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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding the idea of the whole and the parts, it may be a mixed issue. To go beyond academic thinkers it is a bit like the song by the Waterboys of seeing, 'The Whole of the Moon', which may be symbolic of the issue. In esotericism, patterns and correspondences, as in the pictures of astrology. It also involves the idea of the microcosm as a reflection of the microcosm, which goes back to the thinking of Plato.

As far as seeing the whole, this may be challenged by the idea of pluralism and the various viewpoints of the observers. Some may see there being a 'perfect' or attainment of perfection, but whether this exists objectively is open to dispute. Members of spiritual disciplines may believe in perfection but the idea of elitism is a particular issue. Certain thinkers may have seen their own view as 'superior', but it does raise questions about the politics of knowledge. In relation to esotericism, there may have been power elites who were able to maintain such positions. For example, in Catholicism, there was the power of the Vatican. In this way, the 'secret knowledge' may have maintained elitism, as opposed to those who lacked knowledge, which was more predominant when education was less accessible to those at the bottom of the hierarchies of power.

As far as fear comes in, fear operates in different subtle ways. It can lead to the acceptance of the norm, but it can be used as a political tool. There may have been an interplay, such as in the idea of the way in which ideas of heaven and hell were transmitted as being about everlasting reward or punishment rather than as mental states of bliss or agony.

I am sorry that I do not quote in my replies. It is because it does not seem possible on my particular model of phone. I would probably need to be able to connect it to a mouse, like on a laptop. Also, your answers are good insofar as they are detailed but make many varying points so I would probably feel I need to make more than one post to address them. Saying that, I hope that my posts don't come across as totally lacking, as I do see writing on a forum.as being different to fuller forms of writing. Some write extremely short replies and I tend towards neither extremes.

As far as Hegel and the idea of the imminent I think that there is an ambiguity in how he views it. In some ways, he leans towards naturalism but not in the way that most people do in the Twentieth First century and that is probably a reflection of his own historic context. He was leading the way in coming out of grand metaphysical dramas and schemes but was prior to the paradigm of current scientific thinking. In this, he was involved in a process of demystification but this picture was only just starting to appear. Since then, it has become far more prominent with so many shifts backwards and forwards in many ways.

Jaynes' theory is also important for thinking about psychosis itself because it also suggests that people heard voices. Even within psychiatry there is a recognition of differences between hallucinations and pseudo hallucinations.

At times, I have had pseudo hallucinations, such as on the borderline of sleep. However, when I experimented with LSD briefly I did hear literal.voices, which seemed to correspond with my own thoughts. It did make understanding between inner and outer experience very confusing.

It does seem to suggest a very deep neuropsychological basis for understanding of the nature of reality. It probably also connects with the ideas of Iain Gilchrist in 'The Master and the Emissary', which looks at hemispheres in conjunction with developments in thinking, including the history of philosophy itself.

The way you describe the difference between the Gnostics and Plotinus, demonstrates the divergences in esotericism. In particular, it points to the way in which attitudes to the body are viewed.

Many esoteric thinkers have been in favour of contemplation, meditation and going beyond the body' in the development of the spirit, especially the rejection of the 'higher' self rather than the 'lower' self. Gnosticism is a little different and tension over how the body and sexuality may be viewed. Similarly, tantric thinking has a very different approach here to some other Eastern esoteric schools of thinking.

This means that the esoteric traditions have many intricacies in connection with philosophy. Plotinus was a significant writer and his influence affected ideas within religious and philosophical thinking, and its complex interplay. There are probably so many crossovers, involving the transition of ideas crossculturally on an esoteric level as well as in organised religion.

It is possible that in everyday terms people often muddle the idea of esoteric and obscurity, even to the point where philosoph itself is seen as esoterica in comparison with what is seen as conventional logic or thinking. That in itself may make life idea of the esoteric in philosophy as a confusing area, a little outside of the main area of thinking about the nature of mind.

