-5

EDIT: I'm probably going to ask that this be deleted as it's moot now...

Mumbo-jumbo and bizarre opinions immediately aside - There is such a wealth of knowledge from these often deeply Christian perspectives, which are not merely opinion based (and thus off-topic), but rather are direct-experiential, seeming to fit type 4, Experience, (*1) in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. I'm a bit confounded why there is no "esoteric" tag.

Granted - esotericism, as a dicey brand name, is all too frequently (and often justifiably!) discounted. But wouldn't the contemporaries of Saint Augustine or the Gnostics back then consider their in-sights as merely the opinions of some 'esoteric' nut jobs? The underlying problem is finding consistent means to clarify when something is "viable" (no, of course not "the Truth") versus when it is mere opinion / belief. And there are gray areas (*2). But doesn't a total discounting of such potentially murky perspectives also throw the baby out with the bath water?

So this isn't really a new tag request. Rather would it be considered appropriate (on meta.c.se) to discuss how to address the subject - without merely excluding it outright ?


( Note *1 - I'd say a clear, but esoteric, understanding would also fall under type 3, Reason by Wesleyan's own presentation - an understanding has also to be reasonable to be viable. )

( Note *2 - My POV: 1. Christianity is more than just a body of knowledge because Christ is an active participant in the World(s). 2. There is an evolution of conscious spanning long periods of history - what is "esoteric" (hidden / mystery) to me may be daily bread and butter to you. ... And I hope you share that bread with us.)

  • 2
    I don't understand what you mean by "esoteric" but new tags can be created at any time. I don't see the point of this question. – curiousdannii Sep 11 '14 at 5:03
  • @curiousdannii There is a rep threshold for that though. You need at least 300 rep to create tags, which can be done while posting. – fredsbend Sep 11 '14 at 6:03
  • 3
    But I agree. I don't quite understand the question. There's no tag because no one has yet thought there should be for any particular question. If you know of a question that could use an "esoteric" tag, let us know in chat and one of us will add it if it is legitimate. – fredsbend Sep 11 '14 at 6:05
  • @curiousdannii & fredsbend: Astonishing - honestly. I re-read my question several times. I can't be clearer. Mr. Turner got it.... (BTW - I love when, after extensively reading posts and help files, spending time getting the way of things, I make my first post to an SE site - and see my question promptly down voted. I know well what down votes are really supposed to mean - but it still makes one feel quite unwelcome. I'll let this stand as is - just to see how far down it goes :-P ) – Infinitesimal Sep 12 '14 at 0:26
  • @Infinitesimal This is just the meta site. Votes don't count for anything. – fredsbend Sep 12 '14 at 0:59
  • @fredsbend - thanks again for being kind. But it is untrue that votes don't count for anything on meta. (I am not a NOOB SE user. [In fact, my highest reps are on a meta site.]) Voting on meta sites means 'conceptual dis/agreement' or 'Post dis/approval' or simply Dis/Like. Unfortunately, on some sites, it has been my experience that meta up / down votes are often from-the-gut launches of antipathy / sympathy for a post's content. If I perceive that (to me) C~.SE or meta.C~.SE is appearing as such, I won't be here much longer than a Templar. Simple as that. – Infinitesimal Sep 12 '14 at 1:42
  • 1
    Actually, I would think the downvotes are because your post is not too clear. I said so, curiousdanni said so, and there are multiple votes on our comments. So it's not just me when I say "What are you talking about?" I think voting on main is not typically emotional or anything dumb. Good, interesting, on-topic questions are upvoted. Good, real answers that show effort and are written well are upvoted. The opposite of those are often downvoted. – fredsbend Sep 12 '14 at 1:47
  • yes, that falls under 'post dis/approval'. I did see the implications of multiple upvotes on your and curiousdanni's comments. That was the reason I reread my question (several times now). I don't want to focus on me here as that's not the point - but I'm really confused why it isn't clear (and I consider myself a fairly competent writer)... so I need to step back a while and rethink the question to reformulate it clearer. Do you all here like to have the OP "EDIT:" their own questions in place, or do so by way of an OP-posted follow-up answer to their own question? thx for bearing with me! – Infinitesimal Sep 12 '14 at 1:54
  • @infinitesimal don't you think that it's a little odd for someone who has not asked or answered any questions to be concerned about missing tags? If you don't have the rep to add any tag just ask one of us and we'll almost certainly do it. – curiousdannii Sep 12 '14 at 2:16
  • @curiousdannii - it would be odd indeed if I'd not read a ton here and had been on many other SE sites! Like I tried :)) to say at first, it's not a tag request, rather asking why a major category of knowledge is simply missing. An "esotericism" tag per se might be too broad as Mr. Turner below suggests - I'd rather see tags that are more specific under a rubric of Esoteric Christianity, such as say Rosicrucian, Templar, Catharism, and mystery religion ... continues ... – Infinitesimal Sep 12 '14 at 2:34
  • ... you do have apocrypha (which some would consider esoteric) - and as Mr. Turner mentions, also now gnosticism - but you also have spirit, spirituality, and mysticism <-- if those aren't Meta-Tags, as much as an "Esotericism" would be, then I'll eat my spiritual hat. (Am I starting to make sense --- should I edit my OP ??) – Infinitesimal Sep 12 '14 at 2:36
  • ... afterthought @curiousdannii - maybe this is moot as I see there are very few posts under any of the existing tags that relate! thanks again... – Infinitesimal Sep 12 '14 at 2:37
  • @fredsbend - Peter Turner just made this entire series of comments seem moot. I'm considering requesting this entire question / answer / comment chain be deleted as it now seems to waste binary space :)) just a heads up. – Infinitesimal Sep 12 '14 at 3:22
  • @curiousdannii - ^^^ please see the comment immediately above. – Infinitesimal Sep 12 '14 at 3:24
1

