Yes, absolutely. I classify such utterances under "poetic ontology", "poetic epistemology", and other poetic suches. There's plenty of this in literature. It doesn't occur to me to think of the utterers of such utterances as having "mental health problems". — baker

We might even say explicitly poetic ontologies as opposed to the anti-poetic ontologies of a merely relatively depoetized reason. In other words, even 'rational' ontologies are poetic if cognition is essentially metaphorical.

I think we can say that if the florist is happy and kind, though perhaps vain and preening at times, then it's not madness, or not the kind we should worry about. I speculate that we all might even depend on a little self-flattering bias or some kind of energizing distortion.

See the beans in my hand in my avatar? I grow them. There is something absolutely transcendental to growing food and other plants. I'm just very careful about what I say about this to whom and when. There are other gardeners who understand very well what I'm talking about. And I know there are people (some of whom garden) who have no clue what I'm talking about. — baker

Nice example! I don't grow things, but my wife has a real passion for it. So I can vaguely imagine some kind of esoteric bond.

How does one florist convince another that she too has had the Direct Experience of the world as a purple rose? — j0e

The florist feels no such need to convince others.

The florist feels no such need to convince others. — baker

I agree that the ideal florist does not feel that need. But what of the imperfect florist? The aspirant florist? I can imagine ego-battles at the florist convention. I also had @Wayfarer in mind. Is it a performative contradiction to try to defend/explain the esoteric in a 'neutral' or boringly, typically 'rational' conversation?

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?

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.

I understand Baker's quote. It just seems to stretch the meaning of 'investigation.' The notion of 'Direct Experience' is an epistemic disaster. Think of the strong criticisms of sense-data empiricism. This stuff is private by definition, so it makes an absurd foundation for science, however initially plausible. Instead we have to start with (theory-laden) observation statements. — j0e

Take a more down-to-earth example of a "private investigation": Recovering after an injury. You, with your particular injury, with your particular socio-economic givens, with your particular psychological and other givens are the subject of the investigation required for recovery. First you'll have to spend the time somehow when immobilized, and then you'll have to retrain the injured limb. Take care of all the changes in your life that have occured because of the injury. And throughout all this time and effort, you will have to think about things, act in very specific ways. You will have to investigate.

Granted there are journeys into the interior, the self making sense of the self, we can still talk about what 'self' is supposed to mean here and how language works. I think the issue is trying to be philosophical and rational and at the same time gesturing beyond rationality. It's as if the mystic can't leave behind the desire to be recognized as some sort of scientist of the interior, hence metaphors like 'truth' and 'knowledge' for something that's also called 'mythos' or 'gnosis.'

I think a big part of the problem is the trend toward general democratization, egalitarization: the idea that just anyone should be able to have access to just anything, on their own terms. Initiation (whether in religion/spirituality, or in the trades and other professional fields) serves some important purposes. It's not just about protecting the "secrets of the trade" or "keeping out the unwanted", it's also for the purpose of not confusing the uninitiated.

Unfortunately, the result of this trend toward general democratization, egalitarization is plebeification and a devaluation of knowledge of a particular field, along with the normalization of lowering the standards of knowledge. Which, at best, leads to a lot of poorly spent time and the blooming of people's egos, and at worse, to dangerous situations (when people don't understand the importance of knowing and doing things properly).

One issue is that a science of the the interior is only possible with the assumption of similarity, but such an assumption cannot be justified via Direct Experience.

Imagine what would happen to the economy if there would be no guilds (with all their functions of preserving and advancing knowledge of a particular field of expertise, making sure that their practitioners live up to the standards of the trade, and so on): it would collapse, or produce relatively low quality items.
It's what is happening to religion/spirituality.

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:

There's some taboo-violation there, right? — j0e

Hence the relationship between perennialism and reactionary political movements. At least, it’s highly non-PC.

Does 'nondiscursive knowledge' make sense ? — j0e

Described as ‘non-conceptual wisdom’. Obviously a very difficult question as it can’t be conceptualised. Again it is related to that elusive idea of non-duality.

The world is a purple rose' is a Higher Truth — j0e

I went back and read that post - had skipped it at the time. It’s more like the ‘theatre of the absurd’. Again, the ‘hermeneutics of suspicion’ - ‘religious awakening’ as akin to psychopathology or a best a edifying delusion. I guess that’s because from the outside there’s no way of telling whether ‘the florist’ is a visionary or a schizophrenic. There’s no criterion for that categorisation - but if they don’t hurt anyone..... Nevertheless ‘the world is a purple rose’ is if anything a parody of the pretension of claiming ‘there is higher truth’. (Incidentally when I used to post to Dharma Wheel, that expression was also generally rejected there, despite there being a direct Sanskrit equivalent. But I don’t know how else it can be put.)

Or how can one do this and avoid evangelizing? — j0e

Interesting question. ‘Evangalizing’ is usually specific to the propagation of the Bible. Commitment to there being a higher truth is a philosophical perspective. But it’s not a popular idea. Why ‘bring it to the table’? Because it’s an important philosophical question.

:up:

Hence the relationship between perennialism and reactionary political movements. At least, it’s highly non-PC. — Wayfarer

:up:

Described as ‘non-conceptual wisdom’. Obviously a very difficult question as it can’t be conceptualised. Again it is related to that elusive idea of non-duality. — Wayfarer

The difficult point for me is that some of my favorite philosophers conceptually make a case against dualism. One is led dialectically from crude views to more sophicated views, even perhaps to aporia or quietism.

Again, the ‘hermeneutics of suspicion’ - ‘religious awakening’ as akin to psychopathology or a best a edifying delusion. I guess that’s because from the outside there’s no way of telling whether ‘the florist’ is a visionary or a schizophrenic. — Wayfarer

That underlined part was what I was getting at. Part of me (the artist streak) relates to the florist, so it's not simply parody.

