The nature of dreams may raise the scope of 'mind' and 'consciousness' beyond daily life experiences and understanding. There is a twilight zone, especially in the realm of borderline states of consciousness. Dreams may be seen as fantasy but some unusual states of mind, such as near death experiences may be held to be of greater validity. It is such a speculative area, in relation to the nature of inner experience and what this signifies on a larger scale of objectivity. The subjective experiences of spirits or 'God' may be dismissed or held as as a starting point for so much more philosophically?

The question of dreams, fantasy and idealism may be important here, especially in connection with opposite perspectives, which may involve a reductionist approach, 'flat' thinking, and even nihilism. It is questionable as to what extent nihilism views nihilism. Is everything in life viewed as 'nothing of significance'? Are dreams to be reduced to psychological experience and what does psychological experience amount to? Are dreams a mere aspect of fabricated illusion or an essential aspect of fantasy, as higher aspirations, goals and values?

One aspect of the idea of ghosts and spirits would be the idea of disembodied 'minds'. My initial understanding and reading of philosophy incorporated this, especially in the idea of life after death. However, on a gradual progression of thinking, I have come to see this as problematic, especially in relation to ideas of consciousness, including life after death. It would seem to suggest a form of dualism, with some kind of entity of 'self' or 'mind', as an 'immortal' being, which is so questionable.

Of course, the matter is far from simple, as the 'spark of consciousness' cannot be reduced to matter alone and the question of the primacy of matter or spirit remains at the core of philosophical debate. Consciousness itself may make the issue far more complicated than many thinkers, especially determinists, may acknowledge.

In the first place, my linking ideas of the esoteric with philosophy is meant to involve critical thinking about it as opposed to complete acceptance. I came to this philosophy site after a complex mixture of esoteric and philosophy reading without having thought about some underlying contradictions. For example, I embraced existentialism, postmodernism and theosophy. Such ideas probably don't fit together well.

As far as the 'beyond' it may come down to how many dimensions exist. It may be that reality is multidimensional, according to each perceiver's point of view and its shifting nature. This would not be transcendental but imminent, although it is possible that there is cosmic consciousness, which may be more about Maslow's idea of peak experiences, self-actualization and creativity.

Poetry may be one way of going 'beyond', as well as other forms of art. Both making and viewing aspects of art may have a transformational effect. I am inclined to listen to music in that way, almost meditating to it or using it to enter alternate states of consciousness. I have had moments of synthasesia without taking any hallucinogenics. There is meant to be a physical basis, as opposed to spiritual one, for synthasesia, as a result of the nodules in the brain for the development of the senses, especially sight and sound having a common origin.

I am not sure that the risk of being seen as an outsider is the biggest risk of following an esoteric philosophy. The risk would be of being mistaken if it involves extreme ideas.

Changes in lifestyle may accord with following a tradition, but that applies to religion if taken seriously. I remember when I was going to Christian Union when I was a student, all the things which were considered to be wrong morally. In particular, sp much music that I liked was considered as 'wrong' to listen to..

Generally, there is more tolerance in some groups, with less emphasis on 'sin' as such. Changes in lifestyle may involve abstaining from alcohol, vegetarian or veganism. Of course, there is the point where someone joins a sect or a cult, but that is a bit different, and most esoteric thinkers are more likely to attend meditation groups. Also, most people who take an interest read or blend ideas.

Of course, there may some dangerous ideas and I am familiar with there being some concern that the ideas of Alestair Crowley being dangerous. Also, there may be dangers of confusion due to dabbling with ideas like fortune telling and astral projection.

I am inclined to agree @Pantagruelabout the limitations of 'the mundane'. It seems such a 'flat perspective'. Of course, I am not wishing to go into a fantasy world of the 'hidden', and a lot does come down to what is 'true, as well as what works as a philosophy to live by and with.

