Nope, sorry. Gnosticism is a misnomer, applied by outsiders. Ism assumes a belief-system, as does your well-intentioned post above. A Gnostic is someone who exists in a state of knowledge, rather than belief. This includes the courage to acknowledge what is not known, rather than to cover the void with beliefs. The state of being a Gnostic is not achieved by simple choice, but often requires years of Herculean effort. If there is no'  belief system' , how can there be any ' outsiders '? And if a gnostic is someone who exists in a state of knowledge, aren't we all gnostics? If not, then there is a system, outsiders and my initial _object_ions hold. And ' a state of knowlege not belief ' ? Do me a favour; ' * I*  know, even when I accept that I can't/don't, but *you* believe, you feeble weakling half wit', is that it? Sorry if this is a little overplayed... The essence of the gnostic position is that *we* know, *you* don't. These views are not a construct of personal dislike, honest... Pete.

First I nattered on, totally off-topic: II Nope, sorry. Gnosticism is a misnomer, applied by outsiders. II Ism assumes a belief-system, as does your well-intentioned post II above. A Gnostic is someone who exists in a state of knowledge, II rather than belief. This includes the courage to acknowledge what II is not known, rather than to cover the void with beliefs. The state II of being a Gnostic is not achieved by simple choice, but often II requires years of Herculean effort. Then Pete replied: II If there is no `belief system`, how can there be any `outsiders'? The outsiders are those who believe rather than know. II And if a gnostic is someone who exists in a state of knowledge, II aren't we all gnostics? Belief and knowledge are not synonymous. Belief obviates the possibility of knowing/not knowing by covering and obscuring the space where knowing/not knowing can show up. To believe is to accept a thing or situation as true or not true without the requisite experience. Since each of us knows *something*, I suppose you could beg the point and say we are all gnostics (with a small g). By definition, Gnostics (with a large G) *know/not know* rather than believe those very things that others stress belief in: the nature of life/death, the eternal verities of philosophy and religion, etc. These beliefs do service as a means of ignoring that the frightening truth really is that the believer *doesn't* know. II. If not, then there is a system, outsiders II and my initial _object_ions hold. And ' a state of knowlege not belief II ' ? Do me a favour; ' * I*  know, even when I accept that I II can't/don't, but *you* believe, you feeble weakling half wit', is II that it? Sorry if this is a little overplayed... The essence of the II gnostic position is that *we* know, *you* don't. These views are not II a construct of personal dislike, honest... Pete. Sounds like you might have been burned/annoyed by some diddly twit calling him/herself a Gnostic. Lots of philosophy geeks and theosophy nerds running around wasting perfectly good acid experiences, you know. People don't make self-promoting asses of themselves unless they feel inadequate way down inside. To be clear, I don't claim any particular philosophy meself, just wanted to mention the real definition of Gnostic to you, in response to your post. BTW, your assessment of whichever individual Gnostics you encountered sounds pretty right on the mark to me. -Rock This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it    <1:170/309   Black Gold BBS, Tulsa  * RM 1.4 B1542 * Power corrupts.  Absolute power is kind of neat...

Edward Cherlin ( This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ) said: EC The word Gnostic is an excellent example of the principles of EC Newspeak. When applied to approved forms of mystical religion it EC means the direct experience of the ineffable, leading to complete EC reformation of character, and when applied to heretics and EC unbelievers it means the delusion of superior knowledge and wisdom EC which results in complete irresponsibility toward those who EC supposedly lack it. Couldn't have said it better. Thanks. -Rock This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it    <1:170/309   Black Gold BBS, Tulsa  * RM 1.4 B1542 * To screw the inscrutable; to eff the ineffable. -Bobbitt

Sounds like you might have been burned/annoyed by some diddly twit calling him/herself a Gnostic. -Rock Yes, I have In that Xn Gnostics were pretty annoying, and the other Gnostics are even worse; and our modern secret societies all that kind of rude wording rude word... It's just that I don't see why you even need a label; you just seem like a sort of rationalist to me, which isn't *so* bad. And I still don't see what Terry was getting at... BTW have just read M@A in p/b; amnd I thought it was very, very good. IT looks interesting, but I'll just have to wait until it comes out in p/b. cheers, Pete.

Belief and knowledge are not synonymous. Belief obviates the possibility of knowing/not knowing by covering and obscuring the space where knowing/not knowing can show up. Yes they are. [1] Well, I don't know anything, anyway. O=- .-  -. -=O                                         This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it H  /(    )  H

II Gnosticism is simply a spirit oriented way of believing you are II better than all others due to your superior knowledge of the reality II of things [ gnosis, knowledge ] I am not a fan... There were early II Gnostic Xn  'heresies' and several non-canonical gospels are II labelled 'Gnostic', eg the Gospel of Thomas. Manichaeism is also a II form of gnostic belief. The quote  mentioned has always puzzled me; II I certainly don't see gnostic beliefs as any more congruent with II human dignity, clear sightedness or' fair play' than any other form II of belief, religious or otherwise. cheers, Pete Smith. Well, Manicheanism partakes of some Gnostic ideas, like salvation by escape of the seed of life from an utterly evil material world, but is characterized by a dualistic struggle by equally-matched forces of good and evil.  Manes lived about a century after the heyday of Gnosticism. rb Nope, sorry. Gnosticism is a misnomer, applied by rb outsiders. Ism assumes a belief-system, as does your rb well-intentioned post above. A Gnostic is someone who exists rb in a state of knowledge, rather than  belief. This includes rb the courage to acknowledge what is not known,  rather than rb to cover the void with beliefs. The state of being a Gnostic rb  is not achieved by simple choice, but often requires years rb of Herculean  effort. Sorry, Rock... Gnosticism was a mystical Second-century belief that holds that the world is utterly evil, and the only way to salvation is to renounce it.  There are Gnostic elements in early Christianiry, notable in the Gospel and Epistles of John, but it was shortly thereafter denounced by the Church as heresy.  Grolier's Encyclopaedia says this about it: -+