Hegel is often seen as obscure and disregarded. However, his emphasis on 'spirit' in history may overcome the basic dualistic understanding inherent in ideas of mind and body; especially in relation to the idea of qualia and its relationship between science and materialism.

In some ways, Hegel may be esoteric, but going beyond the basics of spiritual understanding. Also, in that sense, Nietszche can be seen as esoteric, in the sense of going beyond conventional understanding. It may be that ideas of the 'esoteric' are too boxed into the categories of the challenge between religion and science as a black and white area of philosophical thinking, missing some blindspots, which may go outside of the conventions of metaphysics, into a more fluid picture of ideas.

I wonder about the nature of doubt even though many have feared it. I was brought up to doubt, but I committed the sin of being the doubting Thomas or whatever guise. Where would philosophy stand without doubt and scepticism, as recognised by David Hume.

It is also important to think about desire in relation to esotericism. Some may see desire as a problem, including the basic perspective of Buddhism, which looks at desire as something to be overcome. However, desire may be a starting point for expanded awareness as William Blake argued, especially in 'The Marrriage of Heaven and Hell. Blake even wrote that the reason why Milton 'wrote in fetters' was "because he was part of the devil's party without knowing it'.

In other words, desire may be the opposition or 'demon', which gives rise to conflict in the first place, in the ongoing process of the evolution of consciousness.

Zen is known for this, for example the book Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind.
Also, the Tao Te Ching can be read and (somewhat understood) by nearly anyone in an hour.
In mystic Christianity, Jesus’s encouragement to become as children… etc etc. — 0 thru 9

Zen would be a knowledge that is impossible to demonstrate due to the nature of the knowledge, which is subjective and intuition based.

I have no idea what Tao Teching would be. Never heard of it in my puff.

For Jesus and Christianity, I know very little too. Only thing I know is that Jesus has died, but resurrected in 3 days (hence the Easter day). After the resurrection, we don't know where on earth he has been living. This cries for an esoteric inquiry.

I read a little about the underground religious sector stemmed out of Christianity called Gnosis, which is heavily into pagan rituals. These folks would be deeply into esoteric knowledge.

But it seems evident that none of these folks above would agree to demonstrate their esoteric or mystic knowledge even if they knew what they are.

In some ways, Hegel may be esoteric, but going beyond the basics of spiritual understanding. Also, in that sense, Nietszche can be seen as esoteric, in the sense of going beyond conventional understanding. It may be that ideas of the 'esoteric' are too boxed into the categories of the challenge between religion and science as a black and white area of philosophical thinking, missing some blindspots, which may go outside of the conventions of metaphysics, into a more fluid picture of ideas. — Jack Cummins

I think the notion of esotericity and its meaning (as discussed) is a crucial factor. I also commented on the various aspects of skills and capabilities both in acquiring and expressing understanding. The question is, is esotericity just a function of the difficulty of plumbing those depths, both of knowledge and action, the demonstrated conviction of the belief in the truth of one's knowledge? This is a good summary of a central question for me.

It may also depend on how different the idea of the exoteric and esoteric are and what they entail. The first person who made me aware of the distinction was a school religious studies teacher. However, he was one of the most conventional Catholic thinkers I came across, especially opposed to the validity of comparative religion. I remember him saying that the Buddha believed he was God and mistaken, which seemed to gloss over the nature of spiritual thinking entirely. The teacher was a rigid thinker but I did meet him once later and he had softened so much, speaking of 'how memories come and go', and with what appeared to be far less concrete thinking.

I am inclined to think that concrete thinking is the problem, especially in why people hold onto dogmas, of both religion and science. The exoteric may be about the shared, or intersubjective guidelines for thinking, whereas the esoteric may involve the mysterious nature or conundrums of personal consciousness and its evolution. Each of us is living with the outer boundaries of intersubjective consciousness, tailoring it to the way in which the dramas of life enfold uniquely.

The esoteric thinkers may focus more on the subjective aspects and deviations from cultural norms, especially the development of one's own perspective and signature in the grand scheme of philosophy. It may involve relativism but, with more of an emphasis on lived experience, especially looking beyond the surface of ideas.

In that sense, it is about the unique and individual quest for understanding life and its meaning. It probably goes beyond actual concrete ideas of the nature of 'spirituality' , in a rigid sense, to the mythic aspects of what it means to be human. Here, I am not suggesting that it falls into a framework of Jungian or mythic interpretation, as it may involve the widest aspects of cultural interpretation, and anthropological perspectives.

I am inclined to think that concrete thinking is the problem, especially in why people hold onto dogmas, of both religion and science. — Jack Cummins

I think you are using concrete in a different sense than me though. Being concrete refers to the complete, complex totality which is the now. Any particularization of which is really an abstraction (a dogmatic one, as you note). So from the perspective with which I use the term concrete (the total-synthetic now), dogmatic thought is the opposite of concrete. It is the abstract denying its own abstract nature and pretending to concrete existence (i.e. to be the only comprehensive explanatory scheme).

I guess that even the idea of concrete thinking has varying meanings and associations. I have come across it's used mainly in psychiatry, when referring to the most literalism of ideas. I am sure that your perspective works as well, in relation to the position of 'now' consciousness although time itself is so fluid a concept as change is constant. I am more inclined to view concreteness as taking ideas as af they are physical objects or less subject to evaluation.

My main understanding of its relation to esotericism is that ideas are taken as more fixed entities rather than being juggled and juxtaposed by individuals. So, I would see fluidity as opposed to concreteness as being about ideas as definitive, like Plato's idea of the forms as opposed to arising differently in specific contexts. There is probably an interplay, with the esotericism of Plato being about the 'eternal aspects of meaning, as opposed to the "now'. This may be the opposite of where you are coming from and from the basic paradigm of realism.

