Or would you say what it's like arguments are necessary here? — Manuel

I am afraid that they are.

In the absence of a binding system of morality, concepts such as "consciousness" have to carry the moral load.

An ontological distinction means there’s a difference in kind. But these distinctions were discarded along with many other elements of Aristotelianism by modern science, which tends to try and explain everything in terms of matter-energy. Nagel elaborates his point in more detail in his 2012 book Mind and Cosmos where he says that:

The physical sciences can describe organisms like ourselves as parts of the objective spatio-temporal order – our structure and behavior in space and time – but they cannot describe the subjective experiences of such organisms or how the world appears to their different particular points of view. There can be a purely physical description of the neurophysiological processes that give rise to an experience, and also of the physical behavior that is typically associated with it, but such a description, however complete, will leave out the subjective essence of the experience – how it is from the point of view of its subject — without which it would not be a conscious experience at all.

So the physical sciences, in spite of their extraordinary success in their own domain, necessarily leave an important aspect of nature unexplained. — Wayfarer

To me, the difference at hand is about actually eating an apple, and describing/analyzing/explaining the eating of an apple.

Which is better, more relevant? To eat an apple, or to describe/analyze/explain the eating of an apple?

Neither are the point at hand though, which is the argument for hard antinatalism. — Isaac

"It's evil to act on evil intentions" -- this seems to be the basic argument for AN here.
"To intend to procreate is to set a trap for another person. Setting a trap is evil. To procreate is evil."

Yes, ?

What would be constant here? what would be using "What it is like to be RogueAI" in the same way as you did before? How was "What it is like to be RogueAI" used in the first place?

There can be no such continuity here. — Banno

Are you familiar with the Buddhist concept of anatta?

Wouldn't being in a completely dark cave and using a rock to try and find out where the walls are be akin to a kind of echolocation? — Manuel

Of course, some blind people use such rudimentary forms of echolocation.

Sure, it could well be the case that bats have experience. There's no way to tell that I know of. I don't think this should necessarily raise ethical concerns about treating bats badly or anything like that.

But it does raise such concerns.
Look at Descartes and the like:

In 1647, Rene Descartes exploded biology wide open by theorizing that the body was merely a mechanical instrument. The soul was what gave consciousness, and it resided somewhere in the pineal gland. Unfortunately for the neighborhood dogs, Descartes also theorized that only humans had souls.

If animals were soulless, they were just machines. Therefore they didn’t feel pain—they only acted as if they did. So therefore, it was okay to cut them open and experiment on them. And Descartes sure loved a good experiment.

By his own account, Descartes happily sliced open dogs and stuck his finger into their still-beating hearts, marveling at how the valves opened and closed around his knuckle. But the madness doesn’t stop there. According to some biographers, his first vivisection was an attempt to discover once and for all if animals had souls. And the animal he chose to practice on was his wife’s dog.
/.../

https://knowledgenuts.com/descartes-dissected-his-wifes-dog-to-prove-a-point/

Any account of consciousness has to account for its moral implications.

This does not mean the bat is not conscious, it could well be. Maybe it's on the borderline between consciousness and pure instinct. I think part of Nagel's point in choosing a bat is precisely to show an edge case. — Manuel

He explains his choice:

"I assume we all believe that bats have experience. After all,
they are mammals, and there is no more doubt that they have
experience than that mice or pigeons or whales have experience.
I have chosen bats instead of wasps or flounders because if one
travels too far down the phylogenetic tree, people gradually shed
their faith that there is experience there at all. Bats, although more
closely related to us than those other species, nevertheless present
a range of activity and a sensory apparatus so different from ours
that the problem I want to pose is exceptionally vivid (though it
certainly could be raised with other species). Even without the
benefit of philosophical reflection, anyone who has spent some
time in an enclosed space with an excited bat knows what it is to
encounter a fundamentally alien form of life."

He can't know, not because of any failing in his capacity to observe, but because knowing does not fit here.

