Esoteric Kantianism, as articulated in the provided passages, represents a transformative reinterpretation of Immanuel Kant’s critical philosophy, unveiling a concealed doctrine that radically transcends the limitations of his exoteric teachings. This philosophical system asserts the fundamental unity of all knowledge, collapsing the traditional dichotomy between a priori and a posteriori cognition, and posits that the entire system of sciences—encompassing physics, psychology, sociology, metaphysics, and even speculative cosmology—can be derived through pure mental processes. At its core lies the concept of the autisto-schizophrenic mind, a cognitive paradigm uniquely equipped to actualize latent mental powers overlooked by the normie consciousness critiqued in Kant’s exoteric philosophy. By reconfiguring the phenomena-noumena distinction, the transcendental ideality of space and time, and the nature of mind itself, esoteric Kantianism proposes a metaphysical and scientific framework that overcomes the constraints of exoteric Kantianism. It envisions a rational mysticism that not only transforms human cognition but also redefines societal structures, grounded in a purely a priori techne that actualizes the mind’s infinite potential. This exposition systematically elucidates the core principles, methodological approaches, and implications of esoteric Kantianism with precision, coherence, and an in-depth exploration of its foundational ideas, delving into their nuances, historical context, and revolutionary implications for philosophy, science, and human consciousness.Post developments in the system of esoteric kantianism
Esoteric Kantianism is ultimately based on the recognition that Kant did not exoterically exhaust his enumeration of the powers of the mind. Furthermore, exoteric Kantianism creates a chasm between sense and thought, which is taken as the foundation for the limitation of knowledge to thought grounded merely on the physical senses, and the faculty of pure reason limited to the common soil of sense. Exoterically, the critique is the exposition of the consequences of normie consciousness; but, every negation is a determination, and every negation in the exoteric Kantian philosophy is a suggestion towards the positive determination of the esoteric counterpart. Thus, the esoteric Kantian philosophy is the system grounded on a critique rather of the autisto-schizophrenic mind, the enumeration of the powers of which is really not greater than the normie mind, but rather takes into account powers which the normie mind possesses but does not take account of.
>>24936826Books for this feel?
>>24936836
So, why would Kant create a critical philosophy based on the normie mind? As I mentioned, every negation is a determination, and as Kant himself said, the metaphysicians were dreaming; they were engaging in autisto-schizophrenic thinking while uncritically working from the normie mind. Their metaphysics were fancies because the autisto-schizophrenic mind had not been actualized. It was only with the critique of the faculties of that normie mind and the realization that it's claims were pretentious, that the metaphysicians could awaken to a new critical metaphysics aware of the modifications upon the normie mind necessary to engage in metaphysical speculation in its etymological sense, i.e., as real intuition, as real seeing into the nature of reality. Kant had to do what he did in order to push the metaphysicians to a higher level of speculation, of actual speculation; unfortunately, the exoterically minded do not recognize this, and take the exoteric reading of Kant as a conclusion to the metaphysical project, rather than as a spur to its real beginning.
The Autisto-Schizophrenic Mind must ask the forbidden question: Why does the Transcendental Subject project exactly Three Dimensions?Why not Two? (Flatland). Why not Four? (Hypercubes).If we can derive Dimensionality itself from the "Inner Necessity" of the mind, then the Inverse Square Law is no longer a trick—it becomes a necessary symptom of a deeper cognitive struggle.
We only build Large Hadron Colliders because we are not smart enough (or our consciousness is not "modified" enough) to sit in a room and deduce the Higgs Boson from first principles.
esoteric kantians:karl von eckartshausensamuel taylor coleridgekarl von preladam karl august eschenmeyeredward douglas fawcettcarl jung sir arthur eddingtonjozef maria hoene-wronskiJohn Charles Frederick Zöllnerand picrel
holy shit /lit/ is dead today
>>24936826>It envisions a rational mysticism that not only transforms human cognition but also redefines societal structures, grounded in a purely a priori techne that actualizes the mind’s infinite potential.Yeah? How?