I am not sure that there is any absolute objective meaning and it may come down to Victor Frankl's point of finding meaning in daily existence, including suffering. So some of the ideas to which each of us gravitated towards may be about subjective choice. Saying that, I am not wishing to suggest that psychological biases are the main basis for belief. They may contribute to what paths of thinking one goes down, but it does involve reason as well.

Personally, I wish to pursue ideas from the exoteric and the esoteric because I am not sure that 'truth', logical or psychological can be split into one or other categories. So, I see it as a whole area of exploration in the widest sense of 'the examined life'. My own dipping in and out of so many different perspectives may be a bit like crawling through a maze at times, and I may be my worst enemy here. However, it is also a quest for 'waking up' and looking beyond surfaces. The idea of 'hidden' may be mythical as opposed to an objective 'reality' beyond the visible.

The binary is the essential basis from which mood is assessed. I know whether I feel 'good' or 'bad' as a basis for assessing one's own wellbeing. When people ask me how I am I often say''in between', although I may be just being polite in terms of not wishing to come out and say, 'not that great'.

Nevertheless, the subtle effects of emotions may be brought out by attention to fine details. Processes of description may affect experience and expression of emotions. For example, the processing of anger, may be done internally by the description of specific thoughts, such as the triggers of it, and the way in which it is attributed. In particular, if one blames oneself or others, the anger may be a different experience as opposed to when the anger is experienced for what it is a non-judgmental approach to it, and prevent 'beating oneself up' for the way life unfolds, including the anger itself.

I didn't mean that it is not possible to work out the actual effects of thought. In particular, the ABC model of affect, behaviour and consequences is relevant. I am aware of the parallels between CBT and Stoicism. What I meant was that the nature of emotions may affect the nature of judgment itself and affinity with particular ideas. It is likely that mood affects perception itself. Personally, I think that I see differently, according to whether I feel sad or happy, such as the intensity of colours. It is probably a two way process of thinking affecting mood and mood affecting thinking. Also, bodily health affects mindset itself.

It is difficult to know to what extent emotions help or hinder in thinking. In some ways, it can end up in a picture of 'bias. Emotions may tinge the way in which ideas are seen.l

In the extreme, this may involve anger at ideas which may have a destructive role. 9n particular, ideologies, religious or otherwise can be a source of anger. It can lead to so much psychological and social awareness of the construction of systems of ideas.

a
Absence of emotion is an interesting area. In particular, the philosophy and spectrum of autism, raises this question. However, if does come down to what the absence of emotion signifies. Is it about being overwhelmed by the conflicts of the dichotomy of emotion.

Also, on a more conceptual basis, what would it mean to go beyond emotions? How much would be a state of emotional or even logical indifference, How do idea of emotional, logical or reasoning aspects of experience differ in understanding aspects of human experiences?

The idea of anger as 'frustration' may be important as it can involve so much experience of being 'put down'. The emotion of anger may involve so much repression and suppression.

The ideas of the psychoanalytic thinkers, including Freud and Jung may be important here. Freud speaks of the battle between life and death instincts, Eros and Thanatos. Jung speaks of the 'shadow' as a questionable 'inferior' aspects of human nature to be understood. The role of human emotions and how these are understood may be extremely important in this area of thinking, especially in relation to human nature and self-awareness.

What is a philosophical 'bitch'? Is it the absolute of opposition of thought? Also, to what extent do ideas which challenge us, represent 'enemy" thinking, or the biggest challenge? Oppositions of ideas are a stressful, but it is questionable where this lead for personal and interpersonal aspects of thinking.

Your point here about anger and philosophy discussions, including philosophy forums, is especially important. It may show aspects of investment and attachments to ideas. It is hard to know how possible it is to go beyond this. What would a philosophy apart from human emotions entail?

The angry philosophers may be criticised but what would if mean to stand aside from the emotional aspects of philosophy. Would the absence of emotion and anger lead to indifference, and a consequent philosophy of ideas of indifference?

I will look into Sartre's idea of anger and hatred as it seems particularly relevant. It may be that some people on the forum have looked into this writing and area of thinking.

