 Rationality and mysticism are often seen as opposites. Rationalists use logic and reason to make sense of the world, while mystics claim to transcend reason by directly experiencing, they say, the oneness of the universe. But then when you ask them to defend their position, mystics will often claim that language is just too limited and cannot convey the deep truths that they understand. Rationalists, like myself, are often left scratching our heads, unsatisfied and unpersuaded. But I'd like to make the case for mysticism, not because I believe it's true, but because I think a persuasive and logical argument can be made. In the West, we're generally only presented with a California-ized version of mysticism that's espoused by surfer dudes everywhere like, whoa, all is one, man, isn't that deep? But in reality, these ideas are well developed in Eastern philosophy and are extremely subtle and reasonable. Though I don't believe they're accurate, every critical thinker must grapple with them. By mysticism, I mean the proposition that when you break down reality to its most fundamental essence, all is one. And because of this conclusion, there is indeed a way to transcend reason without breaking any logical rules or discarding our own sensibility. And we certainly don't need to appeal to quantum physics's magical woo-woo nonsense. The argument is about boundaries. And it's a natural extension of the argument I made earlier against the existence of objects. It just takes it one step further. I won't rehash the entire argument, but in a nutshell, what we call objects are fundamentally just concepts without a mind they wouldn't exist. The object's constituent parts would exist, they're atoms and particles, but not as a unified and independent thing. The boundary between floor and chair is something that's entirely linguistic and artificial. The act of naming this versus that is a function of the mind. It's useful, but it creates an illusion of living in a world of objects when in reality we live in a world of concepts. The mystic simply applies this idea consistently. They say that all divisions between things have the same quality. They are artificial projections of the mind. They're merely names. So where is the boundary between myself and other things, between subject and object, between the perceiver and the perceived? The mystic profoundly claims there is none. If no meaningful boundaries exist, then my being cannot have boundaries either. Whatever exists is everything, which is the only thing that is. The conception of the human mind is only that, a conception. It's a word. It's nothing fundamental. Without our naming it, it wouldn't be. Now, if what I've said is true so far, then it also justifies the mystic's critique of language and reason. Think about words. What do they do? They distinguish and reference this from that. They help us navigate the world. But they also make claims about what is. If you want to reference what ultimately exists, what words could we even use? Literally, none. If you're linguistically referencing something, anything at all, then you're dividing up the world. And if nature isn't meaningfully divided, then it's futile to use language to try to talk about what actually exists. You can only concretely point out, in fact, what isn't? What is the ultimate nature of reality? Well, it's not this or that if you can talk about it. It's not your mind or the physical world. It's not anything at all. Now, not because this is for magical or cryptic reasons, but because it logically cannot ever be referenced. This way of thinking also indicts human reason, or at least it seriously deflates its ability. Rationality is an attempt to make sense of the world using our minds, but from the mystics point of view, rationality misleads us. It deals with a bunch of words, sentence after sentence, of such and such as this and that. When really, regardless of how you jumble the words together, you'll never learn anything about what really is. The tool of language itself is flawed to the mystic. It's like trying to drive from Nevada to Kentucky in a canoe. You're just using the wrong equipment. If language doesn't get us closer to ultimate reality, or if it actively distracts us from it, is there any way to know the truth? Yes, according to the mystic, silence. When the mind becomes quiet and stops naming things, you can experience boundarylessness, the oneness that is everything. That's the real you. And realize this isn't you separate from not you, but only you. Now perhaps to the surprise of Westerners, this is where meditation comes from. It's not for health benefits. The goal of meditation is to quiet the mind's word games and just be ultimately resulting in a disillusion of your own ego or sense of self as separate from the rest of the universe. They claim that when you just are, you experience what is, namely everything. Now I have never experienced this state of mind, but many people have. It can be achieved through advanced practice of meditation or more popularly in the West through psychedelic drug use. The majority of mystics that I've spoken with have arrived at their belief through a drug-induced psychedelic experience, but this does not discredit their ideas. After all, probably more than a billion people on Earth believe that all is one and that this self is ultimately illusory. This isn't some crank philosophy conjured up by a bunch of hippies. Now further in favor of mysticism, consider the implications if all is not one. Not just in terms of objects, but in terms of the self. Assume that the self has meaningful boundaries, an existence that is independent of our conception of it. What does that mean? It implies, necessarily I think, that the self is non-physical. If it were physical, it would play by the same rules as other objects, i.e. it wouldn't actually be an independent thing. So if all is not one, we're left with a non-physical being that is separate from the physical particles which make up human bodies. Now essentially that's pretty much a definition of a soul, or perhaps a ghost. Now, I do think a strong case can be made for the existence of souls, but the implications are equally enormous. So I see a clear dichotomy. Either all is one, and the self is a losery, or all is not one, and we live in a world of souls. Not exactly an easy decision either way. Now to be honest, most people that I've met who espouse mysticism like this don't actually have a clear understanding of their own beliefs, and they portray them terribly. But when you dive into the real philosophy underpinning their ideas, the rabbit hole goes very deep. Suddenly, the stereotypical old wise man speaking in paradoxes doesn't seem so crazy. He's trying to convey an idea which language literally cannot convey. Of course he's going to sound a bit silly. Plus, consider the following question. Why do so many people believe that their selves have boundaries in the first place? Why do people think that we aren't ultimately all the same thing? It's entirely because of our experience. We seem to walk around and experience things from a boundary point of view. So we conclude we must have boundaries. But what if our experiences were different? If we walked around feeling like in fact we were the entire universe. Well then mysticism would seem like the most reasonable conclusion. And countless mystics throughout history have claimed exactly that. They claim they have experienced the world this way. And usually their claims are met with derision. And many things like I am God. Or you are in me and I am in you. And most people immediately assume that they're insane. At least in our culture. But I think this is a grave philosophic error. The mystics conclusions might be wrong, but the underlying idea should be treated with the utmost seriousness. And you can help support the creation of a more rational world view. To read this article or to learn about my books, check out stevedashpatterson.com