oddly enough, I just created the tag a few days ago. There is a already, which is pretty esoteric.

But the adjective estoteric, by itself, doesn't comport to the site as it is a "meta-tag" which have been unwelcome for quite some time now.


OK, now that I see more clearly, I think you're wondering why only mainline mud people have tags and why Joanna Southcotism isn't discussed more frequently. The reason is because most of the questions on the site are only asymptotically approaching Mere Christianity. There's a few history questions, a few good oft-repeated zingers and then a bunch of atheist troll questions about noah's ark.

The way you phrased that question was perfect though. It seems like it should be answerable, but only someone who knows something about that sect (or that sort of sect) ought to answer is and you should probably know that it is an "occasion of sin" in my particular faith tradition to go nosing about those sorts of things.

  • Thanks for the reasonable reply. (Got both my up vote and acceptance.) Funny coincidence (?), I've read Atwood's "death of the meta tag" several times over the years - and had just read it again a few weeks ago in another context. Well, if it's merely because 'esoteric' is an adjective and thus making it too encompassing, then how about the noun 'esotericism' ... if that's not clear as concept and why it would be very appropriate here, then I guess I'll go the way of the Gnostics and vanish ... – Infinitesimal Sep 12 '14 at 0:35
  • @Infinitesimal If you have an idea of a question you want to ask but aren't sure whether it is on-topic or not, you can post on meta about it, or just ask who ever's in chat. We'll help you. – fredsbend Sep 12 '14 at 1:05
  • @fredsbend - thank you. I don't have a question - I have hundreds all within a framework / worldview / perspective. Clearly, this isn't going to go well if I have to explain to meta users what "esotericism" means. – Infinitesimal Sep 12 '14 at 1:33
  • @infinitesimal I think you should just start asking those questions then. Learn by doing. And if you think there's something that's an uncommon term then link to a page that explains it in more detail. – curiousdannii Sep 12 '14 at 2:21
  • ok - will do - thanks! – Infinitesimal Sep 12 '14 at 2:44
  • @curiousdannii - based on your encouragement, I just did so here: christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/32878/… ... I immediately noticed that the ONLY tag I could find that came close was "mysticism" which it may be, but certainly isn't only ... see the problem? – Infinitesimal Sep 12 '14 at 3:00
  • Thanks again - please see my last comment to fredsbend above... – Infinitesimal Sep 12 '14 at 3:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .