That sounds very black and white - and if I'm not mistaken, tolerance for ambiguity is a hallmark of Kegan's stage 4 and (even more so) stage 5...
-
-
Replying to @michaelgarfield @MimeticValue and
Yes, you easily discover that there is not a single valid narrative but a map of possible truths. But the ambiguity does not extend to "perhaps we can go back to Newtonian physics" or "perhaps people talking to burning bushes have access to a deeper level of cosmic truth".
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @michaelgarfield and
I don't think anyone was advocating talking to a burning bush - that's pretty clearly reductio ad absurdum. Just because a system has some obviously false elements doesn't mean that the entire system, or the people who use the system, have nothing else to offer.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Failed_Buddhist @michaelgarfield and
Obviously. They just don’t have any claim to the null hypothesis.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz @Failed_Buddhist and
Also, if someone rapes the mind of a student by imprinting untruth, I perceive them as fundamentally confused or violating my first moral principles by removing moral agency from someone who trusts them. I won’t trust such authority any more than a pig should trust the butcher.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @michaelgarfield and
Um... I don't disagree with that. Are we talking about specific gnostic practices, or the crazies who tend to teach them? Those are two different conversations. Newton was as close to a quack as anyone. Yet calculus is one of the greatest discoveries/inventions in human history.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Failed_Buddhist @michaelgarfield and
I don't think that an idea can be tainted by the one who has it. But by the same account, no idea can be accepted without having a pretty good idea about why it should be treated as truth.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz @michaelgarfield and
That's correct - I wasn't arguing otherwise. (And by the same token, you can't judge the validity of an experiential claim (e.g. if use your attention in X way, you will observe Y result) until you've followed those instructions.)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Failed_Buddhist @michaelgarfield and
The teaching of practices is of course a very different thing than the teaching of ontological, moral or ethical precepts.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz @michaelgarfield and
My claim is that there are practices that can give you access to observations that cannot be accessed by looking through a scanning electron microscope, carrying out a statistical analysis, or deriving a conclusion from a set of axioms.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Not all so-called gnostic knowledge is ontological, moral or ethical.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.