The west interpreting the east in a western way. This doesn't say anything about the actual ideas. — Noble Dust

Perhaps you're right, but I don't see eastern philosophies, at least not Taoism as formulated by Lao Tzu, as esoteric at all. As I always say, to me, it's meat and potatoes philosophy.

Each and every person on Earth, including you, gentle listener, enters into radically altered states of consciousness, ands visions on a regular basis. we've all experienced the kind of impossible occurrences in which magic specialises.

Episode 7: We’re Together In Dreams: Dreaming and Western Esotericism

Freud is prefigured but not discussed here. Now Freud has reached the nadir of his popularity and is now being allowed a small place in psychological discussion by some. But the connection between dreams and mythology is the explicit foundation on which Freudian and Jungian psychoanalysis are built. So the notion that dreams are an esoteric communication (a communication in need of interpretation) should be comprehensible to all of us.

The west interpreting the east in a western way. — Noble Dust

That is shaping up to be a major theme of the series from #3 onwards, but if Aryan supremacy was the glamour of the last century leading to a distortion of Greek history I think the glamour for us will be more to do with atheistic superiority.

To further bring home my point, I suppose "esoteric" is a Greek word, and a Western projection unto Eastern thought. It's esoteric to us. But the point remains that we interpret Eastern thought through a Western lens, i.e. your description of Taoism as "meat and potatoes philosophy".

I think the glamour for us will be more to do with atheistic superiority. — unenlightened

Isn't that the world we live in?

https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/4732/pg4732.html

I leave this Here for those who prefer text, to introduce #11 of the podcast, https://shwep.net/podcast/the-long-secret-history-of-judaism-part-i/

I'll comment or not later.

Isn't that the world we live in? — Noble Dust

Just so!

Did you start a podcast Banno? — The Opposite

Very droll.

I listened to the first two, with intent. The others might become part of the ritual of putting on a podcast at bedtime and hearing only the first few minutes.

I should skip to episode 5?

Not particularly. Take your time,; I zone out at times into old-man reverie. I'm expecting comments to range back and forth as people catch up or overtake - the thought police are going to be low profile here, I hope.

But the point remains that we interpret Eastern thought through a Western lens, i.e. your description of Taoism as "meat and potatoes philosophy". — Noble Dust

Don't make me come down to NY and lay some Tao upside your head.

Don't make me come down to NY and lay some Tao upside your head. — T Clark

I haven't checked, but my guess is that it'll be #150 - #200 before we get to the time when Chinese philosophy had any significant impact on the West. Where we are at the moment is Classical Greece and the oriental influences are Mesopotamia, Persia, Egypt, and Judea. The Near East, not the Far East. Lao Tzu was contemporaneous give or take a few centuries, but the influence can only have been very tenuous and indirect gossip along a precursor of the silk road.

I would appreciate particularly the sceptical response to Episode 5: Methodologies for the Study of Magic. — unenlightened

Only read the cover page to the linked to episode but, in case it’s of interest: From my multicultural studies I’ve so far gathered that “magick” is commonly understood amongst modern practitioners (e.g., self-labeled neopagans, witches) as simply being the ability to conform reality (more properly, aspects of it) to one’s will. Hence, if one’s will is to blow one’s nose, one’s being capable of so doing and then so enacting would be a proper, and quite technical, instantiation of magick. Obviously by this, it's deemed commonplace, if not utterly pivotal, to the ordinary occurrence of will-endowed-beings and, by the extension of such interpretation, the world itself can be deemed to be magical (shit and all). From this pov it’s esoteric only in that most people don’t consciously realize they engage in it 24/7. And then it’s considered both “a science and an art” whose details haven’t yet been adequately figured out with any semblance of precision.

TMK, it’s taboo typically applies to monotheistic folk who deem that everything should be done via God’s will: hence magic only via prayer to God who is then the agent that does the deed—this rather than via a spellcasting wherein the spellcaster proclaims “so mote/may it be (this in accordance to one’s own will as agent who does the deed)”. As with most anything in life, those who deem themselves to practice magick affirm that it too can be intended for either good or bad, this depending on the practitioner’s intents. But I reckon the same can be said for prayers as well—which tmk can sometimes take the form of curses upon others.

