Unverified Personal Gnosis

[Heka]

Re: Unverified Personal Gnosis

To a degree I do agree that UPG also includes peoples interpretations of things. Unfortunately a lot of interpretations may be arrived at without the proper background or knowledge to read or judge something against scholarly or historical works. Then one has to factor in that even scholarly works and background knowledge has changed from period to period and what was assumed in that given period. Also consider that the mindset has also changed in regards to how critical thinking and judgement is applied as to whether it is an argument for or against a thing and what knowledge is presumed to be held by the reader.

Unfortunately I think many people read material and view it in such a mindset as to read it so it supports their UPG. I have to admit I am equally guilty of that for whatever reason being it a refusal to accept it any other way to having a poor knowledge of what the source material was actually suggesting or presenting to support the authors conclusions and evidence.

Bolded mine. I think that is extremely common. People are forever reading things and interpreting it just so that it makes sense to their own UPG. I'm thinking particularly now of young earth creationists. That just doesn't fit, imho, at all, but somehow they have convinced themselves.

I guess my own UPG etc is still definitely in the process of developing. I dunno, I suppose I'll work it out.

[thalassa]

Re: Unverified Personal Gnosis

bump...because I think we've been having some threads lately that make this relevent.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Unverified Personal Gnosis

What is the difference between a UPG and a VPG?

Is is just that one is found written in a book, or known tradition, and the other isn't?

[monsno_leedra]

Re: Unverified Personal Gnosis

What is the difference between a UPG and a VPG?

Is is just that one is found written in a book, or known tradition, and the other isn't?

Just my own perspective but I think what your calling VPG is probably what we called CPG or confirmed Personal Gnosis.

For me and some of the recons i've known the cycle usually is UPG (Unverifiable / Un-provable Personal Gnosis) basically something we feel, think or is revealed to us as individuals that most often has no source material we can match it against or it is way outside of so called established norms. It's like one common UPG I hear regarding Bastet is the fact she like chocolate as an offering. Never see it in any source material, any lore, etc.

Yet that same notion of Chocolate as an offering also crosses over into what I've known as SPG or Shared Personal Gnosis. An assumption or perspective that is held by a number of people who've had identical or similar type experiences. Sometimes it's exactly the same and the base experience or concept is still outside the accepted source material, lore, etc. Yet because multiple people have arrived at the same conclusions it's a shared perspective.

It's like I have a shared personal gnosis regarding Hekate and her role over the seas. In all the years i've followed her and researched the lore i've only encountered one other practitioner who held a similar belief and perspective. Yet the symbology, imagery, relationship and influence were nearly identical right down to word usage we used to describe the entirety of the gnosis. Yet no surviving fable, story, lore, etc has addressed that aspect that I am aware of. Yet I think part of it is given some support through comparison and conjecture of other Olympian pantheon gods / goddesses connected to the seas.

Of course the next step from SPG is CPG / VPG. For me personally this gets a bit tricky. Tricky mostly in it becomes a matter of how one comprehends the source material and how they incorporate it into their beliefs. Consider for instance many see the emblem known as Hekate's Wheel as an example of CPG / VPG and base that confirmation upon a short passage from one fragment of the Chaldean Oracles. Yet for many of us we refuse to accept that as Confirmed or Verified because of what the actual passage says and what archaeology suggests. The actual passage pertains to dancing about the stratopolis (sp) so they use that to confirm the shape of the Hekate's wheel. Yet other's refute it because that same term applies to a cube like device that resembles as brazier. In that capacity we connect it to the Dneiper and how something similar was used to spin things above the head and have the coals burn up whatever was in the brazier. So the dance was more a movement of swinging the device than actually some sort of pathway your walked. Probably not dissimilar to a brazier being used in church services with its incense and smoke being used to purify as it is swung side to side.

So in some capacity having the proof show up in source material, legends, lore, etc is used to confirm a personal gnosis. Yet far to many times that same conclusion is based upon slanting the results to fit your desire not that the material says exactly what you want it to. I do think that is one reason many times that confirmed or verified becomes connected to academic accepted proof and withstand argument.

Personally I dislike when something becomes implied Verified Personal Gnosis simply because other's accept it without question. It seems, to me anyway, some author makes a statement. Doesn't mater if it is speculation, conjecture or stated as fact. Yet those who read his / her books accept it blindly and incorporate it into their practice and insist it is factual. Nothing to actually support said perspective other than the original author stated it and each person there after simply made it become fact through blind acceptance. In many ways appearing, to me anyway, to be more dogmatic and restrictive than any Christian dogma i've ever seen as it is defended and disseminated as if it were established fact.

