Calling all mystics

[drwex]

http://harpers.org/ThroughAGlassDarkly-12838838.html

Harper's has a long and thoughtful essay on the (re)rise of American Fundamentalism - what I've called our home-grown Taliban.

[The new Christ's] followers are not anxiously awaiting his return at the Rapture; he's here right now. They're not envious of the middle class; they are the middle class. They're not looking for a hero to lead them; they're building biblical households, every man endowed with 'headship' over his own family. They don't silence sex; they promise sacred sex to those who couple properly - orgasms more intense for young Christians who wait than those experienced by secular lovers.

I invite readers' comments. Personally I find this sort of things a natural outgrowth of mysticism in general. From where I sit it's a matter of degree, not kind, linking everyone from the newageist Pagans to... well, those guys.

I'm currently failing to find the link so I can properly acknowledge it, but last year someone pointed me to an essay by a person who, when asked why he didn't believe in God said, essentially:

"I don't not-believe in God - I just believe in one fewer gods than you do. If you can explain to me why you don't believe in any of those other gods I probably explain why I don't believe in yours."

Comments

The Point You're Missing

[feste-sylvain.livejournal.com]

This is nothing new. Ask any (European) Dark Ages historian: this kind of shit used to happen all the time. The Jim Jones cult was by no means an historical aberration.

Remember: the Vatican had to declare suicide to be an "Unforgivable Sin" because too many converts would accept Jesus, have all of their sins thus forgiven, and then commit suicide so they could enter heaven with a clean slate. Whacko behavior has always been around.

Islam has something like 60 significant sects; Christianity has fewer, but may develop more as the African and Asian churches take deeper root. (Judaism has four, by the same measure, but their numbers worldwide are sufficient to account for this relative lack of diversity.) As various sects explore their boundaries, weird corner cases are bound to gain some traction.

Fundamentalists of every stripe are more susceptible to this, precisely because they have opted out of thinking. Once that happens, extrapolations that never entered into the original authors' heads can be derived (Cathars, Gnostics, Wahabbi, etc.).

Mysticism is not necessary for these to occur. Faith is.

Re: The Point You're Missing

[drwex]

I don't think I'm missing the lack of novelty. As I said it's the re-rise of American fanaticism. I do think it's a direct outgrowth of the mystical impulse.

Re: The Point You're Missing

[feste-sylvain.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. We may be talking past each other. Where you use the catch-all term "mysticism", I may be using my term "faith".

For clarity's sake, I provide my definition now:

faith: n Acceptance without proof

To me, faith is always (by definition) stupid. Literally.

Mysticism, on the other hand, is the derivation of meaning from diverse perceived patterns. I can get useful personal insights from tarot readings without attributing magickal properties to the cards; rather, the insights come from my own internal pattern perceiver. If I was of another bent, I could do the same with tea leaves (again, without attributing magickal properties to the leaves).

"American fanaticism" used to be much worse. Many of the preachers stoking the Whiskey Rebellion were literally trying to rebuild Jerusalem in the Allegheny mountains; Herman Husband (in particular) drew his meticulous contour maps of western Pennsylvania based on quotes from the book of Daniel. One of the main reasons for the 1st Amendment's prohibition against an Established church was to prevent the kind of sectarian violence which Iraq is going thru.

Proof

[dpolicar]

faith: n Acceptance without proof
To me, faith is always (by definition) stupid. Literally.

I always have trouble with this sort of assertion, though much of the slipperiness tends to center on what the speaker considers proof.

To be concrete for a second: what would you accept as sufficient proof that someone loves me that my accepting that they love me isn't evidence of my stupidity?

Re: Proof

[feste-sylvain.livejournal.com]

To be concrete for a second: what would you accept as sufficient proof that someone loves me that my accepting that they love me isn't evidence of my stupidity?

Oh, I'd say that observing how they treat you and behave around you would comprise sufficient proof, one way or the other. It's an inductive proof, to be sure. Perhaps some future neurologist will find a definitive "love test", but that's not necessary for you to plan your life (or perhaps just this evening) with that person now.

But the analogy for our discussion here is not whether that person loves you; the analogy here is what I'd accept as sufficient proof that YHWH loves you. First, I'd require proof of YHWH.

Re: Proof

[dpolicar]

Sure, sure. I didn't mean to raise it as an analogy to religious faith, I meant to raise it in an attempt to clarify your definition of faith.

But I will say that if "well, I've observed the system, and based on my observations I'm comfortable concluding so-and-so's love even though of course I can't really prove it" qualifies as sufficient proof to not be "faith", I'm not entirely convinced your definition of faith helps clarify the religious situation much.

I mean, OK, the Christian who accepts your definition says "well, OK, I stand corrected. I don't believe in God on faith, I believe in God on the strength of my observations of the system." And I say "Well, wait... your observations don't justify your conclusions!" And they say "sure they do!" And I say "Prove it!" And they say "well, prove your boyfriend loves you!"

And we're back where we started.

Re: The Point You're Missing

[drwex]

Aha, yes, we're working from different starting points. Let's see if I can be clear about mine:

Faith: belief, not necessarily dependent on proof, and often in the face of apparently contradictory evidence.

(Thus one might have faith in the literal nature of the Bible, despite apparent proof of the geological age of the Earth - contradictory evidence. One might also have faith in the existence of a divine being, despite any proof one way or the other.)

Mysticism: the system of/tendency to attributing extra-physical causes to observations, independent of pattern.

So mysticism encompasses things like belief in "energy" of inanimate objects despite the inability of any scientific procedure known to measure such "energy". Mysticism includes things like attributing predictive power to symbol systems like Tarot, as opposed to a non-mystical view of Tarot as a means of stimulating self-observation and insight without having any extra predictive power.

Transubstantiation is mysticism; adherence to the notion of virgin birth is faith.

A mystic may have/usually has faith (usually in something) as part of mystical explanation. On the other hand the two seem to be very loosely connected, since I'm pretty sure that many people who believe in the predictive power of astrology also believe in a God whose tenets would technically label that sort of thing heresy or witchcraft and definitely outside the faith.