Nevertheless, on a most basic level of thinking the relationship between ideas and emotions may be significant. Going beyond ethical ideas, even the basics of philosophy can stimulate anger. There may be angry theists and atheists . I am not trying to deflect the issue here, because such ideas can be a basis of war of ideas and literal war.

Concepts of pathology may come down both ideas of 'normality' and 'disease'. Going back to ideas of physiology, some such thinking involves the basis of life death, or what Freud regarded as Eros and Thanatos, or the life and death instincts.

The dichotomy here may involve objective aspects of 'illness, including physiological aspects. In spite the this grey area of thinking, the relationship between the physical and mental are intricate. Ideas of pathology and w6hat constitutes 'nomality' may have significance as to.how emotions and relationship to philosophical.ideas and ideals are considered and framed.

In this respect, the movement of antipsychiatry is open to dispute. Thinker from RD Laiing and Thomas Sszas question ideas of pathology. They may have seen some shortcomings, although some of this may be so theoretical as to miss the essentials of emotions, as a starting point for understanding the nature of human values, including its significance for thinking about ethical norms and values.

I am not wishing to get into unhelpful kits about the nature of 'pathology' but where it seems to me to be most complex is in the construction of ideas of 'mental illness'. I , wonder to what extent it comes down to the organic and defense mechanisms. .

This may come down to philosophical issues underlying psychiatry. How much is physiological, even on a neuropsychological basis? Sometimes, psychology and philosophy are seen as separate and it is likely that the focus is different.


In the real life conundrums of life, including the nature of anger, the differences in the emotions and ideas of anger may be profound

. Part of this may come down to the nature of egoistic concerns and wider ones. This may so much about human needs, including physiological aspects. Nevertheless, the philosophy of how human emotions and underlying values may be significant. Psychology doesn't exist in a vacuum and the physiological and conceptual basis of what matters may be an important area for philosophical consideration

The question of 'asexual love, involves the question of what is sexuality and how does it come into play in human relationships. What is the difference between friendship and romance? How much comes down to the nature of human needs, connections and the role of the erotic as an aspect of sexuality?

Your full consideration of the spectrum of human emotion is very important. It is such an important area of the phenomenology of emotions. Of course, where human emotions come from is also an important question. Emotions, and the instinctual aspects of human life may go back to the instinctual aspects of physiology. This is about lower and higher needs, as suggested by Maslow's in his hierarchy of needs. This an aspect of psychology, but concepts of lower and higher aspects of human nature are unconnected with ethical values, especially in the way psychological.ideaz are seen and evaluated philosophically.

The concept of hatred as opposed to love is a complex area of human life, ranging from varying perspectives of human nature and motivation and values. Even the concept of love itself is open to question as to what it may entail. Also, how love and hatred as opposites stand as psychological or philosophical ideas stand I'd open to question. Are the ideas a reflection of the complexity of emotions or the emotions a conflict of the nature of ethical values ideals?

You may be right about common sense of ideas about what constitutes anger. However, pathology in itself is a construct. Here, I am not trying to suggest a necessary going 'beyond good and evil', but more a way in which ideas taken to an extreme can mask so much. For example, in war the idea of an enemy, may evoke so much about ideas of justice, or injustice. A person who Is different, or has different beliefs may be perceived as an oppositional force.

This may be where values come into play, and insistence on one's own set may even lead to a self-righteous sense of anger, to the extent of an argument for the 'common good'. This makes ideas of anger, justice and injustice a controversial area of social ethics.

I wonder to what extent anger is a response or something more. You may be correct to point to the significances of a response, especially in terms of human action.

However, it does involve the difference between the emotion and the ideas connected with it. In particular, anger can be understood in terms of a physiological response, or in connection with wider aspects of ideals, moral or political. There can be aspects of anger as a negative or positive emotion or as an idea for thinking about how life should be lived, in terms of values.

