It might be productive to find a method that ferrets out the buffoonery in mysticism. Mysticism’s intangibility, it seems, poses a challenge to the rational technologically driven science of today. My good friend Marcus, a German particles physicist was doing his internship at Fermilab. A staunch materialist, he asked me why I thought universities and even my culture doesn’t invest any resources in mysticism. Thinking this was a real question, I talked at length about cultural epochs of the last 2,000 years. The Dark Ages that were economically dependent on an illiterate workforce; the Inquisition forcefully squashing heresies; The Black Plague creating an opportunity for the powers that be to capitalize on the fears of the uneducated; the Age of Reason fighting the political church for the existence of Scientific study; Logical Positivism and the Vienna Circle jumping on this band wagon to infiltrate our Occidental universities with a language that obliterated any conversation that might be superstitious thus throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Oh I was so animated as he watched me magnificently 😉 methodically pull out one epoch after another. When he was sure I was spent he quietly said, “Amanda, this isn’t about The Black Death or Logical Positivism. It’s simply that mysticism doesn’t exist.” wow. Marcus really does love me – and yet he’s my nemesis and to be honest, I’m so glad he’s there. This is when I developed “Out of the Box.”

As Marcus explained the reason it is impractical to invest resources to explore mysticism is because its too intangible so here’s a cursory Wiki beginning to find the meat.

A Wikipedia definition of [Theology][] is the following:

Augustine of Hippo defined the Latin equivalent, theologia, as “reasoning or discussion concerning the Deity”;[2] Richard Hooker defined “theology” in English as “the science of things divine”.[3] The term can, however, be used for a variety of different disciplines or fields of study.[4] Theologians use various forms of analysis and argument (philosophical, ethnographic, historical, spiritual and others) to help understand, explain, test, critique, defend or promote any of myriad religious topics. Theology might be undertaken to help the theologian (numbers are Wiki footnotes):

understand more truly their own religious tradition,[5]
understand more truly another religious tradition,[6]
make comparisons among religious traditions,[7]
defend or justify a religious tradition,
facilitate reform of a particular tradition,[8]
assist in the propagation of a religious tradition,[9] or
draw on the resources of a tradition to address some present situation or need,[10]
draw on the resources of a tradition to explore possible ways of interpreting the world,[11]
and explore the nature of divinity without reference to any specific tradition or
challenge (ex. biblical criticism) or oppose (ex. irreligion) a religious tradition or the religious world-view.

Even by just pulling up a Wiki understanding of our problem here, we can still develop a working approach that works to clarify a process that can be defined and explored with the same rigor and thoroughness as any structured religion (or science) that may engage mysticism. Theological understanding might provide a bridging language within a construct of corporeal human experiences provided by Hieros Gamos. The purpose is important because sex then provides us with our physical experience connected with the unseen Divine. As I’ve said [before][]: that HOW we interpret this information is a matter of perspective. Such an intimate view of the mystic as something more than simply a product of their religiofantasy, may give us a start at finding purpose in defining human exchanges with “entities” or “conscious energy.” Such a process that connects an intangible mystic with a corporeal act can hopefully make it easier to respect and give space for the way another sees an otherwise unfamiliar reality without judging, insults or the eyerolling diminishing CRAZY labels which is only a sign of denial and reflecting attention away from WHAT it is we’re actually looking at.

and THAT’s why solid history is so fascinating.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.