Generally, I see realism as being very different to esotericism in its claim to objectivity. Nevertheless, I guess that some esoteric thinkers, such as Plato would see the eternal basis of ideas and processes as aspects of objective 'truth'. That makes this whole area a tricky part of philosophical reasoning.

:smile: :up:

What about this: (politically incorrect warning)
Cold climates that are yin in nature give rise to their opposite, yang investiture.
Warmer climates that are yang in nature give rise to their opposite, yin investiture.
Nature is nothing so much as a force always aiming at least energy balance. — Chet Hawkins

Not exactly sure about the ‘investiture’ part means, but yes… I’d agree that one gives rise to its partner and lover.

I cannot find that yin or yang is more foundational.

In fact the third force that binds them is the only real foundational force. That is anger/essence/being.

Yin is desire and mystery, enveloping and dark.
Yang is fear and excitement, pointed and bright. — Chet Hawkins

Yes, I am maybe adding my own take on Yin being foundational.

However, between Earth and Sky/heaven, Earth is yin. And earth is our home base…
And everyone of us is “of a woman born”, our earthly source so to speak.
(Even Macbeth’s downfall Macduff! :snicker: )

This is what is hard to relate, but I think you touched on it well here. No matter how you wedge the sphere, all wedges partake of the north pole. Finally then, all paths lead via desire to understanding. The trouble is that there is always a more direct path. Or, let's say only one path is direct from any location in the sphere. That path is then, the 'best' one. — Chet Hawkins

Thanks! Sometimes a direct path is best. Sometimes not.
(Just once, I’d love to drive my car in a straight line to my destination, but some fussy people might object to my driving through their yard lol).

But seriously, chasing the unicorn of wisdom can lead one on some unexpected paths.

Exactly! How to get the science types off their high horse though, serving the elites and control rather than ... love ... for lack of a better word. Even love is conflated so badly. I prefer the 'Good'. — Chet Hawkins

I have a sinking feeling that science in general is not as free to meet its own standards as is advertised on TV. Science weighs the evidence, but Money has its finger on the scale.

Knowledge is mostly a yang thing pulled into being by the third force — Chet Hawkins

Yes, that was what I was getting at in general before saying knowledge is on the yang side.

Anger-infused fear. This is where the patterns of the past have already combined into a present. That is the case for knowledge. — Chet Hawkins

You somewhat lost me there… seems a tad too absolute or polemic, for lack of a better word.
Is knowledge always tainted and well, bad?
Knowledge is always incomplete, little bits here and there, maybe it works now.
Maybe everything changes tomorrow, as it often does.

So what is this flimsy knowledge thing anyway? I still prefer the term and the meaning of awareness to knowledge. It seems more accurate and humble, a state, rather than a final destination. — Chet Hawkins

But this I understand and agree with, for what it’s worth.
Regarding knowledge as ‘flimsy’ is a healthy practice.
A skepticism to keep one feet on the ground, and prevent the brain from swelling up with so many facts that one’s head inflates like a helium balloon and floats away to the sky… :starstruck:

Question for you (and anyone else):
How do you see the relationship between good / evil… and Yin / Yang? :chin:

Hegel says that within the development or self-movement of spirit the esoteric becomes exoteric. (Phenomenology of Spirit, Preface, 13) That is, what is at first only known to a few becomes in the completion of its development knowable to all.

Within the all-inclusive circle the implicit in consciousness becomes explicit for consciousness. Hegel gives the following analogy:

However much the embryo is indeed in itself a person, it is still not a person for itself; the embryo is a person for itself only as a culturally formed and educated rationality which has made itself into what it is in itself.

(21)

The embryo begins as something hidden. Through its self-movement it becomes something that is no longer hidden, something that stands out on its own.

This movement takes place in both directions. Science moves from what is outward or exoteric to what is internal and hidden or esoteric. And from what is esoteric or known to the few to what can be known by all.


Nietzsche points to:

The difference between the exoteric and the esoteric, formerly known to philosophers–among the Indians as among the Greeks, Persians, and Muslims — Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 30

What was once known to philosophers, but not to others, was in his own time no longer known even to philosophers. The reason for this that in these cultures:

... people believed in gradations of rank and NOT in equality and equal rights.

... the esoteric class views things FROM ABOVE DOWNWARDS.

Hegel is often seen as obscure and disregarded. — Jack Cummins

"Often seen as" by whom? After Kant, Hegel is probably the most influential philosopher in the Continental tradition (e.g. ... Marx ... Sartre ... Habermas ... Žižek...)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel/#LifWorInf

I wonder about the nature of doubt even though many have feared it. I was brought up to doubt, but I committed the sin of being the doubting Thomas or whatever guise. Where would philosophy stand without doubt and scepticism, as recognised by David Hume. — Jack Cummins

Being comfortable with doubt is wise. I enjoy my doubt as it confirms a lack of certainty, and shows us clearly that the courage of anger is required to stand up even when in doubt. You have to choose and act, on less than perfect information. And that's how it should be. They don't call it the burden of choice for nothing!

It is also important to think about desire in relation to esotericism. Some may see desire as a problem, including the basic perspective of Buddhism, which looks at desire as something to be overcome. — Jack Cummins

I agree and that was my point in some other response in this thread. It's clear the East views passion/desire with skepticism. I do, but that's back to doubt.

Still, embracing desire as useful, just like fear, is super important. Each of the three primal emotions is critical to have and maximize. Each balances the other.

