A mystic in reason's camp?

A SIGHTING. How widespread is mysticism in our culture? Answering that question is one long-term purpose of this weblog. The following anecdote, by Peter Namtvedt (a fellow member of Northwest Objectivists), shows mystics might be found anywhere in our society, even at a gathering of Objectivists, the foremost advocates of reason today. My comments and questions follow his account.

***

Earlier in July, my wife, Mary Ann, and I were among the five hundred people attending OCON2010, an Objectivist conference in Las Vegas. We had signed up for a buffet sponsored by Diana Hsieh, a leader of activists in the Objectivist movement. The purpose of the buffet was to bring together Objectivist activists for their shared interest. The large group made it difficult to hear what others were saying, except three more vocal people we sat with at the end of a long table.

A young woman directly across from me talked to two young men about her knowledge of mysticism. She insisted that it was based solely on her personal experience. I asked her if she had found others who had the same experiences and she replied "No."

I also asked her how she was able to retain a grasp on Objectivism as a philosophy of reason while believing there was any substance to the experiences she called "mystical." She insisted she was holding true to Objectivism, and she was also sure that some day scientific research would validate her experiences and permit conciliation with Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason as an absolute and exclusive source of knowledge.

She described her mystical experiences. On one occasion, she said, she was in a room alone and suddenly got the conviction that someone she knew was standing behind her. The experience was very vivid and, although she found no one there when she turned around, it was real, she said. On another occasion, she visited a cemetery and heard her dead relatives speaking to her.

In the buffet conversation, she made no remarks relating to religion or a god, only to unexplainable "secular" incidents that came to her mind without any use of sense perception. I expected her to start on the topic of angels, which I have heard is a branch of mystical thought popular these days, but she said nothing about it.

I finally objected to this talk and asked the three of them to tell us about their activism on behalf of Objectivism. However, they regarded talk about this young woman's mysticism as more interesting.

I recently searched online for key phrases she used. They match terms in a guest post by Rich Engle, on the weblog Objectivist Living.[1]

As I continued reading the discussion thread on that weblog, a comment by the same fellow on December 17 rang a bell. Here he quotes from a "Starbuck's manuscript collection" (which means nothing to me) some thoughts that reminded me of the definition of religion offered by German philosopher Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), in his On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers.[2] Schleiermacher wrote about the essence of religion being the exaltation or awe one might feel standing on a beach looking out at the ocean. No single statement in his book sums it up thus; I pieced that thought together from many fragmentary statements. Perhaps Schleiermacher's "feeling" is akin to that of Engle and the woman I talked to at the conference. There is a commonality here.[3]

Peter Namtvedt (July 23, 2010)

***

I was not present at the incident Peter describes, but I have had similar conversations.

IDENTIFYING THE TYPE. Part of the purpose of The Main Event is to identify the actions and ideas of advocates of reason and advocates of mysticism, not debate about them. In that setting, two questions arise about the young mystic Peter describes.

1. What are the essential, defining characteristics of her particular episodes of mysticism? First, the young woman's mystical episodes are personally experiential ("feelings"). In the conversation related by Peter, she is not claiming to be at one with the universe or having a conversation with God. Second, her experiences somehow become whole thoughts -- e.g., such a mystic might say, "I heard my dead relatives speaking to me."

This combination of personal experience directly and mysteriously producing a claim to knowledge distinguishes this mystic from two other kinds of mystics. The first kind, exemplified by Plotinus (205-270), has "ineffable" experiences (that is, experiences that cannot be expressed in words). The second kind includes mystics, such as Muhammad (570-632), who receive verbal (conceptual) communications directly from a supernatural source. Peter's mystic, at least as far as she described it in Peter's account, somehow automatically forms knowledge -- as statements -- from her mystic experiences.

2. What term would best label this young woman's form of mysticism, to distinguish it from others? I do not know of a single term. However, this form of mysticism is "empirical" in that it is a direct "experience" and it is cognitive in that it does, the mystic claims, give rise to "knowledge" in the form of statements about a "reality" not knowable by sense-perception (the world of the dead; or a dimension of reality in which someone is present behind me, but is not visible; and so forth). In summary, such a form of mysticism is empirical in origin and cognitive in its product.

TENTATIVE CONCLUSION. Advocates of mysticism or reason can appear even in unlikely places. In social situations in which their view is unwanted, their advocacy can be as simple as stating their view and responding to questions.

