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

[drwex]

It's a matter of degree. I don't see a qualitative difference between women being screamed at and beaten for daring to go out in public without "proper" body covering and women being screamed and doctors being shot for performing abortions.

[dpolicar]

(nods)
The question (for me) is, do you see a qualitative difference between believing, for whatever reason, that women should be "properly" clothed and not have abortions (on the one hand) and screaming at them, beating them, or shooting them or their doctors (on the other)?

It seems to me the mysticism apologist would want to say here that mysticism can give you a belief about something, but the willingness to go out and make a nuisance of yourself over it cannot be fully attributed to mysticism. There are plenty of quiet mystics who cause no trouble.

[arc-stormcrow.livejournal.com]

((Sorry I'm late to the discussion.))

But what you're describing is, well, more aptly termed fundamenalism or fanatacism than mysticism.

Certainly, mystics aren't exempt from fundamental, strict, or even aescetic beliefs/activities - and aren't limited to being individuals or small groups (qv Pentacostal snake-dancers, etc.) In general, mystics tend more towards a "extra-religious" worldview, where their mystical experiences (aka UPG - Unverified Personal Gnosis) supplants certain teachings of their respective religion. This can lead to fundamentalism and violence, but is also just as likely to lead them to (according to the views of their more mainstream co-religionists) heresy.

I mean, sure, there's people who get violent over abortion and "modesty" - but when's the last time you heard of a New Ager beating someone to death because they didn't believe in Tarot cards? A somewhat absurd example, certainly, but enough to make me question that extra-physical/surpernatural worldviews present a danger.