Anger and fear are often misunderstood and denigrated. But desire is held in high esteem in the West, where it needs more restraint. In the East I would argue desire is way too downplayed, denigrated, like the West denigrates anger and fear. Anger especially is vilified and that is wrong, not wisdom at all.

To go with cult sentiment (The Bible, ha ha) here is a quote: 'The kingdom of Heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force!' The point (to me) being really, It's not fear, anger, or desire alone that are the issue. Its whether they are in alignment with objective moral truth, the Good, or not, that is actually important.

However, desire may be a starting point for expanded awareness as William Blake argued, especially in 'The Marrriage of Heaven and Hell. Blake even wrote that the reason why Milton 'wrote in fetters' was "because he was part of the devil's party without knowing it'. — Jack Cummins

Well, I confess I have not read that Milton book. And I honestly can't quite get what Blake was referring to. The Devil's party? Is that a political reference or one related to a topic in the book? I just can't connect on that one. Maybe you know?

In other words, desire may be the opposition or 'demon', which gives rise to conflict in the first place, in the ongoing process of the evolution of consciousness. — Jack Cummins

I do not think to vilify desire either. Denigration of emotion does not help. That is the same mistake I just mentioned where in the West anger and fear are denigrated and in the East desire is denigrated. All of that is old anti-wisdom passing as wisdom. We need a better approach to morality and that is what my coming book is about.

The real trick to morality is first admitting that it has to be objective, and then that genuine happiness is the demonstrable evidence of alignment with the good. The takeaway for moral choice is that increasing moral agency is defined as maximized fear, anger, and desire, all three, balanced for wisdom. That is the path, the only path, to the good.

Anger-infused fear. This is where the patterns of the past have already combined into a present. That is the case for knowledge.
— Chet Hawkins

You somewhat lost me there… seems a tad too absolute or polemic, for lack of a better word.
Is knowledge always tainted and well, bad? — 0 thru 9

Polemic, yes. That is anger, maximized. If it is correctly stated, then it should be fervent and aggressively stated. Mean what you say, because I sure do.

Yes, all choice is partially bad. And as mentioned the word 'knowledge' is already in error compared to the derivative term, 'being aware'. So that is two wrongs already. Both issues relate to the unattainable nature of perfection. The first in that the only certainty we have is that we are never exactly correct (perfect). And the second is, knowing this, we must properly eschew the term 'knowledge' because it implies the immoral certainty of knowing instead of 'being aware'.

Now you might contend I am splitting hairs here, but I have the beer-infused shampoo to handle that. They have to come together. Now we just need a song for that. Oh wait ...

It's the stance, the attitude of wisdom, that is often missing. Even if there is some understanding, it is not enough. We could always do better. And the day to day people go about their business at the mean, and that is not even the Aristotelean mean, sadly. Its more like a lowbrow average, the practical minimum effort required to 'get er done'. So sad!

Knowledge is always incomplete, little bits here and there, maybe it works now.
Maybe everything changes tomorrow, as it often does. — 0 thru 9

Exactly. Openness to change is the actual ideal. It acknowledges that conclusions are immoral. There is only one conclusion in this universe and that is perfection, the good. You could also say love and in doing so you are instead embracing the entire system, free will as a base, that ideally leads to the objective good via wise choice(s).

I love it when people quote the definition for insanity. Clueless people do this all the time. It's a great example of Pragmatic aphorisms that are anti-wisdom, really. You've heard it, surely: 'Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results' is often called the definition of insanity. Wrong! Doing the same thing over and over again and REMAINING OPEN to possibly different results is called the Scientific Method. Think about it. Honest readers will be shocked. It's true though. So many typical purveyors of wisdom are anything but, and often these same types will declare someone like me a sophist. Hilarious!

Here is another one for you, and these are all from me, pearls cast, and hopefully not before swine, 'The one-eyed man is king in the land of the blind!' Nope! Not even close. He is deemed insane for speaking about 'visions' and 'colors', delusional things that do not exist to almost everyone. See the series 'See' with Jason Momoa as Baba Voss for confirmation of this anti-wisdom aphorism as nonsense that most people would still say is wisdom. Real wisdom is hard. It's esoteric and full of strangeness that in the end is truth.

The wise are deemed insane by the unwise, because they understand in a meta-level way that others simply cannot usually grasp.

So what is this flimsy knowledge thing anyway? I still prefer the term and the meaning of awareness to knowledge. It seems more accurate and humble, a state, rather than a final destination.
— Chet Hawkins

But this I understand and agree with, for what it’s worth.
Regarding knowledge as ‘flimsy’ is a healthy practice.
A skepticism to keep one feet on the ground, and prevent the brain from swelling up with so many facts that one’s head inflates like a helium balloon and floats away to the sky… :starstruck: — 0 thru 9

Exactly! Bring the fear types, the nerds, and double that for any academics, down a peg or two. Doubt is required of the humble. That is wisdom.

Question for you (and anyone else):
How do you see the relationship between good / evil… and Yin / Yang? :chin: — 0 thru 9

It's leading, provocative and the answer is rather dull and obvious.

Fear and Desire, yang and yin, both require the balancing foundational force of anger to balance them. So the yin/yang model is woefully incomplete. Add in the third force and you start to make sense.

But even then there is another issue. I mentioned it earlier in this post.

The good is MAXIMIZED and balanced fear, anger, and desire. The higher the moral agency the more of each is expressed. And the good only happens best in perfect balance. That means yin and yang MUST be equal in all things. And the balancing foundational force must also be equal. That is the only path to the good.

Question for you (and anyone else):
How do you see the relationship between good / evil… and Yin / Yang? :chin: — 0 thru 9

From what I take to be the Taoist perspective, or at least my own take of it, the good is found in harmony between yin and yang which then serves as a return to Wuji—Wuji being in the Taoist cosmology the nameless Tao which produces the One, from which is produced the Two, from which is produced the Three, from which all things are produced. Bad, and by extension evil, for me is then a discord, or disharmony, between yin and yang.

To say that good is a harmony between yang-as-good and yin-as-bad, or similar takes, to me so far makes no sense. As though too much good is then bad? But good is a balance between them?

And I so far interpret these latter type of interpretations to be heavily influenced by western or else westernized thought: wherein light (hence yang) symbolizes good and shadow/darkness (hence yin) symbolizes bad.

But consider snow blindness—or, more technically, any condition where one would witness only whiteness/light in the complete absence of darkness/shadows. This creates an inability to see just as much as complete darkness does. So understood, neither light/yang nor darkness/yin would of itself be bad when balanced with the other: in balance, they are good together. This while both become bad (and by extension maybe evil … such as in causing temporary blindness) when out of balance with its dyad.

Sorta gets back to the notion of the metaphors one lives by.

---

I see this is in rough agreement to 's comments.

----

ps. made a number of typos in haste. Corrected what I've found.

From what I take to be the Taoist perspective, or at least my own take of it, the good is found in harmony between yin and yang which then serves as a return to Wuji—Wuji being in the Taoist cosmology the nameless Tao which produces the One, from which is produced the Two, from which is produced the Three, from which all things are produced. Bad, and by extension evil, for me is then a discord, or disharmony, between yin and yang. — javra

I agree. It's clear Taoism and my own model are close. I do not know Taoism. But the sort brief you give on it makes this somewhat clear. Thank you.

To say that good is a harmony between yang-as-good and yin-as-bad, or similar takes, to me so far makes no sense. As though too much good is then bad? But good is a balance between them? — javra

Agreed. That makes no sense. ;)

And I so far interpret these latter type of interpretations to be heavily influenced by western or else westernized thought: wherein light (hence yang) symbolizes good and shadow/darkness (hence yin) symbolizes bad. — javra

Sadly, yes, although as anyone with a pulse can notice, things, they are a changing! The move from yang to yin in the West is epic and actually now overbalanced. Chaos/desire is on the rise, and the chaos proponents have no idea where balance is, so they are #ourturn burning the house down also, just with yin instead of yang. Not good! No, not good at all!

But consider snow blindness—or, more technically, any condition where one would witness only whiteness/light in the complete absence of darkness/shadows. This creates an inability to see just as much as complete darkness does. So understood, neither light/yang nor darkness/yin would of itself be bad when balanced with the other: in balance, they are good together. This while both become bad (and by extension maybe evil … such as in causing temporary blindness) when out of balance with its dyad. — javra

Amen my Daoshi brother or sister or they, choose your delusion.

Sorta gets back to the notion of the metaphors one lives by. — javra

And the collective 'we' need to erase these delusions. I do not think they help. True balance is obtained only amid the polarity that leads to the trinary nature of reality. Nature did not specify and qualify diversity in this way by accident. We might do better, but I kind of doubt it. Still, any arrangement of the entities is fine so long as real wisdom is the goal.

I see this is in rough agreement to ↪Chet Hawkins's comments. — javra

Thank you, yes. There is accord.

ps. made a number of typos in haste. Corrected what I've found. — javra

Maybe so, but your meaning is solid and not mistaken.

Thanks much for the reply.

Amen my Daoshi brother or sister or they, choose your delusion. — Chet Hawkins

:grin:

I’m myself a perennialist, meaning I choose to belief that most mystical experiences—from the globally shamanic to those strictly contextualized by either Western or Eastern thought—and the multitude of various religions these have often enough brought about, address a universally applicable but hard to express truth, what has sometimes been simply termed “the Real”. And that interpretations of what’s been said of these experiences often enough get polluted by inappropriate projections—such as can be exemplified by Westerners construing the light and dark of the yang and yin to signify goodness and badness, respectively. To not here get into the unscrupulous use of such esoteric knowledge (or, maybe better yet, understanding … either way, this being an aspect of direct awareness) for authoritarian purposes by others that lust for power; needless to add, this without having the given awareness concerned: wherein unscrupulous ignorants present themselves as infallible authorities regarding such knowledge, infallible authorities which deem that they are to be blindly obeyed at risk of an otherwise incurred grave pain and suffering. (To me, one blatant example of this is that JC the peace-loving mystic in comparison to too many a pope and priest serving the role of the unscrupulous ignorant who lusts for authoritarian power.)

Perennialism is quite the expansive topic and, ever the fallibilist, I don't claim to have any infallible knowledge regarding it. But getting back to the quote, while I don’t mean to here argue for perennialism, this nevertheless being my chosen belief, I view Daoism as one more path upon the same mountain toward the mountain’s universally applicable zenith—this traveled toward zenith at the same time being the very ground which all religions have in common, though each religion/path interprets this same zenith in sometimes vastly different manners.

Basically, while I acknowledge Daoism, I don’t deem myself to be a Daoist ... in the strict sense of the term at least.

And as to my label for my own gender, I’ll add that I'm an old-school “male”. :smile: Closest I can get to more modern libertarian views on gender in regard to my own self is to consider myself a butch lesbian stuck in a male’s body. :wink: No complaints with that. :razz:

Maybe all this is much ado about nothing, but I thought it worthwhile to express all the same. :grin:

Still, any arrangement of the entities is fine so long as real wisdom is the goal. — Chet Hawkins

:100:

Polemic, yes — Chet Hawkins

Ok thanks for identifying it. Nothing wrong with a little polemic for spice.

