Cambridge Centre for the study of Western Esotericism

[immortal]

Why is Cambridge University all of a sudden collecting information about esoteric religious traditions around the globe? What are they up to?

 

 

See this - http://ccwe.wordpress.com/

[Appolinaria]

There are other departments aside from those in the sciences, believe it or not.

 

Also, is this woman or her blog even associated with the University of Cambridge? Aside from promoting some poster about a conference there?

[immortal]

There are other departments aside from those in the sciences, believe it or not.

 

Also, is this woman or her blog even associated with the University of Cambridge? Aside from promoting some poster about a conference there?

 

 

I am not sure how much the Cambridge Centre for the study of Western Esotericism is associated with the University of Cambridge, both seem to exist in the same city and many of the books in her blog written by different scholars is published by the Cambridge University Press.

 

 

http://www.cambridge.org/se/knowledge/isbn/item6577534/?site_locale=sv_SE

[imatfaal]

I struggled to understand how and why you could possibly be surprised. It's a massively important part of cultural and social history. The Cambridge Centre is not, I believe affiliated to the the University - but without doubt the subject will be studied there. It might not be offered as a first year course - but for later years and postgrad studies it is difficult to contemplate an area of study that isn't already the subject of numerous theses and articles.

[immortal]

I struggled to understand how and why you could possibly be surprised. It's a massively important part of cultural and social history. The Cambridge Centre is not, I believe affiliated to the the University - but without doubt the subject will be studied there. It might not be offered as a first year course - but for later years and postgrad studies it is difficult to contemplate an area of study that isn't already the subject of numerous theses and articles.

 

To put it bluntly the worldview of an Esotericist is this.

 

“Gods are real.

 

And these gods are everywhere, in all aspects of

 

existence, all aspects of human life.”

 

- James Hillman

 

 

http://ccwe.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/gods-are-real-call-for-submissions-to-anthology-of-polytheistic-experience/

 

 

To them we are not alone. So I was wondering how much mentally prepared they are and with what seriousness are they venturing into this sensitive issue which has far reaching implications for orthodox religions, politics, culture, more importantly for science and religion and other emotional aspects of humans. Its almost like finding an alien civilization. Is the world prepared to accept it?

 

How can they ensure that these traditions do not become corrupted by mixing it with other false misinformation? Who owns this knowledge and what are they going to do? What if they misuse it? What if this new field of Esotericism becomes more powerful than science and the orthodox religion?

[imatfaal]

A worldview [imath] \neq [/imath] the study of that worldview.

 

I have worked and written extensively on early Christianity - yet I am an atheist and humanist. And again what makes you think they are 'venturing into' a new subject - the influence of esoteric thinking on the world has been studied for centuries. As a slightly trite example - the first use of the word esoteric in English was by Thomas Stanley of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge.

 

Who is to say what is false information in a subject like this? Some ideas are easily tested as matter of historical record, but the majority will depend on interpretation, subjective understanding, and credence given to source materials; this is the case in almost every field that is outside the scientific method. You do realise that this is an academic enterprise aimed at understanding the idea and the influence of esoteric thinking and not a practical course in the hermetic arts

[immortal]

A worldview [imath] \neq [/imath] the study of that worldview.

 

I have worked and written extensively on early Christianity - yet I am an atheist and humanist. And again what makes you think they are 'venturing into' a new subject - the influence of esoteric thinking on the world has been studied for centuries. As a slightly trite example - the first use of the word esoteric in English was by Thomas Stanley of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge.

 

Its wrong to study esoteric religions with empirical methods or through reasoning and such a difference can be clearly seen between the works of scholars without practical knowledge and the works of scholars who are also esotericists. No one can give the wisdom hidden in these traditions other than the latter type of scholars.

 

Yes, esotericism is very old, its ancient wisdom, its nothing new but I think before individual scholars used to involve themselves in these religious traditions and would try to understand their way of life and not just sit in a remote corner of the world and just publish papers about it, these things cannot be fully conveyed or understood with words of a different foreign language, one needs to venture into their culture and their linguistics and understand their way of thinking.

 

 

Who is to say what is false information in a subject like this? Some ideas are easily tested as matter of historical record, but the majority will depend on interpretation, subjective understanding, and credence given to source materials; this is the case in almost every field that is outside the scientific method.

 

No, you're mistaken here.

 

Eostericism as a field is an exception when it comes to acquiring testable and repeatable information apart from the scientific method. The religious traditions had methods to gain religious experiences and these religious experiences were repeatable by following such methods. So a person's religious experience who existed 2000 years ago should be identical to a person's religious experience who exists in the 21st century. This is what makes a religious tradition and these traditions kept such experiential knowledge secret with in them because if everyone knew about it then it would be difficult to differentiate between a genuine experience and a fake one where anyone can claim to have seen God. Such knowledge were kept secret to test the genuinity of someone's experience by asking them certain questions to test them.

 

You do realise that this is an academic enterprise aimed at understanding the idea and the influence of esoteric thinking and not a practical course in the hermetic arts

 

You can't completely understand their worldview or their ideas without practically involving yourself in the practices of these traditions. Once you understand the meaning behind the words they use and the things they represent there is nothing stopping you to go on and do a trial and error method to access esoteric knowledge yourself and its very important as to with what intentions you're approaching it, esoteric knowledge is the knowledge of the gods and it should only be used for enlightenment but gods do give you what you wish for and I don't think everyone are prepared enough to ask for good things.

 

http://ccwe.wordpress.com/category/religious-experience-and-tradition-international-interdisciplinary-scientific-conference/

[imatfaal]

Its wrong to study esoteric religions with empirical methods or through reasoning and such a difference can be clearly seen between the works of scholars without practical knowledge and the works of scholars who are also esotericists. No one can give the wisdom hidden in these traditions other than the latter type of scholars.

Nonsense - this is a aged chestnut, 'we influence the world around us, but you have to believe and be one of us to notice or understand' - rubbish. The study of arcana, hermeticism, esotericism etc. does not require belief, faith, or practice and to claim it does puts one on a path that is completely divergent to academic research.

 

 

Yes, esotericism is very old, its ancient wisdom, its nothing new but I think before individual scholars used to involve themselves in these religious traditions and would try to understand their way of life and not just sit in a remote corner of the world and just publish papers about it, these things cannot be fully conveyed or understood with words of a different foreign language, one needs to venture into their culture and their linguistics and understand their way of thinking.

But this does not in any way mean embracing and accepting an esoteric ethos or praxis.

 

No, you're mistaken here.

 

Eostericism as a field is an exception when it comes to acquiring testable and repeatable information apart from the scientific method. The religious traditions had methods to gain religious experiences and these religious experiences were repeatable by following such methods. So a person's religious experience who existed 2000 years ago should be identical to a person's religious experience who exists in the 21st century. This is what makes a religious tradition and these traditions kept such experiential knowledge secret with in them because if everyone knew about it then it would be difficult to differentiate between a genuine experience and a fake one where anyone can claim to have seen God. Such knowledge were kept secret to test the genuinity of someone's experience by asking them certain questions to test them.

We have had this argument before and I think we will just agree to leave it. Any system of truth-finding that is completely indistinguishable from charlatanry from the outside and only reveals truth to those who already have decided to believe in the truth of that system is based on snake-oil and dishonesty. But the cambridge centre as far as I can see is studying the effect, the cultural impact, the sociology of .... and thus can do so in a completely empirical and repeatable manner (well as much as any social science can be)

 

You can't completely understand their worldview or their ideas without practically involving yourself in the practices of these traditions. Once you understand the meaning behind the words they use and the things they represent there is nothing stopping you to go on and do a trial and error method to access esoteric knowledge yourself and its very important as to with what intentions you're approaching it, esoteric knowledge is the knowledge of the gods and it should only be used for enlightenment but gods do give you what you wish for and I don't think everyone are prepared enough to ask for good things.

Your first point applies to every subject - scientific, socio-cultural, artistic - but does not stop the study. Academic research very rarely requires hidden knowledge - that is the benefit of peer review and publication; if you cannot say it in an article, at a conference, or to a lay-colleague it ain't worth saying.

[immortal]

Nonsense - this is a aged chestnut, 'we influence the world around us, but you have to believe and be one of us to notice or understand' - rubbish. The study of arcana, hermeticism, esotericism etc. does not require belief, faith, or practice and to claim it does puts one on a path that is completely divergent to academic research.

 

But this does not in any way mean embracing and accepting an esoteric ethos or praxis.

 

We have had this argument before and I think we will just agree to leave it. Any system of truth-finding that is completely indistinguishable from charlatanry from the outside and only reveals truth to those who already have decided to believe in the truth of that system is based on snake-oil and dishonesty. But the cambridge centre as far as I can see is studying the effect, the cultural impact, the sociology of .... and thus can do so in a completely empirical and repeatable manner (well as much as any social science can be)

 

You're right in saying that they are only studying it from a historical perspective but as this paper discusses that if you study it from such a perspective you won't understand anything about its deeper meaning.

 

 

Empirical method in the study of esotericism

 

Esotericism and the Academy.pdf

I guess the whole point of esotericism is to look for alternative traditions of knowledge other than the scientific method and I would not like to see esotericism as a scientific discipline and I am least bothered about pushing it as a science and there is no need to reject esotericism with contempt like you do.

 

 

This should be the accepted definition of esotericism.

 

The most authoritative proposal for a definition of "esotericism" has been formulated by the French scholar Antoine Faivre (1992a: 3-32). Faivre correctly points out that, from an empirical/historical perspective, there can be no question of discussing the nature of esotericism an sich.

 

(1) Correspondences- Correspondences, symbolic or real, are believed to exist between all parts of the visible and invisible universe. "These correspondences are considered more or less veiled at first glance, and they are therefore meant to be read, to be decoded. The entire universe is a great theater of mirrors, a set of hieroglyphs to decipher; everything is a sign, everything harbours and manifests mystery" (Faivre l992b: xv). A distinction may be made between correspondences between visible and invisible levels of nature, and between nature (the cosmos) and history as exemplified in revealed texts.

 

(2) Living nature. The vision of a complex, plural, hierarchical nature permeated by spiritual force(s) is exemplified most clearly in the Renaissance understanding of magia. The perception of nature as a living milieu - a dynamic network of sympathies and antipathies - furnishes [112] a theoretical foundation for concrete implementation: various kinds of magical practice, "occult" medicine, theosophical soteriologies based on the framework of alchemy, and so on.

 

(3) Imagination and mediations. The idea of correspondences implies the possibility of mediation between the higher and lower worlds, by way of rituals, symbols, intermediate spirits, etc. The imagination, far from being mere fantasy, is regarded as an " 'organ of the soul' by means of which a person can establish cognitive and visionary rapport with an intermediary world, with a mesocosm" (Faivre 1992b: xvii), or mundus imaginalis. Imaginatio is the main instrument for attaining gnosis; it is "a tool for the knowledge of the self, of the world, of myth; it is the eye of fire penetrating the surface of appearances in order to make meanings, "connections", burst forth, to render the invisible visible ..." (Faivre 1992b: xvii-xviii).

 

(4) Experience of transmutation. This alchemical terminology is perhaps most appropriate to define the concept of an "initiatic path of development". The esotericist gains insight into the hidden mysteries of cosmos, self and God, and undergoes a process of purification on all levels of his being.

 

(5) The practice of concordance. The practice of concordance involves "a marked tendency to seek to establish commonalities between two or more different traditions, sometimes even between all traditions, with a view to gaining illumination, a gnosis of superior quality" (Faivre 1992b: xix).

 

(6) Transmission. Transmission refers to the flow of esoteric teachings "from master to disciple following a channel already dug, abiding by a course already charted" (Faivre 1992b: xix). This element involves both the idea of an historical filiation of "authentic" spiritual knowledge (a "tradition" of esoteric truth), and of esoteric initiations in which a spiritual master imparts his knowledge to a disciple.

 

 

This, in and by itself, is sufficient to conclude that empirical research is extremely unlikely ever to give us "the truth about religion(s)".

 

 

 

As for the nature of that esoteric essence itself, esoteric religionists will usually [110] defend a variation on Rudolf Otto's well-known position vis-à-vis the numinous: you need some kind of intuitive access to it in order to understand it, because without such privileged understanding your research will be fatally inadequate.

 

This is the view of the perennialist school of thought and in my opinion only such an approach can give the truth about religions and esotericism. I don't think this can be made as an academic discipline because it requires a prior belief. Faith is the key, its left to the individuals to believe in it or not.

 

Your first point applies to every subject - scientific, socio-cultural, artistic - but does not stop the study. Academic research very rarely requires hidden knowledge - that is the benefit of peer review and publication; if you cannot say it in an article, at a conference, or to a lay-colleague it ain't worth saying.

 

I can say it in an article but it can only be positively testified through the perennialist perspective i.e via intuitive access to the numinous and can be falsified by science.

[imatfaal]

But you miss the prime point - any subject that requires "intuitive access to the numinous" is inherently and implacably opposed to scientific enquiry.

 

Answer me this question. How could one tell the difference between a determined fraudster and a recipient of ancient hidden knowledge?

[immortal]

But you miss the prime point - any subject that requires "intuitive access to the numinous" is inherently and implacably opposed to scientific enquiry.

 

Esotericism deals with a universal metaphysical reality and the worldview it embraces will obviously will be a religious worldview. So is it appropriate to apply scientific enquiry for something which is inherently metaphysical?

 

Answer me this question. How could one tell the difference between a determined fraudster and a recipient of ancient hidden knowledge?

 

As I said earlier there are scholars who not only study the scriptures from the outside but also practice and try to get esoteric knowledge hidden in it. So based on argument from authority one can study their works and come to a conclusion whether much of what he or she says about the subject is true or not. I don't think we can trust anyone apart from a scholarly expert on that subject and you don't have to just blindly accept or believe whatever this expert on the subject says. Its left to you to atleast have a practical commitment on the subject based on Faith as sub-doxastic venture model as someone else defined the different types of faith in an another thread.

 

F.R.Tennant holds a view of this kind: he takes faith to be the adoption of a line of conduct not warranted by present facts, that involves experimenting with the possible or ideal, venturing into the unknown and taking the risk of disappointment and defeat. Faith is not an attempt to will something into existence but rather treating hoped for and unseen things as if they were real and then acting accordingly (Tennant 1943/1989 p.104). Swinburne refers to this as the ‘pragmatist’ model (Swinburne 2005, 147–8; Swinburne 2001, 211; compare Golding 1990, 2003; Buckareff 2005; and Schellenberg 2005).

 

 

So you're bound to get disappointed and defeated and unfortunately in a subject like this where we have lost the practical knowledge and where we can no longer trust anyone on this subject apart from the experts, this is the only hard way. One of the things that the esotericists keep asking us is that how will you get faith in it if you don't experience it for yourself? So you don't have to believe in it or accept it just because someone says it.