It's not that there is a something it is like to be a bat, but you cannot observe and understand it; It's not event that there is not something that it is like to be a bat; It's rather that we cannot even determine if there is a something that it is like to be a bat. — Banno

Okay.

What is added by calling it "subjectiveness"? — Banno

A taking for granted of another being's identity, ie. that is has an identity, that it is an entity with some permanent characteristics, that there is a continuity to it. One such is taken for granted, it makes sense to talk of "what it's like to be a bat".

You come to the right idea here, but for the wrong reasons. Talk about physics, chemistry or physiology is distinct from talk about desire, intent or understanding. All that paraphernalia of subjectivism is quite unneeded here. — Banno

Talk of consciousness has to do at least two things: it has to satisfy the scientific standards of analyzing consciousness in terms of chemistry, physiology, and such; and it has to address the moral and legal implications of however consciousness is conceived of conceptually (hence the paraphernalia of subjectivism).

one gets told that there are things one cannot understand. One is excluded from some group. Some thusly excluded people handle this by downplaying the importance of said group and its expertise. Some do it by playing it up.
— baker

Yes, probably. Neither of which have any bearing whatsoever on the question of whether that group were correct about ttier esoteric knowledge claims. — Isaac

Of course, but that's not my point. I'm saying that the relevant point here is how one deals with such exclusion. How does one deal with unknown things, things currently unknowable to one, things currently undecidable to one. How does one deal with ambivalence and uncertainty.

One of the meanings of "rational" is 'proportional', 'in ratio'... Adepts in some esoteric discipline spend a lot of time discussing those esoteric topics, and within that reference frame, their discussion is rational.
— baker

Sounds plausible. Unfortunately no-one is using that heterodox meaning of 'rational' in this discussion so I don't see how it's relevant.

"Rational" is one of the most debated terms. I refer you to Elster's classic Sour Grapes: Studies in the Subversion of Rationality.
Like I said earlier:

If you want to limit the meaning of "rational" to a particular flavor of secular academic discourse, then you should recognize this as a matter of your choice, not a given. — baker

Maybe, but I was referring to the specific use schopenhauer1 made in his kidnapping for a fantastic game example. No-one harmed at all, but 'dignity' trespassed upon by ignoring the kidnaper's will. — Isaac

In this case, it's about the intention, and it's the intention that is evil. Setting a trap is already evil. The fact that nobody got trapped so far doesn't change the intention to set the trap, it doesn't undo the evilness of setting the trap.

Again, the focus on intention applies only insofar as people really carefully think through why they want to have children. (But which they usually don't seem to do, so the point is moot.)

Time 1: No state of affairs exists where a baby is in a net that I set in the sand, hidden.
Time 2: A baby is in now in the net.

Time 1 caused the violation at Time 2. — schopenhauer1

So this is about procreation as entrapment: To procreate (here meant broadly, to conceive and carry a pregnancy to term) is to set up a trap for another being. The evil is in doing so intentionally.


I think this is actually a good enough point, but I don't think many people will be convinced by it, because when presented by this argument from entrapment, they could (secretly) be operating out of a belief "Others have done it to me, so I'm going to do it to others, as revenge" -- an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
It could be that for antinatalism to be more convincing to such a population, you'd need to first find a way for those people to forgive their parents for giving birth to them.

But being in a net is a bad thing, so we're talking about harms here not dignity. — Isaac

To be harmed is to lose one's dignity.

To me this accessible to anyone aspect puts some distance between the idea and strict esotericism. — j0e

Why? Could you explain?

If you can reference the article, that might help. — schopenhauer1

The article is written from a perspective favoring Tibetan Buddhism. This is a relatively small Buddhist school, but probably the most popular one in the West, due to the visibility of the Dalai Lama.
The Buddhist concepts spoken of in that article are specific to Tibetan Buddhism, or, at most, to Mahayana Buddhism at large. But this is not all that Buddhism is about, and it certainly isn't the Buddhism of the foundational Buddhist scriptures, the Pali Canon.
So it's hard to comment on the article in any detail without going into doctrinal differences between the various Buddhist schools (which is just too much for a forum thread like this).