Here is another one for you, and these are all from me, pearls cast, and hopefully not before swine, 'The one-eyed man is king in the land of the blind!' Nope! Not even close. He is deemed insane for speaking about 'visions' and 'colors', delusional things that do not exist to almost everyone. See the series 'See' with Jason Momoa as Baba Voss for confirmation of this anti-wisdom aphorism as nonsense that most people would still say is wisdom. Real wisdom is hard. It's esoteric and full of strangeness that in the end is truth. — Chet Hawkins

Haha, yes I know what you mean. I think every culture attempts to produce members that will continue that specific culture. In a way similar to each organism trying its best to survive and reproduce.
Nothing wrong with that, in fact it’s why we’re all here now with millions of other organisms.

But what happens when the culture is going off the rails, headed for a collision?
It seems the best one can do is to understand the situation and roots of the problem, while surviving.
Maybe the esoteric understanding humans need to know most urgently is ‘how did humanity get to this point?’ And ‘what can I (or we) do about it?’

Humans are in a physical calamity with nature, but also one concerning awareness, thinking, and beliefs.

Fear and Desire, yang and yin, both require the balancing foundational force of anger to balance them. So the yin/yang model is woefully incomplete. Add in the third force and you start to make sense.

But even then there is another issue. I mentioned it earlier in this post.

The good is MAXIMIZED and balanced fear, anger, and desire. The higher the moral agency the more of each is expressed. And the good only happens best in perfect balance. That means yin and yang MUST be equal in all things. And the balancing foundational force must also be equal. That is the only path to the good. — Chet Hawkins

From what I take to be the Taoist perspective, or at least my own take of it, the good is found in harmony between yin and yang which then serves as a return to Wuji—Wuji being in the Taoist cosmology the nameless Tao which produces the One, from which is produced the Two, from which is produced the Three, from which all things are produced. Bad, and by extension evil, for me is then a discord, or disharmony, between yin and yang.

To say that good is a harmony between yang-as-good and yin-as-bad, or similar takes, to me so far makes no sense. As though too much good is then bad? But good is a balance between them? — javra

Excellent answers, both of you! :cool: :up: Thanks for the responses and effort! Much appreciated.

I was wondering if anyone here still held on (even subconsciously) to the ‘bright yang is good, dark yin is evil’ belief.
Glad to hear that you don’t fall for that odd mixture of Zorastrian / Abrahamic ‘good vs evil’, and the completely different Tao, the way of nature and of the Universe.
(Not to say a mythic dramatization of ‘good vs evil’ is not potentially helpful. As long as one isn’t scapegoating and projecting one’s own faults onto someone else).

I started a thread to discuss the way our current civilization has gone awry, and what kinds of thinking (old and new) could help, if anyone wishes to continue that particular conversation.

I guess that even the idea of concrete thinking has varying meanings and associations. — Jack Cummins

Yes it does. Think of the relationship between the word (concept) concrete and actual concrete. Concrete is what it does, it is its function. It is solid, it binds together. But actual concrete is a complex amalgam of diverse formulae, including contaminants. What is actually concrete (i.e. what exemplifies the concept) is actual concrete, including all of its apparently contingent features, adulterants, contaminants. Reality overflows our attempts to encapsulate it. Concrete is what fuses the disparate. What is identical cannot be (therefore does not need to be) more fused than it already is. This is how Collingwood differentiates the abstract unity of a set (a unity of abstractly identical entities) versus the concrete unity of a world, a unity of unique, discrete identities.

Your way of understanding 'concrete' is useful and important, and another approach which is particularly important in relation to esotericism is the understanding of the inner and outer aspects of life, including Jacob Boehme's thinking and other writers, like Meister Eckhart, who spoke of, 'Heaven and hell are within oneself and are to one another as nothing'. The idea of heaven and hell as inner experience are different from the conventional religious understanding of a spatio-temporal dimension in an afterlife, detached from the body.

Jonathan Black, in 'The Secret History of the World' makes reference to the idea of subjectivity and objectivity spoken of by Julian Jaynes in 'The Bicameral Mind: The Origins of Consciousness'. Jaynes spoke of how at one stage of consciousness the division between the inner and outer was not clear, with so much being projected onto gods or God. This is very different from the state of present consciousness, in which the psychological dimension is understood and it is important for considering the nature of concrete thinking in which the differentiation of the inner and outer aspects are extremely blurred.

Jonathan Black, in 'The Secret History of the World' makes reference to the idea of subjectivity and objectivity spoken of by Julian Jaynes in 'The Bicameral Mind: The Origins of Consciousness'. Jaynes spoke of how at one stage of consciousness the division between the inner and outer was not clear, with so much being projected onto gods or God. This is very different from the state of present consciousness, in which the psychological dimension is understood and it is important for considering the nature of concrete thinking in which the differentiation of the inner and outer aspects are extremely blurred. — Jack Cummins

I guess I am assuming that nature of concrete thinking is related to thinking about the nature of the concrete. I recall discussing Jaynes' theory with my Chaucer professor at an end of term gathering at his home in Rosedale in 1988. I do know it involves the hypothesis that the hemispheres of the brain were not fully integrated thousands of years ago, so that communications between them were perceived as messages which might have been interpreted as coming from gods.

The way in which you combine Hegel and the idea of Hegel is especially useful for considering the concept of the 'supernatural'. It may have led to so so much confusion about an 'out there' zone, separate from experience itself. It may elevate religious and spiritual experiences beyond the realms of nature.

If anything, some aspects of esotericism may seem to reinforce this, such as mysticism as being transcendent, as well as the idea of esotericism as being the 'special' experience of the 'elite' initiates, and detached from imminent experience, including numinous experiences.

