The Mystical Sceptic

Attempting to articulate an approach to exploring human experience.
 

If we think of the mystics journey as one which seeks to internalise some kind of transcendent ‘knowing’ and in doing so understand it then perhaps the idea of a mystical rationalist is a contradiction in terms. Mysticism is often linked to the idea that the mystic works to achieve some kind of emotional, physical and mental state so as transcend the apparent limits of the physical world. The methods used can be many and varied and depend largely upon some cultural or religious notion of how such states can be achieved.

 The personally transcended state has been variously described as a ‘connection’ to some universal ‘consciousness’; a ‘no-nothing state’; ‘seeing heaven’; ‘experiencing the infinite’ and (for the non-dualists) the realisation that all there is is ‘now’. In many cases these experiences are extremely profound and will influence how an individual perceives and responds to ‘the real world’ upon their ‘returning’.  When these experiences are “revelatory” or “enlightening” and reported to others and may well even form the basis for some form of religious affirmation or even promote the creation of a new religious movement.

 So, perhaps, the goal of the mystic is to explore the nature of the universe through mental and physical practices and result in deeply personal SUBJECTIVE experiences.

 This is at odds with a rationalists view of the world. The rationalist will seek to find pragmatic, science based, reasons for what is experienced and how it is experienced. When the rationalist world view becomes a cynical world view then the ‘escapist’ activities of the mystic could be seen not only self-indulgent, but of having no value of meaning in the real OBJECTIVE world.

 Whilst the ’mystics’ would challenge the transformational nature of a ‘mystical experience’, the rationalists would be happy to consider the whole experience as a creation of ‘mind’… and in many respects see ‘mind’ as an emergent property of brain function.

 A brief digression…

 To the dualists  is a fairly simple idea that the mind and the brain can be considered as two distinct things. The brain is the physical structure; the connection of nerve cells and the way they pass information between each other. The mind is something else that may reside within, yet at the same time exist outside of the physical structure of the brain (the ‘ghost within the machine’). It is the mind which houses the sense of ‘self’; the ‘watcher’ who is able to observe self and how self reacts and responds to the world. In essence mind is about consciousness and to many dualists that consciousness is a ‘mysterious something’ which has qualities which can be considered as exo-personal and esoteric.

 Now whilst the dualists argue for the separation of mind and brain; a growing number of neurologists and neurophysiologists are of the opinion that mind is an emergent property of the brain. In essence they see no reason to argue for mind as a separate entity. The brain and its complexity creates mind.

 To understand this way of thinking let’s use a simple metaphor – that of a cook.

 A cook may begin with some ingredients (flour, eggs, sugar and so on) and a set of processes (the recipe). From these raw materials they can bake a cake.

 The eggs, flour and sugar do not have the same properties as the emergent cake BUT the processes they have undergone have resulted in one.

 The brain, it could be argued, represents the raw materials (ingredients); the processes the recipe that is being followed and ‘mind’ is the result… the cake.

 I can easily see how this metaphor could be subverted by those who would like to argue for ‘intelligent design’ (the role of the cook), but for now let’s not go there and accept the limitations of this analogy.

 In many ways we can suggest that the brain is the ‘machine’ and the ‘mind’ is the collection of processes driven by it.

The point…

 To the mystic the ‘transpersonal experience’ can be considered as ‘religious’. ‘symbolic’ or ‘allegorical’ depending upon their particular flavour of mysticism.

 On the other hand, the rationalist, will accept the experience as being a product of particular neurological processes and the brains incredible ability to make sense out of no-sense.

The Rational Mystic accepts that the brains processes create the experience, which may of course be linked to other sensory stimulation, but is willing to explore its personal meaning and relevance. After all the minds creations are based upon something that has been experienced and stored at some ‘level’ in the mind.

 The key difference between a rational-mystics interpretation of such experiences and a religious-mystics interpretation will be in the way cultural icons and metaphors are understood and given meaning. It could be argued that because of this they will be less evangelical and open to wide ranging discussions about interpretation, meaning and relevance... less likely to start a dogmatic, religious or quasi-religious sect.

Rational Mysticism is far from being an oxymoron. It is a considered approach to human experience which celebrates the awe and wonder of nature and enjoys the distractions and insights that can come from illusion, metaphor and cultural iconography.