Talk:Noesis (disambiguation)

Non Sequitur
I'm not sure what the entry is trying to convey with the sentence, "One would never call 'loving' a belief, because it is something you do, not something you merely hold to be true." The rest of the article doesn't mention beliefs, or loving. Why is this here? And why has the article been stripped down to a definition? Jordansc 13:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably cause loving is a fact, it can be observed and its falsifiable.86.123.168.47 (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Roman Catholic views
I'm not sure there are Roman Catholic statements or views on noesis, but it would be interesting to note them if anyone could find them. ADM (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You could search the mystics/monastics. St. Augistine is said to have been neo-Platonic but I think he was neither so nor very noetic.  The Carmelites may have been connected to those who preserved Greek Philosophy, and the Benedictines write a lot.  You could start there maybe.--Dchmelik (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

so what DOES it mean?
i'm sorry maybe its my limited English, but i didn't understand what the article is trying to convey. what is noesis exactly!? "the ability to sense or know something, immediately". as in immediately before the something happens, or as in simply knowing a mysterious law of the universe without prior notice?! when i follow the longer explanation, it redirects me to noetic which then re-directs me to noesis like a ping pong ball without actually explaining either x_x —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.31.168.228 (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In Greek philosophy you have the inner experience of a person. This in modern terms is called consciousness, cognition. The Greek word for the this would be nous. Noesis are all of the activities of the nous. One of these activities is insight. One gains insight from experiencing an activity of consciousness. To speak of your consciousness is to have "insight " about it. You understand statements without breaking down each of it's components and then refitting them back together to get the whole message when people talk to you (usually?). Rather that be intuitive or logical, rationalization. Noesis is ALL activities of the nous. Problem is different people used the word differently to mean different stuff, that is why it is confusing. We have to try and cover them all and source it so...

LoveMonkey (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

serious problems limiting it to mind/thought
This article has some possible serious problems of unclarity that imply the nous and noesis are limited at most to the mind and thought. It does not even say the nous has to do with mentation rather than just thinking, which has to do with objects of the mind but not (in the Western tradition) necessarily the mind itself. If the nous is the mind then noesis is mentation--all the minds processes that control all the consciousness from emotions in the mind all the way down do the bodily consciousness such as unconscious processes such as some brainwaves such as ones controlling heartbeat, digestion, reactions, etc..

Not only is noesis mentation, but it is everything beyond that if it exists. In the divided line it is not just about concrete thoughts but it is about ideal forms which are abstract and sometimes implied to be beyond thought, because noesis involves everything to Te On/Agathon. The One (when not a form, i.e. as an epithet) can refer to Te Olos / Chaos (mythology) / causeless cause, so it would have to do with everything beyond the mind such as soul (beyond mind) and the related higher spirit (not the one below/within nous, but the one that would have been called related to the gods).... If they are among ideal forms then noesis is not just mentation, it is similar psychosis (by the definition meaning 'soul processes') and spiritual processes, and it is certainly not just thinking--it is ideating: if there is any type of higher form, and the tradition of the term 'noesis' says that there is. One can still call nous & noesis mind & mentation in a larger context such as 'the divine mind,' but only that way.

The article has some good ideas, so I do not want to just go in and change the mind & thinking part to be about divine aspects and then say that includes the higher human spirit. There are some advanced ideas in the article I may have been edited by people who studied Classical philosophy more than me. I got sidetracked by Theosophy and am not studying Philosophy formally. These ideas are sort of Theosophical, but Theosophy is considered neo-Platonic and the ideas are clearly there in ancient texts.

Another thing is if one accepts Nous could include Chaos or anything else from Greek mythology & Philosophy (e.g. higher consciousness,) then one may also come across other classifications of consciousness than Socrates & Plato's triadic one. There is a heptadic (sevenfold) one that has higher soul and spirit like those terms mean in other Indo-European religions (e.g. Sanatana Dharma) and Judeo-Christian ones. There is also a pentadic one that is sort of between and with the Eastern ones there is everything from a monist to heptadic one (i.e. 1 - 7.) Do not let this article be limited to the triadic. Socrates did say (paraphrased) 'worship the gods,' and so these other ideas in Philosophy/Hellenismos should be considered apart from whatever religious connotation they may have. They are very relevant to Philosophy and in agreement that the Nous is also human consciousness beyond mind.

Let us have some discussion on this or see some changes... maybe eventually I will come back and try to improve it if nothing is done. The consciousness and idea articles have already been made to have less intellectual (mental) connotations, so it is time for this one. It is good the article says 'intuitive,' but in a way saying that is thinking (intellectual) is not elegant--the article could go beyond that and say noesis involves inspiration (divine spirit even in the part of humanity that is like the gods or is 'holy' or in a certain 'image.')

I am not sure why the first two parts refer to dianoia and noema, though I have forgotten some terms and maybe it would make more sense if i had not. I think the article should go from universals to particulars such as starting with the idea of To En as the Nous or Noesis (depending on if you think The One is dynamic and whether it is a form or epithet.) It should start out with that or the higher category of the divided line before talking much about dianoia at all. Dianoia in the first section sort of threw me off.--Dchmelik (talk) 06:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Noesis, has it any foundation?
Well, it seems there is some roots in greek philsosphy in terms of language, but from what I've read here it seems another New Age sub-division of a sub-division to spread confusion everywhere.

Mind over matter exists. That's all you need to know. How it exists or why it exists is of no consequence, just use it and you will find your questions answered.

Keep life simple and you are much more likely to understand it better. Leave the intellectualisations to those who think they can discover the real truth that way, not knowing that matter is but a seventh of the truth and the only thing visible in our supposed reality. Concentrate on where it is really at is my advice, and its not in that one seventh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Witsend73 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Elucidation and the Wikipedia Link
The statement In its narrow sense, noesis is identified as noetic with the nous being immediate or intuitive thinking and it is contrasted to dianoia (διάνοια) which is rational or discursive thinking. doesn't define what "noesis" is. Why? Because rather than define the word "noetic" (of, relating to, or based on the intellect) the article simply links back to itself. As is, it reads like the article is simply defining a word using the word itself; e.g., "responsibility: to be responsible." So noesis is "immediate or intuitive thinking as relates to the intellect?" Atypicaloracle (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC).

merge to nous?
I note that this article, which is not yet really much developed, seems to aim to cover pretty much the same ground as nous. Does anyone disagree? Is there any way to cover these two subjects which would not be a WP:CFORK? If not, then we should try to work out whether there is anything in this article which needs to be integrated into nous, with the aim of eventually merging them. Comments requested.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've tried to make sure everything worth saving in this article is in nous. I see no reason not to merge it in and pool efforts, as well as making sure Wikipedia has the best possible article on this one subject.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

redirect
There shouldn't be a redirect from Noesis to Nous, because this skips the disambiguation page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noesis_(disambiguation)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.103.102.132 (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree, it would make more sense for this page to go to Noesis (disambiguation) than to Nous. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)