Esoteric

The project we can generally call the Enlightenment was about including humanity is one common category. It’s economic and political arms involve incorporating difference and investing in unknowns we can call excess.

The failure of this project is actually the culmination of its effort, its fruition. Where ever difference may appear, it’s manner of viewing the universe has filled in, colonized every possibility of thinker including ways to think about thinkers and thoughts that could not think of have a thought.

The enlightenment and its project of colonialization continues because thought itself is understood commonly as a particular set of instructions and descriptions that most people are simply unable and will not ‘think’ outside of. This is so much the case, the project so solidified, that even philosophy itself thinks that it is able to overcome this ideological theological maxim.

What we call ‘Esoteric’ is that manner of coming upon the universe which, for any group of human beings, cultures or “religions”, is unable to be communicated to the aggregate of constituents.

Confusion arises in the world, dissolution of group coherence, when everyone one is assumed to be party to all ability of knowing and thinking in potential. Individual withdraw into subjectivity, the atomization of the human group, the dividing or separating of things along “improper” junctures, causes demoralization in the groups constituents and an ability for large exploitation of those individuals due to the conceptual excess which arises from the ‘fission’ of people who would otherwise see themselves as a whole being intimately involved with a coherent and meaningful group.

Author: landzek

My name is Lance Kair, a philosopher musician that is being questioned.

34 thoughts on “Esoteric”

  1. CORRECTION : “I think it’s a feature or characteristic of the modern human being to feel that they should have the privilege not ONLY to investigate anything in the world they want, but that because…”.

    1. 😁. That’s a good question. Lol.
      Let me answer that by describing what I see my work as about, or I’ll try to anyways.

      It is description.

      The scientist who came up with the hydrogen bomb – there’s nothing wrong with coming up with the hydrogen bomb. What’s wrong is the uses that people with power or have issues with power put it to use for, like killing people.

      I use the word science more as a kind of descriptive activity rather than a proscriptive one. So, I also see Philosophy. as involved with description, and not so much about ethics and how one should view life or what one should do in life.

      For sure, Philosophy. can deal with all these types of things but I think there can be a hard line between what Kant calls categorical and hypothetical, or pure and practical. I think that it is necessarily ideological to view those two kinds, or two aspects of philosophy as involved with a single entity, a one thinker, a one being, a one individual, or a one person. But when we think this way we also have to consider that what is ideological must not necessarily be involved with a single thing, the universe, the individual, the subjective or some sort of umbrella phenomenological term whatever term we use. And I say this because most people I think I understand the world and everything in it, including what we read, Philosophy., history, math computers whatever it is it doesn’t matter what it is, most people view whatever it is they’re coming upon underneath or within some sort of unity, some grand scheme, which we use different terms to describe depending on what occasion were talking about or what context: it could be the individual human, or it could be is grand is the universe . most people necessarily take what they come upon is part of some larger cosmos in which there’s all these individual things that are communicating and relating to another in various ways.

      In this kind of you no matter what is put out there it is automatically taken as a sort of opinion or some idea amongst a multitude of ideas. Ok. So whatever that situation is we have to call it one situation.

      I see Philosophy. or at least the work that I do as a particular way of describing that does not necessarily have to do with that one situation.

      And I try to describe how this might be the case. And really we have to conclude that Laruelle s Philosophy is correct in this regard, that there is one manner which is exclusive, which views everything is underneath one giant cosmological umbrella under which everything else relates, and then there is one non-philosophical situation that describes the ramifications of that situation. In short, one that includes in one Excludes ontologically as a method for coming upon conceptualizing or appropriating the world. It is ridiculous to make some sort of argument that either one of those things is the case or that that situation cannot be the case. It goes against everything that we know of as philosophical in the traditional sense. And so part of my work is trying to describe that situation.

      Ok. 😆. Now, to being esoteric or esoteric things.

      The situation that the term esoteric six to describe is something that is beyond itself in the true context of what is esoteric, at least so far as we have a concept of that world and before we define it back in to something that we know of. The esoteric realms of religion, we have to understand that there was not always this critical ability for human beings, and indeed there is not. This is why I say there is no common category called the human being, and that any such assumption upon a human being is necessarily a power-play, necessarily an attempt to evangelize or colonize the world around.

      What esoteric means it’s some sort of secret knowledge. But secret in the sense of that a religion is indeed functioning. A religion that is functioning in the sense that it cannot be known and it’s functioning because it is functioning; I’m pretty sure critical theorists call this and intrinsic mythology. It is a mythology that is functioning despite what we think about it because whatever we’re thinking about at the time is the product of that intrinsic mythology.

      Within everyone of these intrinsic arenas for knowing the world, the word esoteric is supposed to mean something that is involved with that intrinsic mythology but is in such a place that is beyond the knowledge or conception of the aggregate of that group that is involved with that intrinsic mythology .

      So what I’m saying I guess in this post really is that capitalism, the very idea of ideology, the modern human being that supposes to educate everyone in potential as though human beings exist on this continuum of commonality where we can actually educate each other to self efficiency and self actualization, in the Maslow sense —.

      This idea that we can creep into every nook and cranny of the universe or the human experience and uncover what is actually occurring, again, As though there is this foundational truth of existence that we can find out about and/or this umbrella in which we are all enCompass as human beings objects things in the universe, this effort, this actual ability of the human being to conceptualize and create etc., has placed the human being philosophically in an uneasy existence. And yes this is drawing upon you know the 20th century philosophies.

      So I propose that what we see in the world politically, climate, world, universe, whatever contacts we want to put, this over arcing ideological whatever situation that we see out in the world of occurrences and people behaving with each other and things in the universe in the world Lala… this occurs because the human being has no “otherness“ that is substantial apart from Mgr conceptualization, at least philosophically speaking.

      And so I’m kind of saying that what is esoteric is necessary for any group to produce or maintain “healthy“ members.

      People simply do not have a way to conceptualize them into the world if their existence is based in nothing. And so I say that ideology this modern ideology, this modern philosophical critique of everything, supposes to be able to encompass that which is esoteric of its own intrinsic mythology. And that this redundancy is what might be contributing to our world in which so many people are not “mentally healthy” or have no way to get into any sort of healthy relationship with the world, due to the fact of what is obviously going on with the world. It is redundant.

      So I’m not arguing for or against it except to say that the very idea that I can identify as something is esoteric and then go into it and find out some sort of knowledge all sorts of knowledge about this esoteric domain, is it self a faulty manner of coming upon what is esoteric in its essence, in it’s truth. And so the effort that suppose is to be able to uncover all things secret, in the sense, in so much as the individual might indeed see themselves as “understanding the secret knowledge” , Is damaging for that person that might be thinking that way because it is based in a philosophy of prescription of how they are then to proceed into the world, which they necessarily an active violence upon because of that fundamental in basic misunderstanding of that knowledge that they’re coming upon through that term of esotericism based in the modern ideological instance.

      Whew!! I don’t know if that makes much sense but thank you for the opportunity to kind of expound upon that.

      I think it’s a feature or characteristic of the modern human being to feel that they should have the privilege not to investigate anything in the world they want, but that because of that privilege they can necessarily know what every single item that they investigate might be. This is the phenomenological philosophical privilege that I critique in my last post really.

      Oh, and the modern ideology were supposed to be able to get in every nook and cranny thereby creates a conceptual access through which to exploit other people, because most other people are ideologically bound. The issue then is power and how that power is used, not so much about whether things are true or false about esotericism. Indeed, what I call intellectuals of the left supposed to come up on the secret knowledge so they can promote themselves in the world. This promotion, this individualism, this effort towards self actualization and being an authentic person in the world necessarily abusers and exploits a massive amount of human beings that they would otherwise ethically try to mediate or mitigate their activity through, even while that medication is it self a part of the abuse and exploitation of a multitude of other human beings that don’t have that “colonial privilege” indeed, what I call intellectuals of the left supposed to come up on the secret knowledge so they can promote themselves in the world. This promotion, this individualism, this effort towards self actualization and being an authentic person in the world necessarily abusers and exploits a massive amount of human beings that they would otherwise ethically try to mediate or mitigate their activity through, even while that mitigation is itself a part of the abuse and exploitation of a multitude of other human beings that don’t have that “colonial privilege”.

      Damn I got a shut up now. 😆

      So give me some feedback on that because I just rambled a whole bunch and Now I’m kinda feeling weird. Lol.

      1. I don’t know where to start from lol

        I don’t agree with you that philosophy is a descriptive discipline such as science. Philosophy is proactive. True it has a descriptive analystical part which should help it to tell what’s coming. If it is simply descriptive, than we are missing a point in the double exercice of thinking/reflecting and conceptualizing. And on this point, Deleuze was right when he defined philosophy as the creation of concepts, therefore a prevision. Kant did it, Spinoza did it, Nietzsche did it and the list is long.

        That being said, only philosophers along with some happy few bright minds, can link the dots in all fields under what you call the umbrella of the cosmos. Ordinary people see science as different from art; whereas at their core, they are 2 different ways to explain what’s beneath or above the umbrella. People think in terms of differenciation; philosophy is more holistic.

        As for esotericism, many things can be said here. In my opinion, the human mind as in rationality, can’t understand everything rationally. And here comes the role of esotericism: to fill the gap.
        On the contrary, capitalism which became an ideology, is rationality at its brightest moments. So we can not compare esotericism with capitalism as 2 forms of ideologies. They are different, in least in their actions. What once was called esoteric had become progressively explainable rationally, because rationality is a process too and it needs technological tools to back it up. Who has technology and knowledge, has power!

      2. Yes. Thanks.

        And I would add another layer:
        What’s explainable rationally of what was once esoteric, is merely changing suits. Changing clothes. The issue of modern man, its myth, is that it makes no room for otherness; more it presents a view as though otherness as being grasped by being explained “rationally”.

        We usually and regularly know what we use, to position our subjectivity for our own purpose. We, as a theological tenet of modern being, proclaim upon everyone and everything that if it does not work towards being usable “for me” then it doesn’t exist. For even if I make some sort of argument that there are plenty things out in the world that I’m presently not using, the very encompassing term “that with him not knowing”, is being used by me, as it is a category of “those things”, the thing that is “those things”.

        This is a description of what is occurring. Not an argument about what is ethical so as far as what I shall do with the knowledge.

        If we’re standing together and I say “the tree“. I’m not suggesting anything about what you should do with that tree, and I’m not making an argument about what the tree is or what it does or what should you be doing with it or anything. If I likewise say the backpack sitting on the table has wrinkles and is pink and green, i’m not making an argument about it.

        But, in that same situation, those same phrases I just used, we surely can derive some sort of meaning about what I’m supposed to do or what you’re supposed to do. Usually in philosophy people take any statement that I make, because we are on the umbrella under the umbrella of Philosophy. as a cosmological constant in that particular situation, any statement I make is supposed to drive a particular type of discussion, it’s assumed that I making an argument about something, and it’s assumed that we’re supposed to do something with it, namely, in philosophy is we’re supposed to come up with some problem with the statement. If I say “tree is green“, under the umbrella of philosophy as something that we are both involved with, often enough people will say “I disagree” and try to add something problematic about the tree. But this is not to say that we are not allowed to do this, the description I’m putting forth is not saying it’s a wrong way of being or something we should do something else. Often enough it is very difficult for people to sit with some sort of being Ness of a situation. And I think this is symptomatic of modernity and beings that are modern.

        So it’s Both: there is being for being sake, and there is the modern being which only sees ethical use.

        And they only Involve one another in an umbrella of unity, and umbrella notion, vanishing point, or is this a quick call master signifier, but what we generally know it’s cosmology, or even epistemology, or just the idea that I have this concept of myself as a unitive thing, as a single individual— The only place where being as being conflates with being as what can I used, Is In The “being that uses”. The view that sees only being that can be used understands a large cosmology, an umbrella, a subjective truth, a universe of totality, etc., it doesn’t matter what terms we used to describe any unity that is supposed to encompass all things— such a view understands knowledge or rationality as involved in some sort of purpose, some sort of progress, which necessarily has to do with things that we use. There is nothing that we use that doesn’t have a teleology involved with it. But this is not to say that there isn’t a reality, the truth of the situation that has no overreaching encompass meant towards what we can use. This other way of viewing things most people say is not real or not true because it doesn’t have anything to do with opinion or belief or even what we would call rationality, because what is rational is ultimately modern capitalism and what we can use what we can exploit how we can make more out of “what we know”.

        And I suppose I am love mental health and I love counseling so much because what we’re really trying to do with people is get them out of the judgment, of the world and themselves. Get them out of the idea that they have something to do. Because so long as people are attached to some sort of judgment about what they’re supposed to be or what they’re supposed to do in the world generally the issues that they have that they’re coming in for really never change.

        And philosophically when we look at politics and shit like that, it’s kind a hard not to see the problems in our society is based in this for petrol notion that we all have to be something that we feel is right as opposed to something that I’m doing or being that is wrong, and that we have to use that idea towards some sort of purpose in the world. So I’m not really explaining things so far as to bring some sort of solution to the world, I’m expecting describing a situation that we try to an act on individual people I suppose.

        I mean think about when you come home from your day and you want to relax, say. Or there’s some nagging problem you can’t stop thinking about and it’s irritating you and it’s making you angry and sad. What is the solution for that?

        Sure we can be quiet and try and meditate and relax and stop thinking about those things, but what are we really doing when we do that?

        We are allowing things to be without using them. My anger can be anger and I don’t have to make any judgment upon it I don’t have to do anything because I’m angry. The being of angry is allowed to exist in and of itself without any sort of encompassing ontological umbrella purpose or point.

        I agree with you, but I think there’s another way to view things, not as an opinion but as a real being.

      3. I didn’t say we have to see it as an opinion; rather I said it is a being that is a part of the big being called the cosmos.
        And we can’t understand everything that’s why we have opinions.

    2. Oh: And example of this is Buddhism, or Buddhist philosophy.

      Did you know that in the late 1940s or 1950s when the Buddhist Buddhist monks came over to America they realize that the Western would not understand what Buddhism was really saying. And so one of the monks who realize that I think in the early 60s or something came up with “Shambala” buddhist philosophy which is particularly geared toward trying to get Westerners to conceptualize Buddhist teachings. I submit that whatever these modern Buddhists that I see all around the town that like to meditate and try to practice the eight ways of being and stuff like that, I submit that you cannot reduce Buddhism esoteric kind a Tantric or whatever word you wanna use teachings and understanding of the world down to simple practices of “well-being”. That’s something more fundamental changes in one’s view upon the world that has nothing really to do with whether or not they’re implementing any sort of Buddhist practices or understanding the true teachings of Buddhism.

      And so I’m kind of indicating this tension through the word esoteric.
      *
      I’m a weirdo.

      1. The word weirdo makes me laugh lol.

        Buddhism was considered weird and esoteric in the western world because it is so different from the western mentality. Even until today, in the west yoga is considered a workout whereas in the east it is a discipline for enlightment. But western science does agree now that yoga and meditations have tons of benefits for health and well-being.

      2. Yes, but being, ones being, ones human being, the way that it views the world is not necessarily being changed because I am being able to relax and do things in the world more effectively, negotiate with other people use technology. because I am able to use things more effectively or more productively in the world merely says that I was already involved in using things. I’m not saying it’s bad, but I’m saying that we can practice what has been understood as esoteric, perhaps, and now we’ve discovered or uncovered the “truth” of this esoteric knowledge or practice, but the knowledge, I’d say, has merely pushed The truth, the substance of that esotericism further out of the way; or rather it is stayed in place and we have merely come in and kind of extracted your mind what we thought could be useful to our particular cosmological universal understanding of things. yes it is helpful and useful but because Our ideology is in place, the way that we see ourselves as beings has found use for that particular thing, that particular esoteric thing, and basically decided that if there was anything else that was involved with it it is not real or does exist or it’s a moot point or it’s not true or it has nothing to do with an actual being of human or the world, however we want to put it. Modern man simply takes from things with it can use is in disregards the rest. modern man simply takes from things what it can users in disregards the rest. Zizek has this little bit on YouTube it’s like three minutes I think, where he talks about rubbish and trash, it’s kind of cool in this regard.

        But likewise I’m not saying we can’t discuss things, but we’ve begin to see things differently, to view being differently then necessarily their repercussions, reverberations that have nothing to do with whether or not that particular cup is used for coffee in that particular cup is used for water. Or that particular religion had God manifested in this way, and this belief system only has spirits and demons, and then this belief system says that none of those exist and only has belief in, I don’t know, nothingness. Lol. There are all sorts of beings that exist within all three, or five lol, Of those situations that are involved with me as being, that viewing things as a “modern rational human being” would typically not understand to know how to use, because it simply dismiss it out of hand, as not a legitimate cosmological item.

      3. The modern man acts upon usefulness. However, usefulness has nothing to do with truth. They are 2 different and sometimes opposite, objectives.
        And, like Nietzsche said it, we need illusions and religions and fantasy. We need them because it makes life meaningful, although we know they are illusions

      4. You brought up the word “rational” and then I listen to a piece of a podcast from some philosopher of science right now and so now I’m kind of going off about rationality.

        What do you think? I think that I am able to think that I am being rational. That in one sense rationality is a certain kind of presence of mind, a certain clarity, a certain kind of making sense that indeed has its basis in the real world, which is to say the things of sense , of the five senses, like I’m saying that rationality is a “good“ coordination of what comes to sense. Or what comes to cents or what cents comes upon.

