Shrugging The Supernatural: Ayn Rand And Occultism

       

        

When one thinks of Ayn Rand, immediately concepts of reason, rationality, and heroism come to mind. A champion of laissez faire capitalism, Rand was a beacon of logical thought. Certainly an area one would not think to place the author/philosopher would be occultism. A precursory glance at any of Rand’s books makes it clear that mysticism wasn't in the repertoire of subjects tackled. At least not overtly. Could it be that Ayn Rand was an occult figure in her own way?

                

The inherent problem with Rand’s diatribe against mysticism is that she really didn't approach the subject in any critical way. What she did was distance herself from it so as to be taken seriously in philosophical milieus. Like today, occult thought must be wary in academic and/or philosophical circles. Although nowadays much more welcomed by social scientists, occult still has a dark shroud of irrelevancy hovering over it. Rand wanted no part of the perceived illegitimacy so she used the word ‘mystic’ for all forms of spiritual technique and made the issue one of control. Nathaniel Branden sums up her ideas toward mysticism when he states, “No control is possible in a universe which, by one’s own concession, contains the supernatural, the miraculous and the causeless, a universe in which one is at the mercy of ghosts and demons, in which one must deal, not with the unknown but the unknowable”.[1]

                

The misconception that Rand falls into was in relegating all of mysticism to the traditional Judeo-Christian ethos she grew to abhor. Concepts such as Original Sin and the ‘rich not getting into heaven’ is where she focused her criticisms. But clearly true mystic thought has little or nothing to do with Original Sin or a circle in hell devoted to moneymakers. The problem aside from Ayn’s laziness to actually familiarize herself with the subject is in her assertion that occultists ‘deal with the unknowable’. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Or to be fair, the occult experience is ‘unknowable’ but not in the way Rand suggests.

                

When occultists interact or ritualize with the Other they grant the entity a metaphysics of presence. They sculpt reality in such a way as to re-embody the entity with ontological relevancy. They renew the entity. In so doing, they create a bond; an empathetic correspondence that can be worked in any number of ways. However, there is an incommensurable aspect to the autonomous mystic entity. Because of its experiential nature, interactions with deities are necessarily incommensurable and must be examined as autonomous but non-comparable events. It’s like comparing an entheogenic psilocybin experience with the visitation at Fatima by the Virgin Mary. Both are numinous events but they cannot be compared in any way due to the subjective experience or ‘what it feels like’ when it is occurring. After all, we’re not comparing the experience of going to a baseball game or a movie. A true numinous event is extra-ordinary. It may be wholly beautiful or an inconsolable nightmare. It is these qualities that are renewed through occult ritual. Although the experiences are incommensurable, they can be re-embodied via ritual to foster a change in ontological state. So Rand wasn't all wrong. It’s not that mysticism is ‘unknowable’ but that it’s ‘incomparable’.  

                

But why? With all her brilliance and passion, why would Rand discount mystic thought without even considering it philosophically? She had to have intuited that there are huge areas of potential in considering esoteric thought processes. I believe it stems from her own personal experiences growing up in Soviet Russia. In 1917, when Ayn was a little girl, the Russian revolution under Lenin wreaked havoc on Bourgeois life. Her father’s business was confiscated and her family nearly starved. She herself stated that “Socialism has brought economic paralysis and/or collapse to every country that tried it. The degree of socialism has been the degree of disaster”.[2] During this upheaval, many religions simply left Russia. Most churches were destroyed and the occult arts fled underground. We see the struggle between the individual and the State in Ayn’s first novel, “We The Living”. Semi-autobiographical, this work showcases her personal sentiments about socialism. But how does this relate to mysticism? Rand bore witness to the inefficacy of religion when socialism took over. Two things happened when Lenin’s power solidified. Either the church fled or was destroyed. This must have been powerful on the young Russian Jew. Rand must have felt abandoned. Also, the power of the church was swept wholly away when Socialism became the norm. It showed the inefficacy and irrelevancy of religious institutions in compared to other ideological processes. It was at this moment that young Ayn Rand would refuse to broach the subject.

