About

Hi,

my name is Philip Stanfield and my purpose in setting up this blog is primarily to explore through my posts the concepts ‘materialism’ and ‘mysticism’ (regarded under capitalist ideology in turn with hostility and suspicion), how they interrelate and how they can and do reflect in creativity.

My position is materialist, and its truth (the true reflection of reality in thought, ultimately verified by the criterion of practice) as well as what has been achieved in its name must be argued for, particularly to counter the antiquated dominant ideology – which concept Morawski defined as ‘a system of beliefs delimited by interests’. The question being – ‘Whose?’

As a materialist, as one who starts with the world in his thinking and not with what I want from it or how I think it should be, I acknowledge the contribution that has been made and continues to be made under the pervasive and profound influence of mysticism.

Its creative and poetic power, as Marx recognised in Hegel’s Neoplatonic philosophy informs, is the philosophical engine of dialectical materialism – having been famously inverted by Marx from standing on its head to standing on its material feet.

I am focused on exploring this epistemological current initiated by Plotinus and taken furthest by Marx and Engels.

In doing so, I aim to argue for its importance and for the need for its review in toto, towards the continuation of its development to which I hope my blog contributes.

Both its theory and method, now materialist, are necessary to our deepening cognition of and to maintaining our place in a world driven by ‘the tremendous power of the negative’.

I will also put posts on my blog regarding a range of subjects – philosophical, social, political and other – that are important or of interest to me and I think might be of interest to you.

Your comments are welcome!

red-star

62 thoughts on “About

  1. Hi Phil,
    Great introduction for your thought world. You are certainly well read and easily interconnect the intricacies of materialism and of the immaterial, which regardless of their morphology, belong both to our cognitive endeavours. Interesting to notice your use of “mysticism” for something usually vehiculated as “spiritualism”, probably because of the later’s rather religious development.
    I’ll gladly interact with you in the future, keeping in mind that my cognitive world has been intentionally shifted from the strictly analytical into the literature creative. I’ve done this because philosophy seem to have drifted away from its ars poetica, becoming rather mathematical, failing its purpose to remain a wise mirror of all other “sciences”. It truly has become “the critique of pure reason”, as lifeless and cold as its subjects, when it should have remained utterly practical as you have correctly observed.

    Like

    • Hello Liberty of Thinking, thank you for your compliments. I am in strong agreement with your reflections on the state of philosophy. With regard to mysticism, it is a matter of a most gross failure of intellectual and social responsibility not to teach it (i.e. to study and understand it and how it has contributed profoundly to Western culture and continues to do so – here I distinguish between learning from and advocacy for) – the result of appropriation behind cloistered walls. What would Socrates have thought? Best regards. Phil

      Like

      • What a relief to discover that I am not alone☺
        I have displayed nearly identical thoughts in a rather atheist blog, belonging otherwise to a very good friend of mine, with a balanced approach, but scores of very vehement followers, in which I stated that forgetting what religiousness has contributed to our development, is like abhorrence of our life’s toddler years, ashamed of our failures…
        This is the main reason for remaining an agnostic, or rather a defiant deist, knowing well that gnosis without an epi, is mere theory, entitled to be believed, trusted, but not worshipped…
        Also interesting enough, the world’s greatest minds, like Descartes, Newton not to mention Tesla, seem to have shown more than just a side interest in metaphysics, or as you call it to my utter delight, mysticism.
        Best of wishes, Moshe aka Rom

        Like

      • Hello Moshe, I distinguish between religion and mysticism even though the latter (with difficulty) can function within the former – as with religious mystics. Where religion is a set of beliefs with worship, mysticism is a deliberate abandonment, a giving over of self and propositional reason in an intuitive movement towards unity with ‘God’. The atheist fails to see that they require ‘God’ no less for their self-definition than does the theist. If they were to be consistent, they would employ the concept ‘materialist’. Phil

        Like

      • Interesting how clearly you separate mysticism from religiousness, not that they “have” to share any common ground, yet it has come to be so associated with religion, that even the more sophisticated ones would fall for it.
        I guess it has come as an imposed concept from within those social establishments where religion played and influential/deterministic part.
        I’d gladly pursue some more thought on a mysticism detached from an idea of a personal/entity “god”…

