Plato, in his dialogue Alcibades (circa 390 BC), uses the expression ta es meaning "the inner things", and

in his dialogue Theaetetus (circa 360 BC) he uses ta ex meaning "the outside things". Aristotle applied this distinction to his own writings. The probable first appearance of the Greek adjective esterikos is in Lucian of Samosata's "The Auction of Lives", 26 (also called "The Auction of the Philosophical Schools"), written around AD 166.[5] In the dictionary sense of the term, "esoterism" signifies the holding of esoteric opinions or beliefs,[1] and derives from the Greek (esterikos), a compound of (es): "within", thus "pertaining to the more inward", mystic. Its antonym is "exoteric".

~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esotericism
esoteric (s-trk) adj. 1. a. Intended for or understood by only a particular group: an esoteric cult. See Synonyms at mysterious. b. Of or relating to that which is known by a restricted number of people. 2. a. Confined to a small group: esoteric interests. b. Not publicly disclosed; confidential.

~ http://www.thefreedictionary.com/esoteric
Exoteric refers to knowledge that is outside of and independent from anyone's experience and can be ascertained by anyone; cf. common sense. It is distinguished from internal esoteric knowledge. Exoteric relates to "external reality" as opposed to one's own thoughts or feelings. It is knowledge that is public as opposed to secret or cabalistic. It is not required that exoteric knowledge come easily or automatically, but it should be referenceable or reproducible. ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoteric exoteric [ek-suh-ter-ik] Show IPA adjective 1. suitable for or communicated to the general public. 2. not belonging, limited, or pertaining to the inner or select circle, as of disciples or intimates. 3. popular; simple; commonplace. 4. pertaining to the outside; exterior; external.

~ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exoteric

Contextualism describes a collection of views in philosophy which emphasize the context in which an action, utterance, or expression occurs, and argues that, in some important respect, the action, utterance, or expression can only be understood relative to that context.[1] Contextualist views hold that philosophically controversial concepts, such as "meaning P", "knowing that P", "having a reason to A", and possibly even "being true" or "being right" only have meaning relative to a specified context. Some philosophers[2] hold that context-dependence may lead to relativism;[3] nevertheless, contextualist views are increasingly popular within philosophy.[4] ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contextualism context (n.) early 15c., from Latin contextus "a joining together," originally pp. of contexere "to weave together," from com- "together" (see com-) + texere "to weave" (see texture). ~ http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=context text (n.) late 14c., "wording of anything written," from Old French texte, Old North French tixte (12c.), from Medieval Latin textus "the Scriptures, text, treatise," in Late Latin "written account, content, characters used in a document," from Latin textus "style or texture of a work," literally "thing woven," from pp. stem of texere "to weave," from PIE root *tek- "make" (see texture).

An ancient metaphor: thought is a thread, and the raconteur is a spinner of yarns -- but the true storyteller, the poet, is a weaver. The scribes made this old and audible abstraction into a new and visible fact. After long practice, their work took on such an even, flexible texture that they called the written page a textus, which means cloth. [Robert Bringhurst, "The Elements of Typographic Style"] ~ http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=text&allowed_in_frame=0

literalism (ltr--lzm) n. 1. Adherence to the explicit sense of a given text or doctrine. 2. Literal portrayal; realism.

~ http://www.thefreedictionary.com/literalism
Simulacra are copies that depict things that either had no reality to begin with, or that no longer have an original.[1] Simulation is the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time.[2] ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation

Esotericism, a contrast to Occult Literalism By: Seth Moris The first step is the step most important. Before the first step, there is nothing. Not being accustomed to writing these kind of papers with any real degree of official or academic discipline, I will have to trudge ahead to simply attempt to transmit what it is I hold in my mind onto digital paper in hopes I can define my terms, and make them apparent to any discerning reader. Firstly, while traditional occult/esoteric/philosophical literature has existed in one for or another for quite some time, depending on how one defines the occult and define its relation to the other two concepts, only relatively recently in the scope of human history has both the religious and cultural attitude of the masses tolerant enough to accept the existence of occult lore as well as the technology to easily (at virtually no cost) find and access the text within these texts. It is, however, the authors opinion that the texts of old that became common access suffered not only from inaccurate interpretation from the masses/laity who were not initiated into occult orders that saw the tomes and their contents as a dangerous and devilish, but that with the modern revival of occult/esoteric interests that these misinterpretation has actually become an in demand commodity, and that simulacra of the occult/esoteric doctrine have exponentially become valuable as a marketable product, but as simulacra they are essentially exoteric and while public they are no longer 'hidden. I will go over a handful of a few terms, along with various other information, in hopes to illustrate how the esoteric current has been severely thrown off course, and how that while esoteric and occult teachings and practices seem more widespread than ever that these are by essence another form of literalist, exoteric texts. Text as opposed to Context Literalism as opposed to Esotericism Simulacra as opposed to Simulation It is this authors opinion that the idea of text must be distinguished from context. Text in itself is meaningless, as any person can find should they utter a strange and unknown sound to another person. This utterance will be able to be represented by