As to the skepticism, well, causal determinism and physicalism tend to contradict any ontic ability to conform aspects of reality to one’s will, either because everything is deemed to be predetermined in full or because no such thing as the will is deemed to hold ontic reality (instead being deemed illusory).

Mentioning this in attempts to demystify the notion of magic as it is held by modern folk who don’t use the term as a derision - as per magical thinking and such.

(P.s. Me? I too will sometimes blow a runny nose but I don’t make much of it.)

P.s. Me? I too will sometimes blow a runny nose but I don’t make much of it — javra

It's a demon exiting your body! Or perhaps not, though it is a curious historical quirk, originating from superstitious beliefs, that we utter "bless you" when someone sneezes. So as protect the devil from taking the sneezers soul, or so was believed during plague times. In french it's "À vos souhaits". Germans have "gesundheit". Further back, in antiquity, the phrase was "Que Jupiter te conserve!"("may Jupiter keep you!"), or simply "salve" ("health").

If one believed in magic, one might say these phrases are magical incantations. But I don't make much of it either.

I was once quite excited about esotericism; it being secret and all. One way of making a child open a box is to tell her not to. I feel like a a 5 year old and may be deep down I want to get in touch with my younger self.

However, it dawned on me that there are (at least) two reasons why some things are kept under wraps:

1. It's meant only for special people (experienced, wise, good, faithful, and so on).

2. Persecution! Many movements, I'm told, went underground when they were targeted for extermination.

I'm afraid esotericism and the secrecy surrounding it has nothing to do with 1 and all to do with 2. :sad: Disappointing, oui?

I would appreciate particularly the sceptical response to Episode 5: Methodologies for the Study of Magic. However the warning about glamour particularly applies to the sceptic if they assume a superior position. One of the aspects of magic discussed is that of its normativity - magic as foreign/illegitimate religion. The high priests of science have cast out all the demons? Then why are we not in heaven already? — unenlightened

Ok, there's two meanings put forward of the word/concept magic, first order and second order.

The first order meaning revolves around ingroup-outgroup perspectives being taking on some sets of rituals, where in-group rituals are seen as legitimate and out-group rituals as illegitimate, magic... i.e. magic used as a political term. I totally buy that this distinction isn't really justified from a more objective point of view one would want to take on the matter. The fact that some subset of rituals is deemed illegimate however, on the basis of some political/objectively unjustified criterium, doesn't really make one want to re-evaluate the excluded rituals, if one doesn't believe in religious ritual to begin with, legitimate or otherwise,. Put another way, If one is an atheist, it doesn't really matter if it's magic or legitimate religious ritual... both seem equally unpalatable.

Looking for a second order meaning, a more objective meaning one could use as a scholar, seems a lot more difficult. One gets something that remains nebulous at best, as the podcast-host has to admit. It's a word that could denote something like rituals that seek to elicit some effect, maybe or maybe not in connection with the will. So for the skeptic there doesn't seem a whole lot to go on there.

I will say, I do think the practice of rituals, or rather the omission of ritual in Western Philosophy for the most part, is something that does interest me. That's something that is lacking in Western philosophy, which tends to focus on mind/pure thought (forgetting the body). This does get a whole lot more attention in eastern philosophy (rites, meditation, etc.). So I do think this is an important topic, but I would rather want to explore it from a psychological/physiological naturalist point of view, rather than from a magical supra-natural point of view... if that makes sense.

That's something that is lacking in Western philosophy, which tends to focus on mind/pure thought (forgetting the body), and which gets a whole lot more attention in eastern philosophy (rites, meditation, etc.). So I do think this is an important topic, but I would rather want to explore it from a psychological/physiological naturalist point of view, rather than from a magical supra-natural point of view... if that makes sense. — ChatteringMonkey

The esoteric as whatever Western philosophy neglects or denies, is almost a tautology. But I wonder how a naturalist account of the supernatural, or a rational account of the irrational can possibly work. I'll have to wait and see I suppose...

