The Pageless Book

Photo Above by Ed Schipul. Photo Below by Symphoney Symphoney. Final Photo by Roberto Arias.

I consider myself a mystic. Also, I consider myself a rather rational person who doesn’t subscribe to superstitions. However, it does not surprise me in the least that many people lump mysticism in with superstition. Perhaps you, dear reader, are one of them. Honestly, I’d rather you be critical of mysticism, and religious experience in general, than be a oblivious believer.

Mystics claim to seek, and some to have found, a greater truth than that which we can touch, see, and hear. The content of this greater truth and how it is conveyed vary from culture to culture. However, the insistence upon literal interpretation of the figurative by the culture in which the mystic resides remains constant. It is society, not the mystics themselves, who spin superstition from wisdom, absolutes from poetry, and dogma from good ideas.

I recently asked Paul Sunstone, a fellow blogger and frequent visitor to the Religious Forums, for his thoughts on mysticism without superstition, and he responded:

So far as I know, mysticism can be without any superstition and superstition is not implicit in it. The mystical experience can be described as “an end to subject/object perception” and there is nothing in someone’s experience of an end to subject/object perception that necessarily creates or promotes superstitions.

Having said that, however, I should be careful to point out that I suspect there are some sources of superstition closely associated with mysticism. In my opinion, the first and most common of those is the tendency of people who have had a mystical experience to borrow language and concepts from religion in order to describe their experience. So, for instance, someone living in a culture that routinely ascribes mystical experiences to Dionysus might be heavily inclined to ascribe their own experience to Dionysus. Or someone living in a Christian culture might ascribe their experience to God the Father, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, or even Satan. Or someone living in second century Rome, when the cult of Isis was gaining popularity, might ascribe their experience to Isis. And so on and so forth.

The mystical experience is beyond all categories and labels. It is only after the actual experience itself that someone might begin labeling and conceptualizing it. If they begin labeling and conceptualizing it immediately, within seconds of the experience, then they have a very strong tendency to borrow “memes” from their culture - especially their religious culture - with which to define, describe or explain it.

While I liked his explanation and could not find anything to disagree with, I quickly realized that what he was saying needed to be expanded upon. Paul’s definition of mysticism as being an end to the subjective/objective duality within an individual’s world view hints at possible avenues for discussion. Most people tend to think of things in rather black and white terms; if something is true once, then it is true until something else contradicts that truth.

For them, there exists a creature of a mythic proportions which remains unto this day the greatest superstition to ever to cloud human judgment - Objective Reality. Experiences are by their very nature subjective. If there was not a subject to the experience, it would not have been experienced. Quantum Physics, Psychology, Sociology, and Neurology have only begun to prove what mystics have long believed - true objective reality does not exist. Superstition, on the other hand, is what happens when we fail to recognize the subjectivity within our own observations.

Another distinction between mysticism and superstition is their motivating emotions. The root emotional cause of superstition is fear of the unknown. By contrast, mysticism gleefully bears a child like curiosity of the unknown, and is motivated primarily by love of truth. How can anyone not love truth?

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Mysticism, Myth, Reality, Reason, Spirituality, Superstition

One of the things that some of the more hard-core atheists pride themselves on is being firmly placed in reality. The argument is that because theists choose to believe in something not verifiable by modern science, they are delusional. A delusional person is not in touch with reality. There are atheists who use this as a reason to argue that they are superior to theists. If by reality they mean “only that which is verifiable by modern science,” it would seem that they are correct. However, reality is more than just what is observable.

There is a great deal that can be experienced in the natural world that cannot be measured or verified by the scientific method. Just as much as the ground under you feet, your dreams, thoughts, and feelings are aspects of reality. Artwork, fiction, poetry, music, and acting each can illuminate truth that cannot be defined empirically, but can be felt. In our dreams and within any works of artistic endeavors there is a sense of “realness” that is immeasurable.

Reality is fluid - it takes the shape of the container in which you place it. The shape of your reality’s “container” is dictated by your paradigm. A paradigm is a filter through which you experience reality; it is the accumulation of preferences, prejudices, and protocol shaped both by physical ability and experience. Language is a key factor to an individual paradigm, as is childhood memories.

In the same way your paradigm shapes your reality, it also limits your reality. One bucket full of water is not an accurate representative of all the forms which water can take; in the same way your paradigm is not representative of the fullness of reality. Every paradigm is flawed or missing some aspect of reality. However, this does not mean that every paradigm is equal. To continue my metaphor, Lake Michigan is a lot closer to representing all the forms of water than a bucket of water. Broader paradigms, although still limited, are more accurate than narrow paradigms.

Science attempts to utilize one of the broadest paradigm possible by including only those ideas which can be tested and verified by a community of peers. However, this is still a paradigm, as it is limited to the scope of our ability to perceive the physical world, and does not include those phenomena that are immeasurable. One day science may progress so far as to be able to measure and understand even those phenomena which are currently outside its paradigm. However, to reject the fundamental reality of those things which remain untestable simply due to one paradigm’s limitations is short sighted.

The Divine is one of those aspects of reality which does not fit so neatly into every paradigm. It is so often reinterpreted and misunderstood as a result of our individual paradigms that no single broad paradigm can reach consensus with a majority of people. As a result, it is often easier to exclude that concept from our mutual paradigm. Could this be because the Divine truly does not exist? Is the Divine nothing more than myth?

It is true that one of the reasons why the concept of the Divine has not reached consensus could be due to the Divine not being real in a universal sense, but rather be real a limited individual sense. If this were the case, non-theists would have a valid argument against theism in all forms. Still, when the whole of human history is looked at in an honest manner, you cannot help but notice the consistency in which the Divine manifests itself in every culture. There is another possible reason why the Divine remains so consistent in human cultures, yet is so subject to individual opinion; it could be that when we talk about God or the Divine, we are really referencing to the ultimate reality which no single paradigm can adequately explain.

Might I be wrong? Of course, but I don’t think that is adequate reason to not expand my own paradigm beyond that provided by modern science. Albert Einstein had once said “All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man’s life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom.” Limiting our paradigm to one branch of reality or another limits us as individual human beings and as a species. It is worth risking being wrong.

Temple Photo by Neal McQuaid. Blue Liquid Photo by Anticline. Bar Plaque Photo by Bruno Girin.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Art, Atheism, God, Myth, Reason, Religion, Science

Would a holy text written in the twenty first century need a creation story? Science has already provided us with the ultimate in creation stories - the verifiable facts. Although there exists gaps in our knowledge, there is enough information for us as human beings to gain a fairly good grasp of the events as they really occurred. No further myth or allegory necessary. Yet The Gated Emptiness provides us with a short creation story within the first third of the text. Why?

I think the answer is to give us context and to show us the relationship between humanity and the rest of the universe. The creation story of any religion is kind of like the directory in a mall, showing where you are in relation to where you want to go. You are here; you are the little blue dot on this map. You are human, a being that is both divine and earthly in origin, both perfect and flawed. Where you go from here is your choice, but this is your starting point.

The Gated Emptiness reads:

“In the void was chaos, and in chaos was all things possible, but not probable. Then was created limits and perception, and so all things that were, were probable, but not all things possible. Within everything probable, there lies a small piece of the impossible; God leaves nothing to chance.

And in this matrix of possibility, there emerged many things; all being perfect as all being flawed. The future shall be the past forever.”

Did you catch that? I have to admit the first time I wrote those lines, I had trouble understanding exactly what was meant. Let me see if I can break it down by using a metaphor. Reality before creation was like a blank canvas in a dark room, awaiting paint. There is raw possibility, but without the first brush stroke, the canvas is destined to remain blank. Before we can start painting, we need to turn on the lights to see what we are doing. We need to perceive the truth of the void, and then create one limit.

That first brush stroke across the canvas changes everything. It puts a limit on what we can create. By perceiving those limits we now know that is probable. Is this going to be a painting of rolling hills and happy trees, or are we going to make paint a nude portrait? Either way, it would have to incorporate that single brush stroke. Is there still a lot that is possible? Yes, but we’ve created a limit on that possibility, creating probability. However, just because there is probability, doesn’t mean we cannot attempt to stretch the limits of that probability.

God leaves nothing to chance; those limits are there to be challenged and as a challenge. This probability is due to our perception, and we can change how we choose to look at any given situation to create new possibilities. Perfection and flaw are matters of how we choose to perceive the world, Even though our past has put limits on what is possible, that doesn’t mean we cannot choose to be more radical and push those limits. Even when faced with the painting of Mona Lisa, we can choose to see the empty canvas underneath the painting and create something entirely new.

