Talk:Peter Kingsley

I added Category:Western esotericism scholars to the article, and the Esotericism template, but these have been removed with the edit summary "Peter Kingsley does not see himself as an esotericist or identify as an esotericist in any acceptable sense of the word."

These are not meant to be reliable sources, but they do tend to support my view, and that of others, regarding Kingsley's work (some of which are interestingly diagnostic, if not prophetic):

"Kingsley reads the poems of Parmenides and Empedocles as esoteric, initiatory text".

" Additionally, he reads the poems of Parmenides and Empedocles as esoteric and mystical texts, a hermeneutical perspective".

"In his more recent work, Kingsley argues that esoteric texts designed to record or induce mystical experiences can never be understood from an "outsider's perspective"; understanding must come from a reader's lived experience—or not at all."

"His words are esoteric seeds that must be planted in the earth".

"Plato and Aristotle, who defined the parameters of western philosophy without being fully aware of or sympathetic to the esoteric context in which Empedocles and Parmenides spoke, continue to exert an enormous influence".

"This is the first book to analyze systematically crucial aspects of ancient Greek philosophy in their original context of mystery, religion, and magic. Peter Kingsley brings to light recently uncovered evidence about ancient Pythagoreanism and its influence on Plato, and reconstructs the fascinating esoteric transmission of Pythagorean ideas from the Greek West down to the alchemists and magicians of Egypt, and from there into the world of Islam." [The "Golden Chain"].

• Ancient Philosophy, Mystery and Magic blurb

"To cite just one vivid example: right at the start of his esoteric teaching poem Empedocles tells his student that "if you press my words down underneath your dense-packed diaphragm," in other words if you breathe them in deeply into your belly, then they will stay with you and they will grow and they will change you."

• Parabola interview

"This was a very rare, and very esoteric, technique used in certain circles for awakening the spiritual powers fast asleep inside each of us and starting to trigger the evolutionary process of becoming a conscious human being." ... "And this is the harsh reality involved in trying to convey esoteric truths: those who see no need for them can never imagine there might be something they are missing, because they assume they have it already."

• Theosophical Society interview

And elsewhere, Kingsley mentions the Sufis, whose Way is, of course, esoteric, though in their case until recently this was Eastern esotericism, whereas much of what Kingsley writes about is Western esotericism (though seeded from elsewhere). I have a little familiarity with both.

Henry Corbin (who knew and understood Jung and his work so well) spoke of an "inner church", echoing Jung fifty years previously when Jung explained how "if we belong to the secret church, then we belong, and we need not worry about it, but can go our own way. If we do not belong, no amount of teaching or organization can bring us there." (p366). The secret church has to do with the chain of custodians of the Grail, influenced by A. E. Waite's writing.

"The golden chain is an ancient symbol of the power that holds the universe together and connects this world of time to the world of eternity. But it also symbolizes the mysterious lineage which stretches from the founders of Western civilization, through Hermetic and then Sufi tradition, into the present time."

Regards, Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you for your thoughtful comment. To clarify: Kingsley writes about esoteric tradition, but of course that does not make him an esotericist. Nor does he see himself as an esotericist.

First, Kingsley writes about a great many topics: Sufism, shamanism, Native American spirituality, and so on. Obviously that does not make him, to use the first example, a Sufi, or "a Sufi scholar." Nor does it make his body of work classifiable as "about Sufism" or, to use the Wikipedia template verbiage, "Part of a Series on Sufism".

Secondly, Kingsley is frequently critical of those who would fall into the category of "western esotericism scholars" or "esotericists." Even more tellingly, the language he uses makes it very clear that he does not include himself in their ranks and would consider the label "esotericism" not only misleading as a descriptor of his work but a major hindrance and obstacle to understanding it. See, for example, these remarks in Catafalque:

"As for all the learned mumbo jumbo which has been repeated century after century by academics, theologians, esotericists..." (p. 44)

"...the crony mysticism he so justifiably despised: the mysticism of superstitious people cluttered by their esoteric bibles and beliefs..." (p. 116)

"This is why even many of the greatest modern sages, experts on spirituality, authorities in the esoteric, manage to stamp out the power of nature precisely when they seem to be doing the opposite." (p. 245)

"They would write at length with the greatest apparent learning about esotericism but without realizing that when you talk like this about the esoteric you turn it...into its exact exoteric opposite." (p. 390)

And note also his dismissal of what he calls the "inconsequential" modern debates over Jung’s status as an esotericist (p. 576).

Finally, because Peter Kingsley is a living person this Wiki falls under WP:BLP. It seems wise to err on the side of caution when situating Kingsley, or his work, in a category that he does not appear to identify with. Ajeli (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Many thanks, Ajeli. You make many pertinent points. Sure, I can see how Kingsley would not describe himself, nor want to be described, as an esotericist (and note that some love him in spite of his personal idiosyncracies and presentational style, and some decidedly do not), though I do feel that he is nevertheless a scholar of Western esotericism (well, like Corbin he may be a mystic, cast in the external role of scholar). Regards, Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

The article lacks independent, published, secondary, reliable sources; there is almost exclusive use of primary sources, which do nothing to establish notability. See also WP:GOLDENRULE.

It looks like the article has been written backwards. Rather than writing what we personally know of the subject (or what the subject says about themself), and then hunting around for citations to back that up (or ignoring the need to source all significant facts), we should first collect together reliable, secondary sources and then write the article content to accurately reflect what those sources actually say.

@Ajeli: Editors who have a close connection with a BLP subject, or a potential conflict of interest, should also disclose that connection. Queries and questions about this and other matters can be posed at the Teahouse.

Reception would be one way of increasing the use of secondary reliable sources and demonstrating notability.

Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 07:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

In addition, please see: Template:Page numbers improve for book page ranges, and WP:NAMEDREFS for naming and using references more than once. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [reply ]