        Like

      • Hello Moshe, Obviously there are overlaps between religion and mysticism but I think what fundamentally distinguishes between the two are the forms of ‘reason’ (a poorly understood concept) they are structured on. In religion the play of ‘reason’ is asserted – up to the doorway called ‘faith’ – religious belief is argued for, it is justified (which is why religious studies are taught in universities) whereas in mysticism a different way of thinking is subscribed to – deliberately non-propositional, intuitive and which draws far more directly on the emotions (which is why mysticism is not taught in universities) and which is therefore, for these reasons together, enormously creative. Neoplatonism is built around this creativity and I could not overstate the contributions made to our culture on the back of this way of thinking and creativity. William Franke’s two volume anthology On What Cannot Be Said exemplifies and traces the history of this. Phil

        Like

    • Hi Phil. I also like the way you have introduced your purpose. I think I had better go back and revisit my “About Me”. My trouble has been that I am clarifying the purpose of my blog as I am in transition from full time work to….. whatever we do as we get older and can afford some choices. Like Zerobelief above, I don’t want to be one of those who is “sitting down and allowing things to merely happen around them”. Living consciously is my goal so I look forward to your posts.

      Like

      • Hello Refocusyourfuture, thank you for your generous thoughts. I think when a person ties the goal of living consciously to the pursuit of dreams in the way you do is the highest goal. Best wishes. Phil

        Like

  2. Hi Phil,
    I have enjoyed reading your about section and look forward to future posts. I am a materials scientist fully brought up on the materialistic viewpoint given its success in the laboratory. But I’m interested in scientific investigations of non-materialistic viewpoints, which seems impossible to come by.

    Like

    • Hello Rouin, thank you for your response. It’s good to meet someone who was brought up on the materialist viewpoint! You might like to read my post ‘What does materialism have to do with mysticism?’. With the decline of the ‘modernist’ and now the ‘post-modernist’ stages of capitalist ideology, mysticism is being given increasing attention (e.g. that of Nicholas of Cusa). This is most important, for a number of reasons – particularly with regard to developments in brain science. The study (distinct from ‘mere’ advocacy) of the rich traditions of mystical philosophy presents a golden opportunity for materialism to exemplify and contribute to these developments. Your comments are most welcome. Phil

      Like

  3. Phil, the extent of your brain power amazes me. That is one reason why I followed you. The other is I am fascianted with Mysticism, considering myself to be a mystic of sorts. I commune with Mother Nature through Her creations and seem to have running conversations with Spirit who teaches me infinitely. Much of what is written on Petals is from that Higher Source that flows in me and through me. I will be looking forward in getting to know you better. Thank you so much for leaving the comment you did on Petals, and for following me. Every Blessing, Amy

    Like

    • Hello Amy, thank you for your very kind words. I used to do a lot of photography and my parents grew (and loved their) roses so I am most appreciative of your excellent photography. Your Gravatar is very striking. Best wishes, Phil

      Like

      • Bless your heart, Phil. Thank you!!! In hopefully one month my flowers will begin to show themselves. Meanwhile I am in my neighbor’s garden and there is someone down the street that has tulips coming up. I think I will knock on their door to ask if I can shoot their flowers. I don’t know unless I at least try. (smile)

        Like

      • Oh, yes! Tulips have such graceful lines!!! I must go knock on that door today. I’ve gotten past the point of what others think of me. What is the worst that can happen? These people can say no. My neighbor has tulips too, but hers are not up yet. She is not the gardening type, so her flowers are not nurtured like mine are. Yet, these flowers I am seeing in her garden are taking my breath away for their beauty!!! Love, Amy

        Like

      • Bless you, Phil. YOU encouraged me today. I am so happy you can actually feel the happiness that radiates from my heart. The poem that is coming is personal, and it tells how the flowers see my “heart” and how they allow me to connect with them. This is just not about taking pretty pictures. There is a magic quality to my work, that I credit Mother Nature for because I have been given permission to step into Her World. I know my work shows this IF you have Eyes to see.

        BIG (((HUGS))) and a huge smile on my face, Amy

        Like

    • Hello troymo, thank you for your comment. I was unable to load the Berlinski interview. I think your post is excellent – from such thinking all other questions are generated. You referred to one’s own prejudice and that point also is excellent. When one begins to enquire, to know oneself and the world, it is but a moment before one is confronted by one’s own (often deeply ingrained and rationalised) prejudices (one’s conditioning, one’s enculturation, one’s inertia). To think, to take responsibility for one’s thoughts, going with them from point to point and never wanting an endpoint, is the most difficult challenge one can engage in – and the most worthy. Between our ears is the most advanced product of nature. Shouldn’t we be obligated to it? Best wishes, Phil

      Like

  4. I enjoy reading your blog immensely. Your introduction engages with the creative and despite our initial positions may appear different. I believe that our passion for engagement and relational understanding of the social is on similiar plains.