How about considering that aggressiveness is simply normal for people?

If meat eating is supposedly normal for people, then so is aggressiveness. It's already considered normal at least in sports and politics, two major areas of human interactions.

Not an extensive list but I think it is important to remember that people may be acting in a certain way because it feels good and is emotionally rewarding rather than assuming it is deeper than that. I think this kind of thing is worst in high school and then most people gradually grow out of it as they get older. I see a lot of younger people getting drunk on these feelings but others' treatment of them is not necessarily reflective of this. Instead, they're seen as passionate or immature, which they might be but it may not be the ultimate cause. — Judaka

If only!

When the president (an elderly man, at that) of a major country calls the president of another major country a "killer" and that "he has no soul" -- what is that? What example is it setting?

Be a good person but don’t waste time to prove it.[/quote]
I suspect this is supposed to mean something like 'be a good person, but don't try to change the minds of those who think you're not a good person'.

But I have to say, that based on the comments to date, there seems little awareness of the 'esoteric/exoteric' distinction in the history of philosophy. — Wayfarer

Rather, the assumption seems to be that such a distinction doesn't exist or isn't justified.

So, either way, it is not within the province of philosophy
which should be, in principle at least, open to anyone with the requisite capacity for valid rational thought. — Janus

One thing I find peculiar about those that might be called "sages" is the way they can incorporate, contextualize Western philosophy.

For example I've seen Buddhist teachers incorporate, contextualize Western philosophy in a way that Western philosophy doesn't incorporate, contextualize Buddhism.

Agreed. At least with the mechanic you can see if your car starts. I suppose a person could get high on the aura of a guru and their 'car starts' in that sense (because they believe, through their projection), so that's why I like the 'works whether or not you believe in it' criterion of science/technology. — j0e

The 'works whether or not you believe in it' criterion of science/technology works only for things, not for persons. That's not much of an achievement. To limit one's life to things that 'work whether or not you believe in it' makes for an impoverished, zombified existence.

I like the quotes and the topic. I think it's understood that Pythagoras was a cult leader of some kind, and that Plato might have had a secret doctrine. I find it very hard to believe that the Epicureans did, given what I've read of and about Epicurus, and I couldn't find any confirmation of it. — j0e

Oh, that's easy. Someone who teaches moderation in enjoyment (sic!) must have a secret doctrine. Preventing the pursuit of enjoyment from devolving into brute hedonism requires some special insight.

If the knowledge is esoteric then rational discussion of it is pointless. — Isaac

One of the meanings of "rational" is 'proportional', 'in ratio'.

If both of us lack knowledge, say, of advanced mathematics, but nevertheless try to discuss it, such a discussion is necessarily not rational, it's not in proportion to the field of expertise of advanced mathematics. And it's pointless.

It's similar with "esoteric knowledge". Adepts in some esoteric discipline spend a lot of time discussing those esoteric topics, and within that reference frame, their discussion is rational. An outsider, however, cannot rationally, meaningfully participate in such discussions.

For example:

If you want to limit the meaning of "rational" to a particular flavor of secular academic discourse, then you should recognize this as a matter of your choice, not a given.

I don't mean to be disparaging of sages but I find it rather implausible that there could be knowledge that only a select few can get a handle on. Of course, the fact that I find mathematics near impossible to comprehend works against me is not lost on me. Maybe there is such a thing as knowledge that only a few chosen ones can fully understand. — TheMadFool

The idea of there being a knowledge that only a few chosen ones can fully understand is mostly not offensive, as can be seen in the way people are generally nonchalant about their ignorance of and inability to understand, say, advanced mathematics, the engineering of building skyscrapers, or the tuning of musical instruments.

