The secular mystic

Mysticism mystifies me.

Having been raised without religion, I have no direct experience of it. I have no faith, in the classical sense of the world. I have beliefs based on chains of reasoning I find satisfactory. Faith is another matter.

And being a sensible rational pragmatist, that is all I have.

Oh, I am not claiming to be free of irrationality. You would have to be a lunatic to think that. I am as much a grunting naked beach ape as everyone else.

I know for a fact, in fact, that I believe certain things by choice, not because I have reasoned them out to be concurrent with the facts. Even the most logical of people will find that the roots of their beliefs are not rational.

For instance, the belief that what happens to humans matters.

But when I speak of mysticism, I am speaking of an entirely different mode of thinking. One that looks for answers inside the world of emotion, rating connections not by logical rigor but by emotional continuity, and which is perfectly willing to abandon rationality in order to find answers that satisfy a need within the seeker, a personal truth, inaccessible by rational means.

That’s all well and good, of course. Self-reflection is good for everyone, and whatever helps us solve the puzzle of ourselves and free us from the burdens of the past is fine by me. Psychotherapy would be impossible by strictly rational means.

The problem comes, as I see it, when these personal truths are mistaken for discoveries about the universe or life in general.

This is not done with malice. People are naturally eager to share the revelations that have healed them. And the ability to separate these mystic truths from the sort of truths that lead to a greater understanding of the universe under those circumstances is a very high level brain function indeed.

This is also what leads to the ages old struggle about whether or not a given religion is “true” or not. If a religion has brought great things to a person and answered their questions in a way that makes sense to them and makes them feel better about the world, then its truth is indisputable.

But this is not the sort of truth one can share. It is a personal truth, a key that was especially made for locks within your individual soul, and so while it is extremely true to you the believer, it is not applicable to anyone else’s locks.

Perhaps we all would be better off if religious believers learned to say “it’s true to me” when questioned. But people insist their religions must be literally, objectively true, and that is a recipe for failure.

From the point of view of a rationalist pragmatic utilitarian like myself, this all seems like madness. I have always held to the belief that the only route to truth s the rational examination and evaluation of evidence. Looking for objective truth by subjective and individual self-examination seems to me like trying to stay dry by going for a swim.

And yet that is exactly how truth was sought throughout the ages. Whether by prayer, meditation, psychedelics, fasting, or any other way to achieve a mystical state, people have delved into their own psyches in a dream-like state, and then emerged from the mystic state thinking they have learned something about the world.

I don’t quite buy it.

But I am far more open-minded about it than I used to be. It has occurred to me that, despite mysticism being useless (or worse) for finding objective truth, it can be damned effective at reaching the kind of personal truth that comes from the resolution of unresolved emotions that have accumulated in the psyche.

Taking a journey into one’s own mind in a dream-like (but more conscious) state in search of answers to one’s questions about oneself seems like it could be a very good idea to me, if done properly.

The mystic state owes much of its power in its ability to suspend rationality long enough for your unresolved issues to resolve themselves without the constant interference of our meddlesome minds.

This requires what is commonly known as “visions” precisely because this dream-like but conscious state needs to create a very vivid and hyper-real experience in order to resolve what might be decades of repression in a relatively short period of time. The only release for repressed emotion is through your conscious mind. You must finish feeling them in order to let them go.

So I ask myself, is it possible to partake of mysticism without abandoning rationality? Are the two compatible? Would be dogged pragmatism and demanding intellect bar me from reaping the benefits of this mystic state, however it is that you achieve it?

I think not, at least in my case, because while I am a rationalist, I am also quite comfortable dealing with intuition. I would not be very creative without it. Things pop into my mind all the time. They are then evaluated by the rational mind, but if what is in question is a creative issue, the rational mind only conducts the interview. It is my artistic intuition that makes the decisions.

So it is possible, at least for the likes of me, to rationally enter the mystic state. We simply do it knowing that we are not discovering anything about the world outside our own minds, but rather the truths of our own souls.

This kind of secular mysticism seems like a fairly slender and marginal thing to me. I have no idea whether it would even work for anyone else. Perhaps this entire exercise is my attempt to convince others that my keys will work in their locks.

But it is also possible that secular mysticism, as bare and weak as it seems now, could be the seed of a new kind of religious consciousness that, because it is grounded firmly in the knowledge of what is matter and what is mind, can unlock much of the pain that modern society simply cannot address.

I pray that the latter turns out to be true.

And I will write for you nice people again tomorrow.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.