    Like

    • Hello thoughtation, thank you very much for your comment. You refer to a difference of perspective. I think that difference is not only unavoidable, it is essential for the development of thought and to be sought after. One tests one’s thought against different thought. I was conditioned to think differently from how I do now, and while the change in my views has not undermined my belief that I should argue as confidently as possible (it makes for a better argument – one takes more risks) for the positions I have reasoned my way towards and now hold, it has taught me to keep all of those positions open to review for when or if a better argument is put to me. Best wishes, Phil

      Like

      • I agree with your sentiments and wish to push the notions of difference, reason and belief further, by suggesting; lived experience of these notions that flow thru our thoughts and experiences, continuously shape and reshape our believes.

        Like

      • Hello thoughtation, I think that lived experience has the potential to shape and reshape our beliefs. I process this because I think we all, to varying degrees, resist the theoretical absolute of change – it is often very difficult to accept, bringing with it ‘newness’, uncertainty, the overthrowing of old beliefs (and our possibly long-standing commitment to them) and a sense of loss of control. But I think it is correct to hold that objective reality (‘lived experience’) is ultimately primary to and determinate of consciousness and its products. Phil

        Like

    • Hello wakadian (where does the word come from?), you have expressed your thoughts very clearly – it is always a pleasure to read such writing. I once thought very differently to how I do now. Yes, it was as a result of my conditioning from birth, but I still held certain views and felt a commitment to them. I used to visit my aunt every week (she had a plaque on her kitchen wall ‘Don’t disturb me with the facts, my mind’s made up’) and we would argue about the world. Every week she would insist that I read this or watch that and I would become very frustrated – not because I quickly came to see that more than likely she was ‘right’ and I was ‘wrong’ on a particular point – i.e. her position was more sound factually/logically/ethically than mine – but because I was now required (for the sake of my own self-respect) to make an effort and do that most difficult of things – confront my intellectual laziness and prejudices. Those experiences were formative for me.

      Now, I still argue for or assert my positions firmly. Firstly because I believe one should be honest in expressing one’s views. Secondly, I think (different from my conditioning) my positions are now reasoned, to the best of my ability. Thirdly, in being honest, one is ‘sticking one’s neck out’, ‘opening oneself up’ to a critical response, taking a risk in having one’s positions tested – and this is as it should be. Which brings me to my fourth point – the lesson I got from my aunt – to always not only be prepared to listen to and consider other’s views – to accept that others have different perspectives – but to actively seek for why one should modify or alter one’s own views.

      One can engage in debate with the intention of dominating, of ‘flexing muscle’ (as you write). One can also use the method of honest expression, so long as one listens carefully to the other and considers what they are saying and is open to change, as perhaps the best way of learning and developing.

      What do you think?

      Like

      • I do think that it is beneficial to listen to other people, but I think your ability to change based on your aunt’s intellectual nudging is both a combination of your own ability and her tact in not pushing too hard.
        From my experience, some people do not value truth. They value contentment. There is an American Philosopher Charles Pierce who argues there are four modes of belief: Tenacious Belief, Authoritative Belief, A priori Belief, and Scientific Belief.
        The last, scientific belief, he defines as a belief system that is actively looking to update itself; i.e a system that values truth above all other characteristics. But I would argue that many, if not most, people do not posses this mode of thought. I think the most common type of belief is tenacious belief. Pierce defines a belief of tenacity as “hating doubt.” Part of his idea is that doubt is a naturally uncomfortable state of mind. Pierce believes there are benefits to doubt, but that because it is uncomfortable, many people choose to actively avoid it. This is the tenacity of belief. When a person senses their opinion might change, they disengage, they shout. They fight. They stop listening. They have developed habits to protect their beliefs, regardless of what those beliefs are.

        It is dealing with this type of person, that I think you can be an intellectual bully. I don’t necessarily think it is good to avoid doubt, but I do think people should have the freedom to make that choice. I meet lots of people who value intelligence and truth, and they feel they have some right, if not obligation, to correct the illogical or incorrect beliefs of others. I disagree with this.
        What do you think of this?

