Rational Mysticism

The American Heritage Dictionary [1] defines mysticism as:

n.

1. a. Immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God. b. The experience of such communion as described by mystics.

2. A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience.

3. Vague, groundless speculation.

The Wikipedia article on mysticism also provides some good information, assuming you read it with a critical eye and a tolerance for occasional changes, which can honestly be interesting in themselves.

But the title of this entry (and the subtitle of this blog) includes the word “rational.” So, how does that figure in? And does it negate definition three above…?

The idea that mysticism is merely vague, groundless speculation has certainly become more and more prevalent over the last century or so, and even more pronounced thanks to the crusades of notable atheists Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris, the so-called Four Horsemen. Personally though, I believe it’s in the discussion of mysticism that some real dialogue can take place in the emerging conversation between science and religion. Even Sam Harris has broken ranks (or perhaps just picked up a quarter-step in the pace, if you will) on the subject, particularly in the last chapter of his book The End of Faith, and taken quite a bit of heat for it [2], as well.

Mysticism has been called “the golden thread,” or the spiritual principle that runs through all the world’s religions. For me, this is an apt, though somewhat over-simplified, description. Over time, I’ve come to embrace a broad sort of fictionalism. That is, I accept the philosophical proposition that all our knowledge, all our studies, indeed all of our thoughts about life, the universe and everything, are by necessity based on words and symbols (and the semiotics therein), which are by their very nature fictional. We made them up, evolved them, adapted and played with them to suit our needs. Even mathematics with its “unreasonable effectiveness” must fall into this category. But as Alfred Korzybski states, I believe in “General Semantics,” “the word is not the thing.”

The map is not the territory.

The first entry on this blog, a very old Zen story entitled, “No Water, No Moon,” could be interpreted to be the realization or cognition of a brand new convert to fictionalism. For me, it exemplifies what I believe to be at the heart of the mystical experience: that moment when the fictional constructs we use to try and order our knowledge and make sense of the universe fall away–that moment when the pail breaks–and we apprehend, and more fully experience, the universe as it truly is. Is it any wonder that we then, after having experienced such a thing, return to the world of thoughts and words to try and express what we’ve witnessed? And is it any wonder such thoughts and words might be called “vague” or “groundless”?

In this regard, maybe definition three is apt. Perhaps poetically so.

So, what does this have to do with MysticPunk? Well, to whom should we turn to “express the inexpressible” if not our artists? And what better mode for laughing away all the old superstitions and irrationality (and rebelling against the “establishment” holding those things in place) than by invoking the punk aesthetic? Maybe by playing in this fictional sub-genre I’m calling MysticPunk we can not only find some artistic inspiration, but also have a conversation that’s well worth having.

In closing, I’ll leave you with this quote from Sam Harris, from the same essay footnoted above:

“…there is a kernel of truth in the grandiosity and otherworldly language of religion. It really is possible to have one’s moment-to-moment perception of the world radically transfigured by “attentional” discipline. Such a transfiguration, being both rare and profoundly positive, may occasionally merit a little poetry.”

1. Modern Language Association (MLA):
“mysticism.” The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 29 Oct. 2009. .

2. An essay by Sam Harris for secularhumanism.org .

Advertisement