Rational Mysticism?
In Response to Correan Collar
It seems I have begun some discourse. Correan Collar's recent post discusses my essay "Against Mysticism". She criticizes me, mainly, for my characterization of mysticism as being irrational. To quote her directly, “mysticism, in its assumed irrationality, is actually rational in the fact that it can be used to provoke the overthrowing of capitalism.” This argument is problematic, because it assumes that anti-capitalism is by its nature rational, when this is not the case. For example, there are those reactionaries who wish to overthrow capitalism in order to return to some pre-capitalist economic formation. Certainly, this cannot be considered rational in any capacity. But perhaps this is what Correan Collar wants, for she says herself that “mysticism, as a philosophy, is inherently anti-capitalistic” and “pre-modernist”.
When Correan Collar speaks of pre-modernism, she seems to be referring to pre-modern philosophy and theology. Unfortunately, my knowledge on these subjects is lacking, and I will refrain from commenting on that aspect of her argument. However, it should be kept in mind that when I refer to mysticism, I am primarily referring to modern iterations of mystical philosophy, and not the Christian scholastics (whether or not the term “mysticism” could even be applied to them is not for me to decide).
Correan Collar compares my anti-mystical views to those of Richard Dawkins, whose vulgar atheism is an embarrassment to all genuine materialists. To this accusation, I don’t really have much to say, other than that the only way to oppose the dogma of religion is with an equally exclusionary dogma, a dogma that realizes the promises of religion not in heaven, but in the real world. The only way to do this is by rejecting all other-worldly speculation, and grounding oneself firmly in what is earthly.
That which is earthly cannot be mystical. The mystic rejects the idea that the world is governed by natural laws which are (generally speaking) consistent throughout time and space. As such, we could define the earthly as that which is lawful. All that is not lawful is not of this world, and therefore does not exist, or, at least, is of no concern to us.
If something is lawful, it can be grasped and understood by the human mind. The enlightenment project can be defined by the idea that all things are graspable, and, as such, that all things are lawful. Neo-Modernism accepts is. In other words, it accepts the idea that one day, it will be possible for us to grasp all things in existence, possible to understand them, and thus, to change them according to our will.
As to the question of whether mysticism can be rational, I answer no; it can’t be rational because it is built upon a premises that openly reject reason. It is, in a sense, too far down the schizoid rabbit hole to be saved. Making disparate connections to anything and everything, it ultimately obscures reality and its causes, rather than revealing hidden or sacred knowledge. It is, in this sense, not lawful. It rejects the notion of natural law, a notion which lays the foundation of all of our knowledge.