But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness... — Cor 1:23

In this context, the secular philosophers are the 'Greeks.' The 'Jews' would be fundamentalist who take scripture (relatively) literally.

Interesting question. ‘Evangalizing’ is usually specific to the propagation of the Bible. Commitment to there being a higher truth is a philosophical perspective. But it’s not a popular idea. Why ‘bring it to the table’? Because it’s an important philosophical question. — Wayfarer

To be clear, I wouldn't want such a perspective censored. After all, it's a rich philosophical topic. What do we make of elitist, esoteric 'knowledge' ?

Initiation (whether in religion/spirituality, or in the trades and other professional fields) serves some important purposes. It's not just about protecting the "secrets of the trade" or "keeping out the unwanted", it's also for the purpose of not confusing the uninitiated. — baker

:up:

Imagine what would happen to the economy if there would be no guilds (with all their functions of preserving and advancing knowledge of a particular field of expertise, making sure that their practitioners live up to the standards of the trade, and so on): it would collapse, or produce relatively low quality items.
It's what is happening to religion/spirituality. — baker

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.

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

This is the guild thing again. Let's say there's a genuine or pure Buddhism but there's no way to check. You know it directly or not at all. The doctrines and rituals would mean nothing ultimately. There would be no sure way to attach words to these 'direct experiences.' (I invoke the 'private language argument' basically.)

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

:up:

I like the direct answer.

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

I tried and failed to come up with an answer to this, but it's a long way from the OP.

Returning to the OP:

Knowledge is usually defined as true belief with sufficient evidence. So knowledge is an objectification of belief. But it is also possible to have true belief without sufficient evidence. — Pantagruel

A lot turns on 'evidence' and what constitutes it. Empiricism puts emphasis on what can be validated scientifically; religious convictions and the like are then presumed to be of the order of poetic expressions or at best noble sentiments, because by definition their grounds of validation aren't amenable to empirical scrutiny. Or you might examine the efficacy of such beliefs with reference to the consequences they have for their adherents in the manner of the social sciences. Put another way, their truth or otherwise is validated inter-subjectively.

So the discussion of 'higher truth' and whether there is any such thing must acknowledge that any such concept is in principle out of scope for empirical method. And that apparently leaves only faith, which is held to be 'clinging to a proposition without evidence'. They are the two alternatives that seem to present themselves.

Faith and reason have been separated out such that knowledge and reason have been tied together as concerned with merely objective facticity, logical coherence, and “merely” instrumental (as opposed to political) power on the one hand, and religion, values, and the interpretation of meanings has been tied together and cordoned off from the world of objective knowledge and political power, and given over to the realm of subjective personal freedom.

Tyson, Paul. De-Fragmenting Modernity: Reintegrating Knowledge with Wisdom, Belief with Truth, and Reality with Being . Cascade Books, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition.

Modern culture does have esoteric knowledge, viz, mathematical physics, which is only penetrable to highly-trained specialists versed in its own secret language, accesible only to the illuminati. It even has a burgeoning occult metaphysics i.e. the 'many worlds interpretation'. But I'll leave that aside for now.

A lot turns on 'evidence' and what constitutes it. — Wayfarer

Exactly. I believe that life is a kind of very large scale experiment. The longer we live, the more likely we are to encounter 'complex evidence', where over a long time certain of our behaviour patterns result in certain types of effects returning to us in our lives. Like karma. Objective evidence, but dependent on a lot of subjective experiences. Stochastic effects are common enough in nature. This is why I would never dismiss the concept of God with any kind of trivializing argument. How do we know that the idea of God has not somehow contributed to a material change in someone's world based on certain of their actions?

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.

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

"The idea of a Paccekabuddha … is interesting, as much as it implies that even when the four truths are not preached they still exist and can be discovered by anyone who makes the necessary mental and moral effort". — link

To me this accessible to anyone aspect puts some distance between the idea and strict esotericism. For instance, someone else could have and probably would have discovered/invented special relativity if Einstein hadn't. If most of our current scientific knowledge was lost somehow, it might be recovered. If we think of religious insight as (valuable, effective) folk-psychology, the analogy works even better.

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. — baker

I don't disagree. I'd just say that being accepted in such a community could never depend directly on direct experiences that by definition are understood to be invisible to all but the little ghost in his machine. 'Enlightenment' has a place in the language game or 'sign system' of the tribe.

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

Why? Could you explain?

Why? Could you explain? — baker

Let's talk about the interpersonal aspect, peer to peer. Do I talk the other as an outsider who needs my secret? Or do I see the other as already essentially equal ? Is the sage a different kind of being, a father, or just a brother, older or younger perhaps, but some worth considering, engaging with?

I think of folks projecting either the father or the son on others. To project the father is to hopefully sit at the knee of master. To project the son is to try to get oneself recognized as the father (corrupt/infect the youth with the Cause and its lingo.) The alternative is a wary peer-to-peer attempt to steer around both temptations, or whichever one is our default.

If there's not a Pope or cult leader, interested parties self-organize into fuzzy hierarchies in an charisma or 'bullshit' economy of recognition-value. Philosophy too. Poets negotiating the canon.

Interestingly, I just started reading Dickens' Our Mutual Friend and it seems that the whole idea of the psychology of people who live according to what they 'want to believe' is actually a theme of the book. Mr Wegg, who takes great pains to maintain the integrity of his pretensions, not only to others but to himself, despite having only a vague understanding of the meaning of his pretences. Blight, the "clerkly essence," maintaining his "fiction of an occupation."