Pythagoras was the first philosopher. The term means "one who is trying to find out".
Prior to him, there were only sages. A sage is "one who knows".
The sage attains his knowledge directly. Direct knowledge is called "gnosis", which is achieved through direct mental contact with the thing itself.
The philosopher uses reason, symbolism, geometry, systems, etc. to explain the world and to convey knowledge to himself and to others. He conceptualizes, rationalizes, and understands. He is able to convince and to think clearly.
The sage however can only point the way concerning his kind of knowledge. He can say "find out for yourself" or "do this thing and you too will know as well". That is the limit of what he can share with others. You could describe the properties of red light to someone in various terms that will make sense of them but the direct experience of actually perceiving red light is another matter.
A philosopher can predict future events. A sage can know them. The philosopher can explain how he forms his predictions and what models he uses and what facts he takes into account. The sage simply dares to look into the future of a man and tell him what he is going to do.
Most of what I have done over the years is to philosophize. To understand, formalize, conceptualize, and clarify the mechanics of magick. I have focused on matters such as the nature of the self, the will, causality (superdeterminism), and so much more. All the time seeking to prove, rationalize, and explain.
This is all well and good. Philosophy is necessary to a certain stage of life and nothing to be scorned then. It becomes something to be grown out of however, after having attained clarity through that route, and having seen its end. Then to continue on in the path of philosophy is to stifle the path of gnosis.
This distinction has become abundantly clear to me. I have at my disposal nothing short of omniscience. I can make contact with thatPost too long. Click here to view the full text.