The Gated Emptiness continues:

“There were created moments, and in between moments angels unfurled as scrolls of continuity. Writ on those scrolls were lives that were to be lived, words to be said, and all things that are to come to past. God did let every thing touched by its divine hand choose its angel.

So was created man, grown from the garden of the world and made complex yet not complicated. And so was created woman as well, the fruitful and delicious strength to which man served. And so was created child, by union of the sharp and soft within woman by man. Each chose their angels.”

Here we are given a more definite idea of how humans relate to this matrix of possibility. Philosophers, behaviorists, and theologians have long argued whether human kind has free will. Some have argued that our attitudes and behaviors are predetermined by our external stimuli, while others have argued that choices we make are free of outside influence - we have free will. Both arguments have valid points. The Gated Emptiness, however, suggests that there is a certain amount of predestination and free will.

Our choices and the outcome of those choices are symbolized as angels. It is not just humanity which chooses; all parts of creation has some influence over its own fate, whether these parts are conscious of that influence or not. Man was “grown from the garden of th world,” suggesting that there was some amount of predestination in our evolution. Also notice that man serves woman, recognizing that the possibility of birth that women represent should be treated with reverence.

Ultimately, the creation story as depicted in The Gated Emptiness sets humanity up to be responsible for itself. Man, woman, and child alike is given the ability to choose their own angel or their own place within the matrix of possibilities. We are given hope, in that we are able to push the boundaries of the reality we live in, however there is a consequence for each action of which we must be mindful. This is where we stand in relation to the rest of the universe. Where shall we go from here?

Garden Photo by John Weiss. Dice Photo by M.P. Dehaan. Globe Image by Charles Dawley.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: God, Holy Text, Humanity, Individuality, Myth, Religion

Photo by Tom Woodward

I was driving home from hanging out with my brother - his words and ideas fading in my mind as I hurl myself down the road - when one of my favorite songs came on the radio. I started singing along with Lynyrd Skynyrd’s “Simple Kind of Man” and then the thought occurred to me that this song was a part of American Mythology. In fact, a lot of songs have become part of American Mythology. Books, movies, art, and music are all woven together to create the stories that we as a people tell.

Before I had dropped my brother off, we had been discussing religion. I’m not entirely sure who brought the subject up, but seeing as I’m the one interested in seminary, it was probably me. He started telling me how he felt that the stories behind religion are all myths and that he wishes that all religions would simply wink out from existence. It’s a sentiment that I’ve heard before. I just kindly reminded him that I was working towards becoming a minister, and would appreciate not being winked out of existence just yet… but I understood what he meant.

There are some stories or myths that have been used to create division and strife for humanity. These stories were not understood fully or were intentionally misrepresented in order to manipulate the society from which the stories came. A good comparison to this would be to the Hollywood gossip rags found in your local supermarket check-out lines. Truth is taken out of context and paired up with incriminating evidence to suggest things that may very well be mere rumor. Trash-gossip papers also become a part of the American Mythology as well, albeit a much scorned aspect of that mythology

I have been slowly attempting to read the King James Bible from cover to cover, and the one thing that strikes me most solidly is that the society in which Abraham lived is nothing like the society in which we live. Because we no longer live in the historical context in which Abraham lived, it is hard for us to understand what is being said, and all too easy to misrepresent the story. I can see why non-theists would be so dedicated to cutting the Bible out of American Mythology - it is too much like yesterday’s gossip column. If I could rid the world of Hollywood gossip newspapers and television programs, I certainly would.

A society is defined not by the items it produces, but instead by the stories that it tells. Wanting to do away with the stories that weaken, rather then strengthen society is a noble cause, but an unrealistic one. It’s impossible to monitor all ideas; it is easier to just replace them with better stories. This is the natural selection of myth that society goes through. Better stories are told again, while poor stories are forgotten.

In the case of “Simple Kind of Man” it’s one of those stories I hope to hear again and again. The song represents the words a mother has for her son regarding living life. While I don’t know if the songwriter’s mother ever had a conversation like this with him, it doesn’t seem to matter much. The story itself has so much passion and inherent wisdom that you don’t need to take it literally to walk away having learned something. This is the type of myth we should strive to write and read, because it is this myth that is wholly spiritual.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Art, Bible, Humanity, Myth, Religion