When thinking of the concept of the supernatural, one book which I thought to be extremely important is Lyall Watson's, Supernature'. In this work, Watson sees the division between biological nature and so called 'supernatural ' experiences to be be problematic. He argues that sensory and extrasensory experiences may be misunderstood by trying to separate them from the understanding of nature and biology. The underlying idea being that the idea of the supernatural and magic itself may be unhelpful.

Going back to Hegel, in his writing, including his writing on the nature of mind and history, he may have been such an important thinker as seeing reality as imminent, as opposed to transcendent.

Hegel is often seen as obscure and disregarded. However, his emphasis on 'spirit' in history may overcome the basic dualistic understanding inherent in ideas of mind and body; especially in relation to the idea of qualia and its relationship between science and materialism.

Yes, this is a key pillar of his thought. Hegel saw that it was a mistake to try to reduce all of being to the objective. He resisted the modern tendency to say that only what can be quantified truly exists, the reduction of all being to the language of mathematical physics. He also resisted the contrary tendency towards subjective idealism and relativism, seeing this as a path to solipsism and away from truth.

In Hegel, the objective and subjective, nature and mind, are just parts of a greater whole. Neither can be reduced to the other because neither fully exhausts the limits of being. Both are categories within the greater, all encompassing realm of the "Absolute."

The truth is the whole, encompassing both sides of the subjective/objective equation. The truth of the horrors of World War II or the sublimity of Dante's verse can't be summed up in a phase space map of "all the particles" involved in either. Neither is the truth of an oak tree simply an individual's experience of it. Both sides of being lie within the orbit of a greater whole.

But things are only known through mind, and mind is itself subject to greater world-historical tends. Individuals are the accidents of world historic institutions and movements. The universals that shape mind evolve overtime. E.g., the communism of Karl Marx in 1848 is not the communism of our modern era. Likewise, even out understanding of concrete universals like species and genus has evolved with time.

However, I wouldn't say that Hegel was particularly esoteric. He was obscure, to be sure, and at times a very unable communicator for his ideas, but his is still ultimately a philosophy of intelligibility and rationality, albeit one with a sympathy for the mystic.

---
To the original question in the thread, I don't think the mystics can be fully fathomed through philosophical analysis. Saint John of the Cross, Jacob Boheme, Meister Eckhart, Thomas Merton — these authors can be examined with the tools of philosophy, but ultimately there is a practical element in what they speak of that doesn't fit with what is generally termed "philosophy," (though this element was an essential part of ancient philosophy).

What they speak of can be understood, but not known. Saint John of the Cross talks of darkness needing to engulf reason that faith might light the apophatic way to divine emptiness. The anonymous English author of "The Cloud of Unknowing," states that a cloud of total forgetting must lie between the soul and all things to glimpse the divine "darkness above the light." These, writers, Pseudo Dionysius, etc. might be engaged with on a philosophical level, but that will only ever reveal half the story. A person who reads John of the Cross but who does not fast and reject comforts, who does not deny the self and grow "poor in spirit," is like a person who reads "The Freedom of the Hills," learns about the techniques of rappelling and building anchors, but has never scaled a single cliff or reached a single alpine summit. It seems to me like a "Mary's Room," type difference, the difference between "reading about," and doing, or of "knowing of," and "being."

Mystical literature is often written precisely to produce such experiences, to insert the experiences of the adept into the head of the reader. But this isn't successful if they are approached in a detached manner.

I do think it's important to distinguish between the obscure or purposely vague and the experiential though. "Esoteric" can refer to the vague as well, but it's a different sort of thing from the mystical.

Mystical literature is often written precisely to produce such experiences, to insert the experiences of the adept into the head of the reader. But this isn't successful if they are approached in a detached manner. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Plotinus offers a good example of that as his "contemplation" is a training for experiencing beauty. It is interesting how he opposed the Gnostics who had their own set of practices for personal 'liberation.' Different views of struggle in the world frame the experiences. Plotinus says this, for instance:

The All is a single living being which encompasses all the living beings within it. . . . This one universe is all bound together in shared experience and is like one living creature, and that which is far is really near. . . . And since it is one living thing and all belongs to a unity nothing is so distant in space that it is not close enough to the one living thing to share experience. — Ennead 4.4.32

It is possible that in everyday terms people often muddle the idea of esoteric and obscurity, even to the point where philosoph itself is seen as esoterica in comparison with what is seen as conventional logic or thinking. That in itself may make life idea of the esoteric in philosophy as a confusing area, a little outside of the main area of thinking about the nature of mind.

Also, because it combines issues of mind and consciousness with issues which could be seen as being the territory of the philosophy of religion, or transcendent reality, makes it complicated. Some of the writers on mysticism don't help this by the emphasis on going beyond language, because philosophy is involved with conceptual and linguistic understanding.

One of the books which I have found to be fairly helpful in this respect is 'Cosmic Consciousness', by Robert Bucke, because he writes case studies of certain individuals experiences, which includes many great creative individuals as opposed to framing it in a specifically religious or spiritual perspective.

The way you describe the difference between the Gnostics and Plotinus, demonstrates the divergences in esotericism. In particular, it points to the way in which attitudes to the body are viewed.

Many esoteric thinkers have been in favour of contemplation, meditation and going beyond the body' in the development of the spirit, especially the rejection of the 'higher' self rather than the 'lower' self. Gnosticism is a little different and tension over how the body and sexuality may be viewed. Similarly, tantric thinking has a very different approach here to some other Eastern esoteric schools of thinking.

This means that the esoteric traditions have many intricacies in connection with philosophy. Plotinus was a significant writer and his influence affected ideas within religious and philosophical thinking, and its complex interplay. There are probably so many crossovers, involving the transition of ideas crossculturally on an esoteric level as well as in organised religion.

Jaynes' theory is also important for thinking about psychosis itself because it also suggests that people heard voices. Even within psychiatry there is a recognition of differences between hallucinations and pseudo hallucinations.

At times, I have had pseudo hallucinations, such as on the borderline of sleep. However, when I experimented with LSD briefly I did hear literal.voices, which seemed to correspond with my own thoughts. It did make understanding between inner and outer experience very confusing.

It does seem to suggest a very deep neuropsychological basis for understanding of the nature of reality. It probably also connects with the ideas of Iain Gilchrist in 'The Master and the Emissary', which looks at hemispheres in conjunction with developments in thinking, including the history of philosophy itself.

I agree that views of the 'body' seem to always be in the different narratives. I was taking the Count's remarks about detachment as an invitation to see experiences as a life beyond their various descriptions and that relationship makes comparisons even more difficult than is presented by different theories of the real. I do believe that different practices lead to different experiences, but I am very much limited by what I can attempt as my experiment. The sense of boundaries in this regard does not give me a geography of other places. I question the idea of a global view that would permit such a map. I submit the example of how slippery "materialism" is in different narratives as evidence for my case.

The way in which you combine Hegel and the idea of Hegel is especially useful for considering the concept of the 'supernatural'. It may have led to so so much confusion about an 'out there' zone, separate from experience itself. It may elevate religious and spiritual experiences beyond the realms of nature. — Jack Cummins

So, without a quote whom you are responding to is unclear. I will take this as general discussion then. But your 'you' is no one in particular here.

So, at time you seem to be saying that you think Hegel is onto something (e.g. correct) about the supernatural being imminent (e.g. accessible and natural), in which case I agree. Then at times you say religious and spiritual things are 'elevated' beyond the realms of nature, in the same paragraph even. I disagree. I too realize there is a nature juxtaposition or Hegelian dichotomy here. But, for me, and given what you seem to be saying most, for your interpretation of Hegel as well, there is NOT an assertion finally that anything we experience is not within reality. That is my assertion also. Clearly, any experience we have is within reality.

Dividing 'reality' into parts is always an immoral error of fear. Fear, the limiting force, is trying in its excitement to separate in order to understand. The concept of reduction is a fear process (like all thought). The person at real harmony with truth does not do this willingly except as an experiment, for example. Such a person correctly keeps their understanding of unity in place even as they pretend to separate connected issues. The synthesis is respected before the dichotomy that produced it is examined. There was an origin to reduce from, and the polite and aware observer is not allowed to disregard that unity.

If anything, some aspects of esotericism may seem to reinforce this, such as mysticism as being transcendent, as well as the idea of esotericism as being the 'special' experience of the 'elite' initiates, and detached from imminent experience, including numinous experiences. — Jack Cummins

This is a mistake in thinking, to me. This tendency to separate 'for real' in one's thoughts is dangerous and the immoral error of fear.

Also here again, as usual, is the conflation of the two types of worthinesses, a central error within reality. The intrinsic worthiness of all, of each piece of reality is built in, it being an inseparable part of all. But the functional worthiness of each piece depends upon the locus of choice, the delusional entity we refer to as the self.

When you speak of elites that have a different skillset than ... the non-elites, when you speak even of their special experience, you are not, repeat not, saying anything other than they are more aware of the unity that is the synthesis. Any, repeat any delusional locus of choice (ego, self) is only and always sitting amid the same experience effectively as any other. It is not, repeat not the amount of metichlorians in the bloodstream that are causal to this effect. It is the effort of the execution of free will only. Morality's best indicator is the effort put into the choice made. That is the MAXIMAL part of my argument before.

Further, there is nothing at all magical about this. It simply stands to basic reasoning that the more and more virtues you tie in to a single choice made by the locus of choice, the harder and harder, the more effort, that choice would take. Think of it as a reverse gravity north pole on a sphere and this image is particularly compelling. It works very well as a visual aid. I still think it's too simple but for that you might have to read my book. So, divide the sphere into discreet wedges (also delusional). After all the only non-delusion is perfection, unity, all, God, whatever you prefer to call that thing, all of it. Now draw straight lines up at least, but maybe hyperbolically outward into the void in which the sphere is suspended in your mind. You end up in one case with a cylinder with one half sphere at the bottom, or in the hyperbolic case with a kind of circular pyramidal structure with indeed a partial sphere as its bottom. The length of any line drawn making either is similar to effort in the northern direction. That is the direction of the good. But now the real task is shown.

The original north pole of the sphere, as 'high' as any point in our dual model (straight and hyperbolic paths both shown). But that perfection is only a single point. Now we are left wondering what all that space is around it if that space is not perfection also. It is not perfection is my assertion. Why?

The why is the effort is hard. Think of effort now as gravity, but its clearly reverse gravity is it not? As things or choices, actions, become more and more hard they are less and less likely to be chosen. Your non-elites in your paragraph above are unwilling (not unable finally) to expend the effort to do the right thing. They remain 'blilssfully' unaware. And there are so many of them, that the wise elites, the more aware ones, are thus made rare. Quelle suprise!

The trick is that all, repeat all virtues are required to be at their highest effort to reach perfection. Leave out even one and we miss the point (quite literally in the model and figuratively in speech). That combination of literal and figurative is a hint at that same nature of perfection itself. The nature of the Hegelian dichotomy is another clear hint. Depending on the way a circle is measured how many 'units' are contained in its circumference? We could restate Zeno's paradox here but it to simply follows the demands of my model, of the sphere model. The now "Standard Solution" for that paradox is to accept that the runner can, repeat can complete the effort of passing through all those infinities. This is nothing at all but the infinite nature of choice itself, a law of the universe.

