Just Passing Through

In my research, I run across debates and disputes. The difference between a debate and a dispute should be obvious: A debate tends to focus on the actual issue. A really good debate serves to define underlying issues, which helps us understand why some things are never really settled. It points back to the very fundamental assumptions, some of which cannot themselves be debated reasonably.

You have to start somewhere. A trademark of this blog is pointing out what I claim is a very fundamental difference between where the typical American in particular, and generally all Western Civilization, starts versus where I am sure the Bible starts -- that they are not at all the same place. But it's not simply about the Bible, but the whole span of what we do. I doubt there is much dispute among Christians that the Bible should frame all we do, that living Christ means no part of our human experience escapes His examination for fitness in His Kingdom. The difference is in how this gets applied, based on the means of evaluation.

We can show, as a reasonable postulate or theory, how the ANE folks adhered to a different path. That is, they may well face pretty much the same basic issues of human life, but they didn't come to their answers by the same means. In our Western intellectual traditions, we refer to that other process by a broad term -- "mysticism." Among other things, it refers to a process which passes through at least one non-rational step. In analytical logic, I have to be able to show every step. That's what we learn in math classes when they teach us about proofs (if our math classes were any good). We have a large body of material discussing how people fail to set out certain intervening steps, because it surely means coming up with a wrong conclusion. You have to account for all the parts which make up the whole. In the ANE, this was understood, but was never the final answer to things.

This rational framework didn't arise overnight. What we now call "Western Civilization" wasn't born fully developed. While good solid philosophers, particularly in Ancient Greece, did delineate this view for all to see, it took a while for the leading minds in Western Europe to formalize the details of adopting this. We can examine the writings of famous scientists in more primitive times making notes which included mystical sentiments, and we view some of their work as not entirely rational. Look up the term "alchemy" sometime. It tells the story of trying to find ways to do things we now consider impossible, chasing myths. Oddly, the turning point for academia as a whole is rejecting all inputs deemed outside the rational process, largely featured in the so-called "scientific method." We call that period of time the Enlightenment, which Christians recognize as the rise of secularism, the rejection of God and faith. We want the fruits of rational logic, even cling tightly to them, so much so we insist on trying to define our faith rationally.

Today, when I happen to stumble into a debate on something, it's clear right away who is adept at this rational logical form. Pointing out the mistakes of those who fail that standard does not settle all the disputes. We recognize way too many people don't embrace the thing totally. That in itself should indicate something, but it's mostly dismissed as proof a disputant/debater is not up to par. The image is that of the lonely few who are truly logical, part of an elite Brotherhood of Reason.

I would suggest first that were we limited to such a pure logical standard, most scientific advancements would not happen. My reading in the history of discoveries indicate the majority are found pursuing something else, or pursuing something which could not be rationally pinned down. It was a driving sense that something was missing, which we often refer to as "intuition." I contend that intuition is a primary manifestation of the necessity of mystical tools in the process.

We can easily prove the majority of those living under the ANE intellectual traditions weren't particularly adept, any more than Westerners under their own traditions. Indeed, there is plenty of room for differing over just what it might mean to be adept with such a tradition. Perhaps that's because the ANE intellectual tradition doesn't consider that question in the first place. A significant element in embracing the ANE framework is not rejecting rational logical process, but realizing it can only go so far. It cannot possibly account for all we experience, individually or together. It asserts we have to include something on a different level, a level which Western Civilization insists does not actually exist, insists it's just another form of irrationality. ANE thinking assumes it is self-evident there is something on an entirely different plane, a form of logic which passes through some area of the human consciousness which cannot be conformed to rational analysis. They still make room for acknowledging as fools those who would rather not think on any level at all, but react from emotions.

There are times when, in pursuit of my best efforts to process the world around me, I'm going to reveal results which most people will reject. In particular, I've already faced a mass of rejection from those who should be the first to understand -- my fellow believers. Answering them is not always easy, because they keep demanding I adhere to that rational process, which precludes the thing they don't accept in the first place. Because I want to hope for the best, I generally assume they simply don't get it yet. If what I have found reflects at all any part of the Ultimate Truth of things, then I'd be a fool to keep it to myself. So I keep seeking ways to open their minds to possibilities they haven't explored. To me, it's mostly a matter of countering propaganda, of ripping down the lying advertising, the false warning posters plastered all over the entrance to the hidden treasure rooms of God.

In other words, against all rational hope, I'm forging ahead.

I'm poking that mystical method into places I haven't seen it used before. I contend there is a logic to it, just not a rational process of logic. When people react to the odd pronouncements this process brings forth, I stand ready to explain how I can't explain to their satisfaction. In my debate arsenal, the weapon with the most wear and tear on it is to mention I didn't get there through a process they recognize, that I don't have to understand everything about the matter, because I understand human reasoning itself. My calling is to question the process by suggesting possibilities you probably won't even see if you confine yourself to the scientific method. So my proposition wasn't meant to start a debate, but to encourage discovery.