        Also please read my new post. I would love to hear your opinion.

        – Respectfully Tom

        Like

      • Hello Tom, in your last paragraph you wrote ‘It is dealing with this type of person, that I think you can be an intellectual bully.’ Are you saying that it is in general OK to ‘intellectually bully’ those who hold ‘tenacious beliefs’? You then wrote ‘I don’t necessarily (my emphasis) think it is good to avoid doubt…’ When might it be good to avoid and not avoid doubt?

        The point of ‘correcting’ (or not) the views of others is very difficult. My guiding principle is to behave towards others as I wish they would behave towards me. My experience with my aunt taught me the powerful tool of intellectual humility (not self-effacement before others but to be as open as possible to others and the world). All well and good in an affluent, ‘peaceful’ society.

        But such beliefs have a problem – not only do societies require laws and sanctions for them (the imposition of ideas on others, enforced where necessary) but, and in particular, the difficulty would be most pronounced at a time of social revolution. As Lenin wrote – ‘What is to be Done?’ – if and when democratic structures were to collapse or be swept aside and the domination of the capitalist class made overt?

        How effective in defence of the principles of equality would ‘Do unto others…’, the views of Tolstoy, Gandhi or Martin Luther King be in such a situation? Phil

        Like

  5. Dear Phil,

    I am not saying it is ok to intellectually bully people. Pierce (the author I mentioned before) argues that people who avoid doubt tend to have higher rates of action. They blindly belief what they will, and with doubt causing them to hesitate, they push forward with action. Pierce actually says he admires these individuals the most (though I don’t think he does completely) and compares them to successful politicians or military commanders whose unwavering resolve in themselves is often essential to their success.

    I think the difficulty with do onto others is how fundamentally different humans can be. There is nothing I want more than a strong mind to press against. To shake the core of my thought so that I may see where its foundations are weakest. However, not everyone is like that. Not everyone is as equip as I to rebuild. What to one man may appear a great exciting puzzle, to another might be a cause of great despair. Because of this, I generally try to first identify a fellow traveler, before I treat them exactly as I would myself.

    Like

    • Hello Tom, my point with regard to ‘doing to others…’ is not how I would treat myself but how I would hope others treated me. I agree with you regarding the range of differences in people but even before I begin relating with any of them I ask myself ‘Would I like them to treat me with respect – as a fellow human being?’

      Since I would, then I owe them that same respect irrespective of their beliefs. Then there is the matter of their beliefs. Their history is not mine, even if we have lived in the same culture, not to mention if we have different cultural heritages. Yes, we all see the same tree, but we all think differently about it.

      We engage in debate. What are our purposes for engaging in that debate (this comes back to your first communication)? To what extent (if at all) do we want to ‘correct’ the other, to what extent to test and refine our own thought? If I don’t want that person to teach me, then I should be careful not to attempt to teach the other, etc.

      I have been asked several times since I set up this blog how I, as a materialist, could have anything to do with mysticism. Not only does materialism, does Marxism, have a profound debt to mysticism (which Marx acknowledged with regard to Hegel), so much can and needs to be learnt from exploring all aspects of that debt. The relevance of mysticism has by no means passed (I don’t argue for its practice but for what can be learnt from its theory and methods).

      A little while ago I listened to a discussion of Indian philosophy and reflected on how different it is from Western philosophy. Yet Western philosophers (still) focus on their philosophy and its heritage, believing it to be ‘the best’ – on the basis of ‘reason’.

      If this concept were to be analysed (the incapacity of philosophers to give a definition of ‘reason’ when I ask them for one never fails to amaze me), both its mystical heritage and limitations (which have been blindly overlooked and parroted – for millennia) would become obvious.

      I give this as what I think is a prime example of what can be learnt – even, particularly, when belief systems point in diametrically opposed directions. Phil

      Like

  6. Hi, Phil. Thank you for keeping a close eye out on my posts. Hope things are Ok. I know this isn’t necessary the right place, but I have been wondering if the academic year about to begin is stirring up frustrations. Hope and help, Tach.

    Like

    • Hi Tach,

      thank you for your comment and wishes. Thirty-two years of absolute commitment in pursuit of my intellectual vision (a concept, as Utzon and many others have experienced, which provokes the same response in Australia as daylight does from Dracula) academically in an authoritarian, anti-intellectual, shame-based and servile culture (all elements of the founding convict culture recently celebrated yet again by Abbott’s awarding a knighthood to the English queen’s husband and prior to that, by Obama’s showing his contempt for him – and thereby, for Australians – at the G20 etc., etc.) have come to an end.

      The most determined avoidance and ignorance of the subject of my intellectual vision – the pervasive impact of mysticism on Western culture and its relationship to dialectical materialism – is the greatest failure in social and intellectual responsibility by generations of time (i.e. capitalist class)-serving academics, particularly in the humanities.

      William Franke’s two volume anthology On What Cannot be Said exemplifies the extent to which mysticism has impacted on Western philosophy (in particular), religion, literature and the arts, and it is a failure which, with the decline of the latest fashion in capitalist ideology – ‘postmodernism’ – these philosopher-servants (‘are we now post-postmodernism?’ one of them asks blithely) are now moving ever so gingerly to address.

      The assertion by philosophers that what they have drawn from mysticism (which they have treated as their pornography – immensely energising when studied in private but not to be acknowledged, to be dissembled about or to be denied when questioned about its influence on their work) is in fact the result of the most rigorous conceptual reason is the greatest fraud on social and intellectual responsibility, a blatant lie in support of Western (increasingly threatened) capitalist supremacism – ‘We reason, you stare at your navel and chant “Om”, worship nature, are ruled by failed ideologies or are hung-up on filial piety’.

      The supremacist Hegel1 was the high-priest of this. His altar boy Wittgenstein (Heraclitus without the Heraclitus, who wrote in the Foreword to his Philosophical Remarks that he would have dedicated the book to the glory of God but people wouldn’t have understood), as Russell noted, had much to say on what cannot be said – all set out in meticulous mathematical order. There are numerous others.

      The present-day philosopher-servants of capital, people who would never go near mysticism before when the modernist and pomo bandwagons were rolling down main street, to be ridden for successful careers (bandwagons themselves suffused with mysticism), academics who rejected me, who abused me, who refused to recommend me for teaching what amounts to the basis for an entire cultural re-reading – an honest cultural re-reading, telling me I am intolerant of the views of others but when asked for evidence could provide none, then taught an awareness they got from me, must know that the subject of Western mysticism (particularly modern Western mysticism) has the potential to blow the lid on so much that they and their academic fellows and forebears have been utterly complicit in.

      All these people who are now updating their songbooks have histories and should be held to account. Mysticism is not new to Western culture – it runs right through it to the present and its influence on Western culture has been and continues to be profound.

      Ever calculating intellectual cowards, I believe these philosopher-servants don’t know what to do with such a hot potato now that they have been forced, by circumstances, to take it.

      I believe the results of my absolute commitment and efforts over thirty two years to understand and explicate the impact of mysticism on Western culture have been appropriated from me at both the College of Fine Arts, UNSW and the University of Sydney, while I have been contained and excluded.

      My blog is the result of this.

      Best regards, Phil

      Note
      1. ‘(The Oriental spirit) remains impoverished, arid, and just a matter for the understanding. For this reason we find, on the part of Orientals, only reflections, only arid understanding, a completely external enumeration of elements, something utterly deplorable, empty, pedantic, and devoid of spirit, an elaboration of logic similar to the old Wolffian logic. It is the same with Oriental ceremonies.

      This is the general character of Oriental religious representations and philosophy. There is, as in their cultus, on the one hand an immersion in devotion, in substance, and so the pedantic detail of the cultus – a vast array of the most tasteless ceremonies and religious activities – and on the other hand, the sublimity and boundlessness in which everything perishes.

      There are two Oriental peoples whom I wish to mention, the Chinese and the Indians.’

      G.W.F.Hegel, Lectures on the History of Philosophy 1825-6 Volume I: Introduction and Oriental Philosophy, Together With the Introductions from the Other Series of These Lectures, Trans. Robert F. Brown & J.M. Stewart, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2009, 106

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Thank you for following all three of my blogs (Tearing Down the Ivory Tower, On Art and Aesthetics and Anchorless Apparition)! You’ve got awesome stuff and I will be going through it! 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Hi Mr. Stanfield,

    When I was still a young boy who was convinced by the explanatory power of Science, I had thought that we only need Reason to understand the world.

    Now looking back as a 23 years old graduate student, I cringe at the naivete of myself back then.