Comments that correct, expand, or supplement this post's preliminary observations are welcome.

Burgess Laughlin, author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith at www.reasonversusmysticism.com

P.S. Thank you, Peter. I am very grateful that you brought this particular stream of mysticism to my attention. From it, I have learned of (1) the existence of mystics on the periphery of a social network of advocates of reason; and (2) U. S. psychologist and pragmatist philosopher William James (1842-1910) as an originating mystic, that is, a mystic who formulates and systematizes descriptions of mysticism that others will repeat or modify in their efforts to spread and defend their doctrines.

[1] At http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=79.

[2] For Schleiermacher: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/

[3] For Johann Georg Hamann (1730-1788) and his mystical experiences: Ch. 7 ("Kant: A Philosophy Professor Limits Reason to Make Room for Faith") of The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith.

Ayn Rand's Advocacy in Objectively Speaking

In the Fall 2009 issue of The Objective Standard, Dina Schein Federman, Ph.D. (Philosophy), reviews Objectively Speaking: Ayn Rand Interviewed, edited by Marlene Podritske and Peter Schwartz. Dr. Federman's review covers the essential features of this new book. For students of the main event of our time, the conflict between reason and mysticism, I would like to supplement Dr. Federman's review with a few suggestions about issues in advocacy.

The subject matter of Objectively Speaking is easy to follow. In interviews across 50 years, Ayn Rand, the world's most radical advocate of reason, presented elements of her philosophy in a clear, seemingly simple and straightforward style. However, for careful readers who want to study not only the content but also the manner in which she so successfully conveyed her philosophy of reason to her world, reading this collection is more demanding. Such a reader--e.g., a pro-reason philosophical activist who wants to acquire skills for presenting principles on radio, TV, or other media--needs to be aware of both content and manner at the same time. They are connected.

1. Discussion, not debate. Editor Marlene Podritske's "Preface" deserves special attention. In an admirably quiet and direct style, Podritske begins by identifying Rand's "reluctance to grant interviews" because Rand was "concerned that complex ideas could be easily misunderstood and serious discussion limited due to the 'in-a-nutshell' constraints of live programming." (p. vii) Rand rejected interview formats that were quarrelsome rather than informative.

Podritske also identifies Ayn Rand's role as a teacher, which means conveying ideas clearly and encouraging listeners to think for themselves. "I'm always glad to discuss ideas, but not to debate them," said Rand. (pp. vii and 200) The lesson here is that an activist should select venues that best meet his long-term purposes in conveying ideas to rational audiences. No activist has an obligation to automatically respond to every question, challenge, or demand on his time.

2. Objective understatement, not emotionalist hyperbole. Activists interested in learning how best to answer an interviewer's questions can contrast Rand's approach to the approach so common today, both in video and in print. Rand, in most of the interviews in Objectively Speaking, was engaged in in-line activism. In her case, that means she was disseminating ideas that were in line with one of her highest personal values, her central purpose in life, which was to portray the ideal man--including the philosophical ideas that motivate him (pp. 179-180). Of course, as a philosopher, she had a very broad range of interests to discuss in interviews.

Both in writing and in speaking, Rand addressed an audience she assumed to be rational. Her style was passionate in its firmness, but generally understated in its delivery. Why understated? A rational mind needs the "quiet space" that understatement creates. Rand briefly discusses this point in The Art of Nonfiction:

"Unsupported expressions of emotion (e.g., insulting or pejorative adjectives) are arbitrary stylistically, and, philosophically, constitute emotionalism. . . . Even if you give reasons for your strong language, understatement is usually more desirable. When you understate something, the reader is aware of what you are saying; his own mind then supplies the rest, which is what you want. But when you overstate something, you deafen the reader. You do not give him time to come to his own conclusion. . . . When you overstate something, you disarm yourself. A man does not shout when he is sure of his case. When a writer understates what he is saying, what comes across is an overwhelming assurance on his part." (p. 124, pb)

I have observed in personal conversations and in print that some speakers and writers are emotionalists. They want to rouse their supporters (who already agree with the message) or antagonize their opponents (who will never agree, because they hold different premises). When speaking to a sympathetic audience, emotionalists rely on their audience's reactions to terms that are conventional (such as "Big Business" or "Big Government") but vague in meaning--rather than on teaching important new concepts, e.g., precisely definable ideas such as statism, philosophy, egoism, and capitalism. As a corollary, when speaking to or about enemies, emotionalists rely on insults (e.g., "stupid" and "lunatic") not objective communication (identification of facts, integration with fundamental principles, and so forth).

