Mystics
I've postponed the post on Transvalia, because a different school has started, and with this different school inevitably comes interesting arguments that require blogging.
Once upon a time last week, Mr. Davison (my philosophy/theology/general Christian studies teacher and debate coach) stopped me in the hallway after class and started a discussion about mysticism, because I'd expressed in his class a few minutes prior that I don't like it. The discussion grew somewhat like I'd imagine saturated fats obstruct arteries, except without the risk of blood clots and heart attack. (I include the video because I happen to find both the Portuguese and the video quite interesting.) For every couple people that walked by, there would be another that would join the conversation, and there was promptly a circle of about 10 people listening in on our discussion.
Because the resolving note of this debate was that debates without definitions are utterly useless, I shall start with definitions this time. The very most frustrating end to a debate possible is to find that both sides had agreed with the other the entire time, but that the most pivotal vocabulary had been understood uniquely by each.
(I understand that they're different parts of speech. Deal with it, the words stand for concepts.) The former stands for my side of the argument, the latter for Mr. Davison's.
My argument was something like this:
God is completely rational, explainable, and natural. He is none of these things to us right now, however, because our language, science, and understanding in general are too infinitely small to contain him. God can explain himself perfectly; in fact, he has, through everything around us and in us, as well as everything he did in Jesus. Our job is to pursue him as best we can while at the same time remaining satisfied with the fact that we're never going to understand anything we're pursuing completely.
The Universe would be so lame if it were possible for man to know everything. How would our lives be affected by omniscience, omnipotence? No first smiles, first words, or first steps. There would be no school and we would have no need of teachers, parents or pastors to help guide us. Friendship and marriage would be dull, because we'd already know everything about the other person and the relationship. There would be no kind of suspense or "click" moments, and the sense of achievement we feel upon teaching ourselves how to... you name it, skateboard, bake cookies, build tree houses, operate computers, play an instrument, apply a theory, speak a language, would all be dead.
There is a reason God made us needy and stupid. It is a defining factor in the reason he made us at all. What kind of Universe would it be without stress and resolution? Yes, God is complete in himself, but how wonderful would it be if there were nothing but God? I don't believe it's possible, because that would have made God less wonderful. God's very nature produced everything the way it is: stress, resolution; growth, death; love, and hate... Young and old, short and tall, black and white, up and down, every kind of stark, bright contrast. We aren't meant to explain everything.
But it's certainly explainable. Knowable. If God knows it, it's got to be.
As I see it, mysticism is an attempt to explain what we must recognize we cannot. I have no doubt in my mind that there is a natural, rational, "scientific" explanation as to how Jesus walked on water, fed the 5,000, healed the blind, and died and rose again. But how lame would it be if we could understand exactly how miracles happen? Believe me, I don't like being told I cannot understand something. I ask questions relentlessly and don't like moving on unless I feel satisfied by the answer. But if we could achieve all our goals, there would be no satisfaction, and nothing to contrast with God's Achievement, the story of Universe. And we would all be gods, which defies our entire purpose as humanity.
My problem with mysticism is an attitude that says, God did it, he just said "abracadabra" and it was done, like magic. In my mind, that's the same as saying you understand everything. If it ends there, and you simply have to appeal to some irrational force to make the problem go away, you've already understood everything. That way there's no point in your being mortal. That's boring.
It might seem a bit semantical; nothing in Theology is otherwise. It matters because it impacts the way we do and see life. If God is bigger than mysticism, there is more reason for study, more reason for faith, more reason to understand, more reason to let go. The more contrast, the brighter the light: and this is the most critical point in everything I believe.
Once upon a time last week, Mr. Davison (my philosophy/theology/general Christian studies teacher and debate coach) stopped me in the hallway after class and started a discussion about mysticism, because I'd expressed in his class a few minutes prior that I don't like it. The discussion grew somewhat like I'd imagine saturated fats obstruct arteries, except without the risk of blood clots and heart attack. (I include the video because I happen to find both the Portuguese and the video quite interesting.) For every couple people that walked by, there would be another that would join the conversation, and there was promptly a circle of about 10 people listening in on our discussion.