What Achilles needs to run through the infinities is effort. The effort simply must touch on and utilize as many virtues as the hero can bring to bear on subjective experience. Somewhere amid that effort enough is enough and each infinity is crossed. The reason why each limit of fear, each delusional barrier is crossed, is that one virtue is transcendent and unifying to another. When we consider the limit of one virtue, the other virtue makes easy progress. This is the very nature of reality itself.

Thus it is the effort missing in the non-elites that is the immorality. It would likewise be an immoral choice to assume that the non-elites are not capable, them being possessed of the same infinitude of choice, but merely choosing to put in less effort. All of reality fits this model.

When thinking of the concept of the supernatural, one book which I thought to be extremely important is Lyall Watson's, Supernature'. In this work, Watson sees the division between biological nature and so called 'supernatural ' experiences to be be problematic. He argues that sensory and extrasensory experiences may be misunderstood by trying to separate them from the understanding of nature and biology. The underlying idea being that the idea of the supernatural and magic itself may be unhelpful. — Jack Cummins

As mentioned, I entirely agree with this. The problem is that separation, reduction, etc deny the synthesis of unity which is the only thing that really finally is in existence. All the smoke and mirrors of failed choices within the subjective realm cloud the proper grasp of perfection. That is precisely because it takes perfect effort to arrive at perfection. There is no other reason.

Perfect effort is so hard that even the best of us now elite thinkers on it are probably tragicomically wrong in our assessments of it. We should remain doubtful of even our best efforts because the maintenance of that doubt is the fear amplitude necessary for proper awareness and preparation, even joy itself. To seek comfort and lower the excitement of doubt/fear is immoral cowardice defined.

Going back to Hegel, in his writing, including his writing on the nature of mind and history, he may have been such an important thinker as seeing reality as imminent, as opposed to transcendent. — Jack Cummins

Again, I simply agree. There is nothing about perfection that is not accessible to every moral agent. We are to blame for everything at all times without exception. It only takes greater effort from us amid choice to 'get past' our immoral failure of laziness.

PS: Structure often contains a built in ease to facilitate moral agency. This is why humans exist as opposed to only the hydrogen atom. So, my earlier example of mitichlorians may be wrong, probably is wrong. The development of mitichlorians would then be, when they develop, a terrible thing that the observers can find that would then suggest to them incorrectly that only such entities could use the force (infinite choice). What is present in the immoral choice/belief that should not be is again the limited and limiting nature of fear's immoral cowardice. In 'seeing' more, in being more 'aware', the fear type limits all of reality and cut's off the rest as insufficient. This is the cowardly mistake of fear. It's trivial to understand, once you accept it. The 'elite' observer might then proclaim 'These Jedi are beyond normal humans! These elites are superior!' And the elites would be right. But they are only right in one limited and immoral way. That is that functionally there is more agency baked in to the Jedi than to someone without such concentrations of mitichlorians in their blood. And the mistake is that this cannot be then used to declare intrinsic worthiness is some kind of sham, that the elites are superior period and finally (they are not). The infinite choice still exists in the lesser form(s) and must be acknowledged and harmonized with. Drawing the line is the mistake. The limit of fear is the mistake, finally. Respect the synthesis as a first principle!

I am sorry that I do not quote in my replies. It is because it does not seem possible on my particular model of phone. I would probably need to be able to connect it to a mouse, like on a laptop. Also, your answers are good insofar as they are detailed but make many varying points so I would probably feel I need to make more than one post to address them. Saying that, I hope that my posts don't come across as totally lacking, as I do see writing on a forum.as being different to fuller forms of writing. Some write extremely short replies and I tend towards neither extremes.

As far as Hegel and the idea of the imminent I think that there is an ambiguity in how he views it. In some ways, he leans towards naturalism but not in the way that most people do in the Twentieth First century and that is probably a reflection of his own historic context. He was leading the way in coming out of grand metaphysical dramas and schemes but was prior to the paradigm of current scientific thinking. In this, he was involved in a process of demystification but this picture was only just starting to appear. Since then, it has become far more prominent with so many shifts backwards and forwards in many ways.

Regarding the idea of the whole and the parts, it may be a mixed issue. To go beyond academic thinkers it is a bit like the song by the Waterboys of seeing, 'The Whole of the Moon', which may be symbolic of the issue. In esotericism, patterns and correspondences, as in the pictures of astrology. It also involves the idea of the microcosm as a reflection of the microcosm, which goes back to the thinking of Plato.

As far as seeing the whole, this may be challenged by the idea of pluralism and the various viewpoints of the observers. Some may see there being a 'perfect' or attainment of perfection, but whether this exists objectively is open to dispute. Members of spiritual disciplines may believe in perfection but the idea of elitism is a particular issue. Certain thinkers may have seen their own view as 'superior', but it does raise questions about the politics of knowledge. In relation to esotericism, there may have been power elites who were able to maintain such positions. For example, in Catholicism, there was the power of the Vatican. In this way, the 'secret knowledge' may have maintained elitism, as opposed to those who lacked knowledge, which was more predominant when education was less accessible to those at the bottom of the hierarchies of power.

As far as fear comes in, fear operates in different subtle ways. It can lead to the acceptance of the norm, but it can be used as a political tool. There may have been an interplay, such as in the idea of the way in which ideas of heaven and hell were transmitted as being about everlasting reward or punishment rather than as mental states of bliss or agony.