Four Ways of Understanding Mystical Experience

Abstract

The intentional structure of conscious knowing, and the emergent nature of being, together with a conception of discovery in science and aesthetic appreciation in art, are used to delineate four different ways of understanding mystical experience, and the possibilities for meaningful speech that each way may provide. The four ways are (1) a breaking in to a new interpretive scheme and way of being that is discovered as a solution to the problem of human suffering (here some meaningful speech appears possible); (2) a breaking out of all conceptual schemes into a pre-linguistic original perception of the world (here no meaningful speech appears possible); (3) a breaking upward in which contradictory personal experience come together in a focal joint comprehension, perhaps guided by religious practice (here we have either utter ineffability or some culture-specific possibilities for speech); and (4) a breaking through that uses the aesthetic notion of disinterestedness or detached engagement to account for the mystic's experience. Michael Polanyi's conception of art hints at how the fourth way might be a unification of the first three ways; they might be various apprehensions or moments in the experience of a divine Reality-whether that reality be emergent, preexistent, or ultimate. There seem to be many common features to mystical experience that encourage us to see it as one, unitary phenomenon. The mystics of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist traditions appear to experience a union with something divine and have a sense of timelessness and joy. On the other hand, there appear to be many differences specific to cultures-for example, Jewish mystics do not report a loss of self 1-and even within a culture there can be different forms or flavors of mysticism. So is this a unitary experience, as perennialists claim? Or are we dealing with a variety of different experiences, as many constructivists claim? And, if there is a common core to mysticism, can this purportedly ineffable experience be spoken about descriptively-at least indirectly in metaphorical language? Or does it call for silence, and the best a mystic might offer is a method-perhaps employing expressive,