Because the resolving note of this debate was that debates without definitions are utterly useless, I shall start with definitions this time. The very most frustrating end to a debate possible is to find that both sides had agreed with the other the entire time, but that the most pivotal vocabulary had been understood uniquely by each.
mys·tic [mis-tik]:NOT
–adjective
involving or characterized by esoteric, otherworldly, or symbolic practices or content, as certain religious ceremonies and art; spiritually significant; ethereal.
mys·tic [mis-tik]:
-noun
a person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect.
(I understand that they're different parts of speech. Deal with it, the words stand for concepts.) The former stands for my side of the argument, the latter for Mr. Davison's.
My argument was something like this:
God is completely rational, explainable, and natural. He is none of these things to us right now, however, because our language, science, and understanding in general are too infinitely small to contain him. God can explain himself perfectly; in fact, he has, through everything around us and in us, as well as everything he did in Jesus. Our job is to pursue him as best we can while at the same time remaining satisfied with the fact that we're never going to understand anything we're pursuing completely.
The Universe would be so lame if it were possible for man to know everything. How would our lives be affected by omniscience, omnipotence? No first smiles, first words, or first steps. There would be no school and we would have no need of teachers, parents or pastors to help guide us. Friendship and marriage would be dull, because we'd already know everything about the other person and the relationship. There would be no kind of suspense or "click" moments, and the sense of achievement we feel upon teaching ourselves how to... you name it, skateboard, bake cookies, build tree houses, operate computers, play an instrument, apply a theory, speak a language, would all be dead.
There is a reason God made us needy and stupid. It is a defining factor in the reason he made us at all. What kind of Universe would it be without stress and resolution? Yes, God is complete in himself, but how wonderful would it be if there were nothing but God? I don't believe it's possible, because that would have made God less wonderful. God's very nature produced everything the way it is: stress, resolution; growth, death; love, and hate... Young and old, short and tall, black and white, up and down, every kind of stark, bright contrast. We aren't meant to explain everything.
But it's certainly explainable. Knowable. If God knows it, it's got to be.
As I see it, mysticism is an attempt to explain what we must recognize we cannot. I have no doubt in my mind that there is a natural, rational, "scientific" explanation as to how Jesus walked on water, fed the 5,000, healed the blind, and died and rose again. But how lame would it be if we could understand exactly how miracles happen? Believe me, I don't like being told I cannot understand something. I ask questions relentlessly and don't like moving on unless I feel satisfied by the answer. But if we could achieve all our goals, there would be no satisfaction, and nothing to contrast with God's Achievement, the story of Universe. And we would all be gods, which defies our entire purpose as humanity.
My problem with mysticism is an attitude that says, God did it, he just said "abracadabra" and it was done, like magic. In my mind, that's the same as saying you understand everything. If it ends there, and you simply have to appeal to some irrational force to make the problem go away, you've already understood everything. That way there's no point in your being mortal. That's boring.
It might seem a bit semantical; nothing in Theology is otherwise. It matters because it impacts the way we do and see life. If God is bigger than mysticism, there is more reason for study, more reason for faith, more reason to understand, more reason to let go. The more contrast, the brighter the light: and this is the most critical point in everything I believe.
I'll read through and post a comment later! but I do protest one thing: my concept of mysticism was the former, not the later. If I recall correctly, you were arguing that the you didn't like the word "mysticsm" because it contained the connotation of the later, but I argued the definition was philosophically adequate! Just saying.... :)
ReplyDeleteOh dear. If we agree on the first definition, then we REALLY must have had no argument. I think we need to clarify.
ReplyDeletees·o·ter·ic; [es-uh-ter-ik]
–adjective
1. understood by or meant for only the select few who have special knowledge or interest
e·the·re·al [iˈTHi(ə)rēəl]
-adjective
1. extremely delicate and light in a way that seems too perfect for this world (Oxford)
1. light, airy, or tenuous: "an ethereal world created through the poetic imagination" (Random House)
Are you really arguing that mysticism is good, Mr. Davison? Surreal, detached, "airy," hidden and secretive? I don't see how you could agree with the first definition.
Further, the first half of the second definition does not sound "mystic" to me. I'd agree that "mystic" things are good and should be pursued in the Christian faith if the word were only being used to say that we should "seek by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with...the Deity."
