Profundity/esotericism

Simplistically...insofar that it involves dissipation or transcendence of "self", it does the same for "personal problems".

Thank you Fresco, could you offer me a theory of how it would involve a transcendence of self in the following instances of the word's use I'd be grateful:

1. (This may be inaccurate because I can't find the source I got it from): Nietzsche's perspective that the most profound thing one could possibly do would be to accept everything on one's deathbed without 'fiction'.

2. The 'profundity' that is often used to describe certain pieces of classical music, or emotional reactions to classical music.

Also, on a side note, I thought to ask the other day: your consistent use of quotation marks in your posts highlights your awareness of language's inadequacy for describing some of the concepts we talk about on these forums. But could you elaborate on your exact philosophy/personal reason behind why you do it. E.g. why does it strengthen your post. I mean, I have my own ideas, but I just wanted to hear it from you if you wouldn't mind. Also, how acceptable is it to use it in academic essays?

My use of quotation marks indicates the position that all "existence" involves relationship which is a priori to "things". Thus there are no "things", only concepts which express relationships between observer and observed, but which are linguistically expressed as though the observer were covert. Thus the word "tree" expresses the potential relationships, wood-iness, shad-iness, obstacle -ness etc according to personal context. There are no "trees" in themselves, nor indeed are there "selves". "Things" and "selves" are co-existent and co-extensive.

Now you might see how this forms a foundation for the "self dissipation" or "self transcendence" of esotericism. And if we think about our reaction to "a piece of music", we might see that that "thing" evokes one "self" as a static manuscript say, and a multitude of other "selves" in the context of listening/observing to "it". We may report the nature of the subsequent relationship as "emotionality" , but that is merely a post facto linguistic encapsulation of coalescence of "self" with "it".

(Heidegger/ language speaks the man / language is the house of being)

Excellent Fresco, thank you.

When you talk about the 'selves' in light of the second paragraph are you basically talking about linguistic labels, the 'I' being just one of a multitude of invented labels. When encountering the music, what are the selves? The post facto linguist analysis?

In this case, how is it that there are works which may be considered more 'esoteric' than other works. Is it that these works, through their properties, particularly aid self dissipation, or is it just an arbitrary cultural association, like the way we can identify 'cowboy' or 'space' music?

Well no doubt cultural association plays a major part (I seem to remember a programme about the association of the minor key with sadness as cultural). However we can also speculate that acoustic stimulation of the brain has some effects comparable to chemical stimulants, and we know that these have effects on what we call "consciousness". And given that music is essentially a temporal phenomenon we might be tempted into a consideration of temporality as an essential component in Heidegger's analysis of "being". (as per the title of his seminal work Sein und Zeit).

Heidegger does not as far as I know subscribe to "multiple selves", but he does argue that "self" is absent for most of the time during "absorbed coping". For example, Heidegger speaks of the self being evoked when a flow of action interrupted...thus there is merely "hammering" until a finger is struck at which point there is the polarization... a coming into existence.... of "hammerer" from "hammer". Merlau Ponty extrapolates this point in consideration of the co-extension of the blind man and his stick, and we can continue the argument to a musician and his instrument.

Can I ask you how you think the word 'spirit' functions in a religious sense? I was thinking of it as something which fills the 'gap' that language leaves, in regards to our relationship with the world.

Also, have you ever read Walter Benjamin's 'On Language and Such' and if so what do you think of it?

Not read that, but may follow your suggestion.

Without doubt, different religions interpret the word "spirit" differently. The most neutral description I might offer is " an aspect of consciousness which transcends physical reality", however, this leaves many questions unanswered like (1) is such consciousness individual or holistic ?(2) is there a tangible dichotomy between "experience" and "reality" ? (3) is the word "spirit" merely a node of agreement in a social dialogue between the seekers of "spirituality" (akin to the "promise" on pieces of paper we use as money)?
Clearly, we are trying to make sense of our awareness of existence which avoids Shakespeare's "Life..a tale told by an idiot...full of sound and fury signifying nothing", and a cynic may say that words like "spirit" are nothing more than a palliative in that respect.