Voodoo magic is pretty easy to explain. They just make you say what you want over and over as if you already have it. It's just the power of an unconflicted will.

I'm sure a lot of magic is like that.

That's something that is lacking in Western philosophy, which tends to focus on mind/pure thought (forgetting the body), and which gets a whole lot more attention in eastern philosophy (rites, meditation, etc.). So I do think this is an important topic, but I would rather want to explore it from a psychological/physiological naturalist point of view, rather than from a magical supra-natural point of view... if that makes sense.
— ChatteringMonkey

The esoteric as whatever Western philosophy neglects or denies, is almost a tautology. — unenlightened

Well I'd say the esoteric is whatever Western tradition ignores.... and Western tradition is more than Western philosophy I suppose, we did have a couple of religions playing a role in our history.

But I wonder how a naturalist account of the supernatural, or a rational account of the irrational can possibly work. I'll have to wait and see I suppose... — unenlightened

Yeah I did and do wonder about that tension too. I'd say at this point in time we did arrive at the conclusion, via reason/empirical data, that the irrational, myth/stories are important for us humans. That's to say the idea that we should be perfectly rational beings was by itself not a very reasonable or scientifically justified conclusion.

The question still remains, how does one deal with the irrational with reason? The answer is, I suppose, one doesn't... one recognizes that ones reason isn't suited for everything and leaves some space for exploration of the irrational via arts, music, practicing rituals etc... Isn't this precisely the problem with the magical or esoteric, that one is still trying to use an essentially rational methodology to things that aren't really suited for it? What I mean is that one is looking at these things as if they have a "literal" meaning, instead of metaphorical meanings.

@Hanover
Without going off topic I am afraid that I do get messages saying, 'Data warning' and that I have used too much data, especially when I have logged into links. Perhaps, Big Brother is watching me and sees my interests as subversive, like the Illuminati 'all seeing eye'!

If one believed in magic, one might say these phrases are magical incantations. — emancipate

Such reactions to sneezes are customary, traditional, and so don’t imply much in terms of magical thinking. But humans are brimming with magical thinking even when they don’t believe in it when asked. Intently talking or else yelling at a TV screen as though one can alter the results of a game by so doing is a common enough example, one that can be enacted by theists and atheist alike. Or else the cursing of an inanimate object when one can’t accomplish what one wants with it; the talking to drivers of other cars that cannot possibly hear you, this when they drive in manners that displease; I’ve seen such magical thinking based behavior enacted by atheists often enough.

The question still remains, how does one deal with the irrational with reason? — ChatteringMonkey

I think that is a false question. Reason declares her other to be irrational, and then deals with her accordingly. Nor is the question of belief important. Think of the golden amulet worn on a particular finger by married folks. No supernatural belief is required for a wedding ring to be important and significant, and those who've not been initiated into the mysteries of marriage cannot really understand, because they have not experienced.

#8, and #9 discuss esoteric orientalism.
#10 is about the beginnings of astronomy/astrology
#11 introduces Judaism

I listened through 0-2 and enjoyed it. I skipped through, looking at episode topics, and it looks like he still hasn't made it out of late antiquity on episode 137 or whatever? I was a little bummed; I was hoping for some in depth episodes on more recent iterations, or even someone pre-renaissance like Bohme.

#12 on the mysteries which are distinguished from ...
#13 & #14 on mysticism.

These are particularly useful efforts at disambiguation - #13 and #14 really good. And then we arrive at #15 The birth of philosophy, which turns out to be a messy affair and saturated with the body-fluids of religion mythology cults and initiations.

#16 Pythagoras. As you have never seen him, devoid of mathematics and the interpretation of Plato and later commentators.

Well if you want, you can listen from the other end. I must say I am more frustrated at the extra members only casts that I cannot access without actually joining the mystery cult. They are staying esoteric!

But seriously, I think even the episodes I have heard already offer a new understanding of modern esoteric revivals, and also the rather bowdlerised history of philosophy that dismisses all this as "irrational".

