Rational reconstruction of Mysticism

[Christopher]

I thought I'd revisit this excellent discussion and summarize some of the main points regarding the discussion between rationality and mysticism by Nathaniel Branden and Ken Wilber. The discussion begins with reason and moves to Ken's "epistemological defense of mysticism."

Nathaniel Branden states the following:

"Reason is the process of grasping relationships... reason is the non-contradictory integration of experience."

There are two processes of handling knowledge:

1. Discovery (how we get to a particular point of view)

2. Verification (how we prove it)

Discovery can come through thinking, the senses, meditation, drugs, etc.

Verification is how science justifies the discovery as an accurate perception of reality.

Wilber proposes there are at least three primary domains through which knowledge is discovered:

1. Reason (Eye of the mind)

2. Sensory experience (Eye of the flesh)

3. Spiritual experience (Eye of the spirit)

These domains are orthogonal, meaning: you can't, through reason, perceive that it is raining outside... You have to go to the window and look. You can't use reason to discover an orgasm, you have to feel it. Spiritual domain works the same. You can't, through reason or sensory experience, perceive knowledge of deeper states of being.

Although reason does not function to perceive sensory or spiritual experiences, you can use reason to integrate and explain experiences from different domains. Once an observation in any domain has been made, it can be reasoned about. For example, a scientist operating rationally can look at the data detailing spiritual experiences of individuals along a developmental scale, then he/she can observe that the data shows consistent trends across populations, etc. The scientist need not be at the highest developmental stage to reason about development... My example: if you've never had sex but heard the about the feelings from all your friends, you don't need to have done it to rationally conclude it exists. Same goes for rationalizing about the existence of spiritual truths.

Unfortunately, since one way of reaching spiritual knowledge is through emptying the mind of reason, both mystics and non-mystics sometimes falsely conclude that mysticism is the opposite of reason.

The argument has been made that "mystical knowledge is ineffable." (can't be put into language).

--> Both Wilber and Branden agree that all experience, not just mystical experience, is ineffable. Therefore, even though an experience is ineffable, this does not mean it is divorced from reason. The issue with mystical (spiritual) experience in Western civilizations is simply that we lack vocabulary for the nuances of the experience given the rarity of spiritually-developed people. Conversely, in India there is a wide vocabulary about spiritual experiences given that more of the population is familiar with and discusses them more often (like how Eskimos have a gazillion words for different types of snow). The point however is that words can never replace the experience, but a lack of words does not mean that the experience is permanently divorced from reason.

Following this, there are discussions of trans-rational states. The perspective taken on this is that consciousness is the foundation. Reason is merely a conscious process. There are states of consciousness that expand beyond (transcend) reason such that reason can be observed by the witnessing consciousness, but awareness extends beyond the bounds of reason. Wilber argues that there are of course pre-rational spiritual states as well, where expansion of consciousness has not yet reached reason. Trans-rational is a reason-inclusive consciousness (but wider than reason); pre-rational is a reason-exclusive consciousness (not yet reached ability to reason).

The trans-rational mind no longer functions in concepts. Concepts presuppose an opposite (hot/cold, is or is not). In trans-rational states, there just "is." Wilber describes like Yin-Yang. There is black, there is white, but there ultimately is the symbol as a baseline of being (existence does not exist where the symbol is absent)... At least, this is what I think Wilber is saying. Unity in diversity, etc. However, the non-dual is ultimately an experience: the experience is real. Doesn't require concepts... "go look to see if it's raining."

Spirituality is in essence neither theistic nor atheistic (because theism is a concept that requires an opposite).

....

That's the summary. Not as good as the actual conversation, but definitely some chewable ideas.

Christopher

[Rich Engle]

I'm really glad you made this post.

[BaalChatzaf]

I thought I'd revisit this excellent discussion and summarize some of the main points regarding the discussion between rationality and mysticism by Nathaniel Branden and Ken Wilber. The discussion begins with reason and moves to Ken's "epistemological defense of mysticism."

Nathaniel Branden states the following:

"Reason is the process of grasping relationships... reason is the non-contradictory integration of experience."

There are two processes of handling knowledge:

1. Discovery (how we get to a particular point of view)

2. Verification (how we prove it)

Discovery can come through thinking, the senses, meditation, drugs, etc.

Verification is how science justifies the discovery as an accurate perception of reality.

Wilber proposes there are at least three primary domains through which knowledge is discovered:

1. Reason (Eye of the mind)

2. Sensory experience (Eye of the flesh)

3. Spiritual experience (Eye of the spirit)

Everything that exists is physical either as a process (an operation of substances) or a substance. Thus 3 is either null or is a special case of 1. The "Eye of the Mind" is an operation of the brain which is a physical entity.

Also we do not prove that general statements about the world are true. We support general statements with evidence. We can only disprove general statements by providing a specific counterexample or contrary empirical finding. Thus, we cannot -prove- all crows are black since that would involve looking at every crow that ever was, is or will be. But we can disprove all crows are black by seeing a non-black crow (all it takes is just one counterexample).

Click your heels three times and say "Demokritos was right".

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited April 23, 2009 by BaalChatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Christopher,

I, too, am glad you made this post. I have wanted to hear this conversation for a long time, but never seem to be able to find the time.

Consciousness is a complex subject and I really like looking at the different aspects of it.

Nathaniel stated in his "Benefits and Hazards..." essay that Rand considered thinking to be reason and reason only, whereas thinking actually covers a variety of conscious states. This may not be the exact words, that's the gist of it. This thought marked my thinking and has stayed with me. This is probably where I first started thinking about the scope issue in Objectivism.