Bypassing the conscious mind, emotionalists speak from the subconscious (their own) to the subconscious (their audience's). In contrast, objective teachers, knowing that emotions are automatic responses to values, address the conscious mind. An audience's emotions don't need to be manipulated. Emotions happen automatically when the rational audience member sees that his values are involved. The next item illustrates this point.

3. Dissection and rejection of conservatism. Ayn Rand had good reason for despising conservatism, an ideology which she philosophically characterizes as being supernaturalist (belief in God), mystical (having faith), altruist (focused on God and God's children), and statist (of the mixed-economy sort).[1] Even here, Ayn Rand's responses in interviews were generally understated. (pp. 15-21) She performed philosophical detection on the broad conservative movement to identify its essential characteristics, while recognizing that the term "conservative" has been used loosely, so individuals using the same label may differ widely. She presented her own position clearly and concisely. This approach is not the approach of an emotionalist but of an advocate of reason.

In summary, Objectively Speaking shows philosopher Ayn Rand, the foremost advocate of reason in our time, speaking as a teacher. She discusses ideas. Her delivery is understated as well as firm, integrated, and clear. As in so many areas, here too she is an inspiration for those who have chosen to struggle for a more rational society in which to live a better life

Burgess Laughlin
Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

[1] For Ayn Rand's views on conservatism, see also: "Conservatism" and "'Conservatives' vs. 'Liberals'" in The Ayn Rand Lexicon. For a discussion of conservative attacks on Rand's Atlas Shrugged, see: Michael S. Berliner, "The Atlas Shrugged Reviews," Ch. 7, Essays on Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, ed. Robert Mayhew, NY, Lexington Books, 2009, available from The Ayn Rand Bookstore.

Long-term problem: identifying the advocates

Two of my theme questions are:

4. Who are the main advocates of reason in our time (1960 to now)? What are their key ideas and what actions have they taken to disseminate those ideas?

5. Who are the main advocates of mysticism in our time (1960 to now)? What are their key ideas and what actions have they taken to disseminate those ideas?

What the two questions have in common is the problem of identifying contemporary advocates -- both those individuals who originate new ideas (or new arguments for old ideas) and those individuals who disseminate those ideas. By "contemporary" I mean advocates who have lived within the last philosophical generation (fifty years). By "advocates" I mean those few individuals to whom most other intellectuals on their side of the reason/mysticism debate have turned for guidance. These contemporary advocates are the designers, manufacturers, and distributors of the "intellectual ammunition" that lesser intellectuals use in the reason/mysticism war.

Following are very short lists of individuals who are or might be qualified as originators or disseminators. Additional suggestions are welcome. I will update the list as I encounter new possibilities for investigation.

Candidates and nominees for main advocates of reason
- Rand, Ayn (1905-1982)
- Peikoff, Leonard (b. 1933)
- Is there a contemporary advocate of Aristotle's epistemology?
- Are there other advocates of reason (as the sole faculty for acquiring facts and values)?

Candidates and nominees for main advocates of at least one form of mysticism

Religious
- Niebuhr, Reinhold (1892-1971) for mysticism in Christianity.
- Lewis, C. S. (1898-1963) for mysticism in Christianity.
- Prager, Dennis (b. 1948) for mysticism in Judaism.[1]
- Who is a main advocate of faith or other form of mysticism in Islam?
- Who is a main advocate of modern pagan mysticism in some form?

Secular
- Feyerabend, Paul (1924-1974), for a form of mysticism in "science."
- Derrida, Jacques (1930-2004) for a post-modernist form of mysticism.
- Rorty, Richard (1931-2007) for a post-modernist form of mysticism.
- Who is a main advocate of oracular "common sense"?
- Who is a main advocate of intuition?
- Who is a main advocate of instinct?

If you can suggest candidates for the main advocates -- either originators or disseminators -- of either mysticism or reason in our time, please use the comment form.

Burgess Laughlin

Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

[1] An example of a mystic who was more of a cultural effect than a cause in the mystical movement is Hyman Bloom (1913-2009), a painter. His style reflected his immersion in many forms of mysticism articulated by others. See "Hyman Bloom, a Painter of the Mystical, is Dead at 96," Holland Cotter, The New York Times, August 31, 2009, online (may expire).