Also, because it combines issues of mind and consciousness with issues which could be seen as being the territory of the philosophy of religion, or transcendent reality, makes it complicated. Some of the writers on mysticism don't help this by the emphasis on going beyond language, because philosophy is involved with conceptual and linguistic understanding.

One of the books which I have found to be fairly helpful in this respect is 'Cosmic Consciousness', by Robert Bucke, because he writes case studies of certain individuals experiences, which includes many great creative individuals as opposed to framing it in a specifically religious or spiritual perspective.

The way in which you combine Hegel and the idea of Hegel is especially useful for considering the concept of the 'supernatural'. It may have led to so so much confusion about an 'out there' zone, separate from experience itself. It may elevate religious and spiritual experiences beyond the realms of nature.

If anything, some aspects of esotericism may seem to reinforce this, such as mysticism as being transcendent, as well as the idea of esotericism as being the 'special' experience of the 'elite' initiates, and detached from imminent experience, including numinous experiences.

When thinking of the concept of the supernatural, one book which I thought to be extremely important is Lyall Watson's, Supernature'. In this work, Watson sees the division between biological nature and so called 'supernatural ' experiences to be be problematic. He argues that sensory and extrasensory experiences may be misunderstood by trying to separate them from the understanding of nature and biology. The underlying idea being that the idea of the supernatural and magic itself may be unhelpful.

Going back to Hegel, in his writing, including his writing on the nature of mind and history, he may have been such an important thinker as seeing reality as imminent, as opposed to transcendent.

Your way of understanding 'concrete' is useful and important, and another approach which is particularly important in relation to esotericism is the understanding of the inner and outer aspects of life, including Jacob Boehme's thinking and other writers, like Meister Eckhart, who spoke of, 'Heaven and hell are within oneself and are to one another as nothing'. The idea of heaven and hell as inner experience are different from the conventional religious understanding of a spatio-temporal dimension in an afterlife, detached from the body.

Jonathan Black, in 'The Secret History of the World' makes reference to the idea of subjectivity and objectivity spoken of by Julian Jaynes in 'The Bicameral Mind: The Origins of Consciousness'. Jaynes spoke of how at one stage of consciousness the division between the inner and outer was not clear, with so much being projected onto gods or God. This is very different from the state of present consciousness, in which the psychological dimension is understood and it is important for considering the nature of concrete thinking in which the differentiation of the inner and outer aspects are extremely blurred.

I guess that even the idea of concrete thinking has varying meanings and associations. I have come across it's used mainly in psychiatry, when referring to the most literalism of ideas. I am sure that your perspective works as well, in relation to the position of 'now' consciousness although time itself is so fluid a concept as change is constant. I am more inclined to view concreteness as taking ideas as af they are physical objects or less subject to evaluation.

My main understanding of its relation to esotericism is that ideas are taken as more fixed entities rather than being juggled and juxtaposed by individuals. So, I would see fluidity as opposed to concreteness as being about ideas as definitive, like Plato's idea of the forms as opposed to arising differently in specific contexts. There is probably an interplay, with the esotericism of Plato being about the 'eternal aspects of meaning, as opposed to the "now'. This may be the opposite of where you are coming from and from the basic paradigm of realism.

Generally, I see realism as being very different to esotericism in its claim to objectivity. Nevertheless, I guess that some esoteric thinkers, such as Plato would see the eternal basis of ideas and processes as aspects of objective 'truth'. That makes this whole area a tricky part of philosophical reasoning.

It may also depend on how different the idea of the exoteric and esoteric are and what they entail. The first person who made me aware of the distinction was a school religious studies teacher. However, he was one of the most conventional Catholic thinkers I came across, especially opposed to the validity of comparative religion. I remember him saying that the Buddha believed he was God and mistaken, which seemed to gloss over the nature of spiritual thinking entirely. The teacher was a rigid thinker but I did meet him once later and he had softened so much, speaking of 'how memories come and go', and with what appeared to be far less concrete thinking.