A proposed exclusivity of knowledge does generally become offensive in matters that concern man's basic sense of morality, epistemology, and issues of "the meaning of life". The idea that only a select few should be able to discern correctly what is morally right and what is wrong, or how to know "how things really are", or what "the meaning of life" is -- such an idea gets to us, we cannot be nonchalant about it. We tend to feel offended by notions of exclusivity in this domain; or we feel hopeless about it and life in general.

Yes. The assumption which I keep raising that Wayfarer and other apologists keep repeating is that because science (or materialism) doesn't deal with esoteric issues, the alternatives must somehow therefore do so.

What arguments like yours show is that they don't do so either. Nothing does. Except perhaps art, in a subtle way.

As Wittgenstein said "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

And as Ramsey (even better) added "..and we can't whistle it either."

@Wayfarer here is just trying to whistle. — Isaac

If a tone deaf person criticizes music ...

So one gets told that there are things one cannot understand. One is excluded from some group. Some thusly excluded people handle this by downplaying the importance of said group and its expertise. Some do it by playing it up.

Nothing. "Don't stick your nose into things that are none of your business" should be the motto.
— baker

Right! And that would be a good look from the outside, a selective group that guards its secrets.

This is where the guild theme becomes useful again: If you're a member of the guild of, say, candle makers, out of professional deference, you're not going to indulge in assumptions about those in the guild of horseback saddle makers. (Ideally, you wouldn't even have the time to do so, being busy with your own craft and all that.)
— baker

I agree, but consider the original context, in which an ambivalent saddle-maker can't resist trying to win the respect of the candle-makers. — j0e

But that's the real issue here, isn't it (or one of them)? The demand for recognition, for respect.

I'm trying to isolate the difference between working hard to obtain some manual skill or traditional education program and working hard to obtain a mystical 'something' that insiders call 'knowledge.' Granted that subcultures can create their own lingo that only they understand as participants in lifestyle , what are outsiders to make of their claims? — j0e

Nothing. "Don't stick your nose into things that are none of your business" should be the motto.

This is where the guild theme becomes useful again: If you're a member of the guild of, say, candle makers, out of professional deference, you're not going to indulge in assumptions about those in the guild of horseback saddle makers. (Ideally, you wouldn't even have the time to do so, being busy with your own craft and all that.)


Sorry, have to go for the day.

To me there's a class aspect and a quality aspect to the high-art / pop-art distinction. I consider Bukowksi a first-rate novelist and so 'high art' in terms of quality. I expect him to eventually be in a Norton anthology of American literature (along with John Fante and Henry Miller).

Do you think that distinction could be breaking down? — j0e

I suppose so. The mixing of the high and the profane has been going on for quite some time, actually.

I think Banksy's stuff is cute and clever at times but not so great. But rich people want it. Are they slumming?

I think the people who buy such works do so because they see a lucrative investment in it, not because of the art.
Also, many rich people are actually the nouveau riche, social climbers who have money but lack class. I wouldn't value art by how much it sells.

The trouble for me is that it's as if your are putting car mechanics and sages in the same bin. Actually I like the idea myself, but I don't think a certain kind defender of esoteric knowledge (Wayf, for instance) has mere skill in mind but something more exalted. — j0e

If a particular type of knowledge cannot be attained through deliberate effort, then what use is it, and what use is it to pursue it?

A knowledge that cannot be attained through deliberate effort is a happy accident, a freak of nature. It's something one might watch in awe, but that's it.

If people are given freedom, they'll use it create chains and bind themselves in tribes.

It's not clear that this is the order in which things happen.

I pretty much agree with you. Joe, and I have been arguing as much on here for quite a while. I think such "certain direct knowledge" consists merely. must consist merely, in a feeling of certainty.

Such certainty, since it is neither tautologically true nor empirically verifiable cannot be anything other than mere faith, even though it may be accompanied by a feeling of absolute (well. subjective, really even if felt to be absolute) certitude. — Janus

What I find relevant is that people can be enthralled by others' claims of exalted knowledge.
Why is that?