I find that life and ideas have become rather shallow and 'trivialised' in the information age, with clicks of smart phone, Wikipedia and links. It seems to be the opposite of esotericism, with so much information readily available, with often little reference to the specifics of ideas and usefulness of the particular significance for understanding. Of course, I am wary of over generalisations, especially as many people on this forum do read widely, and engage on a deeper level as opposed to some social media sites.

It may be about being able to dip into ideas in the information age, but still being able to pursue ideas in a deeper way, and this may be the potential artistry. It may not be easy though, and I have to admit that I still enjoy time alone with a paper book as a companion, as a way of 'tapping into' the creative mindset of the writer.

The question of the esoteric and default issues of meaning is a good question. Meaning, or lack of meaning are arbitrary and objective, and esoteric ideas are variable in this sense. The notion of a way may depend on some objective basis of meaning amidst this. The subjective and objective meanings of 'pathways' of the psyche and spirituality are so variable, within different frameworks. Ego death itself is questionable here as well, as to what extent it about going beyond conventional ideas of 'self' and wider frames of reference, as seen in the various transpersonal perspectives.

Derrida and Foucault are important as means of perspectives of critical thinking. If anything, what I see as being the worst possibility here, is where ideas are reduced, even beyond the spectrum of the exoteric and esoteric.


The outer life and its ideas are important, but when it comes down to outer, or conventional. norms of meaning and understanding, so much may become lost. Those who exist on the peripheries of social may be marginalised. The question of the esoteric, may involve so much about the contexts and framing of meaning.

The concept of the 'esoteric ' has indeed covered so much and been used and disbursed in so many ways. Its use probably goes back to Hermeticism and Plato. Here, Plato, spoke of 'forgotten knowledge', as if the ancients may have been aware in a way which was becoming ' lost'.

So, the idea of the esoteric and esoterica is a question for 'inner' vs 'outer', as well as aspects of archaic and future possibilities. I even wonder about the psychosocial aspects. Those who are marginalised, as well as struggling, may have more interest in the esoteric, as opposed to those thriving in mainstream societies. So, it may even involve socio- political aspects of philosophy.

Here, I am not wishing to reduce meaning to the socio- political aspects of life experiences. However, ideas come into play in such a complex way, involving the entire psychosocial and political dimensions of thinking.

The art of philosophy is important but it involves all of these facets of life. The 'esoteric ' may involve the 'rejected', especially ideas of subversity. It is such an area for thinking, and may involve many aspects of critical thinking about religion, politics and so many assumptions which may exist in the nature of human social life.

I also wonder how how much of understanding of the esoteric, as opposed to the exoteric, stands in relation to the information age. Knowledge as 'out there ' may be so different. It is so much more about a widest view of knowledge, and it may be so much an exoteric quest, of information. To some extent, there is the issue as to whether the exoteric aspects of knowledge may be viewed witn a complete loss of the esoteric? Also, there is the question as to whether the 'esoteric" is to be understood simply as an aspect of the psychological, or in other ways of philosophy thinking?

My understanding of Kant is that he saw epistemological basis of knowledge as being a complex interplay of both the empirical and the nature of reason. Here, he definitely saw the 'noumenon' and the transcendent as being beyond the scope of comprehension. In this respect, he saw the limits of espistemology; with a sense of a possible 'transcendent' beyond comprehension. The idea and scope of reason was a way of approaching this territory of thought.

The particular dichotomy between the 'known' or 'unknown' according to reason or the empirical is of particular significance in epistemological and empirical understanding. The two dichotomies may be opposed and how they are understood or juxtaposed may be of critical importance. In other words, to what extent is the basis of empirical knowledge important as a foundation of knowledge? To what extent may it be contrasted by a priori reason, or ideas of 'the noumenon'; which go beyond the physical basis of understanding of ideas.

Thanks for your reply and the whole issue of the esoteric and academic are an interesting contrast, especially in relation to the development of knowledge. Esotericism, apart from an approach of the 'inner' may involve certain elite groups. This may apply to the academic as well, and there may have been important power allegiances.

