Someone sent me a link to an article about Alchemy, the internet is full of them. Platitudes, I would say, stereotypes, inconsistencies and half-wisdoms for housewife whiches and weekend wizards. As with all the other occult and esoteric topics, most of the available materials are rubbish fake commercial products. The commonly accessible materials are ‘exoteric’ knowledge, as opposed to ‘esoteric’ knowledge, which, by definition, is not at the reach of everyone.
Without an understanding of these matters, it is impossible to discern between fake and real knowledge.
On the other hand, as Gurdjieff noted, “Knowledge is one thing; understanding is another thing. (…) People often confuse these concepts and do not clearly grasp what is the difference between them. Knowledge by itself does not give understanding. Nor is understanding increased by an increase of knowledge alone. Understanding depends upon the relation of knowledge to being. Understanding is the resultant of knowledge and being. And knowledge and being must not diverge too far, otherwise, understanding will prove to be far removed from either. At the same time, the relation of knowledge to being does not change with a mere growth of knowledge. It changes only when the being grows simultaneously with knowledge. In other words, understanding grows only with the growth of being.”
First of all, understanding is interior, while knowledge is exterior – similar to the ‘esoteric’ and ‘exoteric’ concepts.
Secondly, understanding is… More at https://www.patreon.com/posts/44614954
Knowledge and understanding
The Trivium Method: Knowledge = Grammar; Understanding = Logic; Rhetoric = Wisdom, all three are entirely esoteric. The exoteric is not knowing that this method exists and removed by the exoteric master priest class.
You’re talking highly sophisticated rubbish. Long story short, the rhetoric is the art of persuasion, which, along with grammar and logic, is one of the three ancient arts of discourse. However, this post wasn’t about the three ancient arts of discourse. Not at least, you comment on an article you do not read it, so, you are shooting bullets in the dark, mate.