I am intrigued by the observation that a concept requires an opposite. Since concepts are made up of noting similarities and differences among existents, then making a category, this makes sense. But I have never thought of it that way. However, I see a real danger of oversimplification in this, especially if there are a lot of components to a concept, each requiring its own opposite, but they all get lumped under the same thing, even when such opposite is not applicable. I need to ponder this one some more...

If you take the idea that a concept includes an opposite as a distinguishing characteristic to the axiomatic concepts, that would mean that existence and identity actually do have opposites. Hmmmmm...

Wilber answers this by saying that there is a level where opposites do not exist and everything is a single holistic state.

Like it or not, in Objectivism there is a similar idea: reality.

Once again, hmmmmmmmm...

Maybe the term "axiomatic concept" is a bit forced, where simply "axiom" would do...

Michael

[Christopher]

Everything that exists is physical either as a process (an operation of substances) or a substance. Thus 3 is either null or is a special case of 1. The "Eye of the Mind" is an operation of the brain which is a physical entity.

Also we do not prove that general statements about the world are true. We support general statements with evidence.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al, Branden addresses your comment in the discussion by noting that Rand limited herself to evidence provided by the senses concerning the world (just as you limit existence to operations of substance); but Branden believed limiting experience in this manner was unjustified. Per his definition of reason, "reason is the non-contradictory integration of experience." Rather than integrate, you're discarding mystical experiences. This might be considered unreasonable.

I'll import a brief mention from another of Wilber's conversations and hope that memory serves me right: Science verfies knowledge through the following process:

1. Action leads to observed effect (the observation)

2. The action is repeated and consistently yields the same observations (repeatability)

3. The action and resulting observations are confirmed and consistent among the experts in the field (validity)

The arousal of certain mystical experiences conform to these three tenets; therefore "reason compels us to see that..." mystical observations are observations consistent with reality.

- Christopher

[anonrobt]

Everything that exists is physical either as a process (an operation of substances) or a substance. Thus 3 is either null or is a special case of 1. The "Eye of the Mind" is an operation of the brain which is a physical entity.

Also we do not prove that general statements about the world are true. We support general statements with evidence.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al, Branden addresses your comment in the discussion by noting that Rand limited herself to evidence provided by the senses concerning the world (just as you limit existence to operations of substance); but Branden believed limiting experience in this manner was unjustified. Per his definition of reason, "reason is the non-contradictory integration of experience." Rather than integrate, you're discarding mystical experiences. This might be considered unreasonable.

I'll import a brief mention from another of Wilber's conversations and hope that memory serves me right: Science verfies knowledge through the following process:

1. Action leads to observed effect (the observation)

2. The action is repeated and consistently yields the same observations (repeatability)

3. The action and resulting observations are confirmed and consistent among the experts in the field (validity)

The arousal of certain mystical experiences conform to these three tenets; therefore "reason compels us to see that..." mystical observations are observations consistent with reality.

- Christopher

Define this so-called 'mystical experience'... further, a band of nuts bolstering up each other's 'experience does not allude to 'validity'... the 'experience' could just as well be distortions of reality - especially since almost all of them claim 'becoming beyond the self, which is to say, removing one's identity as an individual as supposedly an 'advancement' to 'knowing thyself and thy place in the universe' [eg - a cog among something supposedly 'larger' than oneself]...........

[BaalChatzaf]

Ba'al, Branden addresses your comment in the discussion by noting that Rand limited herself to evidence provided by the senses concerning the world (just as you limit existence to operations of substance); but Branden believed limiting experience in this manner was unjustified. Per his definition of reason, "reason is the non-contradictory integration of experience." Rather than integrate, you're discarding mystical experiences. This might be considered unreasonable.

How is dumping the trash overboard unreasonable? Mystical experience is delusion.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Reidy]

As Eric Mack said when Sciabarra was trying to sell Objectivism to the Derrida / Foucault crowd: even if you could, why would you want to?

[Rich Engle]

I spent a few words and even cute charts on this a few years ago, and you have to be grateful for any kind of bridging attempt, rather than the de rigeur "I'm From Missouri, Show Me" stuff.

But, you get the insecurities. These are the same insecurities you get when you talk about anything unknown, least of all, say, mortality (that was a fun outing too, with similar results).

I know what I like and I like what I know, as the Genesis tune said.

To not acknowledge, say, the existence of states beyond rational (least of all the transrational) is silly, because they exist. Instead, this is equated to insanity ("nuts").

You are supposed to be insecure; if you aren't, you don't grow.

And, it is not a lose one gain another thing (this is the other classic error). Meaning, one does not have to sacrifice the rational state of consciousness in order to experience another.

I am convinced it is fear-based. You have to be able to whistle in the dark. You have to acknowledge that the darkness exists, and be comfortable in your skin when you are there (and we all have moments of so-being).

So, when you get into this area, you can either be sidetracked in the discovery by those insecure with additional possibilities, or you can continue to whistle in the dark.

And, the constant whining about "defining" a mystical state: this is ridiculous. Read William James, at the least. The point is that each human experiences it uniquely, if they do at all (or, maybe they find some reason to cultivate the possibility of it occurring). We can only find certain commonalities in these states, mostly, not so much. Mostly, we can only acknowledge that, one way or another, the state exists in people, and it is not confined to the insane.

It's about the same as sex in the fifties: everybody was doing it, but no one was talking about it.

rde

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

As Eric Mack said when Sciabarra was trying to sell Objectivism to the Derrida / Foucault crowd: even if you could, why would you want to?

Pete,

After all my experiences in forum-land, this hit my funny bone.

LOL...

Michael