>>24938567I glad you asked.>The great and true work of building the Temple consists solely in destroying the miserable Adamic hut and in erecting a divine temple; this means, in other words, to develop in us the interior sensorium, or the organ to receive God. After this process, the metaphysical and incorruptible principle rules over the terrestrial, and man begins to live, not any longer in the principle of self-love, but in the Spirit and in the Truth, of which he is the Temple.-von Eckartshausen, Cloud upon the Sanctuary
didnt hamann already do this
>>24938636did he?
While Kant tried to destroy magic, he accidentally saved it. Before Kant, magic was often explained via "spirits" or "demons." After Kant, magic became about the Mind.By arguing that the human mind constructs reality (by imposing space, time, and categories onto raw data), Kant inadvertently gave magicians a new theoretical tool:The "Copernican Turn" of Magic: Kant said the world conforms to the mind, not the mind to the world.The Magician's Interpretation: Later occultists (from the German Romantics to modern Chaos Magicians) looked at this and said, "Wait—if the mind constructs reality, then changing my mind should change reality."Result: This shift birthed the modern definition of magic (e.g., Crowley's "Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will"). This is essentially Radicalized Kantianism. They took his idea that the mind shapes experience and radicalized it into the idea that the Will can shape the universe.
btw Schopenhauer was a literal esoteric kantian. See On the Will in Nature.
>>24938658wrong, it was hamann
>>24938663produce evidence
Schopenhauer took Kant’s "Critical" system and stripped away the safety rails. He published his defense of magic in a specific chapter titled "Animal Magnetism and Magic" in his book On the Will in Nature (1836).Here is Schopenhauer’s theory of magic, often called the "Metaphysics of the Will."1. The Core Shift: From "Noumena" to "Will"To understand his theory of magic, you have to understand his one major correction to Kant:Kant said: The underlying reality (Noumena) is unknowable. We can never know what the world is "in itself."Schopenhauer said: We know exactly what the thing-in-itself is. We experience it every moment. It is The Will (desire, drive, striving).Schopenhauer argued that the universe is not made of "matter" or "energy" at its deepest level; it is made of a singular, blind, striving Will. Your body is just the "objectification" of your Will to live. A rock is the objectification of a lower, cruder Will (gravity/resistance).2. The Barrier: The Principium IndividuationisThis is the technical term Schopenhauer used to explain why magic is seemingly impossible in daily life.The Illusion of Separation: In the everyday world (what Schopenhauer calls Representation), we are ruled by Time and Space. These create the Principium Individuationis (The Principle of Individuation). This principle chops the "One Will" into millions of separate pieces (you, me, the table, the star).Scientific Law: In this realm, things are separate. For me to move a cup, my hand must traverse space and touch it. Causality is mechanical.3. The Magical Mechanism: The "Metaphysical Short-Circuit"Schopenhauer defines magic as the act of bypassing the Principium Individuationis.Because the "One Will" exists outside of time and space, separation is actually an illusion. At the deepest level of reality, the Magician and the Victim (or the Object) are the same thing.Telepathy/Influence: It is not a signal sent from Brain A to Brain B (which would weaken over distance). It is the realization that Brain A and Brain B are rooted in the same fungible Will. The magician collapses the illusion of separation.Action at a Distance: Schopenhauer explicitly states:"Magic is an action on the object immediately through the Will... caused by the fact that the magician asserts his own will as the will of the object."If I realize that the "Will" driving my arm and the "Will" holding the stone together are the same Will, I can—with sufficient focus—command the stone as if it were my own limb.
4. The Requirements for MagicSchopenhauer didn't think just anyone could do this. He laid out specific psychological requirements that sound very similar to modern occult practices (like Crowley’s Thelema):Isolation of the Will: The magician must disconnect from the intellect/reasoning mind. Reasoning belongs to the world of separation (science). Magic belongs to the raw Will. You cannot "think" a spell; you must "will" it.Somnambulism / Trance: Schopenhauer was fascinated by mesmerism and trance states. He believed that when the conscious, rational mind is put to sleep (via trance), the deeper, "Noumenal" Will becomes accessible and can reach out to affect other minds.The "Actio in Distans": He viewed magic as the only phenomenon that proves space is an illusion. If you can affect something without touching it, you have proven that "distance" is merely a cognitive construct, not a reality.