various languages in their own glyphs and grammar, Aahoooyaaa is a potential example of an utterance that has no meaning yet can be described using text. However, until Aahoooyaaa is woven together to another concept, an external phenomena as well as a specific definition, it is nothing but text, and of relatively little use even to the one who utters it. For it to be text and not context, it would lack a definition or an experienced phenomena to attach it to even within their mind. Language is a system of contexts, texts are what it is made of. Why is this relevant to the understanding of Esotericism as opposed to Literalism? Because the mind itself is what must be programmed a specific way to understand context or text, if a mind/brain is not programmed to understand English, all the words in the English language written down will be as valuable as any other inked squiggles. It is the same for the lineage of esoteric and occult symbolism that has passed throughout the ages and still persists today, as well as many of their symbolic teachings. Many claim that these symbolic teachings in the occult are products of the interpreters own mind seeing something where there is nothing. While I do understand this view, it must also be understood that the idea of having a specific symbolic language to express a system or views for something that is primarily psychological in nature is quite logical, as well as the fact that those who claim the esotericists of the past didnt hide hidden messages in their work do not take the time to consider context. If a bleeding edge researcher of quantum science or partical physics wrote a treatise, using terms such as Charm Quark or Strange Quark or Dark Matter or Wave Collapse, could these not easily be misunderstood as literal vs symbolic should the treatise find itself in the hands of someone completely foreign to not only the language it was written in, but the culture and time period in which it was written? Do modern scientists not invent new terms, find new symbols to express phenomena that is reproducible? It is the authors (and many others) opinion this is such in the case of esoteric literature. That being said, we must now imagine what an Occult Literalist would appear as. First, let us start with an Occult Literalist. By the definition of their name, you can see they do have access to what is called occult literature or texts, they have read them, or subscribed to a particular sect. They will have read these texts, and accepted them as described at face value, but even more so they will specifically read the texts and then they will apply every word NOT to the understanding of the original author BUT to themselves. They will ascribe demons the traits culturally imagined demons in modern culture, being extant, physical and real and perhaps able to become incorporeal at will. They will imagine that when the original authors of these texts claim to manifest these demons that they are physically seeing them as you or I would see a chair in ones own kitchen. Why? Because that is how it is written, and that is how an Occult Literalist will interpret it. They will read the texts deemed occult and they will interpret it as literally as they can. What would an Esotericist look like? By definition, they would be trying to find what is necessarily called the context of the text. If the text of the occult literature is the outside things, then the specially understood context of the text can be thought of as the inside things having to do with the literature, that is to say it is inside ones own understanding and mental cognitive processes. What is initiation? Simply the willful programming of ones own mind/brain to be able to see the magical context of ordinary exoteric things and their possible esoteric/magical function. The initiated can read an

