I read your thread introduction now and I am not convinced about your basis, 'Everything is as it is determined to be'. This seems too simplified, and on what basis is that determined? I think that needs to be explored more, before you go on to the wider exploration of objective truth.

I think that you make a good point, because, in most instances, we are not just looking for abstract truths, but ones which serve a purpose in helping us to understand our lives, and help us in the messiness of this. That is probably where those who see it from a religious perspective, or some kind of spiritual vision, usually believe that we can find some way of seeing and becoming part of the flow of the universe.

It may be that the extent to which we perceive ourselves as having such a connection is part of the reason why some people prefer a spiritual viewpoint, while others do not. However, whatever way, life can be extremely difficult, aside from looking for answers about ultimate truths. But, it seems likely to me that an essential aspect of any mystical viewpoint is connected to it having some kind of "healing' aspect, even though this may remain as subjective. Perhaps the subjective, personal healing element makes it easier to express their ideas in poetry sometimes, rather than as in the more abstract, rational form of philosophical arguments.

You may also wish to speak about why you find the album to be important for you. I think that there is also a distinction to be made between what is a 'perfect' album, and that which is so important on a personal level. But, I leave that open for you to think about...

Your question of what is everything is interesting. There is so much which we cannot explain. We have many grand theories and systems thinking, which tries to find ways of providing structures or frameworks. However, it does seem that our scope of understanding is limited. It may be a mixture of looking for explanations through the sciences, rational understanding, and searching for wisdom within oneself.

Some of the esoteric writers came up with answers, but as you realise their claims to exclusive truths were open to question. Nevertheless, some of the most esoteric writers, such as Rudolf Steiner, were seeking to explore the search, or attempt, to understand everything, insofar as that is possible for a human being. I am aware that is probably more in the area of spirituality, which is so unique and to each person.

Some might argue that the term, spiritual, is a cop out but, it does appear to me that it represents the boundary where we move into the subjective experience of truth. Philosophy, as a discipline, is more able to consideration to the more objective aspects of truth. However, individuals argue about this and, most are also wishing to find the ultimate truths on an objective level, so it is a complex web.

I definitely agree in embracing the reflection of not being mind or body, entirely. I have read some writing of Osho. I am in agreement about studying the whole of philosophy, rather just exploring aspects which we prefer. With regard to your comment that many people do not bother with the ideas they the mystics in this age, what I think is happening is that people are starting to look at ideas on a more superficial level.

However, as you say, certain truths, which you describe as being mystic, if discussed fully on a forum may cause a scandal because they are dismissed so often. I really prefer the idea of esoteric to mystic, and there is a thread on the esoteric. However, that is mainly aimed at the idea of there being an inner circle ,rather than a discussion about the truth of ideas as such, which are the mysteries. It may be that discussion, of esoteric knowledge is too complex for forum discussion, because it lacks intimate connections between individuals.

I actually find it so much easier to read than watch discussions on television or on YouTube. The one thing which I would query is that you say things have changed so much since Huxley, and presumably you mean that it is our understanding of 'reality' which is changing. I do agree that dualism is being rejected gradually. However, there is so much of a tendency towards reductive materialism. One perspective which I find useful is the systems view of Fritjof Capra. Rather than seeing mind and body he sees them as interconnected , with mind being imminent in nature.

You say that 'reality' fails as a concept. I can see that it is abstract, but are you dismissing the the term at all. I can see that explanations for many aspects of it are complex. However, I do think that the idea of reality works to encompass our experience and basis of knowledge.

I had a look at the blog you referred to and the arguments you suggested. I have to admit that I have only read Kant superficially. I have read some of Huxley's books, and have a copy of 'The Perennial Philosophy', but haven't read it. So, perhaps, I need to be more rather than less of a scholar. It is interesting that you seem to think that the perennial philosophy is the one which really works. If I may manage to read Huxley's book later this week, after I finish some of the other books which I am reading currently.

I do agree that we only have the 'capacity to peer into nature' so far. But if we were able to understand it all it would be like having the mind of a god. I think that the reason why it is so hard to go so far is that so much of life is invisible. We understand certain laws and I do think that the reason so much is unknown is due to the invisible aspects of reality.

Sorry to hear that your parents hated such music as U2. My mother regards, 'With or Without You' and, 'I Still Haven't Found What I am Looking For' as two of her favourite songs. I love most of U2's albums, possibly favouring the earlier ones, such as 'War' and 'The Unforgettable Fire'. Recently, I have started to really like, 'Pop'. But, one which I once played and found so essential during a time when I was feeling really depressed was 'Achtung Baby', especially the lyrics. But, I do think that Bono has such a wonderful voice.

I like so many bands,and I see the 'The Whole of the Moon', by the Waterboys as being an anthem for philosophical searching. I believe that it was really about Prince.

I still go to record shops like when I was a teenager, seeking new music. I am just sad that so many of the music shops have shut down because I used to spend so many time browsing on them and I think searching for music on the internet is just not the same at all.

In case you are interested, a couple who weeks ago, in another thread@Bitter Crank referred to a website called, 'Forgotten Books'. This showed, and has downloads of many extremely unusual books, especially some esoteric ones. I downloaded quite a few. I like to read these kinds of books, but I don't necessarily agree with all the ideas. But I find these ideas give me plenty to think about, as I believe that we can benefit from reading unusual ideas. After all, if we only read the perspective we agree with it would be like philosophical shoegazing.

I am just popping out now, but will read what you have written later, and look at your blogs and write a response to you later.

Gary Lachman is a pop writer, and was even drummer of the pop band, Blondie. However, what I think that he does so well is taking the ideas and writers out of the esoteric domain for larger audiences. However, my own understanding of the esoteric tradition would include Steiner, William Blake, Emmanuel Swedenborg, and I don't think that it is possible to talk about the esoteric without some mention of Madame Blavatsky.

I think that Bob Dylan is a wonderful artist. He is perhaps a better writer than a singer. My own funny experience was liking him while I was at school and hardly anyone knowing who he was because he was from an earlier era. I had his name scrawled across my school bag and someone in a different year group thought that was my name. But, I would say that albums like 'Blood on the Tracks', some of the earlier ones, as well as, 'Shot of Love, and, 'Oh Mercy, I see as outstanding, and they are like worldviews in their own right.

You refer to a few writers as esoteric, having said earlier that you are opposed to the idea of the esoteric. However, some of the ones you seem to be pointing to seem worth reading in my opinion. But I really don't understand how you define esoteric. It seems that you are referring more to those on the fringe or countercultural. If that is how you define it, isn't there a danger that you are reinforcing writing and ideas which are popular and rejecting those which are less conventional? Surely, it is partly about personal preference and taste. But I think that it would be so useful if you laid down some criteria and clarity for thinking about what esotericism entails.

I do agree that some of the most beautiful moments 'are when we actually connect' with others, and, it is probably these make life bearable. I also agree that some of the dead writers can be 'good friends' and it is probably on this level that we turn to read the great philosophers and other writers of the past. A few dead singers, such as Hendrix and John Lennon also offer some wisdom and friendship, as we face unknown answers, too.

As far as I can see there is a whole tension between being an individual and belonging. We live in a world where many are excluded and isolated even when they would long to be part of a larger group. We live in a very fragmented world, in which people are often seen as numbers, and are compelled rather than choose to find meaning on an individual level.

Of course, I am sure that this is so variable, but many are not embedded within communities as much as in earlier historical epochs. In this way, they are more likely to not supported in cultural systems of belief.

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.