The Rationalist and the Mystic, Part 2

The scenario is simple and well-known: Person 1 has a revelation and is spoken to by Jesus. Person 1 believes that this is confirmation of Christian doctrine. Person 2 has a revelation and is spoken to by Krishna. Person 2 believes that this is confirmation of Hindu doctrine. As the two are not in agreement on all points, it is clear to the outside observer that both cannot be true. What conclusions can be drawn from this?

Some people may dismiss both "revelations" as false, on the grounds that people from a wide variety of cultures might have comparable experiences which agree with neither of the above when it comes to details. In other words, it is clear that one's belief system entering into such an event has a lot to do with what the person experiences and perceives, and thus it is clear that the person is experiencing something other than objective reality. This would be a typical skeptical viewpoint.

The mystic might interpret the above scenario a little differently. The fact that neither person is likely to have experienced objective reality should be taken as a warning against the assumption that one's own experiences (and interpretations) are necessarily objective facts. In other words, the discrepancies between Person 1 and Person 2 cannot be taken as serious disproof of the extraordinary (for lack of a better term). Similarly, the fact that two people on opposite sides of the world might look into the sky and see extremely different depictions of the sun does not disprove the existence of the sun.

Robert Anton Wilson illustrates a healthy attitude about such matters when he talks about the time he believed he was receiving transmissions from Sirius. After a while, he decided to test whether other views of the matter would interpret his experiences equally well. For example, could those transmissions have been from a 6'3" white rabbit, like in the movie Harvey? He thought so. He also thought that the transmissions could just as easily be interpreted as coming from the right side of his brain. In the end, he decided to stick with the white rabbit explanation because he was unlikely to take it too seriously.

This approach seems like a good way to ward against fanaticism. But in any case, I hope that by now the idea that our little scenario "disproves" the mystical experience is looking a little shallow. Those things that Persons 1 & 2 perceived were occurring in the brain, of course, but that has nothing to do with how powerfully the experiences may have affected their lives.

On the other hand, if Person 3 (Sufi Muslim) and Person 4 (atheist) both pray to Allah hoping for a personal revelation, I would bet good money that Person 3 will get results well before Person 4. The reason is because Person 4 would probably not be able to break free of the "this is bullshit" mentality. We might say that Person 3 wants to prove that the idea of God is false, and Person 4 wants to prove the opposite. Interestingly, and importantly, if they both apply themselves with equal fervor and single-mindedness, both will obtain the proofs they desire.

It is not too much of a leap, then, to suppose that Person 5, who ain't no slouch, might be able to obtain both proofs by willingly entering the mindsets which are most likely to produce them. From Person 5's lofty viewpoint, both contradictory claims appear perfectly true from within their own encompassing mindsets. My, what a flexible mind Person 5 has!

Next post: You can't prove nothin', ya superstitious wishy-washy new-age flake!