        But then I was also considering that yes I am fully able to feel that I am being involved with the world, I am engaging with the world I am using the world in a sensible way that includes things and excludes things and that this appears rational.

        But then there’s also the idea of rational that I have to rely on other human beings and I have to concede to what “most“ of them would say as rational in order for me to be rational.

        What do you think about that?

      5. Can something be rational without verification from others? Can you be objective without others confirming to you that you are being objective?

      6. The word objective comes from object. Object comes from the latin word “ob-jectum”: what is in front of the subject.
        To be objective is to have a judgement clear of emotions and subjectivity. This is why objective is also confirmed by others.
        However others, although having a certain judgement considered as objective, should be distinguished from truth. Plato talked about this. To him truth is lonely thinking and not in mass.

      7. Apart from calculating such as 1+1=2, I dont think so. Objective truth can be found in pure abstraction like in maths or in facts. Although nowadays even facts are being threatened by fake news

      8. 😁. Ironically : https://knowcusp.wordpress.com/2020/01/22/top-9-benefits-of-doing-yoga/

        I immediately asked myself: would I do yoga if it had no benefits? If I could not use it for anything?

        There is a saying in Buddhism somewhere that one who is enlightened realizes there is no enlightenment.

        And that the root of all suffering is desire.

        These are not statements which refer to use or benefit. Hence, as I’ve said, the west has mined what is esoteric for its use and has said that that is all there is, the only thing that has value.

        So I say there is another way to speak about things that is not necessary about use or value for the individual enacting and communicating such knowledge.

        And it isn’t “spiritual” necessarily: It is quite the contrary: difference as indeed different.

        But not to say yoga isn’t Supposed to have benefits either…🙂

      9. You say it well. Yes we need something to hand on to when trying something new, like others’ confirmation. But no matter how yoga for instance is good objectively and backed up by science, not all people would do it because of many objective reasons too lol. In these matters, subjectivity is more of a key. Precisely, intuition

      10. I have a couple albums on Spotify and Apple and Amazon and a couple other music platforms. But one of the albums is under “the covert sound philosophy”. And one of them is under “covert sound philosophy”.

        So if you wanted to look those up.

        But only recently I have decided to try and cultivate a certain coherency and try and do something with it.

        There is a history to the covert sound philosophy which itself will be a book!

        😄

        Philosophically, I suppose I’m taking a certain tack. A certain way of cutting back-and-forth against the wind to make headway maybe. ⛵️

  2. I think a problem arises in viewing the Enlightenment as a dichotomy versus religion and Western secular belief, when in practise these are simply two of any number of alternatives.

      1. I agree. Scientistism has the same result. Scientists understand the limitations of science. Lay people put way too much FAITH into it. 😉

      2. It’s weird under my notifications I can’t really tell if I have it under the “all“ messages, which messages I read. Sometimes they’re darker and then other times they’re not.

        I go between a version of science as one of, kind of, pure process, so to speak. A dealing with what is a parent and giving under specific conditions. And then there’s also the idea of science that I think most of us fall prey to when we think of science as a effort, science as this thing that’s finding out grand truths of the universe.

        On the first hand, there is a kind of faith that goes into the just doing of science which is really concerned with very local events and the conditions involved with those local events, however way we define locality. And then there is the faith as if, like I said, science is involved with finding out “big truths”. This second one I think is wet misinterprets or miss identifies what the act of science is, which is really just a doing, really just observing events under conditions.

        I suppose that I’m saying that most of the world deals with life and the universe in general in the second sense of science, whether or not they really call it science or not, philosophically I’m kind of indicating a particular way that people tend to come upon the world and judge it and view it.

        And so I am kind of advocating for that first kind of science, in the sense that I tend to call my philosophical work a kind of science, and that it deals with local situations under particular conditions observing them and reporting upon them, and really making no statements about what the actual truth of reality it might be. That is, because any ground truth that I would wanna make would also be a local condition that is rising under certain conditions. I draw a hard line between these two in order to define them more definitely, lol. Such that at no time am I really speaking toward any grand truth of the universe except to say that the grand truth of the universe is what we find when we deal with local things under particular conditions. That really we never find the “grand truth“ except and as much as we are having faith in a particular kind of cosmology, a particular kind of adding up all the details, a great culmination of history and being.

      3. Us, maybe, yes. But not most people. Even our practical science argues for the majority, with probability statistics, while often enough benefitting only the few.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s