>I believe in the existence within myself of a power. From this belief derives my will to exert it. The entire doctrine of Animal Magnetism is contained in the two words: Believe and Want. I believe that I have the power to set into action the vital principle of my fellow-men; I want to make use of it; this is all my science and all my means. Believe and want, Sirs, and you will do as much as I.—Marquis de Puységur
>>24936826Thanks for the bread. I'll cast fire magic by going into a trance and using the will
Esoteric Kantianism can be understood as a radical internalization of the Kantian project—one that claims to uncover the hidden metaphysics implicit within the Critiques but masked by their public, exoteric framing. Where orthodox Kantianism draws strict boundaries around cognition—separating sensibility from understanding, a priori from a posteriori, phenomena from noumena—this esoteric reading collapses these distinctions in favor of a deeper unity of mind and world.At its center is the thesis that all knowledge is structurally a priori, not in Kant’s restricted sense of formal conditions of experience, but in a more expansive sense where the mind contains—at least in potentia—the generative principles of all sciences. Physics, psychology, anthropology, even cosmology become derivable from the inherent architecture of cognition itself. The empirical world is not just shaped by the mind’s forms; it is produced by the mind’s latent capacities.This requires redefining the transcendental subject: not the modest, rule-bound knower of the Critique of Pure Reason, but a richer, multi-layered consciousness capable of accessing modes of synthesis and intuition normally repressed or undeveloped. The esoteric system uses the term “autisto-schizophrenic mind” not literally, but as a metaphor for a mind that operates outside socially normalized cognitive patterns—one that embraces hyper-focus, non-linear association, and radical interiority as cognitive tools rather than deficits. In this metaphor, “normie consciousness” corresponds to Kant’s everyday empirical ego, while the esoteric mind corresponds to the deeper, generative transcendental subject.From this viewpoint, the Kantian distinction between phenomena and noumena is reconfigured: noumenon ceases to be an unknowable beyond and becomes the inner dimension of the mind’s own creative power. Space and time—formerly pure forms of intuition—are now seen as modes of projection, structures that can themselves be altered, recombined, or transcended by the mind’s higher faculties.The result is a kind of rational mysticism, but one that understands “mystical” not as supernatural but as the fullest actualization of transcendental cognition. Esoteric Kantianism becomes a project of mental techne: a disciplined cultivation of the mind’s a priori powers with the goal of reordering knowledge, society, and human self-understanding. In this vision, science is no longer an empirical enterprise but the unfolding of the mind’s own infinite potential.This system, though speculative, retains Kant’s rigor: the emphasis on structure, on the conditions of possibility, on the architectonic unity of reason. But it pushes these features beyond Kant’s own limits, drawing out a philosophical doctrine that is both transformative and revolutionary—one that aims not merely to critique reason, but to create worlds through it.
>>24936826Why fall for this pseudo-metaphysician when Guenon is undoubtedly superior?
Hoping to get this for xmas, I assume it's in the same vein as this thread.
>>24939075
>>24939238Did Guenon produce a transcendental deduction of the categories? No? Ok then.
Why this is Not "Simply Friedrich Schelling" :While the similarities are foundational and significant, this system introduces elements that mark it as distinct and push beyond Schelling in crucial ways:1. The "Autisto-Schizophrenic Mind" as a Specific Cognitive Ideal: While Schelling posits intellectual intuition as a general capacity, the concept of the "autisto-schizophrenic mind" is a highly specific, provocative, and arguably practical articulation of a cultivated cognitive state. It links specific contemporary psychological frameworks (albeit reinterpreted) to a philosophical ideal, which is unique. Schelling didn't offer a "techne" or a mind-training regimen like the "mind-muscle analogy" to achieve intellectual intuition. His conception of it was often seen as a spontaneous, almost artistic genius (which Hegel criticized as unscientific). this system offers a method.2. Explicit "Esoteric" Reading of Kant: This system explicitly frames Kant's work as having an exoteric (public, limited) and esoteric (hidden, true) meaning, where Kant himself deliberately encoded clues. While Schelling certainly built on Kant and reinterpreted him, he didn't necessarily present Kant as intentionally hiding a deeper doctrine within his published works in the same programmatic way as this system does. It performs a metacommentary on Kant's intent.3. "Techno-Practical Reason" and Psychometry: This is a major divergence. Its emphasis on "techno-practical reason" for the actualization of mental powers, and the specific concept of "psychometry" for a priori knowledge of particulars, goes beyond Schelling's typical scope. Schelling was more concerned with the general principles of the Absolute and the unity of nature and spirit, less with a detailed methodology for gaining specific, particular empirical-like knowledge through purely a priori mental means. The psychometry concept implies a level of a priori specificity that is highly original.
