Noetic Gnosis – The Science of Inner Knowing

The scholarly article “Noetic Gnosis: Definition and Application” by Dr. Elias Rubenstein asks a simple but decisive question: What is gnosis if we do not dismiss it as a marginal esoteric current, but take it seriously as a form of knowledge? Instead of treating “Gnosticism” as a catch-all label for alleged heresies, this contribution reads late antique gnosis as a precisely defined mode of knowing – as noetic knowledge, that is, an inner, transformative form of insight that changes the person, rather than merely adding more information.

At the centre stands a clear proposal: gnosis is noetic when four conditions are fulfilled together. First, there is ethical purification – not as moralising rhetoric, but as a precondition for reliable insight in the first place. Second, there is a trained contemplative practice that stabilises attention, concentration, and inner orientation. Third, this model understands knowledge not as mere “talking about” something, but as participation: to know is to grow into a reality and become like it. Fourth, noetic gnosis aims at a form of unity in which knower and known no longer stand rigidly opposed, but come together in a single act.

Using these four conditions, the article examines classical philosophical texts (for example Plato and Plotinus), Alexandrian theology (Clement of Alexandria, Origen), and writings that are often grouped under the label “gnostic”, such as the Gospel of Thomas or the Apocryphon of John. What matters is not superficial similarity in language, but structure: wherever ethical formation, contemplative practice, participation in a higher reality, and a form of reflexive unity come together, the article speaks of noetic gnosis. Where only some of these elements appear, it treats them as “liminal” cases at the edge of this profile.

The early Christian tradition plays a key role. The article shows how the Church of the third and fourth centuries increasingly relies on creed, canon, and office to test and transmit teaching publicly, without thereby abolishing the possibility of inner noetic insight. Dogma and inner vision do not automatically contradict one another; they operate on different levels. One regulates shared learning and preservation; the other describes how deep spiritual knowledge becomes possible at all.

The relevance of this work lies in the way it takes gnosis out of the realm of vague slogans. Instead of using “Gnosticism” as a grab-bag category, the article offers a testable schema: texts and traditions are not judged by names, but by whether they meet the conditions of noetic knowledge. This produces a nuanced picture in which classical philosophy, Alexandrian theology, and certain so-called gnostic writings do not appear as simple opposites, but as different expressions of a shared path of insight.

You can find the full scholarly article at:

Elias Rubenstein (2025): Noetic Gnosis: Definition and Application
Doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17481184