The more I consider esotericism, the more it seems like it's present in all parts of our lives.

I want to consider for a moment what I will call 'altered states.' We might understand that there is something it is like to be a bat, that we cannot access because we ain't bats and ain't never been bats. Similarly, there is something it is like to be drunk, that one who has never consumed alcohol cannot access. One can talk about the symptoms, slurred speech, unsteady gait, disinhibition, and so on, but the beetle in the box of ecstatic drunkenness is esoteric, and a mystery impenetrable to teetotal sobriety.

And what is true of alcohol, is even more so true of hallucinogens like LSD. The more so because prior beliefs and social setting so radically alter the experience, from heavenly to hellish, and from life-changing to rather dull, from a sense of unity with the world, to total paranoia. I describe, but only initiates will 'be able to relate to' what I say.

Moral knowledge is esoteric knowledge.

The Shadow is hidden in moral knowledge.

The Shadow is hidden in moral knowledge. — frank

Why do you say that? Consider the 10 commandments - an explicit enumeration of the dimensions of the shadow, surely?

Perhaps I need to explain my own aphorism. Moral knowledge is esoteric because it requires an initiation, which is described in the OT as 'The Fall'. It means nothing to the uninitiated, who think it must be a species of desire or some such.

Likewise, Physics. "Shut up and calculate" is the discipline imposed on novices; only when the calculus has been mastered can one begin to discuss the mysteries within understanding.

Perhaps I need to explain my own aphorism. Moral knowledge is esoteric because it requires an initiation, which is described in the OT as 'The Fall'. It means nothing to the uninitiated, who think it must be a species of desire or some such. — unenlightened

The uninitiated state in Genesis is a child-like state where there's no shame for nakedness. The initiation is an exit from this paradise to work, drudgery, pain, murder, and a hope for an always distant redemption and return.

In the older Sumerian version of the story, the uninitiated is a guy who thinks he's an animal. He is brought into a state of limbo by the holy temple whore. He leaves limbo when he learns to eat city food: bread and wine (in some versions). The initiatory meal also establishes Abraham as a priest of the True Religion, and obviously this is also the Last Supper.

Limbo is a fascinating aspect of initiation, where the young man is no longer a child, but not yet an adult.

Clearly, I'll have to listen to this. But in reading (not all that much, really) about Hermes Trismegistus and works attributed to him, it seems they're inconsistent in some respects, and very busy, if you know what I mean. There are all sorts of beings involved, some of whom were, it seems according to one account stuffed into humans as a kind of punishment. It gets a bit confusing. Esoteric knowledge by its nature may be available only to those with skill who have studied deeply confusing matters, but I wonder if it's worth the effort.

I think philosophy is incapable of addressing spiritual matters and that they are more in the realm of art. Mysticism or esotericism is interesting to me to the extent they may address those matters, but one hopes for something simpler. Or at least I do. I think it's difficult to say with any certainty what took place in the ceremonies and rituals of the ancient mystery religions (particularly in the case of Mithraism, which I find fascinating) and I wonder if they were less complicated than they've been made out to be by those who claim to interpret them.

I have now listened up to #37 which completes a series on Plato.

Now back when I was at ninnyversity (early 70's), Plato was presented as the founder of the philosophical method as it is here celebrated. Dialogue, argumentation, logic, and a healthy scepticism for ancient authority and tradition, religion, and anything remotely 'esoteric.

This view was clearly skewed and partial. But not only that, it was modern and novel at the time, and fashion has since moved on, or back, to a more complete and complex view.

The discussion of the divided line story in The Republic, for example, comes in the Republic just at the point in the text of the golden ratio. And the description of the divided line is such as to define the golden ratio. But the ratio is not mentioned.

And then there is Atlantis, a myth originating with Plato as far as is known, that surely ought to make more sense than it does. And, and, and ...

So at the least, there is much weirdness and many things alluded to but not spelled out, but left to the reader to work out.

I am staying esoteric in these comments as instructed, and just leaving a breadcrumb trail of my progress, but feel free to make comments out of sync with me.