I love science, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. Science is the study and explanation of phenomena. The scientific method deals in units of experiments, and is obsessed with evidence-​​based belief. Science claims the rigour of experimental repeatability is the cornerstone for explaining the unchanging laws of the universe, i.e. Truth.

But I love mysticism as well. I posit that mysticism is also an attempt to get at an understanding on existence, just in a different way. Mysticism deals in units of stories, to arrive at Meaning. Mysticism aspires to inspire actions founded on sound values. The idea of cosmic significance is a necessary abstraction to arrive at, again, universally acceptable philosophies and moralities. Meaning doesn’t have to be independent of Truth; in fact it is only enhanced by it.

As humans, we pride ourselves on our higher intelligence, but much of that vaunted intelligence is founded on abstraction. Take language and writing for example. Animals can make noises, and they can communicate, but they can’t speak or write (among themselves).

Consider a word, any word. Feather, for example. When I say feather, and you hear feather, and we both think of feathers, the feather may not actually be there in front of us. You’re imagining a memory of a real thing from the past, and you’ve associated that memory to the sound “feather”. The syllables of feather, in and of themselves, mean nothing but when uttered together with a certain timing, they mean feather. That’s an abstraction right there, and the value of that abstraction is to divorce (or invent) meaning from physicality. Whereas previously I had to show you a material feather for you to register it mentally, we can now talk about feathers immaterially.

Writing is similarly a second leap of abstraction. We had assigned spoken sounds to real things, and now we assign written shapes to spoken sounds. From a linguistic perspective, it’s easy to see why our intelligence can be said to derive from this mastery of abstraction.

A prominent linguist even proposed it might have begun with the idea of “wedding rings” (or their cultural equivalent). Just a piece of metal, but it symbolises values like chastity, commitment, unavailability. And when the spouse is not in sight, the ring is the spouse. That’s Meaning. I worship that timeless, intangible quality that’s somehow tied to this tangible, real thing.

Explanations are objective, scientific and and delivered in typical cause-​​and-​​effect form. Meanings are subjective, philosophical and they are best manifested in values and moralities. The latter is being increasingly scoffed upon – for example, one of the great public debates of our time is theism versus atheism. Religion claims to espouse the cause of Meanings, whereas atheism in clearly in the Science camp. But I find the former is obsessed with rituals and not their meanings (at least for lay-​​practitioners), and the latter is obsessed with phenomena but not their meanings (IMHO). Again, what I mean here when I say Meaning, is a transcendent (and subjective) significance. The Sun rises in the East, but what does that mean to me? Baptism makes you officially Christian, but what does that mean to you, to be officially Christian?

So the argument is moot, if you ask me. I think Truth and Meaning are both just as important. Science explains how but not why-it’s-like-that-and-not-like-something-else. Meaning can bridge that gap – but it’s not a one size fits all. Meaning is in the mind of the beholder.

For example, consider the term “best friend”. I could scientifically do studies and list down the comprehensive qualities of a “best friend”. But just because someone behaves perfectly according to that list, wouldn’t necessarily make him/​her your best friend. Your “best friend” is more personally meaningful than just objective behavioural pattern-​​matching (I hope). Do you see my point?

I could propose one possible reason for this rise of rationality. Consider religious doctrines like Hinduism and most tribal beliefs. There is a definite mysticism associated with the pantheon – on top of the stories of the various gods and their escapades, there are higher morals, and attempts at explanations. In the extreme, Hinduism, for example, is more commonly defined as a way of life, rather than a religion. Because these higher meanings trickle down in to every day speech (e.g. namaste) and actions (e.g. yoga). Perhaps my one criticism is that, over time, the meanings are de-​​emphasised or assumed to spontaneously sprout as a result of habitually performing the actions; but without knowledge of their meaning, these actions become empty rituals. I suppose there is the possibility of emergent meanings (entirely new ones) but that takes a lot of dedication and mindfulness.

I find similar mysticism in most religions! But with modernity, they are less integrated and increasingly segregated to the point of becoming mystery schools. From the Egyptian Book of the Dead to the Jewish Kabbalah, from Greek Orphism to Islam’s Sufism, to the more abstract leanings of Zen Buddhism. I would also correlate the role of esoteric subjects like tarot or astrology with these mystic beliefs. While science likes to debunk these to stem the tide of alleged con-​​men (of which I’m sure there are more than a few), these systems didn’t start off with the sole intent of cheating people or giving them false hopes. They’re too systematic (delivered in the form “if A then B”), internally consistent (not contradictory within their respective frameworks) and independently derived (Greek, Egyptian, Chinese, Indian, tribal schools, with astounding similarities) to be accused of malicious fiction.

Consider however, the role of Christianity in the rise of the Western civilisation in the recent millennia. If the claims of Gnosticism are true (and I’m inclined to believe they are), then Christianity has been ripped from its mystical roots. I question if this over-​​emphasis on the story itself, and its immediate implications (e.g. God killed Onan, so masturbation and birth control is bad.) – as opposed to a more symbolic (and abstract) framework for reasoning – is wise. To emphasise what’s on the lines rather than what’s between the lines, just sounds wrong. I say, this choice of materialism over mysticism ultimately paved the way for the rationality-​​obsessed (I would actually call it practicality-​​obsessed) society we know and love today. This is a society that says it doesn’t matter why you do something as long as you do it, and tries then to recommend actions that have the greatest (almost numerical) benefit. But this feels like treating symptoms (outcomes) with actions, but not thinking about the causes (the meanings). Without changing the causes, there is every indication of systemic deficiency . The problems and questions are still there, they just don’t bother us as much.

My point is then, Truth-​​based rationalities are well and good, and definitely beneficial. Just look at what we’ve achieved, we even landed on the Moon. Our Voyagers have entered (as of March 2013) the Heliosheath of our solar system. Just wow! Wow! I’m beaming with pride for my human family.

But our differences among ourselves are becoming increasingly fundamental. Sure, part of the reason is the increased friction and attrition of cultures due to globalisation. But I posit there is also a cognitive dissonance effect of growing up in a rational (read: practical) society that de-​​emphasises subjective Meaning. Science gives us technology and capabilities but only Meaning gives these things (higher) value and purpose (beyond profits and benefits).

So I challenge the notion of Truth as an romantic absolute singularity. When Gödel warns of the asymptotic end of axiomatic thinking, I find that very telling. I propose instead a binary system of Truth and Meaning, where both are equally important, and neither on its own can effect fundamental yet balanced outcomes. Actions of Meaning without Truth will be idealistic but removed from reality. Actions of Truth without Meaning will be practical but devoid of (higher) satisfaction. It’s not enough to have knowledge, comprehension is just as vital for sound application. It’s not enough to have talent, passion is just as vital for meaningful application. (As you can see, in both of these statements, Meaning transforms an objective resource into a a sublime, unique one.

I’ll finish off with a brief introduction to Buckminster Fuller’s (pet) theory of precession. He posits that what we term as desirable consequences should arise as by-​​products, as emergent consequences, rather than as the end-​​result of dedicated processes. The former is organic, calls for no sacrifice or patronage and is sincere. The latter can degrade pretty rapidly, for any number of reasons. Relating this back to what I’ve discussed above, I’d say Meaning is emergent but entirely asimportant as actions of Truth, because it’s Meaning that independently effects other(‘s) actions of Truth. Perhaps it would be possible to construct an entire system of actions of Truth that can achieve the same ends, but this robustness would be a false façade – incapable of becoming better and extremely prone to disintegration.