[thalassa]

Re: Unverified Personal Gnosis

Of course the next step from SPG is CPG / VPG. For me personally this gets a bit tricky. Tricky mostly in it becomes a matter of how one comprehends the source material and how they incorporate it into their beliefs. Consider for instance many see the emblem known as Hekate's Wheel as an example of CPG / VPG and base that confirmation upon a short passage from one fragment of the Chaldean Oracles. Yet for many of us we refuse to accept that as Confirmed or Verified because of what the actual passage says and what archaeology suggests. The actual passage pertains to dancing about the stratopolis (sp) so they use that to confirm the shape of the Hekate's wheel. Yet other's refute it because that same term applies to a cube like device that resembles as brazier. In that capacity we connect it to the Dneiper and how something similar was used to spin things above the head and have the coals burn up whatever was in the brazier. So the dance was more a movement of swinging the device than actually some sort of pathway your walked. Probably not dissimilar to a brazier being used in church services with its incense and smoke being used to purify as it is swung side to side.

I think here there is a huge problem of potential confirmation bias...

[habbalah]

Re: Unverified Personal Gnosis

I think most people's beliefs, especially in the pagan world, have at least a hint of UPG in them.

I try to go by history, lore, whathaveyou, but I know that some of how I feel towards entities, or how I see them, is my own personal input. I think as long as you're not actively going against what an entity stands for, or deliberately misinterpreting Them, it's all good. An example of what I mean by that is an example I posted in another thread, somewhere, of a person calling on Kali in the roll of a Goddess of Love.

[monsno_leedra]

Re: Unverified Personal Gnosis

I think here there is a huge problem of potential confirmation bias...

Care to expound on this please.

[thalassa]

Re: Unverified Personal Gnosis

Care to expound on this please.

I think X, therefore I interpret Y in a way that supports X, independent of whether or not that is an accurate assessment/interpretation of the information or events.

A great example of this can be found with the predictions of Nostradamus (really any religious prophecy), as well as astrology, etc. This happens in science (see Steven Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man for the problem of confirmation bias in biology), in history, pretty much anywhere when we forget to apply doubt to how we assess and interpret what we encounter, from what we see/hear/touch/smell to what we intuit, believe, etc.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Unverified Personal Gnosis

Just my own perspective but I think what your calling VPG is probably what we called CPG or confirmed Personal Gnosis.

I used VPG because it seems the natural compliment to UPG. I'll agree to any terminology that we both understand

For me and some of the recons i've known the cycle usually is UPG (Unverifiable / Un-provable Personal Gnosis) basically something we feel, think or is revealed to us as individuals that most often has no source material we can match it against or it is way outside of so called established norms.... SPG or Shared Personal Gnosis. An assumption or perspective that is held by a number of people who've had identical or similar type experiences....next step from SPG is CPG / VPG. For me personally this gets a bit tricky. Tricky mostly in it becomes a matter of how one comprehends the source material and how they incorporate it into their beliefs.

So, in short form:

UPG = one person believes it
SPG = more than one person believes it
CPG/VPG = neither confirmed nor verified, open to interpretation

LOL - I just find it easier to admit that I make it all up as I go along. Fewer letters to remember...

[monsno_leedra]

Re: Unverified Personal Gnosis

I used VPG because it seems the natural compliment to UPG. I'll agree to any terminology that we both understand

So, in short form:

UPG = one person believes it
SPG = more than one person believes it
CPG/VPG = neither confirmed nor verified, open to interpretation

LOL - I just find it easier to admit that I make it all up as I go along. Fewer letters to remember...

Pretty much. Though I am assuming you meant either vice neither regarding CPG / VPG. With the persons own research and conclusions being the source of verification.

Now to add to the confusion there is / was actually another that was used at times which I vaguely recall as IPG (implied personal gnosis) That would be used when you were talking about a conclusion or perspective presented by another but you did not share nor specifically agree with. As it was UPG being discussed it was flagged as IPG to denote it was personal based without any sort of source material to call upon. In that case you sort of argued the logic of the position / conclusion the person had arrived at and why it seemed wrong compared to existing lore. Usually applied I think when Person B and Person C are discussing / debating the input of Person A. Made it easier to debate an idea that clearly was not your own so you were not really expected to defend it or be able to expound upon it.

I think the main one seen now though is UPG and occasionally SPG.

[sionnach]

Re: Unverified Personal Gnosis

Personal gnosis is when the cognitive conscious creates an explanation that gives form to what the cognitive unconsciousness senses to be real. The unconscious, which is less uninhibited to what the person has been conditioned to believe senses there is more to the world than just life then death. It senses a connection to the world that cannot be described in words. The cognitive conscious looks for a reconciliation with what can be placed into words as the known. When it finally finds this reconciliation one experiences a gnosis. It is a personal experience but if the cognitive part finds support from those sharing a similar reconciliation the greater the belief becomes. Thus we search out for others to support what we feel or we become defiant and believe we do not need to share any beliefs.

The problem is in the source where we find this connection. For many Christians it is simple because there is a sacred book that can tell us the correct belief and if we read it the right way we can reach this gnosis and feel safe in the fact that so many others have this same gnostic experience never mid the fact that the same book can come up with so many different gnostic views. For those without a sacred book the problem is more complex. Can we really use the writings of people who did not believe in pagan beliefs. Is Oden or Lug real enough in what was written by those who did not believe in them to truly believe in them as they were described? Can we really trust an altered state of consciousness to discover the reality in out universe? Can we read the symbolic signs in our world to find the path that allows our conscious to come in agreement with what our unconscious is experiencing?

