True Mysticism vs. True Ignorance
Some Measure Weights with Yardsticks
The inspiration for this article was stirred up by a recent comment to my "literary opus", which was a display of a misconception about what at this stage of human consciousness may lead us to some more promising outcomes.
Namely, while certain top minds of science have come to the pivotal realization about consciousness and its tools---intent and emotion--- as a neglected factor in the universal equation of energy, mass, speed, and time---there is still a massive number of those who stay anchored to the logic of Newtonian reality.
Their materialistic determinism and reductionism display this somewhat pathetic inclination to label everything that appears outside their paradigm-box as "mysticism"---while they don't seem to even know what the word means. Even its superficial resemblance to its root-word "mystery" should point to them at something "not known or understood".
So, what do we call those who tend to sneer at something they don't know or understand? Ignorant, right? There seems to be a whole tsunami of such minds in the turbulent seas of thought, badmouthing a realm of advanced consciousness where the most significant dynamic exists outside their scope of five senses.
It's truly pitiable that such hard-core "realists" base their realism on their limited perception---while they don't realize how their innate and acquired programs in brain's computer are giving all suchness to that perception.
Indeed, most of those Newtonian realists have no clue that those programs are co-creating with collective consciousness merely a version of a virtual reality that has very little to do with the factual state of everything at play.
The great majority of such armchair philosophers might as well stick to their six pack of beer, maybe a joint, their football cheering, and a juicy hamburger---while leaving deeper thinking to those who are more equipped for that diving.
If anything, they should stay clear of those concepts that are too much for them to grasp, because it might ask them to empty much more from their minds to make room for the new--- than they are willing to sacrifice.
Just Sharing---Not Lecturing
Now, in my "literary opus" of various articles I have been trying to inspire readers with a world of intellectual non-conformism, personal sovereignty, a spiritual adventurism detached from the sterile logicalness of historically chronic and misery-producing brainwashing.
Not being a Shakespeare when it's about my writing skill, I am not writing for readers whose literary taste would only insist upon Shakespearean style. In a metaphorical sense, it doesn't really take a gourmet dish to satisfy a person's appetite for something new on their plate.
Furthermore, my articles are not a "lecture" about that "new", but simply an acknowledgement that such "new" exists. Readers are not faced with "do or die" choice, as nothing in my sharing is of a normative sort. Meaning that those who don't see it as inspirational can junk it---they don't have to oppose it.
After all, we don't come to a shoe-store and confront the clerk "why he doesn't keep our style of shoes"---we peacefully walk out and look for a store that carries them. But then, of course, that would only be a logic of those who are not programmed to look for an excuse to vent out their inner conflicts.
We are not writing some scientific papers for a prestigious scientific journal on this website, so nothing in my articles is insisting to be universally true. Readers may have noticed that I never use crutches of persuasion like "references" to some brainiacs in the culture market. What I say is my own mind's constructs---like a poem. Like it or don't.
I am simply pointing at the futility of the "old" schools of thinking, which have not proved their value that would be evident in the state of global affairs or in the quality of life these days. It would take a rather superficial, or at least shallow mind to call my attempts "bitching" against that status quo.
Within my cultivated mental self-discipline something like "my bitching" would simply mean an emotional assault on my own health. The apparent paradox being, that it's impossible to go against the grain without it superficially looking like a "conflict". Even if the "new" means serenity, peace, love, sovereign inner freedom---it may be characterized as a conflict to someone who is programmed to see everything through the prism of a conflict.
Barking at the Moon---National Pastime
However, the focal point of this article is not gravitating around my literary opus, but rather it's about this reluctance of so many folks to consider changing the very technology of thinking which might derail them from the non-rewarding groove.
This impetus in the new direction can only come from divorcing our spirituality, our awakened consciousness from our automatic pilot maintaining a robotic slavery to the programs instilled by the society. It's about using our own minds, folks. Although most of us would readily swear that we already are doing it, the illusion could be illustrated by our running backwards in a speeding train and believing that we are running in opposite direction from the train's motion.
Let's say a few words about ignorance. In my vocabulary it doesn't mean anything downgrading, but, as the root of the Greek word suggests, it's denoting "not knowing". There is nothing embarrassing about it. For example, I am completely ignorant in computer science, and I could add several dozen fields and professions to my "lot of ignorance".
Thus, this article is not about people being "foolish" about mysticism but being ignorant. They would only be foolish if they tried to criticize something which they are ignorant about. Trying to debunk it without first being able to grasp its meaning would be like barking at the moon for sake of barking.
Such foolish behavior was the main theme of my recent article as it was pertaining to people's futile protests against things in which they had no control whatsoever. It boils down to the same kind of barking at the moon as with barking at mysticism.
I was pointing at people's most probable personality issues which are finding their energy discharging outlet in political arena. Just like with mysticism---where they don't know all angles and finesses of an out-of-box thinking technology---they don't have a clue about what is involved in running a government, with all its economic, political, and social aspects.
Folks like that are neither familiar with mysticism nor politics, but they may feel called upon to protest just for sake of protesting, because those inner conflicts are seeking their exteriorization. That's foolishness, and I won't even call it "insanity" like Einstein does in his definition of it: "It's insane to do the same thing over and over and expect a different result".
After you smash a couple of windows, and burn a couple of cars, and beat up a few followers of opposite party---with nothing changing as the result of it---what's the sense in smashing some more windows, burning some more cars, and beating up some more of those folks who, by the way, only use the same right to have an opinion as you do.
Really, do we need an Einstein to call it "insane"?
What Is True Mysticism?
So, what's mysticism to do with all that, you may ask. Everything, without my having to mention it. For, our inclination to perpetuate a conflict just for sake of being in conflict calls for junking something in our very technology of producing mental constructs.
I am not advocating Gandhi's passive resistance, but it can show you that even a mighty empire can be defeated without bitching and parading around with slogans of disagreements. People accomplish more by settling down, and from that frame of mind deciding what kind of leaders they want.
Otherwise, a massive mindset of conflict will forever keep bringing new and new reasons for a conflict---and history is providing ample proofs of that. When it comes to electing a "lesser of two evils", we might as well refuse to vote. Such philosophy is not coming from a "timid thinking" but an effective mysticism.
Mysticism, true mysticism is about exploring those unused resources in our potential---not an esoteric nonsense oftentimes attached to much ridiculed New Age movement. When you honestly think about it, even that movement is a breath of fresh air when compared to the stinky swamps of a historically persistent paradigm that refuses to die of its own weight.
I am talking about a mind-style that keeps repeating every crappy aspect of its conflict-producing repertoire---from those personal emotional issues all the way to wars. Even medicine is in that game while married to the Big Pharma, and focusing on "what could go wrong with us"---instead of "what could go right with us".
Namely, in the spirit of the so called "progressive medicine" and "epigenetic biology" the accent is on the enormous role that mind is playing in the level of our vitality and general wellbeing. And yet, the mainstream medicine practice is still fishing in the murky waters of "what could go wrong with us".
So, should we boycott hospitals? Of course not. What we should do instead is nurturing a heathy, non-conflicting attitude as a cornerstone of a sound stress management---so we won't need our doctors for other than delivering babies and patching up our injuries.
That's mysticism, my friends. This exploring of new models in our psycho-physical functioning that may carry a seed of a better individual life as well as quality of our coexistence.
Well, to implement something radically new, we have to become new. And to become new, we have to shed that which we are not. And nothing can illustrate it better than the anecdote of Michelangelo being asked "how he sculptured David". The great sculptor said:
"Quite simply. I took a granite block and chipped off everything that was not David". Something to think about, folks.