Hegel and the mystical tradition: Interview with Glenn Magee. By Stanislav Panin
A year ago I interviewed American scholar Glenn Magee, the author of Hegel and the Hemetic
Tradition and the editor of The Cambridge Handbook of Western
Mysticism, for Russian journal Research in Religious Studies. The
interview was published in Russian in issue 2(12)/2015
* * *
You are a
specialist in classic German philosophy, Western mysticism and esotericism. Why
do you think these topics are important for contemporary scholars?
Well, these are three
distinct — and rather huge — areas. Though my scholarship deals with how they
overlap. A very simple answer to this question would be that all of these areas
ought to be of interest to scholars because they have been extremely
influential. German philosophy has shaped the world that we live in today,
culturally and politically. And mysticism and esotericism are perennial
expressions of spirit — of human nature. But the real reason why German
philosophy, Western mysticism, and Western esotericism are important is that
they are extraordinarily rich and profound traditions that have a great deal to
teach us about the human condition, and the nature of reality.
What scholars can
you name who were especially influential on your choice to study these fields
and on your work?
The scholar who first
led me connect German philosophy with mysticism and esotericism was Eric
Voegelin, who made the claim that Hegel belonged to the Hermetic tradition. In
understanding Hegel’s relation to Jacob Boehme, I am indebted to the work of
David Walsh and Cyril O’Regan. In terms of my understanding of Western
esotericism, the major influences have been Frances Yates and Antoine Faivre.
The Hegel scholars who were most important for me were my own teacher, Donald
Phillip Verene, and also J.N. Findlay, G.R.G. Mure, and, especially, Errol
Harris.
You speak about
mysticism and esotericism, but some scholars like Arthur Versluis, for
instance, prefer to talk about mysticism as a form of esotericism. What is your
opinion on relationship between these terms? How esotericism correlates with
mysticism? How do you define these terms?
Gershom Scholem’s
position was that mysticism meant a type of knowledge which is incommunicable,
whereas esotericism is communicable, but deliberately kept secret. This is not
a very adequate way of characterizing esotericism, of course, since much of it
is not secret and never was. However, I do think that Scholem is correct that
mysticism is incommunicable. The essence of mysticism is found in the concept
of gnosis: a direct perception of the ultimate truth of what is. Because
everything in our experience flows from this source, the source itself cannot
be understood in terms of the categories we employ in thinking or speaking
about mundane things. In the introduction to my forthcoming volume, The
Cambridge Handbook of Western Mysticism and Esotericism, I argue that there is
a particular worldview at the root of esotericism, one which asserts that
existence is an inter-connected whole shot through with correspondences and
sympathies, and that the most fundamental of these correspondences is that of
macrocosm and microcosm.
But this is, in fact, precisely the core mystical
teaching; the “doctrine” that emerges when mystics attempt to convey in words
what the experience of gnosis has taught them. Esotericism is thus founded upon
mysticism. It would be more accurate to simply state that esotericism is
founded upon gnosis, either directly (when esotericists themselves have the
experience of gnosis) or indirectly (when esotericists put their faith in the
testimony of those who have had the experience). Mysticism affords us with a
special experience, or with the next-best thing: reports by those who have had
the experience.
The various items grouped together as “esotericism,” by
contrast, mainly consist in techniques or practices or specialized areas of
investigation: alchemy, astrology, magic, numerology, gematria, visions of
other worlds, spiritualism, etc. Mysticism is gnosis; esotericism is technē
(technique or art). And, as I have argued, this technē is founded upon gnosis.
Esotericism is virtually unintelligible without an appreciation for its roots
in mystic gnosis. And it can be plausibly argued that gnosis leads to esoteric
technē; to the development of the various “occult sciences,” and preoccupation
with them. Again, I discuss all of this extensively in the introduction to my
forthcoming volume.
The title of your
book Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition sounds as a reference to F. A. Yates and
her Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition. Was this reference intentional?
What is your opinion about Yates and her works? Are her ideas important for
contemporary scholars, or they are out of dated?
Yes, the title of my
book is most certainly a reference to Yates — an homage, in fact. And the
account of Hermeticism I offer in the book is greatly indebted to Yates. The
current fashion is to claim that Yates is out of date, and that the “Yates
paradigm” (the thesis that there is a “Hermetic tradition”) is untenable.
However, the fact is that Yates is unquestionably the giant in the field of esotericism.
read more: https://academia.fzrw.info/archives/1107