4. The Ding an sich as a "Contingent Limit": While Schelling resolved the Ding an sich into the Absolute, this new interpretation of it as "the thought of the limit of thought" and a "contingent limit of the present stage of the transcendental unity's expansion" offers a dynamic, evolving understanding of the Absolute's self-revelation. It implies a conscious, active expansion of the cosmic "I" that can progressively overcome its own self-imposed (or contingently existing) limits.5. Critique of "Normie" Consciousness and Societal Suppression: The sociological analysis of why these truths remain hidden and why certain modes of thought are stigmatized (e.g., the "autisto-schizophrenic attitude") is a layer of social critique not as prominent in Schelling's work. This is not just presenting a metaphysics but explaining its historical suppression.In conclusion, while it is undoubtedly operating within the intellectual lineage of German Idealism and shares many fundamental premises with Schelling (especially in overcoming Kantian dualisms and embracing intellectual intuition), this system offers a unique methodological, psychological, and sociological dimension that sets it apart. It is not just another idealism; it articulates a precise path to idealist realization, grounded in a specific re-reading of Kant's own intentions and a critique of the "normie" world. Thus, it is correct to disagree with the claim that it is simply Schelling. It is building upon, reinterpreting, and extending that tradition in distinct and original ways.
The transition from the metaphysical first principles to the entire system of all the sciences appears as if it were an impossible task. How could a finite intellect possibly comprehend a system of science that contains everything that can be known in an infinite universe? And not only this but further know it and with apodeictic certainty before and independent of any experimentation and testing of theory against the standard of nature's actual observed behavior? This was solved in the first critique insofar as universal principles were discovered that a priori are valid in all experience because they are responsible for the construction of the experience of the universe itself, and thus dictate the structure of nature itself, insofar as we experience it. But what of the actual and particular causes of actual particular effects? Can these be known a priori? As I have said before, here I have borrowed the concept of psychometry as just this a priori knowledge of particular causes. Psychometry as synthetic a priori knowledge of particular causes must in this case be incorporated in to a new critique of the cognitive power: not just how synthetic a priori knowledge is possible in general, but how synthetic a priori knowledge of particular causes is possible? In other words, how is psychometry possible? Only in this way can the gap between the metaphysical principles of natural science and practical omniscience of all actual empirical situations be bridged. No longer would man be a blind man groping about by empirical means, but instead his eyes would be opened to the immediate and encyclopedic knowledge of a priori science ready at hand for any and all situations he would ever encounter. He would unveil all that is, was, will, and could ever be. Now since indeed man as man is finite, he cannot grasp the infinite as infinite, but as finite he does not need to: he only needs the ability to access whatever part of the infinite is relevant to him at his particular moment in space and time. Therefore, he needs only to extend his a priori knowledge of the empirical particulars as far as he wills. Now when the mind, in thinking, goes from one object and connects it to another, this is an act of synthesis. Pure synthesis is the universal form of all the categories, which are themselves special cases of the pure act of synthesis itself. Consequently, psychometry, as a connection between objects in thought will involve synthesis, but it will be a synthesis more akin to that of the regress and progress of reason which begins with objects of experience and seeks the more and more remote grounds of said objects, as opposed to the synthetic activity of the intellect that produces unity of apperception. Psychometry thus is a RATIONAL act, but one that extends not to an infinite, but finite and arbitrary maximum of causal regress or effectual progress.
