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.

Spinoza was not a sage. He never professed "special access to knowledge" or cultivated disciples like a guru whom he could initate into the/his "mysteries". Spinoza was an excommunicated secular philosopher, lens grinder & exemplar of vita simplex.

An probably the most noteworthy inhabitant of my beloved city, but that aside :)

You're not explaining how you see your historical accounts answering either of those questions. What relevance has the history of the concept got to whether it is valuable and what we ought to do about it.

The irony is that you've spent a lot of time denying that science can answer value questions, but here you seem to be suggesting that history (a no less empirical investigation) can do exactly that. — Isaac

It's not so much a matter of history, as such. What we have in the historical record is 'the testimony of sages'. In that I would include, for example, Plotinus, and other elements and exponents of traditional or pre-modern philosophy, possibly even including Aquinas. Other schools for example Stoicism esteemed the figure of the sage. There are also examples from other cultures, Indian and Chinese, where 'the sage' appears in various legendary and historical forms (for example as Lao Tzu and other Taoist sages, and as the figure of the Bodhisattva which appears in many guises.)

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.

Spinoza was not a sage — 180 Proof

I'm not sure that this is a unanimous view of Spinoza, nor that the fact he did not seek acolytes disqualify him from consideration as such.

It's also not "a unanimous view" that mankind landed on the moon in '69 or that the Earth is round. :roll: Big whup.

Absolutely :fire:

It's also not "a unanimous view" that mankind landed on the moon in '69 — 180 Proof

Hey I believe it! I really do! And also that the earth is round! so you can relax on that count!

It seems to me that many intellectual fields require extensive study of the subject and/or a certain intellectual faculty that not everbody possesses in order to be understood.

Development of understanding is a process, requiring dedication and a sharp mind.

Not everyone can view the world the way Einstein or Jung did (let alone develop such views independently), yet I hope we can agree they had some interesting things to say.

What we have in the historical record is 'the testimony of sages'. — Wayfarer

Well, that begs the question. All you've said is that there existed people referred to as sages.

The question being asked is whether they were right to revere them as such and how we should treat such claims today. Whether they existed or were treated that way is not in question.

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

Yes, that's absolurely right. It is indeed the (modern) treatment of values as facts vs opinions that's at issue.

Do you have anything to say about the merits/faults of that treatment? Because all you've said so far is that it didn't used to exist and now it does.

Well, equal rights for women didn't used to exist and now it does, so historical accounts clearly don't say anything about the merits if that they are an account of.

I hope we can agree they had some interesting things to say. — Tzeentch

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

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. — Tom Storm

I'm glad you emphasized this theme. I think I am trapped in the same way, and we both belong to some humanist scientific 'inner circle.' (I mean that such a worldview seems to have its own measure of elitism.) I think the concept and membership is fuzzy, but not too fuzzy to be useful.

I can vaguely remember as a child playing with wee-gee boards, being afraid of ghosts at night in the woods. It was fun. I remember thinking/feeling that a God could hear my prayers. The world has been disenchanted for me in some ways, but I can't say that I'm bored.

It seems to me that many intellectual fields require extensive study of the subject and/or a certain intellectual faculty that not everbody possesses in order to be understood.

Development of understanding is a process, requiring dedication and a sharp mind. — Tzeentch

There may be an important difference in the 'exalted' sage. It's not just a matter of knowing our shared reality in more detail but seemingly knowing an otherwise secret reality through an uncommon faculty. If it was only an issue of hard work and having a knack, it wouldn't be against the grain.

I think such "certain direct knowledge" consists merely. must consist merely, in a feeling of certainty. — Janus

:up:

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.

There may be an important difference in the 'exalted' sage. It's not just a matter of knowing our shared reality in more detail but seemingly knowing an otherwise secret reality through an uncommon faculty. — j0e

Can you explain that difference?

At the surface there seems to be one, but on further inspection I'm not so sure. Weren't the bits of reality that Einstein laid bare through his works "secret"? And wasn't his extraordinary mind an uncommon faculty?

Can you explain that difference?

At the surface there seems to be one, but on further inspection I'm not so sure. Weren't the bits of reality that Einstein laid bare through his works "secret"? And wasn't his extraordinary mind an uncommon faculty? — Tzeentch

I think it's a deep question, because it's about what it means to be rational in a secular sense, but it's something like science being POV-invariant & having to offer evidence. In principle, any reasonable person should be able to retrace Einstein's steps, follow his logic, and of course test the predictions derived from his theory. He doesn't just get to say 'because I say so, because I have a third eye that you do not have.' His mind would be judged uncommon by its fruits, rather than the reverse.
(?)

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. — Tom Storm

Ah yes, those elusive glimmers of the numinous...and I agree on the sources. Do you dig A Love Supreme?

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. — Tom Storm

Solidarity! Yes. Also: 'The worst vice is ad...vice.'

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...

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... — Tom Storm

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.

(My Favorite Things is great. Love 'Equinox', 'Afro Blue,'...others. Something about a sax. And Alice Coltrane kills it too.)

In principle, any reasonable person should be able to retrace Einstein's steps, follow his logic, and of course test the predictions derived from his theory. — j0e

Most would probably be able to reach a surface level understanding of his theories. To reach the level of understanding of Einstein though, would likely be beyond most people's intellective capabilities.

Some individuals are able to reach levels of understanding that others cannot, through hard work and dedication, and possibly also genetic disposition.

He doesn't just get to say 'because I say so, because I have a third eye that you do not have.' His mind would be judged uncommon by its fruits, rather than the reverse. — j0e

Sages usually offer some form of teaching (a method that can be tested), and also a reason to be interested in those teachings. Perhaps they seem very happy and wise (the fruits).

I'd agree if these things aren't present, then one has plenty of reason to doubt the genuiness of this sage.

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

I suppose one paradigm of sage-hood that could be mentioned is the Buddha. One of his epiphets was Sakyamuni, meaning ‘sage of the Sakyas’ .

Hierarchy - is Buddhism hierarchical? The original Sangha, which is said by some to be closest in form to the Theravada Buddhists of South Asia, had a flat structure. The Buddhist Sangha is arguably the oldest such organisation still in existence. Anyone was able to join regardless of caste and gender. Iit’s been argued that one of the reasons for Buddhism dying out in India was the fact that it flouted caste rules. (A modern Buddhist movement was formed to appeal to the Dalits, outcastes,)

in the original Buddhist sangha, there is a sense of the basic equality of all the members. However there was a kind of ranking in terms of attainment (stream-winner, once-returner, never-returner etc.) From my knowledge there is a kind of ranking of seniority depending on how many rains retreats monks have attended (the rains retreat being the time of year dedicated to strict seclusion, study and meditation). I daresay in institutional Buddhism there is a priestly hierarchy although I think overall, the model in Buddhism is rather more like a network than an hierarchical organisation with a singular head; the Buddha left no appointed successor.

As to whether the Buddha’s teaching was ‘esoteric’ - the Theravada would say not, however, in the development of Buddhism, esoteric elements were to emerge early in its history. For example, the early Indian sage Nāgārjuna was said to have retrieved the Prajñāpāramitā teachings from the naga-realm at the bottom of the ocean. And tantric Buddhism as it developed in Tibet and East Asia was certainly esoteric to the extent that there are rules concerning who is able to receive such teachings. There are specifically esoteric lineages such as Tendai.

Be that as it may, the not-specifically-esoteric elements of Buddhism have been handed down since the early days of the tradition and are still fundamental to Buddhism. When the Buddha was asked about the scope of his teachings, he picked up a handful of leaves, and said that he knew as much as all the leaves in the great forest, but that this ‘handful of leaves’ was all that was necessary for liberation.

However, there’s something further that could be said. The first of the Buddhist suttas is the Brahmajala Sutta, the ‘net of views’, which specifies all of the kinds of wrong view that ‘monks and ascetics’ are to avoid. And there’s a formulaic expression found throughout that text, to the effect that ‘the dhamma I teach is difficult, profound, hard to fathom, beyond mere logic, perceivable only to the wise’. I think here, the principle is that of discernment (paṭisambhidā) which is what enables the Buddhist aspirant to discern these ‘subtle dhammas beyond the sphere of logic’. In lay terms, this comprises the ability to discern how ‘defiling emotions’ (klesa) and disturbances (asava) arise in the mind and to let them go or cut them off, giving rise to the sense of emotional equanimity which is associated with the Buddhist temperament.

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.

We're the puke of chance? That's different indeed from being made in a god's image or mirroring the essence of the universe — j0e

Don't forget about those teleological evolutionists... OK ok, they are pretty rare actually (Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Bergson come to mind).

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?

Okay, I'm probably going to cut myself here (or be cut by others) but let's do it anyway. My family was put into prison camps in Indonesia during WW2. After the war they were persecuted into exodus. They then moved into a country that was completely destroyed by Hitler (the Netherlands). That is where I was born.

To me there cannot be such a thing as contempt. To consider anyone or anything of less value feels like sacrilege. Therefore I try not to define things, for definitions come with connotations. Which quickly can become pejorative, resulting in derogatory comments. Words can hurt.

I am truly sorry if I've harmed anyone on this forum. That is not my intention. Yet written language has its shortcomings.

So regarding the OP. I think the problem lies in the nature of the esoteric. It seems that it can only be spoken of in mythological and metaphorical terms. We might mean the same thing without realizing it.

Coming from a religious/spiritual tradition I was taught to obtain such knowledge through contemplative practices. Yes, I'm learning and studying classical philosophy every day. For I do want to fit in. But what I learned in university is that it's often hard to interpret because the language is so ambiguous. It's archaic and translated.

I really don't like arrogance. I'd rather take Ventura Highway than a horse with no name, if you know what I mean.

I do hope this will contribute to a better atmosphere on TPF. Please be kind

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.)

actual pursuit of esoteric knowledge, — Jack Cummins

If you're just out on the plains shooting anything that moves then you might be excused for not knowing what you just shot, if anything. But here you're interested in an "actual pursuit" of something you call "esoteric knowledge." For brevity's sake, what is an actual pursuit, and what is esoteric knowledge? I ask because in my admittedly limited experience, they mean a non-pursuit of non-knowledge, for self-entertainment. But likely I just don't understand the terms

I am logged in so I might as well reply to you, even though I was planning to write on the thread tonight. I can explain my so-called 'pursuit of esoteric knowledge'. I probably mean mostly in terms of reading, although I have attended meetings and workshops by various groups. However, having read the thread I am sure if I am coming from the same angle as the poster, so not entirely sure if my interest is relevant to the thread.

My own understanding of the esoteric is based on spiritual traditions primarily. I first came across the idea when I was a practicing Christian, when I heard that there were different teachings taught to Jesus's disciples to the wider groups. This was when I was at school and I found a number of books on esoteric Christianity, although I would not be able to recall their titles now. Following disillusionment with some of the ideas I encountered in college Christian Unions, because the ideas seemed so fundamentalist, I began reading in areas of Eastern religion, theosophy and diverse areas. I still do so, and even frequent an esoteric bookshop in London.

However, I am not saying that I believe the ideas in a fixed or concrete way. Having read about theosophy, I am aware that Blavatsky's mediumship was fraud. I have also read a very eccentric writer, Benjamin Creme, and attended the final lecture he gave in his 90s, before he died. The most relevant ideas he voiced, relevant to this post, is the belief that there is a divine hierarchy of invisible masters.

I won't go on further, because I can imagine that the ideas which I am talking about are open to big questions. However, it is in this kind of context that I am familiar with the whole idea of the esoteric, and I am aware of esoteric aspects of Buddhism and many other traditions. So, that is the basic background of my understanding of the esoteric.

However, I am aware of the whole way in which knowledge structures change. I am not sure that the idea of the esoteric writers is considered as being of much importance today. They are mostly in little corners of many bookshops, labelled as new age, and perhaps we have gone past hope of a new age now, as we are in a fragmented world.

The one other aspect of the esoteric which I am aware of is that often within such forms of thought, one aspect of the reason why it is considered as esoteric is because the knowledge is considered as being potentially dangerous, and thereby, reserved for the initiates.

I have written a response to a reply I received in a comment I got in my response to you, so you can read it if you are interested. However, I am not sure from what you have written that the ideas I am talking are in the scope of your thread discussion.

I think that you are maybe wishing to pursue more of a discussion about power and knowledge within philosophy, mainly in a secular context. However, even if my own comment is considered as irrelevant, I think that it does at least pose the question of what do we mean by esoteric?

I invite you to take issue here: Would you agree and accept that in place of "esoteric knowledge" that "esoteric ideas" solves all problems? Your reply is in terms of ideas, and even about things about which knowledge is impossible (the mysteries; for were knowledge of them possible they wouldn't be mysteries, that point made by the original heavy thinkers).

Ideas are free, knowledge costs, the costs not being paid it is not and cannot be knowledge.

It is a good question whether esoteric ideas solve all problems. I probably would not be writing a thread on philosophical mysteries if I thought that the esoteric philosophies had all the answers. Generally, I think that ideas and information are so freely available, especially in the age of the internet, but in acquiring knowledge, reaching wisdom and insight is a completely different matter.