occult text and find its intended meaning, whereas an Occult Literalists will only interpret exactly what they read, through their modern cultural, media-fueled and mostly indoctrinated filters and try to make it as literal as possible in their own mind. There are many reasons for this, one being that they do not understand they are doing so, secondly that even if they did that they may not truthfully WANT to understand the context and are more happy with their literalist interpretation (Though it will never manifest itself, thus falling into the realm of pistis vs gnosis), and thirdly even if they did on some level wish to find the context within the text they might be able to understand to an extent that it is a very difficult thing to do, and may not wish to expend the energy to attempt the feat. It is the authors opinion that it is the vast majority of those who subscribe to the term occultist or esotericist or spiritualist or magician that are in fact Occult Literalists, and it is a small minority of those within such groups that are actually interested in the context of occult teachings made relevant for this day and age. Another interesting note is that there are many Unknown Esotericists in every day life who do not know the term, may not consider themselves religious or spiritual, and come from every walk of life, economic and education level, simply because they are always striving to discern the context of every day phenomena and texts. But how did it get this way? Generally speaking, if one looks to the culture before the Internet revolution which is now referred to as Internet 2.0 , they will find their answers. I cannot speak for foreign countries but when I was a child growing up in the 1990s of the United States, there were essentially four kinds of religious people (to the eyes of the average masses). There were Practicing Christians, in whatever form they took, there were Non-Practicing Christians, Non-Believers and rarely Exotic Religions. Because of the high number of Practicing and Non-Practicing Christians exposed to most United States citizens, the lack of any real public explanation for Non-Belief, and the lack / seclusion of many Exotic Religions (mostly due to their fear of the masses xenophobia) in mainstream culture, the idea in most peoples heads of what a religion is became quite cemented within the idea of Fundamentalist, Literalist Christianity. Religion was an 'go ahead to believe in things no one could prove or see with all of your faith and trust, because it as a general concept was held to the standard that most people were revealed to while they were young. Religion was having a Book, having an invisible but REAL god, having miracles that just dont happen anymore and religion was seen by many as essential for happiness. Even for those who grew up in American nonreligious households, either non-practicing or with non-believers, that they still interpreted other peoples religions, this way. They set the bar at Literalist Christianity. What does this have to do with Occult Literalism? Well, it is a common phenomena at the current time of this article that when a person becomes disenfranchised with Literalist Christianity, usually due to a disagreement on some of the dogma or requirements/rules of the dogma or on some other moral grounds, that they either become an Agnostic/Atheist and refute the idea of Christian God (which, since Literalist Christianity was where they set the bar for religion, often this anti-Christian Literalist God sentiment carries over to ALL religions and ALL ideas of God(s) or they simply find a new religion. However, due to the cultural isolation of most Americans (Who do not recognize such, because they are given the illusion of cross cultural information via the popular media outlets) they do not know How to practice the religions of other cultures, and even if deciding to be ultimately eclectic (such as with new ageism, or other

sects) they end up essentially treating their spirituality or religion very similarly, which usually will consist of them believing in literal Gods or Goddesses, physically extent (as opposed to psychological) demons, any holy texts as to be read literally and believed literally (Which inherently, since they are not extant phenomena, calls for Faith/Pistis) and generally they bring along general beliefs on an afterlife, a soul, Free-Will, and the like. Even Neo-Atheists still carry baggage from a mostly Literalist Christian culture, namely concepts such as Free-Will, guilt and punishment for how one uses their free will, condemnation, deference to a 'higher and specialist caste given a special title (scientists), conversion, and orthodoxy as opposed to orthopraxy. Just as the memetics of Cultural Christian Literalism has spread into all available orifices in spirituality and philosophy in the West, so to has it (coupled with the destruction of esoteric sects/texts by the Roman Catholic Church in bygone ages) spread as much into the occult/esoteric scene. What is made even worse by the whole thing, is that the actual, historical ideas on magic/miracles/preternatural phenomena and what magic/miracles/preternatural phenomena was, or how it functioned, is completely unknown to most people in modern, western culture. Instead ideas of magic envoke in the layman populace ideas of shooting fireballs from ones hand by muttering secret magic words alone, or flying or raising the physical dead, and this idea of what magic/miracles/preternatural phenomena is, is what they hold onto when they become disenfranchised and seek solace in the occult arts. This is mostly due to the rise of media technology and what kind of stimulation people are exposed to, and how myths are portrayed, as well as a public interest in Post-Dungeons and Dragons aesthetics. But what does Simulacra and Simulation, or rather the concepts thereof, have to do with this? Namely that it is the authors opinion that for ever esoteric text, there are those who read it and take it literally and write exponentially more literalist texts. Where the first, esoteric texts were made with specific context, the symbols meaning certain things and denoting certain phenomena that are observable (simulation), that those who mimic the style and aesthetic of each and try to re-write it in a literalist format, while lacking the intention and context of the original authors (ie, they are uninitiated) end up creating exponentially more simulacra, which to the uninitiated / un-discerning eye seem all the same, and of same value, and of same merit. Why does this matter, what is the relevancy? The relevancy to the modern day esotericists, occultists and magicians is that they must not only learn that the majority around them are Only interested in Literalist and Faith based practices, but also must learn the signs that distinguish one from the other, and must learn and adopt new language to be able to easily define one or the other as easily observable extant phenomena. This is useful for many reasons, not only for those cosmically initiated Esotericists/Occultists who seek to form cabals and Schools with the intention of esoteric development (to avoid wasting their own time) but also so that the idea Itself may spread, that a differentiation between the shallow and the deep be made, that a difference between Esoteric and Literalist be easily apparent.