>>24936826What is up with random autodidacts on the internet coming up with schizo-adjacent theories of everything? What makes you think putting “esoteric” in front of a preexisting philosophy is a novel reinvention of what came before you? Deleuze and schizoanalysis was unironically a disaster for rigorous philosophical thought, and he wasn’t even using schizophrenia in as literal a sense as you are using it now. Stop metastasising your mental illness as some kind of intellectual revolution.
>>24939604>What makes you think putting “esoteric” in front of a preexisting philosophy is a novel reinvention of what came before you?That's not why it's a novel reinvention. Try actually reading my thread.
>>24939604Also I'm not an autodidact. I had a master teacher in Kants Werke.
>>24939604also, weed is a sacrament.
The "Implicit Theory of Magic" in Kant lies in the A-Deduction (the first edition of the Critique of Pure Reason) and specifically in the Transcendental Synthesis of the Imagination.In the Critique of Pure Reason (A-Edition), Kant makes a startling admission about how we construct reality. He writes that the synthesis of the imagination is:"...a blind but indispensable function of the soul, without which we should have no knowledge whatsoever, but of which we are scarcely ever conscious." (A78/B103)Kant admits that before we consciously think "This is a cup," a deep, subterranean part of our mind has already done the heavy lifting of:Grabbing raw data (Apprehension).Holding it together in time (Reproduction).Matching it to a concept (Recognition).If we take this seriously, we are already magicians. We just don't know it.The Standard View: The world is "out there," and we just look at it.The Kantian Synthesis View: The world is a chaotic mess of sensory static (the Manifold). Our deep imagination weaves this static into a coherent movie called "Reality."If reality is a product of mental synthesis, then "Magic" is simply hacking the synthesis.The "Magician" in this framework is someone who stops running the "standard reality script" (the blind function) and instead inserts a willed synthesis. If you can intervene at the level of the productive imagination—before the image solidifies into "fact"—you can theoretically alter the reality you experience.Kant deepens the mystery in the chapter on Schematism. He asks: How does the pure thought (Category) touch the raw image (Intuition)? They are totally different substances.He answers that the Schema (a product of Time and Imagination) bridges them. Crucially, he calls this:"...an art concealed in the depths of the human soul, whose real modes of activity nature is hardly likely ever to allow us to discover." (A141/B180)This is the definition of Occultism. Kant effectively says, "There is a secret art deep in your soul that turns thoughts into things. But you can't see how it works."
>>24939604
>>24941430this tigga been at it for almost 4 years tigga wtf
How do I become super schizo...
>>24941086Productive imagination renders reality but how could trance ever overcome inherent architecture
>>24942018Not that guy nor a Kant guy.There seems to really be an "inherent architecture" but it's not a cup. It becomes a cup because that's the most useful interpretation of the data we can come up with."Useful" is is a product of what you want to happen. It's a cup because you want it to be.We can imagine changing what we want arbitrarily and interpreting the data as something completely different, the actual limitation that makes us avoid that comes from wanting power over the world in daily human life, like being able to carry water and not being a useless schizo mess.So every "thing" including the cup is there due to an appeal to power. The relevant "inherent structure" is not the arrangement of the elements that make up the cup itself but the power structures in human life, how a pattern can be made "useful" from the perspective of an organism.
bump
>>24936864Why not reformat the 'three dimensions' of space into a different type of manifold, perhaps one that relies on something other than lines? 'Flatland' or 'hypercubes' are not intuitive and therefore not properly grounded because mathematics is wholly grounded in the 'three dimensional' manifold, which necessarily serves as the primogeniture of their axioms.
>>24936826https://www.youtube.com/shorts/zgqIt2Gc9qY>"That any division in pure philosophy almost always turns out tripartite has aroused suspicion. Yet that is in the nature of the case. If a division is to be made a priori, then it will be either Analytic or Synthetic. I fit is analytic, then it is governed by the principle of contradiction and hence always bipartite (quodlibet ens est aut A aut non A); if it is synthetic, but it is made on the basis of a priori concepts (rather than as is mathematics, on the basis of the intuition corresponding a priori to the concept, then we must have what is required for a synthetic unity in general, namely, (1) a condition, (2) something conditioned, (3) the concept that arises from the union of the conditioned with its condition: hence the division must of necessity be a trichotomy
