Professor X VS. James Randi
Dr. Charles Xavier decided it was an all-nighter sort of evening, most certainly, after he'd read several articles by a Mr. James Randi dismissing the supernatural, paranormal, or what Charles called “trans-mystical.” He proceeded to enter the library and, for the next 10 consecutive hours, exhaustively researched, reasoned, and wrote:
...James Randi is perhaps the quintessence of this opposing worldview. He first made an international name for himself as an escape artist and magician. Today, Randi devotes his time and effort to debunking trans-mystical claims with his James Randi Educational Foundation, which serves as “an educational resource on the paranormal, pseudoscientific, and the supernatural” – which, according to my definitions of trans-mysticality and epistemic normativity, and considering the track record of JREF,16 translates to “an educational resource devoted to disprove any epistemic normativity related to trans-mysticality.”
While the image of this organization appears to take a neutral, objective, unbiased, and open-minded stance in assessing the truth-value of trans-mystical claims, this does not seem to be true, for several reasons. The foundation’s most well-known offer, perhaps, is one million dollars for any individual who demonstrates to its team, in a systematically controlled scientific manner and setting, that his or her supposed trans-mystical ability is real. For the past fifteen years, hundreds of claimants have attempted to demonstrate their ability in accordance with such a structure – but no one has convinced Randi and his board of anything paranormal, pseudoscientific, and/or supernatural. This fact seems rather strange considering the amount of evidence suggestive of trans-mysticality’s epistemic normativity but, when considered more thoroughly, actually makes simple psychological sense.
Randi and his foundation are not and cannot be as truly neutral, objective, unbiased, and open-minded as it would like the public to believe. The reason why this statement holds true is even simpler: Randi, and the worldview that he represents, does not want to be proven wrong. Ironically, science, which in theory should be totally objective, is in many ways far more enslaved by its own ego than is the individual who claims egoic transcendence.
Psychoanalysis on the language of JREF’s articles webpage painfully indicates an immense amount of negative emotion, namely ridicule, projected in response to the claimants who have recently been “debunked,” as evidenced in the titles to these articles. “Journalist Promotes Nonsense,” “Down-Under Developments,” “Dump This Series,” “Apologies,” . . . “Dumb Is As Dumb Does,” “Geller Reviews,” “Australia Takes a Backward Step,” “Those Stupid Patches,” “Hot Item,” “How to Swindle the Suckers,” “Another Healer Blooms,” “Sentenced,” “That Bogus Patent,” . . . “Magic Rebuffed,” “The Bates Debate,” “Sylvia In the Suds,” “Buy Now,” “Enough Damn Lightbulbs,” “More Patent Office Nonsense,” ...
Science – true science – has no business messing with ego, emotion, and ridicule – or so it would seem relative to what science is in theory. Yet far too often, what may be true in theory does not translate as being true in practice. This unscientific contradictory language may in fact be most illustrated in Randy Moore’s article “Debunking the Paranormal: We Should Teach Critical Thinking as a Necessity for Living, Not Just As a Tool for Science.”
I believe that the language and logic underlying Moore’s work here is indeed quite reflective and accurate of the general viewpoint crusading against this possibility that not all trans-mystical experiences are crazy or stupid. The article begins by noting “our” gradual decline of scientific literacy throughout the decades. “Pseudoscience” has gained more and more prominence, brainwashing more and more people to be simply delusional. For instance, “The popularity of astrology and similar pseudoscientific shams attests to the unwillingness to think critically.” As Moore sees it, astrology is not real science because it has much more to do with the categories of business and fantasy than with those of truth and reality. Just look at all the pop astrologers who make their living by adding color and excitement to their customers’ lives. For Moore, the fact that something like astrology is so commercialized means that it has more to do with emotion than with reason. For Moore, such con-artistry leaves otherwise innocent agents of reason tragically vulnerable to being ripped off.
He continues by sarcastically explaining that if someone wants to know the sex of his or her unborn child, and if this person believes in trans-mysticality, then (s)he might as well ask a so-called fortune teller about it rather than have the doctor check its DNA structure – since, clearly, if trans-mysticality is at all real, then it should have the same practical utility as conventional science. This belief assumes that “science,” whatever that should mean, is not only the best means for acquiring knowledge and understanding, but is also the only means, really.