    Had it not been for my own Communist-leaning tendency, I wouldn’t have discovered Dialectical Materialism and would have been a dogmatist who only believes in cold Reason and Scientific Method alone.

    Those who have renounced God but believe in Reason alone are nothing but priests in disguise.

    Those who have upheld the Scientific dogma of dissecting the Whole and eternal unchanging of Scientific Laws will never embark on the correct way of Truth, because the Truth lies within the Whole, which is forever flowing.

    The true Atheism is not a mere discarding of God, because something will just appear in place of his/her void, but the recognition that God is Nature in its totality, in its contradiction, in its never ending process of changing, developing and evolving.

    Of course I don’t deny the importance of Science, but blind faith in just Science is not so different from the Religion which scientists mocked.

    I must confess that when I grasped the method of Dialectics the first time, it had struck me like a divine revelation.

    All the dogmas, which I had believed in, shattered like a castle of sand.

    The correct way to understand the world is not standing far away from it, trying to become an objective watcher without emotion, but to immerse oneself in the world, to put yourself in the perspective of others, or as great mystics usually said, to become one with the Divine.

    And Goethe had also said through the words of the devil: “All theory is grey, my friend. But forever green is the tree of life.”

    I often despair over the inability of scientists to grasp the method of Dialectics. Even people who called themselves “Marxists” didn’t understand Dialectics too.

    Some are just repeating the word of Marx, Engels, Lenin… but when it comes into modern science, they readily accept anything coming from the scientists, not knowing that the bad philosophy of those scientists is a direct attack on Dialectical method.

    But your blog has always reminded me that people like me are not alone, and one day, mankind will come to understand the method of their ancient ancestors, on a higher level.

    Thank you for all your posts.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hi Anon,

      thank you very much for your thoughtful and generous comment which I will make a post.

      I do not doubt that just as dialectical materialism was the development of mechanical materialism, enabled by the incorporation of the consummate Neoplatonist Hegel’s philosophy, stood ‘the right way up,’ so developments on dialectical materialism are the way forward epistemologically (materialism, like the world it reflects, could never be a finished project).

      These developments require above all, honesty
      • the honesty to acknowledge (as Marx did) that his epistemology was profoundly indebted to mysticism, via Hegel
      • the honesty to acknowledge that Hegel was obviously a mystic and a Neoplatonist and
      • the honesty to pursue where these acknowledgements lead

      A careful review of this entire current is necessary, from Plotinus to Marx and beyond because as well as drawing on Neoplatonism’s mighty potential, Marx incorporated important flaws and limitations of Neoplatonism in his own theory.

      This was inevitable, because the orientations of Plotinus and Marx were diametrically opposed – Plotinus to the ‘world’ within, Marx to the world without.

      Furthermore, as developments in science benefited Marx and Engels and were a stimulus to them, so the increasingly rapid growth in this knowledge now as it pushes ever more urgently against the constraints of bourgeois ideology should provide both benefit and stimulus to those eager to build on what they achieved.

      My very best wishes to you,

      Phil

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Hi Phil ! So good to meet. Here’s the link to the “Water story” I wrote years ago. I’ve put it up on the blog. https://realityhc.wordpress.com/2016/09/11/water-story/
    And a quick recap on where I think we left off. My view is that mysticism and our mystic experiences, states and being are, as aspects of our reality, projected parts of our whole being of reality. He or she is more than the sum of his or her projected and solid (body) parts, and being of reality, is spirited at core with the essense of all reality and his or her whole being.
    Regards, Tach

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Congratulations on your search. Focusing on the Hegel side of your emerging dialectical monism, I hope you know of Cyril O’Regan’s *The Heterodox Hegel* and Magee’s *Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition*. You also would enjoy, I think, Don Verene’s work on Hegel. You might start with his *Hegel’s Absolute* if you don’t know it already. Cheers, Wes D.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hello Wes,

      thank you for your comment and suggestions. I have looked through O’Regan’s book and am familiar with Magee’s writing. While I think his argument to establish Hegel’s mysticism is excellent and sorely needed – the weight of his evidence is undeniable – I disagree with his position that Hegel was an Hermetic thinker, mine being that he was the consummate Neoplatonist. I will be discussing Magee in relation to Hegel, Böhme and Hermetism later in my thesis. I have quoted beautiful writing by Verene several times on my blog.

      With thanks,

      Phil Stanfield

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s