I wonder how all of this stands in the information age. There is more of a demand for transparency and going beyond 'secrecy'. I wonder how this will come into effect, and what will remain 'secret' behind the scenes? Also, the information age gives so much access to knowledge, and how will this affect individuals' understanding? Does it mean that the quest for philosophical knowledge will be about assimilation of knowledge alone? This could be very different from the inner searching for meaning and knowledge.

I have read 'Phaedo' a few years ago and did read some of the thread on it on this forum, which I found helpful in thinking about the book.

The entire idea of 'soul' is a very complex idea and used in such varying ways, including the question of the individual soul and beyond. I managed to think about it more clearly in relation to the transpersonal school of thought, including the ideas of Thomas More, which is more about the depths of human nature than a literal entity which survives as an individual construct.

You are quite right to say that there are no clear Christian teachings because there are so many cross currents of thought, ranging from influences as diverse as Egyptian idea and the blending of ideas from Plato and Aristotle, such as in the thinking of Augustine and Aquinas, as well as ideas of Plotinus and many influences.

It is probably wise to stay away from comparisons of Christianity and Buddhism which gloss over differences. I may have been influenced by such texts because I have read theosophical authors. Also, I probably dipped in and out of various Eastern texts in a rather chaotic manner, including those such as 'The Tibetan Book of the Dead'. In some ways, the academic study of the comparative religion is probably the most thorough. I did do a year of undergraduate studies in religious studies but that only covered the mere basics. Certainly, when studying Hinduism I was aware of the problems of translation and was at least fortunate to have a tutor who had studied Sanskrit.

There is a danger of oversimplification and generalisations in approaching the various traditions. I am sure that this can result in some very confused thinking. I am sure that I have blended ideas together in a very haphazard way at times and it is easy to end up with some very strange conclusions, which may show the dangers of the speculative imagination in philosophy.

I find it hard to know how Socrates and Plato thought of immortality. I was taught by a tutor on the philosophy of religion that immortality may consist of life after death until a resurrection of 'the body at the end of the world. The tutor was a Christian, influenced by Plato.

The idea of a 'heaven within' seems important in the interpretation of the Christian teaching, 'That it is easier for 'a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into the kingdom of God'. It is based on esoteric thinking although I was taught this in secondary Catholic school religious studies. Of course, it is in contrast to the exoteric wealth and splendour of the Vatican and the architecture of Rome.

The idea of inner wealth of 'heaven within' is also captured in the Buddhist emphasis on nonattatchment. It is not the wealth itself which is being criticised ultimately, but the value being placed on material wealth as opposed to the treasure within'..

Misconceptions and blindness may have variable effects for people, depending on circumstances and intention. Fantasies and delusions may inspire great acts and art and the worst atrocities at all. It may be questionable whether it is better to be blindly inspired or let down by the exposure of the secrets and lies or survive the exposure of raw harsh truths.

The acts of martyrdom may not have been taken on without a belief in a literal afterlife. It is questionable whether many current thinkers would be prepared to die like Socrates. The exoteric quest is more in favour of the needs and rights of the ego and 'monkey mind', as opposed to the heavenly, or inner treasures and quest for 'truth'. And, of course, an atheist may be able to go 'through the eye of a needle' in the search for truth and, esoteric atheism is a possibility.

At the moment, I don't feel overwhelmed by questions, and the actual existential aspects of life are greater. However, there have been times in which I was in the past, especially when working night shifts. I used to agonise and, generally, I find that night thinking is more fear based. But, saying that, I do really enjoy philosophy and the exploration of new ways of seeing and framing 'reality'. The mysteries themselves are part of the adventure.

The movement of freethinking is a useful one, in spite of its link with freemasonry. As far as the idea of flourishing despite the presence of mysteries, it is important because there is the opposite danger of becoming unable to do so.