I am inclined to think that concrete thinking is the problem, especially in why people hold onto dogmas, of both religion and science. The exoteric may be about the shared, or intersubjective guidelines for thinking, whereas the esoteric may involve the mysterious nature or conundrums of personal consciousness and its evolution. Each of us is living with the outer boundaries of intersubjective consciousness, tailoring it to the way in which the dramas of life enfold uniquely.

The esoteric thinkers may focus more on the subjective aspects and deviations from cultural norms, especially the development of one's own perspective and signature in the grand scheme of philosophy. It may involve relativism but, with more of an emphasis on lived experience, especially looking beyond the surface of ideas.

In that sense, it is about the unique and individual quest for understanding life and its meaning. It probably goes beyond actual concrete ideas of the nature of 'spirituality' , in a rigid sense, to the mythic aspects of what it means to be human. Here, I am not suggesting that it falls into a framework of Jungian or mythic interpretation, as it may involve the widest aspects of cultural interpretation, and anthropological perspectives.

I wonder about the nature of doubt even though many have feared it. I was brought up to doubt, but I committed the sin of being the doubting Thomas or whatever guise. Where would philosophy stand without doubt and scepticism, as recognised by David Hume.

It is also important to think about desire in relation to esotericism. Some may see desire as a problem, including the basic perspective of Buddhism, which looks at desire as something to be overcome. However, desire may be a starting point for expanded awareness as William Blake argued, especially in 'The Marrriage of Heaven and Hell. Blake even wrote that the reason why Milton 'wrote in fetters' was "because he was part of the devil's party without knowing it'.

In other words, desire may be the opposition or 'demon', which gives rise to conflict in the first place, in the ongoing process of the evolution of consciousness.

Hegel is often seen as obscure and disregarded. However, his emphasis on 'spirit' in history may overcome the basic dualistic understanding inherent in ideas of mind and body; especially in relation to the idea of qualia and its relationship between science and materialism.

In some ways, Hegel may be esoteric, but going beyond the basics of spiritual understanding. Also, in that sense, Nietszche can be seen as esoteric, in the sense of going beyond conventional understanding. It may be that ideas of the 'esoteric' are too boxed into the categories of the challenge between religion and science as a black and white area of philosophical thinking, missing some blindspots, which may go outside of the conventions of metaphysics, into a more fluid picture of ideas.

The idea of 'nothing', especially in regard to 'something' is complicated because it combines the mathematical with the linguistic. At its basis, the mathematics of nothing is zero; but how it comes into play linguistically conceptually may be more complex. Maths may be part but not all of the basis for this.

It may not be mathematical but conceptual, such as suggested by Sartre in 'Being and Nothingness-. It spans the logistics of maths and ideas of meaning. So, I would say that the problem with this thread is to reduce it to a formula. 'Nothing' may not be a specific value, but an area of meaning and linguistics,which may go beyond logistics of mere binary divisions and thinking.

I also wonder about the ideas of Hegel on 'spirit' here. His understanding is not simply about the 'supernatural' as separate from the nature of experience itself, but as imminent in the evolution of consciousness on a collective and personal basis. It may be that mysticism itself was a problem because it tried to separate the nature of experience and reason as though they were different categories of knowledge and understanding.

Your ideas on fear may be particularly important because fear itself may be such an essential trigger for thinking and exploration. In itself, fear may have led to the nature of questioning religion, and its dogmas.

On a wider level, fear may evoke so much in thinking, especially the 'lazy approaches' of conventional thinking and logic. At times, this may be a useful basis for criticising the ideologies inherent in religious thinking. Alternatively, it may provoke some kind of response to materialism and its extreme rejection of the idea of 'spirit' itself, as a source of everything, whether it is considered to be 'God', or some other numinous force inherent in consciousness, especially human consciousness.

