“A Cynic, a Skeptic and a Mystic Walk into a Bar . . .”
Who walks out? Me, most likely!
Seriously, though, setting aside cynicism (which helps nobody) is there a place for rational skepticism in mystical practice? I’m a living example of that questioning mindset, believing implicitly in the esoteric wisdom that rewards serious metaphysical inquiry while holding a less charitable opinion of some of its modern proponents. First off, there are those rather stiff-necked purists (the spiritual descendants of Arthur Edward Waite?) who consider the act of divination to be a perverted misuse of the archetypal forces at work in the Universe (a hidebound viewpoint they don’t mind sharing with anyone who will listen). Then there are the retro-New-Age psychological pedants who want only to crawl inside their own heads (via their navels, I assume) and stay there, using psychic conjecture as the route to supposed illumination of the Jungian kind. Third, there are the dabblers and hangers-on who only want to impress their friends with their “occult” savvy and sensitivity. Last but not least, there are the shamanistic opportunists who scrabble for a living by selling soothsaying services to those even less particular than themselves about the veracity of the source. My own forays into “forensic prognostication” are more scholarly than populist, although I won’t refuse the occasional chance to flex my fortune-telling muscles.
When I embarked on my own journey back in the early ’70s, there was a tightly-knit community of sincere seekers who could only make direct contact via face-to-face gatherings. There were no faceless social-media personae to hide behind and no disembodied posturing to dilute the visceral stimulus of firsthand engagement with one’s peers. I consider those the “glory days.” Now, thanks to the telecom revolution, we have amped-up Zoom and YouTube exchanges that are as antiseptic as an operating room, with almost none of the collective bonhomie available at the greeting end of a smile and a hand-shake. (I lump this phenomenon in with genetic engineering [let’s call it “genetic conditioning”] as an example of “Just because we can doesn’t mean we should.”) Even though post-COVID perturbations have calmed down a little, the “live” mojo has not yet returned.
Maintaining a skeptical attitude (if I were a true cheerleader I would insert “healthy”) does not automatically assume disbelief in the object of one’s scrutiny, but it is wary of too much “suspension of disbelief” (the computer role-playing game programmer’s goal in trying to create a “virtual reality” that convincingly emulates the real thing). I would argue, though, that there is nothing “virtual” about the experience of reality that comes from opening oneself to the inner world, although its apprehension may be entirely subliminal and its implications subjective. It is our personal grasp of their subtle intimations that can translate universal abstractions into human terms that offer opportunities for both philosophical and functional enlightenment.
There is now a demeaning phrase for unshakeable trust in the validity of one’s intuitive flashes of insight: “confirmation bias.” We want something to be true so we assume that it is by interpreting suggestive hints and signs as undeniable evidence, and then act accordingly whether or not it is warranted under the circumstances. The metaphysical skeptic agrees that this may not be entirely the case, although prophecies (appealing or otherwise) can tend to become self-fulfilling with enough psychological reinforcement, sometimes to our detriment.
It is tempting to hang our faith on a single point of encouragement arising from a reading and dismiss any less sanguine aspects, but as Aristotle said “One swallow does not a summer make, nor one fine day; similarly one day or brief time of happiness does not make a person entirely happy.” A situation is very seldom “all good” as the purveyors of uncritical affirmation insist; Macgregor Mathers coined the expression “blended pleasure” that implies transitory satisfaction and fits many if not most predictive scenarios, while lyric poet Algernon Charles Swinburne’s memorable turn of phrase is even more to-the-point: “pleasure with pain for leaven.” The full picture must be taken into consideration and allowances made for any likely obstacles that justify rethinking of the proposed course, all for the purpose of making the best of what one has been given to work with. It’s the least an honest skeptic can do for his or her clients.
Originally published at http://parsifalswheeldivination.wordpress.com on June 14, 2023.
