I can see how a doctrine might play a role in enhancing practice. But I do have two minor objections on which I'd like to hear your opinion.
1) Once you have a mystical experience of the divine, doesn't that kind of make all doctrines irrelevant? I mean, if one genuinely makes contact with God, and receives truth directly from God, doesn't doctrine kind of "muddy the waters" a bit? Why continue to lean on doctrine, when you have access to the Source? Mind you, I'm not saying that doctrines can't help you "get to" God. That may be their one and only value. But once you've "gotten to God," haven't then doctrines outlived their usefulness?
In some sense, perhaps. Have you heard of post-Satori practice? I'm assuming that you have, but I'll go into detail about it and its relevance here.
After one achieves their initial mystical experience, that experience must continue to be developed. The experience alone might not be all you need to maintain and deepen the insight that you've gained.
Aside from that, the Gnostics were generally of the disposition that their doctrines made more sense after mystical experiences, since they used esoteric metaphor to describe facets that were thought to be universal to the resulting spiritual epiphanies. It was the epiphanies that were important and, if they did not line up with the doctrine, it was a good way to tell whether a claimed experience was genuine or not.
That's quite common in mysticism in general, though. I've seen similar approaches in Theravada Buddhism and Eastern Orthodox monasticism. Unlike these, I'm not sure that Gnostics believed in a malevolent force that mislead people through their visions, but they did believe that someone might not fully understand them if they were too ignorant about doctrine.
I've used the metaphor of trying to build a car engine from scratch before. Say you manage to get one piston moving. How do you know where to go from there without the generations of engineers and mechanics who have built their own engines and modified the designs? It might take you longer than the rest of your lifetime to figure out. Doctrine provides an important manual.
From the mystical perspective, at least. In my own opinion, I think mysticism is overrated. I prefer simple contentment now.
2) Doctrines are dangerous. They can just as easily conceal the truth as bring the truth into focus. Just take a look at the utter dominance that Pauline Christianity had on Gnosticism as a whole. Even if you assume that Gnosticism is true, one must also admit that "doctrine" was its undoing. The Pauline interpretation was not only popular, it was used as a reason to oust the Gnostics and others from the (small "c") catholic church. And (as a fellow appreciator of Plato and Socrates) you must admit that the coercive aspects of doctrines sometimes interfere with the exchange of good ideas among intelligent people.
Especially when you have folks like Paul (and I think Paul was very well-meaning, and in general a nice guy)... but he formulated rigid beliefs. And he had no qualms about impressing those beliefs on his followers in order to control them. And centuries later, he still had a following, and these later followers were willing to burn people at the stake for the mere disagreement with Paul on any number of small matters. Whether he intended to or not, Paul created a monster. An incredibly violent monster that it took reasonable people centuries until they were able to even question the evil and the violence of it all. And even more centuries passed before they were able to put an end to it.
On the whole, Christianity has been a rather bloody affair. And, though I'm sure you have some nuance to add to that rather hamfisted statement, I have gathered, from our previous conversations, that you probably see this as deeply problematic (as I do).
Aren't doctrines dangerous? What would be the modern Gnostic and/or Sethian's response to the argument that doctrines are dangerous (so far as you can tell)? Does a contemporary Sethian insist on any doctrine at all? If so, which doctrines?
Doctrines can be dangerous, but why are they dangerous? What makes doctrine dangerous?
Is it ambiguity? Is it misinformation? Is it the fact that dogma can lead to abuse?
As far as ambiguity is concerned, this is why many early Gnostic traditions were initiatory mystery schools. Those with more experience and knowledge could help correct aberrant interpretations by recent converts until they were able to reach the same states of consciousness.
As far as misinformation is concerned, obviously all doctrines claim to be true. I think that might be a separate discussion.
Dogma being abused is an important point, because Gnostic dogma has been abused. We saw it abused by the Manichaens and it continues to be abused to this day by the Mandaens.
The Manichaens abused Gnostic dogma by creating a clerical class that did basically nothing and were doted upon, given anything they wanted, had their every need catered to by others, and took responsibility for the achievements of their entire congregations. The Mandaens have abused Gnostic dogma by becoming intensely tribalistic, xenophobic, and regressive.
The Gnostics did attempt to skirt the problems of orthodoxy by focusing more on the importance of practice. There's a reasonable case to be made that some sects tolerated or participated in the use of myths that seem contradictory from an exoteric standpoint, but can only resolve their meanings esoterically. Did it work?
There have been modern-day Gnostic organizations that could probably meet the criteria of an abusive cult, such as the Cult of Qayin, the Temple of the Black Light, the Fraternitas Saturni, the Order of Nine Angles, and so on.
Does this make doctrine inherently bad, though? How many institutions have abused science for nuclear, biological, and psychological warfare? How many small groups have used engineering to create weapons to attack masses of innocent civilians? Is it the information itself, the doctrine, that's bad, or is it how the doctrine is used and regarded?
In my opinion, I believe that the Catholic Church has been a greater force for evil than for good, and that it's still a harmful institution to this day. However, despite insistence to the contrary, the Church has often reformed and modified its doctrine over the years to be less severe. Granted, many of these modifications were forced out of them, kicking and screaming as society changed around them, but it does show that doctrine is not necessarily set-in-stone.
I think it's when doctrine is taken as the fixed, absolute truth that it becomes the greatest issue. That's certainly a stance that many of the worst Catholics have taken over history, including the ones responsible for so many atrocities. That's not a necessary disposition to have towards doctrine, though.
It does open the question up a bit. What counts as doctrine? When does a statement of belief become doctrinal? There are some simple definitions we can easily look up, but I'd be interested in your input on where that line can be drawn, precisely.