It does seem that some of us are more inclined to pursue the 'hidden path'. Many ways I do try to avoid it, but it keeps rearing its ugly head. In some ways, it may be better to live a mundane existence of treading the known pathways because the esoteric is a difficult path. It is almost like the 'shamanic call', although there is itself a certain grandiosity to some claims to a calling.

That is almost the opposite predicament to the way in which some people stumble upon the 'unknown' through the use of mind-altering substances. I have used them but only as a a means to understanding the nature of the 'doors of perception'. That is so different from people who are partying and using substances as a form of recreation. That may be why so many end up with drug-induced psychosis. It may involve an 'opening up' which is too dramatic, such as Gopi Krishna describes in his work on the 'kundalini serpent' which can be too overwhelming and lead to 'madness'.

A certain amount of humility is probably worth holding onto as well groundedness in realism. I love the work of Krishnamurti because he rejected the title of spiritual teacher, when that was projected upon him. Part of the reason why I raise the thread topic is because the questions of philosophy are sometimes seen as separate from the esoteric quest. Aldous Huxley was an important writer, including his work, 'The Doors of Perception/ Heaven and Hell', as well as , 'The Perennial Philosophy'.

A fuzzing of it all may be problematic, but, at the same time some of the issues of philosophy have been approached by many thinkers and artistic people, so it may be an intricate area for thinking about, such as the quest for the symbolic 'philosophers stone', which, hopefully goes beyond the fantasy world of Harry Potter. Fantasy literature explores important themes, but it may lose connection with the basics of philosophy at times, if it becomes too speculative in the grand process of human imagination.

Your emphasis on fear of the unknown is interesting, especially in relation to logic. That is because scientific logic, including materialism may come from that angle, as once Christianity, especially Catholicism did in the past. The esoteric, or occult, was feared as taboo and still is in some religious circles. I found the section on the esoteric, paranormal and magic when I was about 12 years old. My family discouraged me from reading it and for a long time I did avoid it. Later, when I was exploring various philosophy ideas, including premonitions, some fairly evangelical thinking student friends were horrified, seeing such ideas as 'Satanic' lies.

On philosophy forums, there are so many divergent views but, in spite of it many are wary of it, as nonsensical lies often, opposed to science. So, there may be a crossover at times between scientific and religious fundamentalism. Fear may be the 'demon' lurking in the background and logic, or even commonsense may be the certainty which many wish to cling to.

I am not sure that a certain amount of common sense and trust in the empirical is not important to avoid confusion. I have worked with people with acute psychosis and have seen the grave dangers of getting carried away with 'delusions', such as belief in magical and psychic powers. So, it may be about holding onto a certain amount of critical 'realism', but also about juggling this with the limits of reason. Also, each person may come to this in a unique way based on personal experiences.

Yes, it probably says so much about Western culture and the nature of consumerism and shallowness. It all comes down to money and images for so many, to where it turns the initial ideas of esotericide upside down and inside out. It probably links with what Alice Bailey wrote as the problem of glamour.

It is not even just ideas of spirituality but the whole culture around the arts as well, including the industry around Van Gogh and Kurt Cobain, which is about the seductive images as commodities. It is so different from the 'hidden' experiences of the genuine pursuit. Many of the genuine seekers may be hidden in corners of libraries and in various isolated places. Even with the popular genres of mind, body and spirit and mindfulness in pop psychology it may mean that, in many ways, the esoteric will always remain esoteric, as 'rejected knowledge'.

Some people do seem to seek for 'enlightenment' or even the bliss of 'Nirvana' as an end. From my perspective, this is a rather narrow perspective because it shortcircuits the processes which may be as essential in learning, just as much as the moment of enlightenment. What is known as 'The Dweller on the Threshold', to quote a Van Morrison track, may be important and the understanding of suffering. Without the initial sense of sufferings the quest of the Buddha would not have the significance which it has.