That makes it a little clearer, although I am not sure that ideas which are considered as esoteric are ones which all people would wish to understand. So, it may not just be about those who have knowledge which is regarded as esoteric keeping their views from others but about the wider population not wishing to know the esoteric,and it being excluded. So, I am suggesting that rather than the powerful holding onto it, in some ways it can also be knowledge which is excluded, or cast aside. In other words, it is questionable whether it is esoteric because it serves the powerful, or because it contradicts it.

I see that you emphasise esoteric knowledge as being for the 'inner circle', but I am a little unclear what you see as being the purpose of such knowledge. It seems a little confusing to have esoteric knowledge unless it is in the context of some larger system. I am saying that because my own reading of esoteric ideas has been as aspects of specific traditions, like Christianity or Buddhism.

If it is just knowledge with no deeper element, what value is it for the individual or for anyone else at all. I am sure that you see the esoteric as having benefits, but I am a bit confused about your understanding of your understanding of the basis of such knowledge and its role.

You speak of distinguishing between the I and the we, but, perhaps many people remain isolated in the form of the 'I', feeling cut off from a sense of belonging, and pursue the questions of existence more as remote, isolated individuals.

But that is the big question in itself. I don't really know if esoteric knowledge is mumbo jumbo or not. My understanding is that it is about secret or hidden knowledge. While I enjoy reading literature of this kind, I have to admit that it is open to questions. We probably need a whole exploration of the question of esoteric knowledge and the way it stands within philosophy.

I am sure that some of the most central writers in esoteric philosophy would have been unable to engage in this debate. I believe that there are many faults in esotericism, but at the same time there are probably shortcomings in the philosophy of our times.

I have mentioned Rudolf Steiner a few times, because I have read his writings, but I really don't know how to frame his ideas within the context of current philosophy. I don't know where the fault lies. Is it within esotericism or within philosophy' Who is in the position of being the supreme judge of ranking of ideas in importance?

Or, it could be that these ideas may remain as potentially important ones within a wider perspective of philosophy. We could ask who are are or on what basis can we determine the criteria for determining what topics, or which writers are to be considered as worthy for exploration?. On what basis will those in positions of noteworthy power make the decisions about the questions and writers to be included or excluded within discussion? How do we and, who has power, in determining these boundaries to which we feel bound to adhere to?

But, it may be important, because it is about what areas are seen as worth considering at all within the shared domain of knowledge.

The whole question of personal knowledge in relation to the ones of shared ones is one of central importance. We could ask to what extent were ideas about the underlying aspects of esoteric knowledge meant to be applicable to all human beings, even though some people were seen to be more capable of knowing, or of potential enlightenment?

This seems to embrace a whole spectrum arising from what was could be perceived as esoteric knowledge or understanding. Do we have varying degrees of potential understanding, or is that in itself constructed within social and cultural contexts? Is knowledge and its constructive purely spiritual, in terms of being beyond daily life, or is to be seen as arising from life, and the political aspects of knowledge?

If only we could find one book which would give us the answers...

Perhaps it is decadence, or the signs of a civilisation on the brink of collapse, but not completely...

I am interested in what you have to say here about your experience, of the Eureka moment. That is because even though I am interested in your thread about esotericism, it seems a bit vague and abstract. I struggle to search for answers in esoteric thought and philosophy, but it all seems shrouded in mystery. However, I am in favour of demystification, to try to find ways of making the unknown more knowable.

It is a good question whether esoteric ideas solve all problems. I probably would not be writing a thread on philosophical mysteries if I thought that the esoteric philosophies had all the answers. Generally, I think that ideas and information are so freely available, especially in the age of the internet, but in acquiring knowledge, reaching wisdom and insight is a completely different matter.

I definitely used to wonder about life before birth, as much as life after death. That was because one of my earliest memories was of being in a cot and of a sudden awakening, such as before this life, rather than waking up from sleep. But, maybe it was my imagination playing tricks on me in early childhood.

Perhaps, I keep an too much of an open mind, rather than being committed to any one viewpoint. I do think that I need to read some phenomenology and Wittgenstein because they seem to have such potential insights. But, sometimes, the more I read, the harder it becomes to find my own voice. I know that I am often criticised for reading too much, but it seems to be such a complex balance, juxtaposing personal ideas with those of others, especially the significant writers.

I have written a response to a reply I received in a comment I got in my response to you, so you can read it if you are interested. However, I am not sure from what you have written that the ideas I am talking are in the scope of your thread discussion.

I think that you are maybe wishing to pursue more of a discussion about power and knowledge within philosophy, mainly in a secular context. However, even if my own comment is considered as irrelevant, I think that it does at least pose the question of what do we mean by esoteric?

I am logged in so I might as well reply to you, even though I was planning to write on the thread tonight. I can explain my so-called 'pursuit of esoteric knowledge'. I probably mean mostly in terms of reading, although I have attended meetings and workshops by various groups. However, having read the thread I am sure if I am coming from the same angle as the poster, so not entirely sure if my interest is relevant to the thread.

My own understanding of the esoteric is based on spiritual traditions primarily. I first came across the idea when I was a practicing Christian, when I heard that there were different teachings taught to Jesus's disciples to the wider groups. This was when I was at school and I found a number of books on esoteric Christianity, although I would not be able to recall their titles now. Following disillusionment with some of the ideas I encountered in college Christian Unions, because the ideas seemed so fundamentalist, I began reading in areas of Eastern religion, theosophy and diverse areas. I still do so, and even frequent an esoteric bookshop in London.

However, I am not saying that I believe the ideas in a fixed or concrete way. Having read about theosophy, I am aware that Blavatsky's mediumship was fraud. I have also read a very eccentric writer, Benjamin Creme, and attended the final lecture he gave in his 90s, before he died. The most relevant ideas he voiced, relevant to this post, is the belief that there is a divine hierarchy of invisible masters.

I won't go on further, because I can imagine that the ideas which I am talking about are open to big questions. However, it is in this kind of context that I am familiar with the whole idea of the esoteric, and I am aware of esoteric aspects of Buddhism and many other traditions. So, that is the basic background of my understanding of the esoteric.

However, I am aware of the whole way in which knowledge structures change. I am not sure that the idea of the esoteric writers is considered as being of much importance today. They are mostly in little corners of many bookshops, labelled as new age, and perhaps we have gone past hope of a new age now, as we are in a fragmented world.

The one other aspect of the esoteric which I am aware of is that often within such forms of thought, one aspect of the reason why it is considered as esoteric is because the knowledge is considered as being potentially dangerous, and thereby, reserved for the initiates.

I agree that this is an extremely difficult topic for a public forum, and it does seem that so many of the topics are, but we live in extraordinary times, with most sectors of interaction being closed. This is the first public forum I have ever used and I have experienced diverse discussions people from all over the world. In many ways this has been more liberating than the studies which I did which were with most people on courses coming from similar backgrounds and little life experience.

I definitely don't wish to be 'stuck in scholasticism'. I love reading, but I don't believe that all the answers can be found in books at all. I am not sure that there is such a thing as neutral metaphysical theory. I try to get a certain point of balance but we all have inevitable biases. You say that you can't write an essay here, and I appreciate you feeling that way. However, if you write a little one on the thread, I will most certainly read it and write a comment in reply, but, of course, I can see that you may have reservations about doing so.

That was a quick response. I am interested in the actual pursuit of esoteric knowledge, but also interesting in critical examination of the power structures. So, we should have some potential area for discussion. But, I will read and see how your thread is going this evening, because I had not been planning to write anything on the site this morning at all, but I was interested in this particular thread.

I am probably more likely to engage with you on this thread than your one on Wittgenstein because I have read a lot on esoteric ideas generally. I am just finishing, 'The Secret Teachers of the Western Tradition, ' by Gary Lachman. He has written a number of books, including Rudolf Steiner and Colin Wilson. I began discussing such ideas on the thread in mysticism, but probably my interest is in the esoteric traditions rather than mysticism.I am also interested in the esoteric aspects of religion, including esoteric Christianity.

My own understanding of esoteric is of hidden knowledge. I don't know how Wittgenstein fits into this exactly. I have not looked at the link you provided because I am in a bit of a hurry this morning. I am not sure if your understanding of esoteric is the same as mine, and it will be interesting to see what group of people write in your thread. I am interested in the esoteric but with a certain amount of caution, because it can become about people assuming elite knowledge.

I am a bit busy during today, but I will have a look at your thread again this evening.

I will have a look at your Blue book thread. It is simply that I usually only participate in threads of books I have read already. I know that you include a link, so I may look at it, but I have 8 books which I am reading at the same time already. I want to read Wittgenstein, probably 'On Certainty', to expand my not probably at the same time as the ones which I am reading as my mind would probably explode, or implode.

I am sure that my own perspective is one that may bother some people, but it is simply the way I see the matter at present. I am searching and I am hoping not to receive negative backlash for expressing an idea that goes against the two extremes of logical arguments which are usually expressed.

That is not to say that I don't wish to be challenged at all, but in a constructive way.Some of the discussions on this site can become very heated and I guess that is because they involve topics of such importance and meaning. But, I do believe that we should be able to express our views as they are. Anyway, I am reassured by your responses because it enabled me to feel less alone. I wonder if there are a fair amount of people using the site who are searching too.I also don't want people to think that I am just trying to be clever in trying to sidestep the logic of the question, because I am just trying to express my honest thoughts.

I probably don't see it in exactly the same way as you do because I think that there is a whole spectrum in between consciousness and unconsciousness, with the most obvious form being dreams. Also, there are some other borderline phenomena, such as NDEs. I would not go as far as to say that they suggest life after death, but they do raise questions. Of course, the persons in question have not actually died. I see them as an interesting area of questioning and besides Jung's ideas, I do wonder about Bergson's idea of the brain as a reducing valve.

Generally, I am not sure that neuroscientists have all the answers. They may be able to link the mind to the brain, but whether this comes up with the complete answer is what I wonder about. Also, I do think that Fritjof Capra's systems view has an important contribution to make. He drew upon the cybernetic ideas of Gregory Bateson, and has argued that, 'mind is not a thing but a process- the very process of life. ..The interactions of a living organism_ plant, animal, or human_ with its environment are cognitive, or mental interactions. Mind _or, more accurately, mental process_is imminent in matter at all levels of life.'

So, really I am just saying that while the neuroscientists have made tremendous insights into the picture of human consciousness, I am not sure that they have the complete picture.

I am probably complicating matters further, but I am wondering where the unconscious comes in. I am afraid that I am influenced by Jung, but I do see the unconscious and unconscious as interconnected. Consciousness comes from the unconscious, but I do understand if you see this as being outside your framework, because I realise that I am looking a bit outside of the usual way of seeing the philosophy of mind.

I think that you offer a very good summary of various ideas previous to the the time of Descartes.

I am glad that you can see the yes and no, because it seems that many people seem to be all one or the other. Mind you, the two opposing viewpoints are probably united in seeing both of us as sitting on the fence, but as I see it is more like the psychology picture which can be a vase or two faces. It seems to be about choice of language and framing. However, I would imagine that both theists and atheists will think that I make light of their big distinction.

I just see that you both come from different perspectives, and it is related to the wording of the question as 'Should..' I don't see the matter as being how we should see or 'focus', because that is being prescriptive.

But you have not explained how or why consciousness came into being in the first instance. I think it is a matter of not just connecting it to the physical which is the puzzling factor, but understanding the source. Obviously, human beings are not the only beings with consciousness of any kind because it exists in some way in the wider spectrum of all living forms. As far as I can see, we need to understand it in its evolutionary context, and in specific human consciousness.

I am trying to say that we should not underestimate the ancients really. I am sure that they thought in very sophisticated ways and that they had thought out many of the concepts which we are really struggling with so desperately.

I just noticed your comment, 'Wittgenstein is psychedelic'. Taking the word psychedelic in it's true meaning, as simply mind expanding, I think that you have just recommend him to me, because, at this stage I have barely read his work at all.

So what you seem to be concluding is that they were aware of a problem. I just think that there awareness was different, on a subtle level. They did not have Darwin, Galileo and Wikipedia to assist them with information like we do. We can find words like panpsychism to express our ideas, so it is probably more about understanding basic worldviews which were so different from our own.

I am sure that some of them were aware of the problem on some level, as you have pointed out about Socrates. However, we have developed all the language and concepts to formulate these ideas, and our whole frames of reference are different. I also think we have to avoid seeing our ways of thinking as being superior necessarily. Okay, we have all the facts of science to help us but we may identify more problems, and it may be that the ancient people had a more holistic approach, and may have been more attuned to living with, rather than exploiting the natural world.

Perhaps the ancient philosophers didn't see the mind and body as split in exactly the same way as those of Western thinkers. It was probably Descartes who began the whole tradition of splitting mind and body. I am sure that there are some benefits of identifying the mind/body problem. However, it may not be the only possible way of seeing.

Perhaps it doesn't really matter whether we call it energy or God ultimately. It may be a choice of language more than anything else. Some of the new physicists, such as Fritjof Capra and Paul Davies saw parallels between ideas in the new physics and the understanding of God, as depicted in the Tao. I would imagine that it is not a matter how we label it as such, but whether it makes a difference in whatever else we go on to believe as a result of choosing to speak of energy, or of God.

I do agree that language is mysterious because it captures so much shared meaning. Sound is important too, and conveys so much beyond words, as in music. It is also interesting that we all like such different music. My favourite band of all time is probably U2 and I am aware that so many people can't bear them.

One thing I also find is that depending on how we are feeling can make the music sound different. I remember once when I had flu, all I wanted to listen to was pop, and it was if my ears were different physically. I can't relate to classical music, but I think that is probably more because I was not brought up with it. Most of us don't like the sound of our own voices, and they sound different in our heads to when they are recorded. However, the thing which also struck me as so mysterious as a child was how music is captured in grooves.

Of course, there are physical laws involved but the transmission of communication, especially in invisible forms seem to have a certain element of mystery. That is not because we cannot explain it, but the very fact that it is possible at all. It seems amazing that things work as they do so well and, as someone reminded me a couple of days ago we should not forget the basic principle of love, in the whole process of life.

Yes, I think that you capture how hard it is to understand the whole nature of experience. I think that people often say they understand to try to make the other feel better. I have seen people doing that in mental health care. It is important to try to understand others' experiences through listening, but it is too easy to say we understand when probably we only do in a shallow way. Sometimes it is as if really all bats.

That's fair enough, and I do agree that the about the parable of good the Samaritan being central. Just imagine a group of philosophers standing debating consciousness and ignoring the person lying down suffering on the floor beside them.

I do agree that some people have used Huxley's book to justify substances. I am surprised that you found it dull. I read it while I was at school and was so taken aback by it that I just couldn't stop talking about, and I am still doing it here.

I would imagine that you probably never believed in life after death because you weren't brought up in a religious background. I was taught to believe in heaven and hell as concrete truths, just like the alphabet or times tables. The possibility of going to hell is probably more scary than no life after death. Of course, the whole idea of hell was probably used in history in a very negative way, to frighten people.

However, I think that the idea of life after death has been one which has prevailed in history, within religions, including Judaism, Christianity and Hinduism. My understanding is that the Buddha was uncertain. One interesting area is not just whether it exists but what form it would take, with the possibility of reincarnation being so different to an eternity in heaven or hell. Also, within Christianity there does appear to be a discrepancy between whether after death one waits until a resurrection at the end of the world, or whether one exists as an immortal soul.

I first began reading on all the diverse views when I was set an essay at college, 'Is there life after death?' I continued reading and do find it a fascinating area within religious thinking. But, of course, we can find ourselves in heaven and hell in this life rather than this one. In particular, I think that Aldous Huxley's 'The Doors of Perception/ Heaven and Hell' is particularly interesting because it shows the whole dimension of entering into these states. His writing is based on his use of Mescalin, but these states have also been accessed by religious practices, such as meditation and fasting. Also, Huxley's view draws upon the perspective of Bergson in seeing the brain as filtering down of consciousness. This is different to the way most neuroscientists see consciousness, but I do think that it does provide an interesting alternative view.

Yes, I am sure that you are right that there is a lot of progress. It may be that we just need more synthetic understanding rather than simply more new ideas in the future.

Thanks for the link to Feuerbach. I will try to have a read of some of his ideas.

I am reading an ebook of 'Being and Nothingness' and it would probably be easier in a paper copy. I remember looking at the book in a library and thinking that it looked boring, but I am finding reading it to be a kind of meditative experience. But, I am taking the book slowly.

I think really one of the worst forms of nothingness I would see is if there is no life after death. I do think that this life is worth focusing upon, but it just seems that for some people that there is so much pain and suffering. If that is all there is, that seems so sad. However, I also see the possibility of extinction of humanity as an even worse form of nothingness, far worse than the thought of my own death.

I think that whether progress has been made in the progress of ideas. There is so little consensus in shared ideas and so much fragmentation. Some can make sense of it, but I think that many people are overwhelmed and drift more in the direction of light entertainment rather than asking deeper questions.

You ask me if I know Sartre. Strangely, I just began reading 'Being and Nothingness' this week. I am finding it hard work really. The one quote which seems to stand out for me so far is,
'Kierkergaard describing anguish in the face of what lacks characterises it as anguish in the face of freedom. But Heidegger, whom we know to have been greatly influenced by Kierkergaard considers anguish instead as the apprehension of nothingness.'

Personally, I think that the idea of nothingness is the worst possibility when contemplating the mysterious.

I do agree that it is often more subtle than outright insults. This is probably true in all levels of life beyond debates. There are backhanded compliments and all kinds of ways people use to put other people down. At least with insults, it makes it easier to identify, because they stand out, whereas with other more subtle attacks, it is possible to miss them, and, nevertheless, the experience of receiving them may have an insidious effect.

I am slightly changing the slant of your question because I wouldn't really want to be a bat, but I think that it is also interesting to to what extent we can really know what it is like to be another person. I am sure that we all try to practice empathy but, to what extent do we REALLY know others' inner worlds, because so much is filtered through our own personal perspective? We may think we understand others, but I am sure in many cases this understanding can be limited by our own experiences.