Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jerry Hejka-Ekins on May 25, 2013 at 4:49pm

My sense of what is going on here is far more basic than questions concerning the suitability of Dr. Faivre's or anyone else's methodology. John Mead's comment regarding our personal and external interactions etc. is closer to ground zero.  

But first, let me begin by laying out a little background by saying that during the 1990s I was very much involved in the attempts at that time to bring our theosophical (note the small "t") interests into a recognized academic discourse community. Dr. Faivre's Access to Western Esotericism provided a methodology that (at the time) appeared to be a workable model. The AAR provided us, on a trial bases, space in their conference program to meet and make a case for the Academy to accept Perennialism as a viable subject for recognition in the discourse community embraced by the AAR. Accordingly, several of us wrote and presented peer reviewed papers at the annual meetings, They were quite successful and attracted respectable audiences. Many people from the New Religious Movement also took an interest in us as well as the Swedenborgian group (They were both recognized groups in the AAR/ SBL alliance that was going on at the time) because there was clearly an overlap in what we were doing. Ultimately, the trial period came to an end, and the AAR declined to accept a Perennialism group into their discourse community. It was not because of lack of representation of credible people. Aside from Dr. Faivre, we had working with us the late Huston Smith, Donald Lopez and many others of note. This background would be a good place to launch into issues of methodology. Govert Schuller made an opening salvo (above) addressing this subject, and there is much more to say on this subject. But, I would like to delay further comment on this for the moment and return to a most more basic issue that I see reflected in John Mead's comment:

First of all, (correct me if I'm wrong here) the kind of theosophy that initially inspired this web site was that presented by Blavatsky. If this site expands itself to explore the many other theosophies out there. I'm all for that. However, I submit that those responsible for this site all have a primary responsibility to keep these various theosophies straight and not allow one to be confounded with another. Aside from the other historical uses of the word theosophy (i.e. Kaballah, some forms of Christian mysticism etc. which is again another subject), there is little dispute that Blavatsky's writings were tremendously influential in the spinning off of numerous spiritual and occult organizations and the so called "New Age Movement" itself. These too are theosophies of sorts. The problem (as I see it) has not been with Blavatsky, but with the systematic reinterpretation and adaptation of her writings into various doctrinal systems which many readers have mistakenly taken as representing Blavatsky. Once again, the recounting and documentation of that history would require a book: and some published historical accounts have indirectly touched upon this problem. 

With this said, here are the fundamental problems concerning Blavatsky's discourses that require consideration prior to a discussion concerning a methodology to be applied to any form of theosophy, esoterism or prennialism.  

1. The subject Blavatsky was addressing (she was stuck with the word "Theosophy." Esotericism would have been a better term, and is one she used more in her later writings, after her separation from Olcott.) was only outlined. There are many blanks in her discourses. Imaginative readers have filled in those blanks and many of them have written their own books. Let's not confuse source from secondary literature.

2. Blavatsky employed a combination of literal and metaphorical language in her discourses. It is important that readers have the skills to discern the difference. There is nothing mystical about this. It is a matter that many people who are interested in these subjects and try to contribute here have very weak reading skills, It is a matter of education. But too often, people manage to slip through the educational system without ever learning these skills. This is an ongoing problem in our society, and a problem when these people show up on discussion boards.  

3. Blavatsky was a product of her own culture. Thus, in casual conversation she easily fell into communicating according to those norms. One thing that receives little attention here is this bravado and exaggeration was and still is very much a part of normal casual communication among Russians. A lack of recognition of this cultural difference has created some very unfortunate mis-interpretations. An obvious example is the mistaking Blavatsky's stories in The Caves and Jungles of Hindustan as accurate historical accounts. They are not--and were never intended to be. 

4. A fourth consideration is a link to the problem of methodology. It is the primary distinction between circular and non-circular thinking. This is fundamental factor that distinguishes a methodology from religious thinking: i.e. "The Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so."  This is a fundamental trap in this culture that allows for so many people who are interested in theosophy to treat it as if it were a religion. It is not a religion.  

In conclusion, I see two problems: (1): The necessity for many students of theosophy to sharpen their reading and thinking skills, so that is can be possible to discuss the subject at all in a rational manner.  (2) The development of a suitable methodology for the discussion and exploration of the subject that would be acceptable to an academic discourse community.  Work needs to be done on the first before there is any hope to even approach the second.  

Permalink Reply by Dewald Bester on May 27, 2013 at 4:40am

personally, i find this thread very interesting.  (though i concede i inadvertently went off topic - again)

i find myself in total agreement with Jerry Hejka-Ekins concluding points 1) and 2).

that is the type of debate i would like to participate in, and which i incorrectly thought we were engaging in.

the divide between academic discourse and this site, on this issue, is apparent.   in my opinion, it is simply not possible to keep defending Faivre as 'academic' divorced from the whole field of the academic study of esotericism.  I think it important that 'theosophy' try to re-enter the academic community - (why i think this would need to be examined by myself.  do i have a religionist agenda to push?  do i really find academic ideas intellectually unsatisfying?)  how it does this will be the million dollar question. 

rgds, Dewald

Permalink Reply by Govert Schuller on May 27, 2013 at 9:30pm

Dear Jerry,

You might be right that to think at the level of Faivre and Hanegraaff requires quite some skill acquisition in critical reading and thinking. And even then, it is not easy to organize one's thoughts and express them clearly such that a constructive contribution can be made to this community. 

Thanks for pointing out these four fundamental problems with Blavatsky's work. They're food for thought for  Theosophists, academics and skeptics alike.

Govert

Permalink Reply by Hari Menon on May 27, 2013 at 11:48pm

Wonderful post Jerry , excellent and very educative and balanced ,  had a great time reading your post and re reading it ......

Permalink Reply by Govert Schuller on May 27, 2013 at 8:40pm

Interesting points, Joe, if I understand you right.

There are academics of esotericism and New Religious Movements who are completely skeptical about the worldviews they investigate and are therefore seen by the investigated believers as dangerous unbelievers who unconsciously serve the dark force. This tension, which I think many researchers and their subjects are aware of, can lead to interesting situations in which a lot of strategizing and counter-strategizing is happening. I have seen up close interesting variations of conflict of interests, half-hidden agendas and even collusion between researchers and their subjects. These can be instructive stories.

There is also a little tension (though it is in the open and debated) within the academic community between the empiricists in the mold of Faivre and Hanegraaff and the reductionists like Olaf Hammer. Hammer thinks that the metaphysically neutral stance of the phenomenological empiricists is too kind, even possibly apologetic, to the 'crazy' ideas of the esotericists. The Italian esoterologist Introvigne, on the other side, thinks Hammer's debunking attitude is counter-productive to really understand the field of esoteric streams.

Because Faivre et al are neutral (they say they are methodologically agnostic) about the meta-empirical realities T/theosophy claims access to and knowledge about, their research can be most easily absorbed by T/theosophy.

But Faivre is also open to look at some phenomena from a more skeptical, sociological position. He stated that it might be "more pertinent and fruitful to study the forms of Egyptomania or Egyptophilia proper to Westerners themselves, for if there is Egyptian esotericism, it is primarily in our modern imaginary" (Faivre, Theosophy, Imagination, Tradition, xxvi).

Permalink Reply by Dewald Bester on May 28, 2013 at 2:27am

i find the mention of Egypt fortuitous.  Because it highlights the predicament that in many instances esoteric thoughts are in conflict with mainstream academics.  let us say we wish to locate Faivre's typology in the ancient egyptian religion.  (I do not think this was his own intent) but presumably it is that of theosophy.  (Unless we exclude Egypt from 'theosophical' thought.)

i know of no real mainstream academic egyptologist who will concede any esoteric thought in ancient egypt - that is, no initiations in the greek sense, no pyramid mysteries etc.  this is exemplified by erik hornung and his 'Secret lore of egypt.'  he distinguishes between egyptology proper and egyptosophy.  The only possible academic opening i noted (I must unfortunately only speak of english language sources because of my own language deficiencies) was Jeremy Naydlers 'Shamanic wisdom in the pyramid texts'.

There is possible middle theosophical ground, like John Gordon's Egypt, child of Atlantis.  I did not think though this was convincing in an academic arena, but then i dont think the book was intended for that arena.

To my mind then there is a predicament.  we believe there was an esotericism in ancient egypt - let us say exemplified by Faivre's typology - otherwise we should drop his typology, or confine it to set historical situations like he did.  But no modern mainstream academic concedes this.  Unlike most academic egyptologists, 'esoteric egyptologist' probably dont translate out of hieroglyphics and dont spend their entires lives devoted to egyptology.

So what do we do?  do we carp from the sidelines saying esotericism must be there simply because, say, HPB (or any esoteric source) said it was?  to ask the question, how do we establish the 'theosophical thought' as a legitimate perspective within the academic community - let us say the Egyptological community in this instance?

put aside 'esotericism' in ancient egyptian religion, and take a more basic issue.  Egyptologists, in the main, do not even accept that the usual greek/christian division of body, soul and spirit, were used in the egyptian religion. The body, soul and spirit, distinction, as far as i can see permeates esoteric/theosophical thought.  how do we even begin to engage with professional egyptologists on their own ground?  We can say they are wrong, but what force does that carry?

if we do not think that engaging the academy is important, or relevant, then that is ok, there is no obligation.  i think it important myself.  (That is also one thing which made Blavatsky, in some ways, different from other esotericists, her works engage with the sciences of her day in an intelligent manner.  so her works allow this type of engagement with the academy.  channelling etc does not have this rational ground to work off.)

Dewald

Permalink Reply by Govert Schuller on May 28, 2013 at 3:05pm

Dewald,

You are posing some important questions above about the relationship between esotericism and academia. 

From the academic perspective the, by you mentioned, Egyptologist Erik Hornung makes a strong case to keep the two separate:

It is possible to make an academic study of of esoteric matters, which is what I intend to do here. It is also possible for adherents of esoteric doctrines to adduce knowledge from the academic discipline of Egyptology with profit and incorporate it into their systems. But one must at all costs avoid hopelessly mixing the two areas of interest, as unfortunately continues to happen--especially when esoteric doctrines are covered with some academic veneer and thus purportedly "proven." (The Secret Lore of Egypt,3)

Hornung seems to have some sympathy for esotericism, but thinks its truths "elude any and all experimental verification" (Hornung, 4).

The esoteric is a way of thinking unto itself, irrational and intuitive, aimed at the overarching unity of nature and the correspondences within it and at the possibility of unbounded transubstantiation. It lives on the magic of the mysterious, believing itself to be in possession of a higher state of consciousness that remains closed to those who are not yet "initiated" into these mysteries" (Hornung, 4)

This might be applicable to most of western esotericism, but not necessarily to one of its constituent parts, the "occult movement", started by Elivas Levi and continued and expanded by Blavatsky. According to Faivre this movement "sought to combine into one single worldview the findings of experimental science and the occult sciences cultivated since the Renaissance. The movement also wanted to demonstrate the emptiness of materialism" (Faivre, Theosophy, Imagination, Tradition, 26). This is clearly a part of the Theosophical program, which on top of that even had the audacity to correct nineteenth century science by claiming that the primordial tradition of which it was a partial expression was essentially scientific.

Based on that claim it becomes understandable that some Theosophists like to make inroads into academia and try to make corrections to mainstream science by arguing in favor of some of Blavatsky in principle verifiable statements. The paradigmatic example here would be the work of the Theosophist David Pratt in the field of geology and anthropology. He tries to make the case that the theory of plate tectonics can be refuted and that, given some archeological findings, that h*** sapiens is way older than scientifically accepted. 

The other side of this scientific, occult stream in western esotericism is that it opens itself up for refutation of its products and criticism of its procedures by academia. Again, for theosophy important here is the Swedish esoterologist Olav Hammer who explicitly stakes out the position that specific occult-scientific claims should be refuted to show their spuriousness. Besides that he delivers a in-depth analysis and critique of emic epistemology and rhetoric as applied by Theosophy and the New Age. He thinks theosophy is a form of scientism, which he defines in his chapter "Scientism as a Language of Faith" as:

Scientism is the active positioning of one's own claims in relation to the manifestations of any scientific discipline, including, but not limited to, the use of technical devices, scientific terminology, mathematical calculations, theories, references and stylistic features--without, however, the use of methods generally approved within the scientific community, and without subsequent social acceptance of these manifestations by the mainstream of the scientific community through e.g. peer reviewed publication in academic journals (Claiming Knowledge, 206).

As a last observation I like to propose the idea that the relationship between the descriptive, phenomenological study of esotericism (Faivre, Hanegraaff) and the more explanatory, social study of it (Hammer) can be seen as complementary and not necessarily antagonistic (Introvigne). The template for this idea is the way phenomenology and neuroscience cooperate in the cognitive sciences to better understand the workings of the mind. Phenomenology provides a very subtle description of conscious phenomena from inside out and neuroscience, using scans and other probes, tries to look from outside in. By listening and adjusting to each other they are complementary in a fruitful manner (See: Evan Thompson, Mind in Life; Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind). I can see a similar exchange between the describers and explainers of esotericism. As far as the verification of the different scientific truth claims by Theosophy are concerned, those will have to be fought out in the different academic disciplines where they are relevant.

Permalink Reply by Dewald Bester on May 30, 2013 at 2:06am

i really enjoyed this thread.  i dont think i could say much more without specifically referencing blavatsky and esotericism though, which isnt the purpose here.

my concluding thoughts on hornung and hammer, is that a radical historical contextualising of, in my case, blavatsky's works, would overcome both their slightly self-referring definitions. at least, in my opinion, some/many blavatsky statements could be found to be within the speculation of mainstream thought, at least in respect of an undeveloped mid to late 19th century egyptology.(I could not say if the same could be said for all esoteric speculation on ancient egypt.)

(that still leaves the problem of what to do with her ideas now in the 21st century though.)

I thought hornung's definition of esotericism specifically excluded any rational content, which is nonsense, and not particularly philosophical on his part.

Olav Hammer, by managing to combine blavatsky, sheldrake and shirley maclaine in 1 overarching methodology, has only aroused my deep suspicion of his hermeneutic underpinnings.

thanks, Dewald