Does one feel captivated by "sages" out of one's deep sense of inadequacy, low self-esteem?
Or is there more to it?

Which is why I have generally defaulted to: show me the difference it makes? Show me a life transformed. The people I have met who were all about the contemplative life, searching for mystical insights were often in pretty poor shape. Jealousy, anxiety, substance use, vanity - were prevalent. The elitism inherent in the lives of many spiritually attuned folk is interesting too. People trying to demonstrate how much closer they were to understanding Taoism or Zen, or better at mediation, or more in touch with 'genuine' Gnosis - looking down on ordinary people who were wallowing in ignorant materialism, etc, etc.

Are the sages any different? And how would we know? — Tom Storm

I remember hearing from a Catholic source that the Catholic saints are actually people who were usually saintly for a relatively short time in their lives (even for as little as just a few hours), and not, as the title "saint" suggests, 24/7. Perhaps this puts things into perspective a bit.

So there’s at least an implicit distinction between the Buddhas, and in later Buddhism, the Bodhisattvas, and the ‘uneducated worldling’ (the ordinary people.) Although again an uneducated worldling could by joining the order or practicing the principles, become enlightened - there is a canonical case of a bandit-murderer who used to wear a necklace of the fingers of his victims who converted (bearing in mind, these texts are from ancient history.)

Is that a hierarchy? I don’t know, but I think it can be said there is a ‘dimension of value’ or an axis along which the sense of there being higher and lower understanding can be identified, with the ‘higher’ being more amenable to detachment, disinterestedness, and the other virtues associated with the Buddhist path. — Wayfarer

The most essential hierarchy in Buddhism is that of the three types of buddhas/buddhahood:
1. the sammāsambuddha
2. the arahant
3. paccekabuddha

There can be only one sammāsambuddha per time period (in our time period, this is said to be the Buddha who started out as Prince Siddhattha); this is the most exalted position and one cannot choose to become that type of buddha or attain that kind of enlightenment.
One also cannot choose to become a paccekabuddha, as that status is available only to those who live in a time when the Dhamma dispensation of the previous sammāsambuddha has died out.
The most that a person can attain who is living in a time when the Dhamma dispensation of a sammāsambuddha is still alive, is arahantship. An arahant's knowledge is like a handful of leaves, in comparison to the sammāsambuddha's, whose knowledge is like the whole forest.

The practical implication of this hierarchy is that, if you accept it, you "know your place" and adjust your expectations as to what is possible and attainable for you.

I met a man 20 years ago who was the most optimistic, buoyant and kind person I have ever met. He'd lost a leg 10 years earlier in a bike accident. I asked him how he remained so positive. He said loosing his leg was the best thing that ever happened to him. Before then he had been morose and a heavy drinker. Losing his leg made him confront some difficult truths about the preciousness of life and, because he didn't die in the accident, the misfortune functioned as an aphrodisiac for living. I would not recommend that people who are morose and depressed go out and loose a leg. But that might be the lesson. — Tom Storm

I find such lessons are useless unless one has experienced such a traumatic situation oneself, and then "grew from it."

You can see this phenomenon in some popular spiritual teachers, who, basically, experienced a psychotic breakdown, and then "emerged wise" from it. I have no doubt that posttraumatic growth is possible. But look at what such spiritual teachers teach and look at their personal history: it's clear that they didn't arrive at their level of attainment by following the advice and doing the practices that they advise their followers to do. No. That psychotic breakdown was what made the difference for them.

What is gained by living a contemplative life? — Tom Storm

Presumably, by living it the right way, one attains true happiness, the complete cessation of suffering.

There are benefits but not necessarily personal gains. The first Buddhist book I read was the very popular book Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind. It stresses 'giving up gaining ideas' while practising zazen. I came to realise that this attitude is what makes it a 'religious' practice, in the sense that it requires devotion, while not seeking to get something from it. This has to do with the dynamics of ego - so long as the self is concerned for itself, then that is self-centered motivation. Practicing for no personal gain is altruistic motivation. — Wayfarer

This is one of the major points where the different Buddhist schools differ.
In the Theravada Forest Tradition, you can find teachers who teach that there very much are things to be gained, goals to attain. Thanissaro Bhikkhu, for example; Ajahn Chah's tradition not so much.
Also, altruistic motivation is just one factor; in Theravada, a minor one, in Mahayana, the major one.

