hello!

Welcome to my website!

So… what’s this “modern mystic” about you might ask… well, about that then. I like to be clear, so I’ll begin with the relevant definitions of these words, from the Oxford.

modern /ˈmɒdn / ▸ adjective relating to the present or recent times as opposed to the remote past; denoting a current or recent style or trend in art, architecture, or other cultural activity marked by a significant departure from traditional styles and values. ▸ noun a person who advocates or practises a departure from traditional styles or values.

mystic /ˈmɪstɪk / ▸ noun a person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect.

Ok, so what is a modern mystic? Or who am I that a modern mystic is? Or is the question really, who am I? Whatever the case, what it’s really all about for me is an incessant curiousity. Never settling for an answer when it seems like there may be a deeper truth. In fact, a quote I came across a number of years ago about truth does a reasonably good job of pointing at what drives me.

“In the end, we return to the question, just how much do you love truth? Do you really love truth or are you just curious? Do you love it enough to rebuild your understanding to conform to a reality that doesn’t fit your current beliefs, and doesn’t feel 120% happy? Do you love truth enough to continue seeking even when it hurts, when it reveals aspects of yourself (or human society, or the universe) that are shocking, complex and disturbing, or humbling, glorious and amazing – or even, when truth is far beyond human mind itself? Just how much do we love truth? It’s a good questions to ask ourselves, I think.” – Scott Mandelker

Truth. What is it? Simply defined, truth is “the body of real things, events, and facts” or “the property of being in accord with fact or reality” or “sincerity in action, character, and utterance” or “god” (definitions from Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary). Interesting, that last one; the first definition of “god” provided by Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary is “the supreme or ultimate reality” and I believe it is this with which mysticism is primarily concerned. It is important to note that this truth can only be experienced directly, as anything else is hearsay.

But wait, isn’t direct experience inherently subjective? And if this is indeed the case, then is it even possible for anything to be absolutely or objectively true? Well, it turns out that there is a wide variety of theories of truth, five types of which are considered the most substantive: Correspondence, Coherence, Pragmatic, Constructivist, and Consensus.

Correspondence theories of truth are where true beliefs or statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. However, language can present problems here as some languages have words for concepts that others do no, therefore the words used to construct a “true” statement may or may not actually propertly represent the truth.

Coherence theories of truth require a proper fit of elements within a whole system, where the completeness and conprehensiveness of an underlying set of concepts is critical in determining the validity of a coherent system. This begs the question of whether there are many possible true systems or a single absolute system.

Pragmatic theories of truth relate to the results of putting concepts into practice. William James’ version of this theory presents the idea that truth is a quality, the value of which is confirmed by is effectiveness when applied in practice. A newer variation presented by William Ernest Hocking known as “negative pragmatism” presents that idea that what works may or may not be true, but that fails cannot be true because the truth always works. Richard Feynman seemed to agree, “we are never definitely right, we can only be sure we are wrong.”

Constructivist theories of truth view all our knowledge as “constructed,” and that perceptions of truth are seen as contingent on convention, human perception, and social experience. Therefore, culture, history, and representations of physical reality such as gender, race, and sexuality are believed to be socially constructed.

Consensus theories of truth present that truth is whatever is agreed upon, or might come to be agreed upon, by some specified group, whether that group includes all human beings or a subset thereof. These theories present the idea that we live in a reality that has been agreed upon, but is it agreed upon by all human beings or just a particular subset? And if a subset, which subset? I have some ideas, but that’s not the topic of this post.

I acknowledge that this post may not do justice to this subject and these theories; I hope that it’s enough to offer an expanded awareness of the subject, and that it may inspire some to reflect on their own ideas and perceptions about truth as well as how we relate to it individually and collectively. Personally, of the theories presented here, I align most closely with the pragmatists, particularly the negative pragmatists. What works? What doesn’t work? These are important considerations for our lives as lived. And the acknowledgement that we may never fully know what’s true about everything, but that we can determine what isn’t leaves space for life’s mystery as we continue to make our discoveries about it.