I think this experience is important to the individual to in their final decision to what they will ultimately believe but what brings us here to a forum to discuss ideas is more on the sources and ways to find this reconciliation. Thus we can describe our own gnosis experience but discuss it much further since it is a personal experience. Instead we can discuss the way to find the different sources for this experience. I would like to believe that even though the Celtic ritual and beliefs were replaced by Christianity, the sources for their beliefs still remain and can still be experienced. That we can find the symbolic meanings and not be mislead by the details on the gods and goddesses creating a fictional view of the beliefs to be just the way we want it to be to please our cognitive view of the world.

[thalassa]

Re: Unverified Personal Gnosis

Pretty much. Though I am assuming you meant either vice neither regarding CPG / VPG. With the persons own research and conclusions being the source of verification.

I think he might have actually meant neither...at least to me, I see no difference between CPG/VPG and UPG, except one is just MUS (making **** up) and the other is MUS+R (where R=research). Actual confirmation/verification (IMO) means independent, 3rd party confirmation/verification--a third body of research from which one bases their beliefs and practices on (or at the very least, an honest, critical, experimental testing of their beliefs and practices against history/archaeology/etc), not "I believe X, so I'm going to a) cherry pick or b) interpret lore/mythos/history/archaeology in such a way that it supports X". The problem with CPG/VPG is that it tends to be "I believe X, lets go find things that support it and ignore everything else" than "hey, archaelogist Y discovered Z...I better change my views and practices regarding X".

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Unverified Personal Gnosis

...For many Christians it is simple because there is a sacred book that can tell us the correct belief and if we read it the right way we can reach this gnosis and feel safe in the fact that so many others have this same gnostic experience never mid the fact that ...

"Read it the right way," "the same book can come up with so many different gnostic views" - this is the best example of "confirmation bias" that I have ever heard.

The only difference between those with a book and those without a book is that those with a book pick quotes out of a mishmash of contrary statements to "prove" what they have already chosen to believe, while those without a book pick tidbits out of history to do the same thing, or are honest and admit that what they believe is what they have chosen to believe.

[monsno_leedra]

Re: Unverified Personal Gnosis

I think he might have actually meant neither...at least to me, I see no difference between CPG/VPG and UPG, except one is just MUS (making **** up) and the other is MUS+R (where R=research). Actual confirmation/verification (IMO) means independent, 3rd party confirmation/verification--a third body of research from which one bases their beliefs and practices on (or at the very least, an honest, critical, experimental testing of their beliefs and practices against history/archaeology/etc), not "I believe X, so I'm going to a) cherry pick or b) interpret lore/mythos/history/archaeology in such a way that it supports X". The problem with CPG/VPG is that it tends to be "I believe X, lets go find things that support it and ignore everything else" than "hey, archaelogist Y discovered Z...I better change my views and practices regarding X".

Perhaps presumption or assumption on my part in that when the CPG / VPG tag is used it's usually in my experience based upon research from someone other than themselves and usually verified as to the credentials of the person who is being referenced or cited. Any research on the part of the individual pretty much keeps it in the realm of UPG or maybe SPG is deductions or presumptions are similar. One reason I think some of us get into references and credentials so heavily when we present things.

it's like for me I hardly ever accept results from non-academic sources when trying to verify personal gnosis. So say its something dealing with Hekate I tend to place credentialed authority in say Sarah Illes Johnston who is a pretty well acknowledged authority of Hekate within the academic world. If it deals with Hekate at Lagina for instance I look to Christina Williamson as a primary source for evaluations and such, again highly regarded for her credentials and academic standing. If possible i'll try to see if other people have arrived at something similar. It's like I use coins and authorities in that field as support or denial of some of my conclusions or UPG.

Based upon my own research i'd say it was UPG and present it as such though i'd provide my source material if asked or references during my write up. But I suppose I assume that most do that vice it simply being a Recon type thing.

[sionnach]

Re: Unverified Personal Gnosis

"Read it the right way," "the same book can come up with so many different gnostic views" - this is the best example of "confirmation bias" that I have ever heard.

.

Confirmation bias is a good term or what happens with the use of sacred text and the statement "read it the right way" is often used by people who state there way is the correct interpretation. The problem is there are often many interpretations of the same reading in a sacred text. My point here is their source of knowledge that leads them to their on gnosis, which from my understanding of the word generally signifies a spiritual knowledge or mystical enlightenment/insight, comes form a written source. Northern European paganism has no sacred text to draw from. We have archeology which gives us images of what might be religious beliefs or rituals but without the written explanation archeology is limited. Folklore and the tales/mythology are flawed too since there were written or practiced long after the rituals and beliefs were replaced by a new religion. Gnosis is not an academic event it is a personal event that may use academic research to draw from. But where was the source of knowledge for the Celtic or Germanic people in the first place that lead to their spiritual knowledge or mystical insight when there were no sacred books to reference?