                

Or did she? It is uncanny the amount of religious and mythological symbolism in her major works. She describes her men and women like gods and goddesses. One of the major themes in ‘The Fountainhead’ is that of the ‘Heroic Man’. The man who stays true to his ideals and triumphs in the face of adversity.  Howard Roark himself states during the climactic courtroom scene of ‘The Fountainhead’ that, “Prometheus was chained to a rock and torn by vultures-because he had stolen the fire of the gods. Adam was condemned to suffer-because he had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Whatever the legend, somewhere in the shadows of its memory mankind knows that its glory began with one and that one paid for his courage.”[3] Could it be any more clear that Roark is identifying with these mythological personages? Any Rand imbues her heroes with god and goddess-like qualities. Her characters are larger than life and even say mystical things. Again Roark states that, “The creators were not selfless. It is the whole secret of their power-that it was self-sufficient, self-motivated, self-generating. A first cause, a fount of energy, a life force, a Prime Mover.”[4] This statement is so blatantly occult that it could have been written by Blavatsky or Crowley. Roark is the creator. The sculptor or worldmaker who-like his creations- are self-sufficient, self-motivated, and self-generating. Just like the occultist who grants presence to a deity thus making them autonomous and self-determining, Roark understands the ontology of his buildings.

                

John Galt also has occult-like qualities. Except Galt is a cautionary tale. He is the quintessential bogeyman. A terrifying unseen entity that makes producers disappear. Also known as The Destroyer, ‘Who is John Galt’ is a phrase that inspires fear and trepidation. However, Galt- as champion of Rand’s philosophy also contradicts himself in terms of Being. On the one hand, he states that, “Whether it’s a symphony or a coal mine, all work is an act of creating and comes from the same source: from an inviolate capacity to see through one’s own eyes.”[5] Like Roark, the creator grants ontological presence through the ‘self’ and a worldmaking process. This statement suggests that all worldmakers or sculptors of reality would be welcome in Galt’s Gulch. However, he then remarks that, “The Good, say the mystics of spirit is god, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s  power to conceive- a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullified his concepts of existence.”[6] Galt falls back on the tired argument that ‘god is that which cannot be conceived’. I beg to differ.  In the shift from potentiality to actuality, gods can absolutely be conceived. The only thing that could invalidate man’s consciousness or nullify his existence would be to sculpt a reality where consciousness and existence are denied in piecemeal manner to entities that may not be empirically verified.  Moreover, Galt also said that “the alleged shortcut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short circuit destroying the mind”. I would venture that perhaps it is absolutism that is the true short-circuit of knowledge.

                

As it stands, Ayn Rand is an occult curiosity. I don’t think she understood occult processes or its methodology. But I think she was attracted to it. She wanted her Howards and Dagnys, and Johns, and Hanks and Dominiques to be deity-like. She wanted them to create and provide and sustain existence. She was a natural occultist. But Ayn was more interested in economics and strict rationalist thought to get caught up in this occult business. That is why she relegated all esoteric thought and method to ‘mysticism’.  But the occult seeped into her works and made her characters extra-ordinary. And why wouldn't they? They are a part of their creator as well. Ayn once said that mysticism teaches that women should be worshiped but not desired. Anybody who has read ‘The Fountainhead’ and ‘Atlas Shrugged’ knows that her women are the sexiest in literary history. And they’re all blessed with occult-like characteristics. Perhaps their creator was simply perfecting a conjuration to ensure that mysticism also contributed to the birthing of her narrative.

---

[1] Nathaniel Branden. “Mental Health Versus Mysticism and Self-Sacrifice.” In Ayn Rand-The Virtue Of Selfishness. Signet Publishing. 1964. New York. Pp. 43.

[2] Ayn Rand. “The Monument Builders”. In The Virtue Of Selfishness. Signet Publishing. 1964. New York. Pp. 101.

[3] Ayn Rand. The Fountainhead. Signet Books. New York. 1992. Pp. 678.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ayn Rand. Atlas Shrugged. Signet Books. New York. 1992. Pp. 722.

[6] Ibid. Pp. 944.