Hello
@Moine
I wanted to get back to you after reading the documents you suggested.
After reading them, I better understand your approach, as well as your post. I must tell you that until now, I did not subscribe to the ‘exoteric-mesoteric-esoteric’ metaphysics, which is a very interesting ‘classification’. It is interesting because it allows one to objectively sort through a whole bunch of things.
I understand that these three principles can operate on several levels:
1) As an initial framework for interpreting a text and understanding the writer's intention.
However, here I realise that it is possible that the writer did not consciously intend to adopt any particular approach. I understand that this is sometimes the case. The result is therefore the totality of writings that exist in the world, some of which were consciously written according to an “exoteric”, “mesoteric” or “esoteric” strategy. Sometimes, authors did not have in mind that such a distinction existed when writing their works. Ultimately, there is a bit of everything!
2) As a guiding principle for writing a book. A conscious process, therefore.
I would say that it is a whole metaphysics (i.e. ‘a guiding principle with three different levels of approach’), and that it is up to each person to decide whether or not to use it. On this subject, I must say that this metaphysics seems very objective to me, in the sense that these three levels of approach actually correspond to something in reality. I can only lean more towards this approach, as it is objectively in tune with reality.
It is not something I am used to, and these three levels do not seem to be restricted to ‘one approach’ or to ‘transmission-reception’ processes as I described above. I understand that using this metaphysics implies a change in one's very ‘being’. I am a little shy about this kind of process, but as it is something objective, I will look into it. It implies a radical switch in world view, and it is not something to be taken lightly.
This way, I could respond to your post in a way that is more in line with your intention, with your system of appreciating things.
I really appreciated Pierre's efforts. At first glance, I would say, ‘He has this talent for simply describing things that have cosmic, universal significance – even 4D – in simple terms.’ I would have been tempted to call it a ‘talent for vulgarization’, but I understand that it may be a ‘talent for exoterism’! So, a vulgarization of invisible principles (4D, spiritual, energetic, cosmic, etc.). I appreciate this approach. I think that's what I try to do when I study a subject that is dear to the forum.
I believe that an exoteric approach is possible for many things, even very 4D subjects. The trick would be the ability to translate phenomena. So there are limitations, and I can see that the factors of ‘time’ and ‘space’ can become tricky limitations.
It also seems to me that some works require a purely esoteric approach. It's difficult to express, but I see that some subjects cannot be approached in any other way.
I think A. Lobaczewski is a good example, as he describes phenomena that are not limited to 3D. In my opinion, he has managed to use words and construct an intellectual system of understanding that encompasses phenomena beyond 3D, while remaining purely accessible and scientific. Looking closely, we can see ‘the pathological factors of DNA’ as a bridge to more subtle forms of existence.
So, I would say that my approach (Gallic war study) is purely exoteric, and that it is ‘consciously’ so. When I look at the scientific community and academics, I understand that they are very practical, cartesian people. They need 3D words, 3D principles, etc. – in other words, a purely exoteric approach, if we want to have a positive influence on science. So, I strive to gather data according to a principle that is understandable to all. Very difficult to do! Must find basic 3D things/concepts/principles - and stick to it!
As a matter of strategy, I avoid overemphasizing any 4D aspects in anything. People are not receptive. They don't understand, and they judge you. The result is that you lose their attention. If we want to attract the attention and interest of everyday people, I think we need to compete in ingenuity and strive to produce content that will be ‘acceptable’ to the scientific/academic intelligentsia. It's sad, but I think that's the way it is, and for the moment there are few ways to get around it.
I have read the texts you suggested! They are very interesting, and the three levels make perfect sense. I don't know if you would like to discuss their content in relation to the Odyssey or Caesar? We could. It is difficult for me to follow your metaphysics, because I never did it. However, on reflection, I have noticed the following.
Let us assume that Caesar's text can be interpreted in an esoteric, or even mesoteric, manner. I have already mentioned this, but what struck me was the highly descriptive content of the book. A succession of battles, and also a singularity: protagonist X and protagonist Y, their respective armies, cities that are besieged in turn, etc. I would see a ‘multitude’ as an element that could potentially allow for a reading other than exoteric. I don't know where ‘the multitude’ might lead! I leave it up to you! And then, nothing tells me that this is an element to be taken into consideration. It is difficult for me to go beyond ‘the element of multitude’ to determine a potential esoteric meaning. What could it possibly mean?
I wanted to send you a message since your post! Feel free to respond to any of the things I have written here, to clarify what is important to you in esoteric, mesoteric and exoteric approaches! Thank you for having pointed me out to those three principles!
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
