I think there's room for mystics to disagree about that. It depends what's meant by "absurd." If nature is so absurd that none of our statements about it have any meaning at all, then yeah, applying logic or science to the world would be pointless. But I don't think we're dealing with that degree of absurdity. I'm a pragmatic neo-Kantian about epistemology and scientific objectivity. And I aim to combine that with some existentialism, pantheism, and transhumanism. It's a balancing act, but I think it's doable.

So the "therefore" in that case was about the limits of scientific explanation. The point was that nature has to start itself without resulting from anything supernatural. Still, the naturalistic account of nature's origin posits a wildly counterintuitive starting point that's absurd in that it makes a mockery of our intuitions. The absurdity that interest me is the clash between reality and the lifeworld.