Come to think about it, I would accept the second part of the definition in combination with the first definition as part of my argument, depending on whether or not "intellect" includes only human intellect or Godly intellect as well, and whether or not such a mystic understands that those things "beyond the intellect" are not beyond /Divine/ intellect. This seemed to be where most of the argument took place: over whether or not God is theoretically explainable, rational, etc. If he IS, as I argue (and as I believed you negated) then he is not "beyond the intellect."
I think anything I could say would be best summed up here: http://xkcd.com/638/
ReplyDeleteUltimately, all definitions come down to perception, if I correctly understand Marie's rants on "Truth" and whatnot. If the Bible is flawed because of the human element, then obviously your *dictionary.com* definition is likewise flawed. There comes a point where we as speakers of the English language need to proactively choose what we mean, instead of reacting to our perceptions of possible undertones.
To quote you: "Oh dear. If we agree on the first definition, then we REALLY must have had no argument. I think we need to clarify." That's what I was trying to tell you!
ReplyDeleteTo refine this discussion a bit further, I will appeal to the psychologist/philosopher William James whose work "varieties of religious experience" is considered the definitive definition of mysticism. I've provided a link.
http://hudevbooks.com/library/william_james_var.pdf. Jump to page 252 (not coincidentally named "mysticism"). In case you do not wish to read the total chapter, read pages 252-253, 278-282.
I would tend to agree with James' assessment of mystical states, both as guiding sources of truth and non-unique as a source of truth.
I have two main problems with your follow up.
the first problem is that the defintions you've provided are essentially pejorative, which is quite common given the influence of empiricism on western culture. James' view is not only more technically correct, but far more embrasive, which is especially impressive given his pragmatic bent on life (he's essentially an atheist).
Second, and this relates a bit more to our actual conversation: your original advocation seemed to be that God is entirely rational, yet paradoxically cannot ultimately be known, leaving one in a rationalistic mess. Somewhere in here are emotions/feelings, but it's a bit unclear how they work in all this.
Here's my statement (and it's purely nuance given that I generally agree) is that most human knowledge sets are founded not on pure reason, but on emotional/experiential modes (the noetic qualities mentioned by James), which is supported by modern neuroscience as well. In this faith and neuroscience are wholly similar. Subsequently, while reason is entirely important, there are not only important things in life that are gathered apart from reason, but that reason takes it's cue, in many cases, from these preestablished fields of thought.
And that was our entire dispute! So yes, I hold James' understanding of mysticism to not only be valid, but ironically consistent among almost all people in Post-Modern culture.
This William James bloke clearly has a lot of ethos. But his input wasn't particularly new. This is the definition I compiled from James' explanation:
ReplyDeleteMysticism: (of or pertaining to) a highly-personal, "unintelligible," non-rational, often self-induced or -triggered spiritual experience; the gaining of unexplainable knowledge through a sudden revelation or short period of otherworldly presence, which no unaffiliated person can affirm or deny. o__O
Yes, that's more or less what I had in mind. Through my own "personal revelation," if you will, I have concluded that the vast majority, if not all, of such "mysticism" is imagination with an inflated ego, or psychological events with false-cause explanations attached. Attached and dragging behind it, like Hector on Achilles' charriot. (See http://themusingsofapostrophe.blogspot.com/2010/02/fuzz.html.)
Furthermore, if such mystic experiences were truly the direct communication between God and Man, there would be no dispute between those truths revealed through these kinds of experiences. And there certainly have been, even within my /own/ experience. If they were valid, there would be a much harder, faster line between Godly communication, Subconscious communication with oneself, and Demonic communication.
As to your second point: God is rational. He /can/ ULTIMATELY be known. We do not understand enough to know him NOW. Though, theoretically, if God decided to let the Universe be lame and gave us all the ability to be omniscient, yes, we could understand him now. This has been my point all along.
