[i](aside: throughout human history, many schools of thought sought refuge in esoterica and clothed their outward appearance in misdirecting, e.g. occult, symbolism both to (a) filter membership (as in spot the bozo) and (b) to permit a pseudo-public discourse that resisted penetration by the uninitiated.)[/i]

The premise for this assertion is a bit baseless unless we alter 'throughout human history' to 'for the last two-hundred years or so'.

Esoterica was primarily esoteric as a means of sustaining one's life rather than filtering membership and permitting a secret discourse (I disagree with the idea of 'pseudo-public', as it was as public as any highly educated discourse; a great deal of the finest esoteric thought was printed and in public circulation).

When one uses the term 'occult symbolism' in this psychologized New Age era, one usually does so without the rather granular nature of the usage and 'purpose' of symbols in esoterica.

For example, Giordano Bruno's 'occult symbols' were prime examples of his mastery of the Ars Memoria. They served as mnemonic devices to focus his mind and encapsulate his thoughts in a time when paper was not so readily available. In this case, his symbols were for himself and no other.

Furthermore, those seals of the oft-reviled Lemegeton Clavicula Salomonis were earnestly not intended at its inception to be used as a secret decoder ring, but to quite honestly communicate with daemons for purposes of divine enlightenment (not of a Christian or of a necessarily benign nature).

With the Occult Revival of the 1800s, the Spiritualist movement, Theosophy, Freemasonry, Rosicrucianism, etc. all established the elitist, politically charged clubs often injected into conspiracy theories with secret handshakes and ostentatious symbolism (in both rites and writing).

That said, esoterica (properly a product of the Medieval and Renaissance era) promotes refuge in much the same manner as any focused higher level of education.

For more information, I suggest a visit to http://www.esotericarchives.com. Joseph Peterson has provided authoritative translations of texts that have received ill treatment and inept scholarship in the hands of the above-mentioned clubs. I strongly suggest you take a look.

Is there a viable space between the extremes of luddites and those who are looking forward to the future synthesis of human and machines?

I hope so. Although I would wager that entertainment will bring the two groups together. People will plug themselves in and cast aside much for the sake of being entertained.

Should one withhold ideas and inventions from public at large?

I don't think they should. I am not comfortable granting intellectual authority or technological authority any more than moral authority. No mind or group can be deserving of that trust, because there is no measure for what it would require.

(aside: throughout human history, many schools of thought sought refuge in esoterica and clothed their outward appearance in misdirecting, e.g. occult, symbolism both to (a) filter membership (as in spot the bozo) and (b) to permit a pseudo-public discourse that resisted penetration by the uninitiated.)

I believe those most interested in these groups are usually standing on the shoulders of a greater person. I also feel that intellectual cowardice and self-deception is typically involved.

Are these concerns too much to burden the creative technologists? Should we just go with the flow and trust and hope that the actors that utilize our mind-products are responsible, humane, and thoughtful?

Yes, we must go with the flow, but no, we should not trust. We should shine light on what is made, and actively debate its use and value. In short, we should put energy into the process, rather than in a grand design that will inevitably fail to match actual developments.

Those are my opinions, at any rate.