In none of those cultures had the fact-value dichotomy, which became apparent in Hume, appeared. In those other cultures, sound judgement, or sagacity, did not only concern those matters which could be measured. It's the development of that outlook, in which facts and values became separated, that I think is the historical issue at hand. — Wayfarer

I see a parallel in the way art has been perceived in European culture: over time, there emerged a clear distinction between folk art (or popular art) and high art (academic art, art proper). There is the sense that folk art (or popular art) is what people do when they don't have the education, the skill, the talent, and the socio-economic status to do proper art. With that, folk art (or popular art) is also devalued, discredited, as "not actually art".
(This distinction doesn't seem to be so sharp in American culture, though.)

The phenomenon of sages is in comparison to "proper wise men" like folk art (or popular art) is to high art (academic art, art proper).

I can categorically say that I don't think Jung had a single interesting thing to say. — Isaac

Heh. If one is familiar with European culture at the time, Jung's and Freud's work are nothing special, they're just part of the "spirit of the time". It's when someone's work or persona is taken out of the context of their time that they can seem special.

It's like if you were to place a member of the aristocracy at a party where everyone else is a commoner, the aristoract would stand out by their behavior, clothes, etc. But if that same aristocrat would be at a party with oter aristocrats, they'd blend in, be nothing special.

I don't know Mahler well, but his name makes me think of Bukowksi, who loved to drink and smoke and write to Mahler on the radio. — j0e

This is so peculiar. By European standards, Mahler is high art, and Bukowski is popular art. Not comparable at all. The same person cannot appreciate both (unless they are confused).

How self-assured does that claim need to be for you to abandon communication? If someone came up to you and said "Hi, I'm a Buddhist Oshō" would that be sufficient claim to exalted epistemic status for you to just walk away? Or do they have to actually say "...and I know things you don't"? — Isaac

It's very simple: Such people don't engage in dialogue to begin with. They just preach. It's one-way communication. They declare their exalted status and move on.

In a sense, it is impossible not to make any choices, that does seem correct.

If I remained sitting in a chair without moving an inch and not saying anything until I starve to death, then one could say I chose to not do anything. But we would not say that I'm “acting” right? Because I would not be doing anything besides what does not depend upon my will (i.e breathing, seeing, ...) — Amalac

It depends on how narrowly you want to define "action". Whether you limit it only to (some) bodily actions, or whether you include the mental and the verbal (when you think or speak, this is doing, it's action).

If you find yourself in a situation where you feel faced with a decision, like when you're at a crossroads, but then you plump yourself down, you're actively procrastinating, doing things to avoid making a decision about which way to go.
(Which is different from resting simply because you're tired.)

What I think is of interest is the social role of such claims. Are we to take them at face value and ignore the clear social advantage of claiming higher knowledge which only you can access and such can't even be tested? — Isaac

Well, people love to mess with eachother's minds, that's for sure.

The story goes that when the Buddha first became enlightened, he went out and proclaimed that he was enlightened to the first person he met. The man shook his head, said, "May it be so", and went his way. The story says that the Buddha was disappointed by this. Long story short, he then changed his strategy and didn't flaunt his exalted status anymore.

When I see someone flaunt their supposed exalted status, I try to just shake my head and go my way. There's just no meaningful communication to be had with someone who claims to have an exalted epistemic (or other) status. (This goes for some philosophy professors and scientists as well.)

What sense we can make of claims to an 'insider' knowledge that's only accessible to a higher kind of person, a born sage, let's say? — j0e

That this is the domain of the non-academic.

