstly, we have doubt. No matter how hard you attempt to convince yourself that you can fly, the very essence of your human experience has led you to believe otherwise - it is not easy to overcome the beliefs that you have been ingrained with. Secondly, we are subject to collective belief. Like islands, we see ourselves as separate from one another. Beneath the surface, however, we are connected, just as islands are connected by the seabed. This point is deserving of a post of its own, hence I will expand on it later.
Understanding, from Relativism, that all beliefs are equally true, and understanding that belief imposes restriction, we find that we are absolutely restricted. It is here that we come to the conclusion that absolute disbelief brings absolute freedom. Let us reverse the axiom of Relativism; Everything is Relative to Perspective becomes Nothing is Absolute. It is here that we find what I believe is the destination of Gnosis: Nihilism.
Nihilism is the absolute disbelief. There is nothing, not even the possibility of being. In this disbelief comes absolute freedom. And, from this freedom, comes everything - even Gnosticism.
For those who have studied logic, you will know that the saying "All unicorns are pink" is considered True; as unicorns do not exist, anything said of them is True. Much like this, anything said of the nothingness is True. That is, existence is the manifestation of the nothingness.
I do not desire to create a tension with scientists, nor to have my philosophy labeled as pseudoscience, hence I will not attempt to explain such phenomena as science by it. It is, however, obvious that Nihilism is complete and consistent. I will end my discussion of Nihilism in this post at this point, and speak of Nihilism in greater detail in subsequent posts.
So, returning to my original question... Am I Gnostic? Well, I was, but I have not decided with certainty whether I still am.
No comments:
Post a Comment