Occult means hidden, and often refers to hidden knowledge. Typically, this is knowledge that has been kept secret (e.g. by being sustained in a closed society) - or perhaps knowledge encoded, so that only those who know the code can discover it.
But hidden knowledge may instead be clear and simple, not secret but instead "hidden in plain sight" - not encoded but simply ignored by the majority.
Ignored perhaps because it is no interest, in some way unwelcome (opening a "can of worms" they'd rather not deal with); or indeed so clear and so simple, that most people regard it as necessarily wrong, because the knowledge strikes them as embarrassingly childish and simplistic.
Esoteric means "for the few" - and mostly refers to groups to human societies. The term often refers to exclusive groups characterized by rigorous selection and prolonged training; and typically includes groups that claim to posses secret occult knowledge or the keys to understand encoded occult knowledge.
But, analogously with the possible meanings of occult; esoteric groups "for the few" as such are not confined to the holders of occult knowledge; but characterize almost many types of functional human institution - such as some universities or colleges, and legal and medical professions - and these also implicitly claim to possess occult knowledge which is not understandable except by those who are trained, and have the "keys".
More significantly; there is the question of why some groups are "for the few" - which might be because only few regard the matter as real and important, or who have an active interest. An esoteric grouping may happen (or be attempted) because "the many" are indifferent or hostile to the subject.
When the majority believe that which is false, and are evil-affiliated; then the possibility of allying with good is necessarily restricted to "the few" - or even to a single person.
When it comes to evaluating occult knowledge or esoteric groups, it seems evident that the terms are descriptive rather than intrinsically evaluative.
As usual; the valuation depends primarily on matters such as purposes and motivations, and whether these are on the side of God and creation - or against them.
Whether the real and underlying motivation is for this-worldly power, wealth, sex, success and the like - or to manipulate others and nature? Or instead to seek potentially good-aligned goals such as self-knowledge, experiential understanding of reality, encouragement in pursuit of salvation etc.
It seems to me that (as of 2025, in The West) most of the people who are explicitly involved in esoteric groups and engaged with occult knowledge are badly-motivated: they are on the wrong side of the spiritual war of this-world.
But the same applies to most Christians; and to most Christians in any particular church or denominations: they are badly-motivated. That is most self-identified Christians are (overall) on the side that opposes God in the spiritual war.
In this mixed world, by its very nature; all Men are sinners, all groups are corrupted and all knowledge is impure.
It is not our task to attempt the impossible of redeeming, or even reforming, The World; but to navigate our way though our life by discernment and in accordance with our intuition and divine guidance; as we desire and commit to following Jesus Christ.
This may (and it seems likely, given the nature of the world, en masse, here and now) lead us at some point to some degree of engagement with explicit or implicitly occult knowledge and the esoteric:
So be it.
**
Note: The above was stimulated by re-reading Gareth Knight's biography of his great friend the Reverend Canon Fr. Anthony Duncan: Christ and Qabalah: or, The Mind in the Heart (2013).
9 comments:
why use the etymological meaning in occult (hidden), but then not in esoteric? esoteric just means 'inner'. all this other stuff about groups (which i agree with you on) really has nothing to do with it intrinsically (esoterically). to me, and keeping to the right meaning of the word, Romantic Christianity is the most esoteric thing possible, because it is based on the inwardness of each individual.
@Laeth - As you say, it doesn't really matter which definition one starts with - the point is to go a bit deeper. My definitions were from Gareth Knight, who was for some of his life an initiate and adept of the classic esoteric group: the Fraternity (later Society) of the Inner Light - founded by Dion Fortune. My understanding is that this is (mainly) how the word esoteric was employed in that context.
@Bruce, i suppose it makes sense for groupish people to change the meaning of that word specifically. and i have indeed encountered it used in that way often in such contexts of course. i guess i just take issue with it, because i like the word and what it means originally, especially now, and as it contrasts in other things with the word exoteric and even exotic. we have too much exotic and exoteric (external) christianity. we need the other kind. and dearly.
Much of the great esoteric knowledge is hidden within ourselves, but most these days are too terrified to look inward. (Un) Fortunately for them they are addicted to distraction.
@Sean - Yes, the ultimate "few" is one.
IN deference to Laeth, here is the definition of esoteric from Etymology Online:
esoteric(adj.)
"secret; intended to be communicated only to the initiated; profound," 1650s, from Latinized form of Greek esoterikos "belonging to an inner circle" (Lucian), from esotero "more within," comparative adverb of eso "within," from PIE *ens-o-, suffixed form of *ens, extended form of root *en "in."
Gareth Knight's usage presumably derives from the esoterikos origin; on the assumption that the "inner circle" are a group, and necessarily consist of relatively "few".
@Bruce, i am aware the groupish definition is old, but as you know, i don't automatically think the ancients had things right (perhaps especially the greeks!).
forgot to add this bit: having said that, i have no problem, and even agree, with the view of the elect (or elite, which is the same word) being only a few. seems quite natural and logical to me. i just don't think they're to be found in groups, especially if they have some kind of officiality to them. not anymore, at least. but even two thousand years ago Jesus himself formed the opposite of such a group, a loose one composed of people 'from the outside', and in many ways, precisely against the 'insiders' of his time.
@Laeth. Agreed.
As you know, I conceptualize two modes of human grouping: the family (based on love) and the institutional.
Early Christians were familial, affiliative. The early "church" was primarily based on, rooted in, the interpersonal love of Jesus's disciples - and Jesus explicitly described and advised this in the IV Gospel.
However... In the past, the nature of human consciousness (our spontaneous and unconscious "participation" meant that institutions could retain a pretty substantial element of the familial about them. I experienced the tail end of this in my early life.
But the increasingly totalitarian nature of society (especially evident and dominant since the 1990s) has made the institutional groupings almost-wholly impersonal, and not-familial, in their nature.
Meanwhile, the family mode of grouping (even/ especially the best instances of families) has been subject to continual and multi-pronged and pervasive attacks to subvert, redefine, weaken, invert, and (in general) destroy it.
Institutions have eroded and displaced familial modes of human grouping; to that point that the very nature of family has been lost in the mainstream.
For instance, traditional Christians (in an attempt to prevent redefinition) assert that Christian marriage is "an institution" - as if this made it a good thing!
Now - even when an institution tries to assert, impose, sustain The Family (e.g. the CJCLDS) - it will, paradoxically and in fact, actually be eroding the family - by imposing the primacy and authority of the institution.
The fact is that (here and now) everything institutional is (overall) part of the totalitarian system; which is of-its-nature - as well as purposively - evil.
Post a Comment