I think you are on to something, so I guess I was trying to build a bridge between you and Isaac.
The Catholic church and Christianity in general lost much of its power, and religion became a private matter. Agreed. Pluralism reigns now. Everyone brews up their own religion or anti-religion. The thought-police aren't allowed to bother us in this private sphere. So the sense of one right way or 'objective' values has presumably decayed (hard to say how variously people actually felt and thought given censorship.) — j0e

Not at all. Now we have democracy, which is forcing us into sameness and simplistically formed camps, for bare survival. We are pluralistic and we welcome variety: as long as it is superficial.
The process of enslavement is complete once the enslaved believe themselves to be free. We are now our own thought-police. We actually do believe that there is one right way to do things.

Personally I want to live in Denmark — j0e

You think it's stopped rotting by now?

Anyone who has spent any time around actual Buddhists will find it absurd to the utmost to think that Buddhism and Communism or Marxism could somehow go hand in hand. Jesus, no. Except for some California Buddhist hippies, the other, the normal Buddhists, are elitist, capitalist, classist, authoritarian.

Bah, no. Eh. Buddhism is elitist.

As you go about your business choosing a job or a partner or buying a house or selecting food off a menu, the questions of philosophy don't and can't enter into it. — Tom Storm

Well, that's bizarre ...

It is impossible not to act. Even plumping oneself down at a crossroads is an action.

Note that you mention guilds. Those make perfect sense to me. That's peer review! That's not the isolated insight that doesn't communicated itself. That's skill recognizing skill. My criticism of Direct Experience is not that it fails to gesture at something vague but important but that any kind of sociality needs more. — j0e

Religious/spiritual communities function like guilds. Religious/spiritual practices are intended to be taken up within the context of a religious/spiritual community.

On principle, doing things all on one's own, without any connection to a religious/spiritual community is possible, but such isolated approach is generally considered an exception, no the rule.

Also, it is not the case that people would flock together and build religious/spiritual communities based on having comparable direct experiences. Religious/spiritual life isn't a #MeToo kind of movement. Rather, people have some vague interest in some type of religion/spirituality, they join a group, a community, there, they get instructions for practices, they do the practices, and then they have "direct experiences". Which they can then compare, if they feel so inclined, or not.

That's not the isolated insight that doesn't communicated itself. — j0e

I suggest you read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratyekabuddha
Do tell me what you think of it.

What do we make of elitist, esoteric 'knowledge' ? — j0e

It's, basically, what religion/spirituality is all about.

Great topic, but I have to go for today. Stuff to bake.

So if there was no real insult thrown at you personally, is it legitimate to use insults, puts-downs, sneering sarcasm, fake exasperation and the like as part of your argument? — schopenhauer1

At a forum like this, a part (or sometimes most) of one's verbal performance is about performing for an audience, not for the poster one is replying to. So the insults etc. aren't necessarily part of one's argument, just part of one's performance, depending on who one is trying to impress.

But what of the imperfect florist? The aspirant florist? I can imagine ego-battles at the florist convention. — j0e

Oh, the unenlightened florist who hasn't yet learned how to chop wood and carry water again.

Is it a performative contradiction to try to defend/explain the esoteric in a 'neutral' or boringly, typically 'rational' conversation?

Yesssss. I'm guilty of it too. But, in my defense, I'm aware of it, and taking credit for it.

Does 'nondiscursive knowledge' make sense ? I could live with 'religion as know-how' but that's not the claim, I don't think. 'The world is a purple rose' is a Higher Truth. No doubt it can function internally (all florist nod and repeat it) but if it's not for godless philosophers to understand, then why bring it to the table? Or how can one do this and avoid evangelizing?

When one learns how to chop wood and carry water again ...

Second point: I think people want recognition, sometimes (impossibly) for being beyond the need for recognition. I don't deny that some can temporarily truly be beyond that need. It's even an ego-ideal to transcend such a humiliating itch.

It takes a while to get to that point where Tom Hanks' character in Saving Private Ryan is: