One day I received this quote from the works of Rand without any comment or argument in my mail box. I've never read Rand before, so this view of her on mysticism was quite unfamiliar to me. First I was perplexed, for here I and my fellow mystics were being accused of hatred for the most glorious part of the human soul (as it is at least in my view) and that's no small allegation; but later on, after some consideration, I warmly thanked the sender. For he offered the opportunity to think about the relation between mysticism and knowledge. So let's think about this problem for a while.
Knowledge may be defined as the faculty of human reason that enables the individual to cope with his surroundings. Traditionally this knowledge is in the field of epistemology divided into two distinct branches, namely knowledge a priori, or intuitive/conceptual knowledge, and knowledge a posteriori or empirical knowledge. Mysticism as a science is mainly concerned with knowledge a priori, so this type of knowledge will mainly be dealt with in this essay, but efforts will also be made to show that complete and valuable knowledge a posteriori cannot be made without the help of this first knowledge a priori, a knowledge that, as will be shown, stems from a supernatural source.
Let's start with the second kind of knowledge, which is in most cases the easiest to understand. From early childhood onwards man is categorising all the impressions he receives from his senses. His brain has the function to see the relationships among the seemingly different objects he perceives. He learns that all the objects in the world are not chaotically unrelated, but that there is a plan behind the diversity. The brain forms knowledge from the sense data by processing concepts. So a child eg. learns that all pet animals, whether they are cat, dog, rabbit etc., can be grouped as pets. In this case this kind of knowledge stems mainly from his practise of dealing with animals at home.
This knowledge is some sort of a second hand knowledge, because it depends mainly on the outside world and our perception of it. It can only react passively to what is given to our senses. If we don't see or hear the data we will not form the required knowledge. If you have never seen a volcano before or heard or read about it, you will not have a clue about what it actually is and you will not know about its dangers. So this type of knowledge is not completely free, although it has its own ways of grouping, selecting and choosing the data it needs to form its concepts. It's also relatively free in combining new concepts with those already formed using memory as a tool. But it will always depend on the given sense data and needs to be confirmed by them.
If this were to be the only kind of knowledge man had, he would be like a vulnerable leaf in a autumn storm. He would always depend on the rather limited knowledge his senses would procure. The storm of the outside world would give him a very fragmentary view of life. Though his brain would give him concepts to see a plan behind the diversity, there would not be an integrated knowledge to give sense to the concepts and the plan formed. In order to know the inside of the world (the overall plan of it, so to speak), nature has given man a second kind of knowledge, a knowledge coming completely from the inside. It's usually called knowledge a priori because it is functioning before all sense data are gathered and catalogued.
Knowledge a posteriori depends on this second kind of knowledge (or rather first kind of knowledge because it comes at forehand). For in order to have the ability to group and to conceptualise the given sense data, empirical knowledge must have an anticipative knowledge of its own which makes it work. In mystical language we say that there is a Knower behind the knowledge. There is a given consciousness which knows that we are forming knowledge. This consciousness is already there and procures the framework and the rules of this forming knowledge. This consciousness forms knowledge a priori or immediate, intuitive knowledge. In this case the ideas, theories and concepts directly stem from consciousness itself, which is superhuman and lies at the foundation of Being. We now have entered the realm of metaphysics.
As human beings we are able to gather knowledge from within, without the help of sense data. A number of theoretical sciences work in that way, like logic or theoretical mathematics. And also, as has been said, our perception of the outside reality has knowledge a priori as its basis. We know of space, time and causality because of the framework given by this immediate knowledge. Furthermore all theoretical sciences having to do with human behaviour and human intercourse are more guided from within than from without and derive their maxims more from internal reasoning a priori than from collecting sense data, in other words, are more deductive than inferential. A good example of such a science is ethics, which investigates the hidden rules of conduct that govern human behaviour. Surely, in studying ethics we also look at the praxis of human behaviour, but when we really want to decide whether a given conduct is acceptable or objectionable, we can only look within and try to formulate the rules which we think govern conduct. It's only starting from these internal rules that we can begin to have a serious discussion.
So by now it seems reasonable to conclude that a great part of our knowledge comes from within, without being formed or only superficial aided by our senses. Now let's go back to the subject at hand. Is the kind of knowledge advocated by mysticism valuable? Is it 'motivated by hatred for man's mind', which means that it is not compatible with human reason? Is mystical knowledge 'unscientific' and to be abhorred by all sensible and serious people? The answer is, quod est demonstrandum, no. Mystical knowledge is on a par with all the other types of knowledge a priori like logic or ethics in being a type of knowledge that is immediately given by our consciousness. Like empirical knowledge this knowledge a priori is derived from experiences, but these experiences are not of a sensual character. They are experienced intuitively. From these experiences comes forth a knowledge that is as much true for the mystic as all empirical knowledge is for the observer. But like empirical knowledge it is just as difficult to obtain for some one who has not experienced.
In the case of mysticism knowledge not only grows by accumulating sense data, but also by contact with the stillness of Ultimate Reality. It's an observable fact that can be measured and corroborated by scientific investigations, that the knowledge of the mystic increases as he is doing his mystical work. He becomes more assured, more definite about the transcendent grounds of his existence. He not only thinks about metaphysics, but he is living and experiencing it every day. From this everyday experience his knowledge stems. He becomes an expert in this field. Like some one who has seen a volcano, he is just as sure about the existence of Transcendent Reality. From his day to day contact with it he knows about the character and the predicates of this Reality. He is just as sure about the real content of his knowledge as some one is who feels a deep love for another person. These feelings are real and furnish a definite knowledge about reality.
Contrary
to the thought of Ayn
Rand
it can be argued that the knowledge procured by mysticism does not stem
from hatred for human reason but from a deep love for it. After the
mystical
experience the mind of the mystic is very clear and orderly. By now he
is
capable of good and sound reasoning, giving deep insights in all
problems
having to do with human reason, because his mind becomes re-energised
in
contact with the divine. Proof of this can be gathered from the history
of mysticism, where you can find more than one genius in the field of
philosophy.
Just study the works of St. Augustine, Eckhart, Plato, Plotinus,
Shankara
et multi alii and you'll have proof of this. These were very
intellectual
thinkers who tried to think out all the problems concerning human
reason
in its relation to the sensual and non sensual world. They were not
motivated
by hatred, but they saw reason as the divine spark that connects us
with
the divine. For them human reason was something holy.
