There are moral psychologists and psychiatrists though. — TaySan

People wouldn't necessarily question their morality, just their training, practice and assumptions. No doubt they are often well-meaning.

The difference though is that a cult leader derives its power from the cult. — TaySan

Can you think of a sage today who is not part of an immense industry and organised merchandising?

I sometimes think that mainstream religion has homeopathically immunised Western culture against ideas of higher awareness. — Wayfarer

That's a great line...

Perhaps the modern-day sage is the psychologist, — TaySan

Where I come from psychologists are not well liked, so I'm not so sure. Which probably brings us to another perspective on sages. One person's sage is another person's cult leader.

vital information but which can only be conveyed to those ready — Wayfarer

That's good. Can you expand a little on 'vital' and 'ready'?

But I think that it would be so useful if you laid down some criteria and clarity for thinking about what esotericism entails. — Jack Cummins

Good advice for many of us.

I think the term is problematic because to me it has some ugly connotations. Esotericism is that which is known or available only to a cognoscenti. I am not keen on castes and divisions and I recognize that recondite pleasures come in secular and spiritual flavours. The scholars who celebrate Joyce's Finnegan's Wake belong to the secular variety, while those who study, let's say, Gurdjieff's Beezlebub's Tales to His Grandson belong to the other. The Hermetica stands out to me as the classic exemplar of esoteric occult literature.

I think some people retreat into esotericism because life is hard and there are obvious consolations in difficult knowledge and feelings of belonging to an exclusive project. Even better if it deals in truths unavailable and incomprehensible to the hoi polloi. This can be highly charged and intoxicating stuff. I also think esotericism is a terrible word to use to describe contemplative traditions. Esoterica also sounds like a stuffy, late Victorian description for what a Professor of Oriental Studies pursues.

Might add Lester Bangs to that list too. Leaving the states, do you like Kundera? Hesse? Good examples I think of philosophical novelists. For better I worse I've been reading mostly philosophy these days. — j0e

Hesse - 30 years ago. Kundera 20 years ago. My favourite Kundera quote (I can't find the source anymore) and this is better than many whole books of philosophy, 'You create a utopia and pretty soon you're going to need to build a small concentration camp.' Just recently Edith Wharton's Age of Innocence. One of the most exceptionally well written and observed novels I have read. Every paragraph is like an unbearably rich chocolate mousse. I really like George Elliot too.

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).
— baker

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). — j0e

I don't think I've met anyone who can't enjoy high and low art together. Even Shakespeare put fart jokes in his play. I used to love the movie Barfly. Bukowski is certainly up there with a number of American writers (Miller/Thompson/ Kerouac) but not really my thing these days.

:up:

In Buddhist texts, the pursuit of gain is discouraged - ‘ no gaining idea’. The Buddha is said to have said ‘I have realised the supreme enlightenment and have gained nothing thereby’. — Wayfarer

Now I think I have heard this before, but it's a fascinating perspective. You can minimize it if you have attained it. But I guess you shouldn't go after it as this is ego driven and possibly vainglorious.

What is gained by living a contemplative life?

:up:

Indeed. Murdoch may be atrocious but people forget there was Hearst and Lord Beaverbrook, the Plato and Aristotle of Yellow Journalism.

what's the justification? — schopenhauer1

Yes, that's the question. Justification is not always available.... that's the problem with dying religions. As Nietzsche writes, the ghostly shadows of God's death reman with us for a long, long time. As someone from Protestant background who holds no god belief, I am sympathetic with virtue ethics.

I'm fascinated that the great novelist George Elliot provided a translation of Ethics that is said to be very rich.

Our experience as to its realness is the same. Because, by definition, we wouldn't be able to tell an illusion from reality. — Down The Rabbit Hole

That's the commonly held view.

Before I was shot, I always thought that I was more half-there than all-there - I always suspected that I was watching TV instead of living life. Right when I was being shot and ever since, I knew that I was watching television.

Andy Warhol on nearly being killed.

But taking the Protestant out of the PWE, all it says is, "You're a sack of shit because I say so. Well, okay, then. Goodbye. — schopenhauer1

Huh? The point is that the PWE has significantly influenced secular culture just as Christian ethics have influenced our human rights frameworks. The vestigial traces of the PWE remains a cultural force inside and outside Christianity. It says hard work is a virtue and laziness is bad and no one gets something for nothing and many other permutations of this sentiment.

Not wishing to be in God's favor is the same thing as being a sack of shit.

None of our experiences can be trusted as evidence that this is reality as those experiences would be the same if this was an illusion. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Being hit by a truck is the same if it were real or an illusion? How do you know that? Wanna give it a test?