I can see where you're getting that from James...but you're incorrect. James' statement that it is unintelligible is not to mean its irrational (as, since it is noetic, there must be a degree of rationality to it), but rather that it is ineffible, meaning it defies clear categorical distinction or description. Second, while some supposed states of mystical experience could be induced, it is disingenous to say that James accused or implied most mystical experiences to emerge from such a state. That would be more in line with Sigmund Freud, who I basically reject on other grounds. Finally, as to the unaffiliated being essentially in the "out," this is nothing new. Even your own statements give a bit of such indication, but certainly post-modern culture espouses as such.
ReplyDeleteJames' strength in all of this is essentially denying the appeal to pure reason that you are advocating. In fact, if I may be so probing, it could be said that your own current stance is actually an emotional reaction to what you perceive to be a bad mystical experience, or perhaps an unfulfilled expectation as one. In which case, the pure reason belies a deeper, more emotional truth. I'm not in the know on this; it's merely what I perceive from my reading of your blog and vehement stance against experience.
you write: "I have concluded that the vast majority, if not all, of such "mysticism" is imagination with an inflated ego, or psychological events with false-cause explanations attached." Personally, I cannot go there, and I have many reasons as such that I am happy to share with you another time. For now, while I can certainly confirm that some experiences would fit your criteria, it again seems disingenuous to pronounce this upon them all. Especially since an appeal to reason is incapable of determining their validity and invalidity. And for the record scripture has provided a guideline for what constitutes a Godly interaction and an ungodly one, but one would have to accept the scripture as authoritative on this issue.
Finally, I never deny that God is rational. However, I dispute on two things. First, I deny that the primary way God relates to us is rationally. Scripture affirms otherwise, without rejecting God's rationality. Second, I continue to maintain that the basis of all human knowledge is essentially based on axiomatic assumptions, akin to faith, and requiring emotional assent prior to intellectual assent, though both are needed. After all, you could intellectually agree that I am correct, or at least valid, and yet reject me. The fact is that this is normal, since humans are emotional creatures first and foremost, tempered by our reason.
This does not make reason superior to emotions (as you have intimated), since the most pivotol moments of human history are not made intellectually. I'm an existentialist: I can hold nothing less without denying your essential humanity.
James says, "the oncoming of mystical states may be facilitated by preliminary voluntary operations, as by fixing the attention, or going through certain bodily performances, or in other ways which manuals of mysticism prescribe." In my mind- perhaps only in my mind- "facilitated" sounds euphemistic for "induced." People want their mystic experiences to come from somewhere else, so they convince themselves it is so thoroughly that it IS. But if it does exist, yet is totally ineffable, there is no other way for me to explain why it /cannot/ exist.
ReplyDeleteI'm not arguing pure reason, and never have. I'm arguing a balance between logic and emotion, and I'm arguing that things shouldn't be made up if they're not there.
And you are right, I do take this stance for a reason. I cover most of it in "Fuzz" .
When I was 12, I was emotionally "converted" at a Summer camp and swallowed up into the more... let's say, dynamic, bit of the contemporary Christian church. I don't mean to make it look like this was a bad thing, because I owe my faith to this experience, but it had many psychological repercussions (again, mostly covered in Milk ).
When I didn't /feel/ the security and strength and joy that I was told would be present wherever God was, I would freak out and begin to doubt him, throwing me off in all areas: school, family, health, friendships, other social interaction, self-perception... All because my entire faith was grounded on emotion.
The bad thing about emotion is that if it isn't reigned in by rationality at all, it takes off and takes over. It dumps the whole ship over into the water and makes it start sinking, becomes a contagious disease. If there is an extreme up, there will almost certainly be an extreme down, and I thoroughly explored both the first few years of my "Christian walk." This included everything from IM conversations with God during Math class, to hearing him sing a note, to feeling a very physical presence... from the best music I've ever composed, to the deepest scars I carry. Where there is light, there is darkness; where there is good, there is bad; where there is emotion, there will be both extremes, unless it is controlled by something else.
I don't know what to say to those people who have no imagination and yet experience "mystical" things. I suppose I'd argue that everyone has some type of imagination and that its power affects us all. But at the very least, I can say this for myself: I was drowning myself in my own head when I sat around waiting for God to show up in some mystical way. Make they "good" emotion or "bad," every nonexistant "good" thing remains inferior to its existant "bad" counterpart. To keep pursuing the nonexistant simply makes no sense.