This article is actually an older one, from seven months ago.

The big question about mysticism for me is how subversive it is or should be. To what extent is mysticism coopted by unenlightened society to justify unspiritual pursuits? Or is there a dual narrative about mysticism, an esoteric and an exoteric one, the one being less reassuring than the other?

Certainly in the self-help industry we see a coopted, degraded form of mysticism off of which some are profiting. We could call this inauthentic mysticism, just as Americanized Christianity is in some ways fake.

The way you interpret the link between mysticism and altruism reminds me of Superman. If you knew you were an immortal superpowerful person, would you choose to become a superhero? In the comics there's a Nietzschean aspect, a choice between superheroism and supervillainy, made by those who are beyond good and evil in the conventional sense.

Is it just self-evident that if you had nothing to fear, you'd opt for "homeostatic equilibrium" or altruism? I doubt it, because nature creates largely by destroying old orders. You could rationalize the choice to be a supervillain by saying the old system is corrupt and needs to be destroyed to make way for something new and better.

One of the main points I want to make in this context is that the mystic shouldn't be expected to adopt slave morality. The enlightened mystic is in the Ubermensch's role, beyond conventional conceptions of right and wrong.