What mysticism is not

Four misconceptions

When the subject is a slippery one like “mysticism,” we can expect misunderstandings. In a recent post, I recommended – and still do – The Secret History of Western Esotericism Podcast (“The SHWEP”). Make no mistake, it’s a scholarly podcast, presented by those involved in the academic historical study of Western philosophical and religious traditions, those especially that have been largely forgotten, suppressed, or continue in the mainstream with their origins obscured. As I noted in my recommendation, the podcast’s appeal to readers of this Substack page should be obvious. But then, after having made the recommendation, I began to have reservations about the sort of misunderstanding such a word as “esotericism” engenders. Since I desire to avoid misunderstanding whenever possible, it’s a word I’ve intentionally avoided using here. For one thing, to be entirely honest, I tend to believe that most in-house “revelations” held to be “esoteric” (secret) by a given coterie are dubious – and the more conviction their adherents have regarding their truth, the more dubious still. However, “The SHWEP,” despite its provocative title, is an intellectually sound podcast and worthy of your time, assuming your interest runs in the direction of history. It’s not only “esotericism,” though, that can be confused with “mysticism”; there are other infelicitous ideas that can be associated with it – often for good reason, unfortunately. Therefore, it might be useful for me to stress what I regard as a healthy-minded “mysticism” by distinguishing it from four particularly misleading associations, including “esotericism” (in the follow-up post, I will discuss what sort of discipline might help us steer clear of taking these wrong turns). This post, then, is a look at what I do not mean by “mysticism.”