I think expereinece with psychedelics (and meditation, the arts, fasting and other practices) can alter our ways of seeing. — Janus

As you suggest, altering our ways of seeing can be done in a million ways. The trick may be in which options not to choose. There's almost nothing that doesn't have this capacity - owing a dog alters your way of seeing. Having a child. Going to war.

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.

The subject of this thread has an existential interpretation. If one creates meaning in their life by engaging in certain projects wholeheartedly, then, yes, to some degree you are what you do, and what you are transcends the biological creature accomplishing those functions. — jgill

The distinction between doing and not doing is curious to me. It sounds very Protestant work ethic - 'Don't just sit in your room, get out there and do something!" "Idle hands are the devil's workshop"

Why "higher consciousness"? Why not instead 'altered consciousness', which we know is possible courtesy of psychedelics. If it is possible with psychedelics, then why not via other means? — Janus

I picked 'higher' because that is how people often describe it and the literature often talks about levels of understanding. It is hierarchical. I personally think all our terms are inadequate. What exactly does one accomplish using psychedelics? Does this count as knowledge or is it an 'experience' courtesy of some chemistry? I do think it may be possible to create this kind of effect without substances. But what does this give us - an affordable recreation opportunity when we can't afford to travel?

Perhaps the "esoteric" in esoteric knowledge is rightly understood as meaning knowledge of ideas, meaning not knowledge of anything at all, hence not actually knowledge. — tim wood

I can't quite follow this one, Tim. Can you expand on knowledge of ideas? I have assumed that esoteric means that which cannot be described but is understood as a kind of revealed wisdom.

it's ideas masquerading as knowledge, usually because someone is trying to sell you something. As such, a fraud and worth calling out wherever found. — tim wood

I hear you but I imagine that even the term 'knowledge' is inadequate for the kind of thing we are attempting to describe. Revealed wisdom is another term used. Again inadequate. If you take as your starting position that anything which can't be demonstrated or described in rational terms isn't a thing then the idea of esoteric knowledge is probably never going to convince.

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?

I disqualify "esoteric knowledge" as mumbo-jumbo until and unless you give some substantial definition. What is it? — tim wood

Gnosis would be another example of esoteric knowledge. Isn't the function of this type of knowledge a realisation that brings the knower closer to higher consciousness? In order to accept this view one needs believe in transcendent wisdom which by definition would be at odds with a scientific worldview. What exactly is the benefit of receiving transcendent wisdom (is it to teach?) and how can we tell the difference between someone how has acquired this or is pulling our leg, or wrong?

When we talk of sages, are we talking about enlightened or just wise folk?

Do you dig A Love Supreme? — j0e

You bet. And when I used to drink, My Favourite Things. But most often I used to listen to hours of Mahler and transport myself...

The world has been disenchanted for me in some ways, but I can't say that I'm bored. — j0e

Ditto. And of course the funny thing is that almost everything that makes life worth living to me (and many others) is based on elusive glimmers of the numinous - through music, art, prose fiction, a sunset, nature... all the cliches. I know that in helping people it is not always necessary to do something. Solidarity, presence and attending to others - whatever you want to call it often has far more remarkable transformative power than therapy or, God forbid, advice.

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

Or through contemplative practice after years of training, say....

I'm willing to acknowledge that I am 'trapped' in a Western scientific tradition that privileges a particular worldview and method of gaining knowledge (which in itself is tentative and fallible, but let's leave that in brackets for now). This worldview does not readily accept the validity of recondite knowledge from a transcendental source.

Is it possible for someone like me to see outside of my worldview? Have I missed something?

I want to understand better what a sage is and what it is they hold. I suspect my privileging evidence and reason will make this virtually impossible.

If one can't speak about the Tao or know about it, what is one speaking of? It seems like like trying to capture a mirage in one's hands.
— Manuel

This is my understanding. Other's disagree.

You're exactly right. The opening lines of the Tao Te Ching are:

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name

So, the book is words about something that can't be put into words. Lao Tzu recognized the irony. What I believe is that Lao Tzu's purpose is to help us experience something that comes before words, the Tao. The focus should be on the experience, not the meaning of the words. As I said, others on the thread disagree with me. — T Clark

That's a nice succinct intro. I am too Western and modern for this approach but I have enjoyed the discussion. Although it does surprise me that something so ambiguous and ostensibly benign should lead to acrimony as it has here. The battles over interpretation are not just for the profane.

I’ve observed that when people point out the fact of our insignificance, our relatively small size and that of our planet when compared to the size of the multi/universe is often offered as evidence of this. But does size even determine significance? Would we suddenly become significant if we spread to other planets throughout several galaxies? — Pinprick

It's curious isn't it? The argument is also put the other way around by some apologists. Our tiny little precious pocket of intelligent life in an otherwise vast and (apparently) life free realm suggests we are unique and therefore 'created' for significance. I don't think it matters either way and can't see why it would, except as an amplification of human anxieties. But let's face it, either view is based on an incomplete understanding of reality.

:up: As you probably know Epictetus has been an influence on a range of helpful therapeutic interventions including rational emotive behavioral therapy and cognitive behavior therapy.

But don't you think that some books sometimes make a big difference ? — j0e

I haven't read one and no one I know has ever disclosed reading one (that I can recall). But I understand they sell like the clappers. Any good examples - maybe I've heard of one or two and I have forgotten.

To me it's bold indeed to suggest that reading general thoughts about life or how stuff all hangs together would have no effect on serious decisions. — j0e

As I said, he's talking about big philosophical notions, not ideas or values in general. Everyone has opinions. But philosophical questions such as ethical relativism, theories of truth or the problem of induction make no practical difference to people's daily life. Anyway I'm not Fish and I can't defend his argument as he would since I didn't make it. But I suspect there's truth to it. Just as many people who hold a religious faith don't practice it in real life.

I would imagine that you probably never believed in life after death because you weren't brought up in a religious background. — Jack Cummins

Not true. I had church and a Christian education until I was 17. Even before I could read, stories of the afterlife held no interest. Nevertheless I consider the parable of the good Samaritan the most significant lesson in my life and Christianity's lasting legacy in the West.

The Doors of Perception/ Heaven and Hell' — Jack Cummins

A number of middle class people I have known used this book as a justification for substance misuse. I don't blame Huxley. I personally found the book dull. Personal taste.

Wittgenstein is psychedelic even. I'd count Derrida and Rorty also in this camp. Rorty ended up reminding me of the Tao...liquefying the world, you might say. — j0e

That's very enticing. I am not well read in this area. But the centrality of language can not be understated. I have worked for many years in the area of addictions and mental illness. In work with people it is often the words that are used, the stories that people carry about themselves that prevent recovery. Change the wording, the belief changes, the life changes. People can have 'magical' transformations when the language about their lives and problems is re-written. But I don't want to suggest that this is simple and that it always works.

I can speculate that Vonnegut meant something like: if you care about art and developing your taste, the main thing is to look at lots of paintings. But that doesn't sound as good. What's the alternative? — j0e

The alternative is to say nothing. My point is these are folksy maxims and they can't be assessed. They are as wrong as they are right.

I think Fish is wrong here or only thinking of the academic philosophy game. Are you saying that Epictetus, for instance, can't help people with life? Or consider the industry of self-help books, which are ultimately philosophy books, if not well respected. If we go by quantity, it's the helps-with-life philosophy that's far more popular than the clever stuff. — j0e

Is it a game? But yes, I think he means serious philosophy. He is not talking about principles like social justice or the virtue of non-judgment. Do we have much evidence that people make many serious decisions in life based on any reading - even pop-psychology?

I think really one of the worst forms of nothingness I would see is if there is no life after death. — Jack Cummins

I have never imagined that there was a life after death. Nothingness has never held any terrors for me. I think resolving this issues is usually about the should and oughts we have churning around inside us.

Might even sound mystical, and maybe some 'mystics' were misunderstood linguistic philosophers. That's only 50% joke. — j0e

Nice. I think similarly.

Vonnegut says you don't know what a good painting is till you've seen a million paintings. — j0e

Don't want to be a schmo but let's examine this. I can't help myself when I hear these sorts of statements, even though I am sympathetic to this kind of folky insight.

No one can see a million paintings. So I guess he means a lot. How many exactly do you have to see before this aesthetic sensibility emerges? Does it come as a revelation after 200,000 paintings or does it gradually emerge from 50,000? What does he mean by 'seeing'? How do you see a paining? Just by looking? What are you doing when you look? What attributes of good does he imagine we come to see/appreciate just through beholding a shit-ton of paintings? My own intuition is some people can look at a 'million paintings' and be none the wiser.

Issues like "How to choose a worthwhile career?", "How to be happy in life?", "How to get along with others without being a doormat, but also not so aggressive as to alienate them?" are of vital importance to people, but even though these questions are studied scientifically, there isn't much use for those studies (too small a return for considerable investment). So people resort to other or additional ways of obtaining useful information on such issues. Advice of elders, traditions, self-help, ... — baker

Just because we can formulate a question doesn't mean it is one. How to be happy in life, or choosing a worthwhile career and good relationships are likely unanswerable. Any resolution of these sorts of matters will be based on an individual's needs - and yes also talking to others, reflection, improvisation, whatever. Science is no more useful here than it is in telling you if you enjoyed reading a particular novel. In a similar vein, theorist and writer Stanley Fish has a polemic that in life philosophy doesn't matter. 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.

Oops, I didn't mean too.

To be fair, half of philosophy perhaps is rhetorical stunts. — j0e

Did I say it wasn't? :smile: