Possibly. Kindly do not take this question the wrong way. I mean it constructively, but in its brevity may be misunderstood. To what end, exactly?

My own reason for initiating this discussion was an open ended quest for truth, which goes back to Socrates. So much current philosophy, including some discussion on this site seems caught up in
clever play of words, like the Sophists and I am concerned with the the question of big questions about reality, and don't want to get caught up in any dogmas of religion or cults.

Off the top of my head, there might be some merit to this suggestion. It's not like philosophers and thinkers who've engaged with question of knowledge haven't spoken about the hegemony of Western Rationalism and Scientism that these methods ostracize certain kinds of knowledge (or information) simply because they do not fall within the epistemic paradigms that are accepted by the scientific tradition or Rationalism. It's just that we don't have distilled methods and languages to talk about these concepts.

I would say that philosophy needs to get back to using words like artists rather than just get caught up in the glamour of long words. The real philosophers who got published were creative explorers looking at life and death questions. Even Kant wrote a paper on the esoteric ideas of Emmanuel Swedenborg, which felt so clearly into the esoteric tradition which I am referring to.

Hi @Jack Cummins. You have studied for many years, and you still do not know if the thing you are studying exists.

Well one tradition is that these people of higher consciousness recognise each other straight away. But the rest of us cannot tell the difference between an ascended master and a psychopathic charlatan. But let us assume that they exist, but do not post here. Let us assume that we are not qualified to recognise them, but have some intimation of the possibility of something 'out of reach' yet 'close at hand'.

Do you think we need to do something in the meantime, or just 'wait patiently'? Does studying help?

Philosophers spend their lives embarking upon truth. While I have no absolute answers I know that there are other dimensions of experience and love the mystery of questing about the unknown and have found certain truths.
But I am not a preacher or ego-centred, so wish to initiate dialogue, but so far the responses to my discussion have been very hostile, apart from one which was a bit more optimistic.
I am disappointed that in the responsea I have received so far it seems that the people reading this site today, but my main aim was to open up areas of debate for any like minded people who have an interest in the esoteric traditions of philosophy.

the responses to my discussion have been very hostile — Jack Cummins

Hmm. I wonder what you found to be hostile here? It all seemed fairly sympathetic to me. I assume you are familiar with J. Krishnamurti, as he was presented by Blavatsky as an ascended master, and world teacher. Of course he famously rejected any leadership role, but spent his life teaching and discussing.

My own studies have touched on Steiner, Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, Maurice Nicoll, but have settled on Krishnamurti as the clearest and most consistent voice. But I find it very difficult to discuss my own limited understanding of these things - I don't know if I have anything to contribute apart from what you already seem to see as hostility.

There is nothing wrong with positing your ideas, as long as they are logical. I view science as taking words that we know, and testing them against reality. Philosophy is more like taking the concepts that we have a nebulous understanding of, and using words to describe them in a logical and useful manner.

If you receive hostility from certain people, ignore them. You cannot please everyone in life, and people bring their own baggage and ego to discussions where it does not belong. You will find plenty who wish to engage with you with respect.

The point I took as hostility was that it seemed that you objected to my post and lack of definite answers. But perhaps you are not that certain yourself by calling yourself unenlightened.
I read the writers you mentioned, especially Krishnamurti and his position is interesting as so much expectation was placed on him.
Another of my favourite writers is Colin Wilson. I am interested in peak experiences and mysticism. I do still read philosophy as a discipline thinking on the edge is important.

I've read some Steiner, and was a fan of Owen Barfield for awhile. I have Blavatsky's massive book. I'm very interested in this stuff, and have dipped my toes a little in Kabbalah and Christian Mysticism as well. As to your OP...I sort of agree that philosophy should investigate this territory...but at the same time, maybe not. Maybe Philosophy will always only describe the structure of reality without actually participating.

To Noble Dust
I think that in one way you may be right in a sense that philosophy may describe structure of reality rather than participating in it. However, there is a danger of philosophy becoming too detached from the world.
On this site subjects which are not 'pure' philosophy are being discussed, such as Donald Trump and clothing, so I don't see why the esoteric philosophies should not be incorporated but obviously if people don't want this to happen it doesn't have to.
I can go back to my corner of Watkins bookstore and leave the big questions to those consider themselves to be real philosophers for the time being. I can just reply to their threads, on what the majority choose to discuss, on their terms.

Maybe Philosophy will always only describe the structure of reality without actually participating — Noble Dust

I see occasionally on this forum discussions that might go on for pages about subjects that are actually practices and not merely ideas. When that is the case first hand knowledge seems to me to be a prerequisite for philosophizing. But I may be in the minority here.

Yeah, those threads exist, although mainly in the political realm, which I have my misgivings about (political threads take up so much space here, but it's essentially just political banter; nothing philosophical). What I was getting at with what you quoted is that philosophy proper seems to "describe" reality, in the way that an owners manual will describe how a car functions. Whereas mysticism, and other esoteric traditions, bringing it back to the OP, at least claim to offer participant knowledge; i.e. they claim to show you how to actually drive the car; not only that, but they seem to promise that once you understand how to drive, you'll understand why driving is so pleasurable.

However, there is a danger of philosophy becoming too detached from the world. — Jack Cummins

I agree; that's exactly the point I was making.

so I don't see why the esoteric philosophies should not be incorporated but obviously if people don't want this to happen it doesn't have to. — Jack Cummins

Absolutely; go forth! This thread is a nice refresher on the existence of esotericism, but if you feel this way, maybe start a thread with a specific focus. And be prepared with sources and reasons for reasons, and have counter arguments for your arguments in mind already, and etc.

Yes, I agree that my thread was a bit vague. To you and the one other person who sent me a positive message I think that I plan to prepare something a bit more specific to say because what I wrote was a spontaneous one, just like a text. I am not trying to make excuses for myself, or perhaps I am, but I am struggling trying to write on my phone. I do have a laptop but it is a Chrome without a proper Word document and I don't have Wifi where I live.
I am a big fan of notebooks. The philosophers of the past wrote on paper. I think the process of writing on paper is different. The art of writing emails and texts can be too instant, so I will try and put something together on paper in the next couple of days and then hopefully put together a more carefully thought out thread which has a direct question for people to think about.

While I am not sure that all esoteric systems can be taken literally, . . . Does anyone else apart from me see this an area worth treading and discussing. — Jack Cummins

Yes. After I "lost faith" in my "back to the bible" fundamentalist upbringing, I was initially intrigued with the general concept of Theosophy (god wisdom). But, upon closer examination, I found that underneath the rational veneer was that same old Magic & Mysticism of most tribal, traditional, and shamanistic religions. The proof of the pudding in all those Spiritual notions is to demonstrate some divine miracles or psychic powers over the physical world. But all I found was smoke & mirrors. As for "higher realms and ascended masters", don't tell me fantasy fiction, show me the money.

Nevertheless, I couldn't shake the intuition that there must be something "greater than" the time-bound mundane material world. And I have found a clue to that Holistic notion in Information Theory. From the kernel concept that everything in the world (matter & energy & mind) is a form of logical & causal Information, I have developed a personal worldview. It's a technical thesis, not a faith-based rationale. Therefore, although I am open to un-conventional god-models, I am also skeptical of Incredible Faith and Esoteric/Occult Mysteries. :cool:

Esoteric : intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest. Syn -- abstruse, obscure, arcane, recondite, enigmatic.

PS__some people are impressed by ideas they don't understand, assuming if it's hard to grasp it must be secret wisdom. It could also be secret BS. For me, believing is understanding.

PPS__In answer to Tim Woods question, "to what end?", it's philosophical understanding, not the religious feeling of faith.

I am going to try to write a something more direct but it is good to remain sceptical and I am indeed. But if I ask a new question I might have to be a bit far out rather show too much scepticism in order to provide an area of debate.
My purpose was really to try to widen up conversations and get areas touched by esoteric philosophy rather than remaining in the hands of the few because philosophy needs to go to the core of life and death questions.

My own studies have touched on Steiner, Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, Maurice Nicoll, but have settled on Krishnamurti as the clearest and most consistent voice. — unenlightened

I read a lot of Krishnamurti in my youth and his ideas influenced my own in a lot of ways. He certainly was consistent over a long career spanning most of the 20th century. I'm not sure I would call him the clearest though. I see him more like the philosophy professor who answers every question with another question so that the listener is led in to thinking for themselves. That sounds good on the surface, but, um....

Around the same time I started reading Krishnamurti there was a little book called "Be Here Now" which I'm sure you are familiar with. It was a silly little book, almost a comic book. I was a sophomore in college reaching for sophisticated maturity at the time so I dismissed Be Here Now as a meaningless wad of ridiculous fluff. I've come to reverse my original impression about the two writers.

Krishnamurti talked on and on and on for years and years. The fact that the same people tended to show up at his talks over and over again for decades would seem to suggest he wasn't really getting the job done. I now have more appreciation for the advice "Be Here Now" as it's only three simple words which aim to leap over years of conceptual analysis and replace it with direct experience. I find that clearer and more direct than Krishnamurti.

Imagine that you're physically hungry and are offered a choice between a book about apples, or a basket of apples. Krishnamurti is like the book, Be Here Now is the basket of apples. There's nothing wrong with the book, but it's not the most direct path to addressing the hunger.

The weakness of Krishnamurti's approach, and this post too, is that it is made of the medium of thought which is itself the problem we are attempting to solve. Krishnamurti appeals to people like us who already think too much, and he offers us even more thinking, thus we find him appealing. Reading Krishnamurti (and other such philosophers) is a bit like an alcoholic trying to cure his disease with a case of scotch.

Be here now leaps over philosophy. Hungry humans don't want to understand the apple so much as they want to eat it. We analytic types often get confused and think we have to understand the apple before we can eat it, but that's not true. We can just grab the apple and eat it now. Much simpler and more direct. Better philosophy in the end.

There are many readers and writers that complain about how all they get is words. And I am always sorely tempted to tell them to shut the fuck up. 'The word is not the thing,' the guy kept saying, and I suspect that there was a communication of his presence that the records, whether written or video, cannot convey precisely because they are there and then, not here and now.
So I think we are singing the same song with variations.

I think the thing with questions (as with thought generally) is exactly that answers lead to more questions until you arrive at The Question that can only be answered with your life; that "show me your every-minute zen." question. I don't really read K. any more, because the message is so very simple and all the complications are my own. So now I'll take my own advice and shut the fuck up.

Hi unenlightened,

I think Krishnamurti provides a service in attracting we over thinkers to such subjects with all his intelligent insightful words and analysis. That's what I was looking for at the time, and he delivered. He aimed me at good subjects at a time when much simpler books like Be Here Now could not. He served me where I was, and deserves credit for that.

I agree with you that Krishnamurti was a great writer with profound insights after he had to battle against the expectations projected on him as the future spiritual leader. He was sceptical but after his own questioning he did become a leader but without the grandeur which he could have claimed if he had been swept up into the grandiose expectations originally projected upon him.
I think that we need more thinkers who are on a quest for true understanding like him. So many academics are caught up in the air and Grace's of the ego and we need more philosophers who are able to undertake a genuine search for truth rather than those who come from a superficial perspective and like to play around with juggling words to convince others and themselves of their own cleverness.

That was part of the plan altogether it was for krishnamurti to renounce the demigod status that he was supposed to uphold. Think about it if he accepted the position then people would not follow him or believe him because they would think he was just a prideful arrogant Antichrist but a true act of selflessness would be to deny the power and position or make everybody think you did

While I am not sure that all esoteric systems can be taken literally, I think they do offer an interesting alternative and I keep an open mind towards the idea of spirit guides and the possibility of ascended Masters, who include Jesus, the Buddha and Saint Germain.

I agree with this, although I think it important not to try to define what is going on behind the scenes, because we cannot know for certain, just what is going on and what, or for why, our existing in this world we find ourselves in has come to pass.

I have found a problem with exposing esoteric thinking to philosophical scrutiny, because the philosophical process inevitably reduces it to some kind of psychological figment of the human mind. Also that the majority of philosophers seem to have come to the implicit assumption that reality, existence and it's explanations are within the preview of science and scientism. Resulting in any other kind of epistemology being disregarded out of hand as just another figment.

I would happily discuss this further, while putting this philosophical scepticism to one side for a while.

Do you think your interest in these areas has enriched your life at all?

I don't really read K. any more, because the message is so very simple and all the complications are my own.

I agree, but is there not a duty for people who get the message to apply it in their lives to some extent? Or more broadly, as we as intelligent beings with agency, can alter the world (ecosystem). Surely some wisdom ought to be applied in the corridors of power, or in the direction of humanity. Or otherwise, surely, we are doomed.

Yes, I think that it in any 'divine plan' for the quest undertaken by Krishnamurti he had to reject the idea of his chosen statu or he would have set himself up a demigod.
Of course I think that the problem for most philosophers would be the notion of a divine plan at all. I suppose that I am slightly at odds with many philosophers because I think there may be some plans going on the universe rather than everything being sheer chance. This is a very contentious area in the philosophy of religion.
A related area being discussed in another current thread of discussion is the idea of a daemon, going back to Socrates and it is connected to the belief that human beings can gain a connection with higher powers directly. In the Old Testament there was a belief that Yahweh communicated with mankind. The tradition of direct experience with

(I jogged my phone because I am lying in bedand it sent my response before I finished it)
The tradition of belief in direct experience of the divine is apparent in Jung's writings. It is a tradition in philosophy and one interesting piece of writing relevant to this is William James's Varieties of Religious Experiences, which came just prior to the behaviourist thinking that influenced psychology. The most influential thinker of behaviorism was B. F. Skinner and he influenced so many psychologists in favour of the belief that the so called inner world is not real.
Philosophy draws upon psychology so much and is interconnected with debates at the centre of religion.
Of course it is a good thing if philosophers do step back rather than just assume connections with the divine, because this accepted without skepticism is a one of the sources of religious psychosis. Also, concrete acceptance of ideas which people believe come from the divine is one of the problems underlying fundamentalist religious belief.
Ultimately, I think it is important to be able to step back from any perceived experience of the divine and that is the reason why I think philosophy needs to make a contribution to this whole area of thought. The religious believers are often not willing to question their experiences and the psychological are too busy providing evidence based studies , but the philosophers have the critical thinking ability to provide a structure for interpretation.

I am writing you a brief response because I don't want to monopolise the thread and you can choose to continue discussion if you wish.
My own experience of questioning esoteric systems to philosophical examinations can certainly reduce their weaknesses and relationships to the authors who wrote them.
However, I believe that questioning is an essential test of any system of belief. I was brought up in a strict system of Roman Catholic and found esoteric systems, mainly theosophy, just at the time I was having difficulty with Catholicism and Christianity in general. Questioning both systems was a means of seeing what makes sense in any way of seeing reality.
In answer to the question of whether I I found it fulfilling I think that it enabled me to hold onto my own sanity and I might have otherwise become unwell mentally. Nowadays, I enjoy reading esoteric literature but with an open but questioning spirit.

In answer to the question of whether I I found it fulfilling I think that it enabled me to hold onto my own sanity and I might have otherwise become unwell mentally. Nowadays, I enjoy reading esoteric literature but with an open but questioning spirit.

I found it useful as an entry point into some of the ideas of Hinduism and Eastern religions in general. Along with a means by which to break free, within my own mind, from the rigid conditioning of the Western narrative. Something very constructive.

I can't imagine how I would have developed without such an alternative view on the world as presented in our society.

Also, I find it a useful narrative in discussing mysticism, which is devilishly difficult to discuss in forums like this.

The tradition of belief in direct experience of the divine — Jack Cummins

I like this direction. If the focus is on experience instead of explanations then belief is no longer needed. Tradition can go too. Once explanations are set aside the question of "experience of what?" is unnecessary baggage which can be tossed overboard.

Philosophers have a habit of introducing lots of unnecessary complications. When we're physically hungry we just eat something, we don't clutter that up with a lot of abstract analysis etc. It seems to me that psychic hunger can be addressed much in the same straightforward manner.

The brain is just another organ of the body which requires regular maintenance.

but is there not a duty for people who get the message to apply it in their lives to some extent? — Punshhh

I wouldn't say that, because duty implies conflict and division. But in this field, if one does not live according to one's understanding, then one hasn't really understood.