Fair enough, I don't feel much into reading about gnosis at this time either! :) It was just a reference and one I derive little sense of authority from in this case. It took me a while to get my thoughts collected in just shabby form here but here it is for consideration, all IMO in general.
I can relate to feeling and thinking that way myself, however there are aspects of materialism that are just unavailable to today's minds without passing through some serious mind benders. In principle I do agree, but only on the grounds that the potential depth of interconnections in our universe should allow a linkage between any arbitrary thing and another. As a principle of philosophy it could also be very beneficial to keep one's head 'tethered', very practical and utilitarian. At times much of what I hear sounds like five nines of BS, but that one thousandth of intuitive capacity can read in real time what would take a very long time indeed to fully expose in subordinate intuitive terms (or 'hard' sciences). That doesn't mean it is an unworthy undertaking, but the opposite, very laborious but even more important. There is an idea in various forms (out in the wild) which explains that the varying sciences, arts and philosophies are not at odds as one would suppose from studying them or being taught. As mental models or exercises to prepare mental perception they are schools and arts to focus and approach problems or questions. As imperfect representations of fact or truth they are tools of navigating information and knowledge, landmarks, references. By recombining approaches in various fields you could eventually reach propositions and explanations in many others refining, reinforcing, undermining. This includes the normal senses, and the institutionalization of perception by our genetic makeup. I think it applies to all the domains of experience and inquiry that can pass through our minds and can unlock vast potential for free association of transmuting symbols. With the aim of building better tools to comprehend and master what and where we are I invite you to consider the (perhaps) one thousandth of valuable experiential contributions that science is just beginning to explain. Just the potential contributions, not the dogmas or interpretations. If for nothing else, science without imagination is dead in the water, but I believe it will take many millennia for science to make religion (or better the spiritual aspect) obsolete. I think this would be an amazing Renaissance time for all areas of human experience.