The worst possibility is to become so burdened by the nature of philosophical problems as to be incapacitated or dysfunctional. At an an extreme point, it would be possible to become so overwhelmed as if one needed answers in order to live. This may defeat the purpose of life as a quest rather than as a solution. It is not as if answers can always be found and this not mean that the questions are not worth asking, for generating creativity.

Your post raises the whole question of what is trivial and what is not in the understanding of life. The approach of the esoteric or exoteric may or not be important here, as it is such a wide area of exploration and interpretation.

My own slant on this was that my initial divergences from Catholicism were the more with esoteric thought as a way of going beyond literalism. Esotericism was also a way of going beyond the fundamentalism of many other religious ideas. I did begin to have many conversations with an atheist friend and could also the validity of thinking beyond God or spiritual perspectives, and my thinking does shift a lot.

The question of mysteries or philosophy as a game of chess is an interesting metaphorical question. Ancient thinkers often emphasised mysteries, going back to the development of Egyptian thinking and mystery schools. In the present time, the idea of mystery may seem strange. I probably do gravitate towards the idea of mystery, as I once wrote a thread on whether philosophical mysteries can be solved at all, focusing on the idea of God, life after death and free will. Such ideas are answered so subjectively because there is no proof. How much one sees mystery as a complete open arena for imagination or just a little bit of a gap may vary, and the tension between the esoteric and exoteric aspects of thinking. The esoteric traditions are more inclined to come from a contemplative approach, in line with the awe and wonder of the ancients. Chess as a game and art involves cleverness and the quality seen as smart thinking. However, there is a danger that it can become too superficial a matter of cleverness, or rhetoric. Most probably, my own perspective is that we need both awe and wonder and smartness for philosophy to be an in depth quest for understanding life. I am not wishing to suggest that your own approach is superficial as I know that you have read widely and in depth.

I guess that I see the area of the esoteric as an important area for getting to grips with essential recurrent themes. Of course, it is possible to skip over the division between the esoteric and exoteric, just as the differences between Western and Eastern thought don't have to be a specific point of focus.

As far as forum writing goes, it is so different from so many other forms. The reason why I have used this forum is because I find that the dialogue with so many people throughout the world makes it so good. When I was on academic courses, there was less, or a different kind of intensity. I never really achieved any clarity of thinking. I still find it hard to pin down a particular perspective above all, but I do find that, in conjunction with my own reading, engagement with TPF enables me to analyse my own thinking more critically.

The idea of the imminent may be about the present primarily; it may correspond with Eckart Tolle's argument about time, in which amidst the perception of past, present, and future, it is only possible that perceive in the present 'now' consciousness. Both ideas of past and future may be a potential for both romanticism and fear. The scope of eternity may also be seen as being about a static achievement while a sense of eternity as immanence may involve a contemplative picture of blending in with the endless aspects of life and its flow. It may be a way of seeing beyond desire itself.

I used the term 'esoterica', which is a rather vague one, as used in the magazine published by the Theosophical Society. But, in relation to your question of the esoteric as opposed to exoterica, it may come down to a different framework for philosophy. The esoteric is often based on spiritual teachings for development of disciples on a specific path. The exoteric, is in contrast, based on a set of teachings which are aimed at the social organisation.

The underlying difference is an emphasis or focus, which may raise more questions about the social construction of knowledge. It is likely that the people who see themselves as the initiates or disciples see the ideas as being more about a quest or way to 'truth', as a serious focus in life. When this is levelled down to the esoteric it probably gets watered down to a structure for social conventions and norms.

In relation to this thread, it may come down to examining the validity of ideas and themes in the esoteric traditions. There is still an interest in the esoteric in spirituality and religion. However, it is slightly separate from philosophy in some ways, which has followed the trends of academic science. Nevertheless, a lot of important ideas and developments had their roots in forms of esoteric traditions. So, it may be whether Western and Eastern esoteric traditions has anything important and significant for thinking in the Twentieth first century for the scope of the philosophical imagination or not?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.