Why? Because “There are no sacred truths, no forbidden questions and no testable issues too sensitive to be questioned. Unlike religion and the paranormal, science values criticism and thrives on debate.” Indeed, “science” has absolutely no dogmas, no biases, no fallacies, no neuroses, and no psychoses of its own, no “forbidden question” that its adherents are too afraid to ask. Even though fear of ostracism is certainly at play (and currently winning the game), there is no “testable issue too sensitive to be questioned,” despite that “science” is worried frantically in the back of its collective mind that, in parallel, its most dominant worldview relative to more recently emergent ones is being outdated and replaced, just as the Church’s most dominant worldview succumbed to the Renaissance, Reformation, Scientific Revolution, Enlightenment, etc. Moore rhetorically asks, “What’s the evidence for talking with dead people or predicting the future? None, of course. Moreover, psychics and ESP violate the commonsense knowledge that all communication requires our normal sense.”
Yet alas, this statement is based upon two dogmas or assumptions: 1) that there in fact is no evidence for talking with dead people or predicting the future, and 2) that all communication really requires only our normal sense. Moore responds by proclaiming that, “If you’re going to accept spirits and ghosts as real, you might as well accept headlines such as ‘Elvis’s Ghost Is Caught in Mom’s Vacuum Cleaner.’” Yet alas, again, the statement makes a category judgment before that statement is even thought through or written. This category judgment, using my terms, is that trans-mysticality is fantasy and science is reality. Moving along, “Paranormal hokum is a multi-billion-dollar business [taking advantage of] people’s inability or refusal to think critically...Nevertheless, the paranormal will probably remain a big business because it provides a convenient blue sky and rainbow.”
The latter part of this claim further reinforces the aforementioned category judgment – that “a convenient blue sky and rainbow,” or whatever myth this phrase signifies, is not nor cannot be real in the same way that pure, infinite energy, infinite simplicity, transforming into differentiated, infinite phenomena, infinite complexity, can itself be “real.” But if the obedient scientist were to rethink his own deprived mythology such to reinterpret it as something as wondrous and fantastical as the myth/idol/joke that Moore means by “convenient blue sky and rainbow,” then perhaps he would come to realize that, from one perspective, even the big bang theory is proof of “magic” – proof that while science is supposed to map reality, reality is not necessarily “not-fantasy.” This category judgment is so simple – yet so subtle and determining, simultaneously. If fantasy can equal reality, then the psychological or emotional resistance against opening one’s mind to the first-, second-, and third-person evidence indicative of trans-mysticality’s epistemic normativity significantly lessens.
Moore adds “...we can’t force students to submit their beliefs to tests of scientific reasoning and logic. Many people’s beliefs are much stronger than their willingness to think, their desire to learn or their ability to reason.” Psychoanalytically, this statement could easily and (again) all too ironically apply to Moore himself and the worldview that his article so captures. His belief that trans-mysticality is fantasy and science is reality may indeed be much stronger than his “willingness to think,” his “desire to learn,” or his “ability to reason.” But there is hope for the crusade against trans-mysticality – for “...we can teach students the value of basing their decisions on logic and evidence rather than on blind faith, hocus-pocus, mythology, religious dogma and fantasy.” Again, as evidenced in this last remark by Moore, trans-mysticality is fantasy and science is reality and, even more psychologically entrenched, fantasy cannot be reality. Nietzschean pacification has indeed lulled the soul’s once ecstatic love affair with goodness, truth, and beauty.
While I could cite more examples of discourse that make a case against trans-mysticality, I do not think that this is needed. I have provided ample first-person, second-person, and third-person evidence pointing to the reality and value of trans-mystical experience - which is essential, in this case, because the stance that I have taken throughout this research faces the burden of proof far more (on the surface) than does its opposition. Still, to illustrate the logic and psychology of this latter stance, the fewer sources that I have incorporated nonetheless compensate for such quantitative deficiency, by their exemplifying this particular worldview, and from my in-depth conversation with and psychoanalysis of them. The remainder of this project shall engage in a dialogue between three most relevant worldviews in hope of assessing their respective “pros” and “cons” in relation to the subject of trans-mysticality, and then using this assessment as conclusive testament to the present essay. The reader now has a much more comprehensive outlook on the research topic as a whole. It is time to determine how this individual should interpret such a topic.
Contributions and Shortcomings of Three Main Perspectives on Trans-mysticality Francis Fukuyama implements a strategy in The End of History and the Last Man that I seek to utilize for this final section. He acknowledges three most relevant, or encompassing, ideologies that have been in conflict with one another especially throughout this past century. These ideologies are traditionalism, liberalism, and postmodernism. The method is particularly effective because it not only acknowledges the “biggest players in the game,” so to speak, but it also compares and contrasts them. I shall do likewise for the remainder of this paper. These three perspectives are to be called anti-trans-mysticality, neutral-trans-mysticality, and pro-trans-mysticality. Moore epitomizes the first view, for reasons already stated, while Wilber epitomizes the third view, for reasons already stated. For reasons now to be stated, Foucault epitomizes the second view.
The process/system-oriented holism in Foucault’s epistemic style moves him away from considering matters of positive goodness and truth. Foucault abstains from making any deliberate normative assertion both epistemically and ethically. Instead, he – and the perspective that he represents – chooses to analyze preexisting norms and their relationship with the historical structures and processes that led to their construction and perpetuation. Foucault’s ideology epitomizes the neutral-trans-mysticality view because it could care less about the epistemic/ethical normativity of trans-mystical experience; it cares only about analyzing and understanding how this subject has become so abnormal and taboo – for the most part. Someone like Foucault chooses to suspend judgment concerning what Moore and Wilber instead choose to judge. Moore prejudges that trans-mystical claimants are all full of shit, put crudely. Wilber judges that some trans-mystical claimants are actually full of truth. Foucault would judge that trans-mysticality is definitely far more abnormal and repressed than the gross majority of academia gives credit – but without the intellectual strength and courage that Wilber has. Please know that while I already see more comprehension and value in Wilber’s position, it would be improper and irresponsible of me to dismiss the other two ideologies just as immediately, without any regard for their respective contributions along with their respective shortcomings.
Starting with anti-trans-mysticality, it is plain to see that this viewpoint is valuable because of its skepticism and reliability. Skepticism, arguably, is equally as important for any intellectual dilemma as imagination or realism. Skepticism serves a natural/inherent and useful function – that is, skepticism in appropriate moderation. Anti-trans-mysticality’s skepticism makes its method most substantial and reliable, which reinforces public respect and trust for conventional science, and convention in general. However, the skeletons of this perspective’s pros have grown excessively in direct accord with its very flaws and contradictions. These shortcomings, put simply, are absolutism and extreme bias. I cannot help but think that many scientists and people in general who fit this ideological category share roughly the same mindset/worldview as an absolutistic, extremely biased priest alive during medieval times, except their religion or mythology has shifted from absolute overemphasis of the Above, of Platonic idealism, to absolute overemphasis of the Below, of Nietzschean materialism.
Neutral-trans-mysticality’s positive features, or contributions, include flexibility and concreteness. This perspective shares the same empiricist/overemphasis of the first perspective, but its holism (rather than reductionism) allows it to be significantly more fluent or flexible than anti-trans-mysticality because, understood plainly, systems/contexts – relative to this “human condition,” at least – are changing far more rapidly than are the universe’s more inherent tendencies. Foucault’s worldview demonstrates both such flexibility and concreteness. However, neutral-trans-mysticality commits the same absolutism as anti-trans-mysticality does, except not from regarding only the Below and not the Above, but from absolutely overemphasizing the Many over the One – intersubjectivity over both subjectivity and objectivity.
If intersubjectivity is all that matters, if there is only context and our being conditioned by it, and if there is no such thing as “truth” or “goodness” in some inherently normative sense, then trans-mysticality becomes meaningless despite all the evidence that implies its meaningfulness. However, if subjectivity, intersubjectivity, and objectivity (“I,” “We,” and “It(s)”) are valued just as much as intersubjectivity alone, then the postmodern ideology that Foucault represents, in alignment with this second possible way of interpreting trans-mysticality, ceases to be postmodern and, in light of this topic, it ceases to be neutral. So the second major shortcoming of neutral-trans-mysticality is not extreme bias (or anywhere near the same degree as with anti-trans-mysticality), but instead, for lack of a better word, apathy. Yet – the time in which we now live does not call for apathy – it calls for curiosity, spontaneity, courage, action, wholeness, wisdom, love.
Perhaps my understanding of psychology does not apply here, but I am convinced, based on first-person account, that simply realizing the greater possibility that trans-mysticality is real can transform that individual for the better, enhancing or incepting qualities such as spontaneity, courage, action, wholeness, wisdom, and love. I am also convinced, based on second-person evidence, that experiencing and living the reality of trans-mysticality oneself brings exponentially more goodness and truth than merely realizing its greater possibility. We live in a context that is dominated by anti-trans-mysticality and neutral-trans-mysticality. Either “fantasy” is unreal, or we can never know for ourselves and should not even bother trying. Yet, as pro-trans-mysticality, Wilber, a rapidly growing community of others, and myself agree, the previous statement/inference/belief should be, and is in fact, “either ‘fantasy’ is real, or we have nothing to lose and the opposite to gain from attempting to know ourselves.”
Granted, we must of course honor all unique contributions that the other two perspectives bring. There is value in a moderate degree of skepticism; there is value to concrete demonstration; there is value to scientific convention; and there is value to flexibility or fluency due to acknowledging the importance of systems, relationships, and collectivity in general. But there is also value to seeing the coherence and connection between two seemingly indifferent or contradictory worldviews (in addition to seeing the two in the first place), so as to synthesize one that both transcends and includes them in apposite moderation and optimal wholeness. Perhaps an entirely new worldview or evolution in collective consciousness is, and has been, emerging. Perhaps the emergence of this new, comprehensive, holistic, and integrative way of thinking and living shall positively transform today’s global society/culture exponentially more than the emergence of modernity/liberalism positively transformed the unhealthy, outdated, and/or exhausted society/culture of its time.
Make no mistake; my intention with this work, as a whole, is not to convince the reader that trans-mysticality definitely has epistemic normativity. Rather, it is to show the anti-trans-mysticalist and neutral-trans-mysticalist hold subtle flaws in their worldviews in relation to the greater completeness and unity of the pro-trans-mysticalist’s worldview, as epitomized by Wilber and defined by holisticity. My goal with this paper is to inspire its reader to see that 1) trans-mysticality’s taboo is excessive and for the most part unuttered (especially within the intellectual community), 2) there is a vast, integrative, and comprehensive amount of legitimate evidence that gives reason to see beyond this taboo, and 3) there is immense value to opening one’s mind more and expanding one’s conscientiousness toward the possibility that one’s (most influential) worldview is really inadequate to maximize this opportunity that we scholars, and agents of positive global change, have before us.
This opportunity as I see it is quite literally – and likely – a Second Renaissance, a Second Reformation, a Second Enlightenment, a Second American Revolution, a Second Industrial Revolution, etc., but relative to this pluralistic, global, exponential context that marks planet Earth at this time. This opportunity, these opportunities, are such that we individuals can co-create a world in which the human potential is maximized and all life on Earth is allowed to thrive and flourish in fantastical equilibrium and abundance. Perhaps now is finally the time when humankind can wake up from its cocoon and emerge soaring as a magnificent butterfly. In light of such speculations and such emotional and hyperbolic language, know with certainty that I myself hold with maximum conviction that addressing and fixing trans-mysticality’s taboo is ineffably worthwhile, especially for anyone intelligent and privileged enough to have just processed all of this information.
Feeling satisfied, the young scholar concluded his all-nighter by emailing the work to Mr. Randi - then passing out on his dorm bed.