I think conceptualizing mysticism as a specific form or knowledge is problematic. It seems to me more useful to consider mysticism to be about particular forms of experience.
Experience is always to some extent ineffable, so mysticism wouldn't be unusual in that regard. The particularity of the mystic experience is that it might be very different to other experiences, exceptionally intense, and seemingly disconnected to the external world, potentially creating a big impact in the subject (the "mattering" in your triad).
In my view, a key aspect of knowledge is that it can be transmitted efficiently. This allows us to build upon the knowledge of others, enabling great progress. That's why I think mysticism as a form of knowledge is problematic. It seems that each individual has to rediscover mysticism largely by himself, which would be consistent with mysticism as experience, and not as knowledge.
Of course, some knowledge about specific forms of experience is possible. One experience can be compared to others, one can know about ways that typically lead people to having that experience and so on. But that knowledge is clearly different to the experience itself.
Yeah I think you’re hitting on some good points here.
A lot of this (esp Mary’s Room) comes down to how we define the word “knowledge”. I agree with you that a natural and simple definition would require it to be transmissible, i.e. encoded in language, which would exclude direct experience. But that also betrays some common usage (most people would say Mary gains knowledge when she sees blue). And from a purely political/cultural perspective, calling mystical experience “knowledge” tends to draw in the sorts of people I’m trying to win over (namely science-oriented people who value knowledge).
About the political/cultural perspective, I think some science-oriented people who value knowledge might be put off by the idea of ineffable knowledge, and might instead be drawn to the mysticism topic by a more prosaic (perhaps more consistent?) definition.
I think many would agree that the experience of green, or being in love, or music or orgasm are interesting. And the claimed existence of a class of experiences that are unusual but described as exceptionally intense and often meaningful, together with apparently reliable ways to access these experiences, is enough to attract many people.
I would think that the fact that mysticism is often tied to faith-based reason-suspending claims is what puts off science-oriented people.
Maybe it makes sense to have more than one working definition of the topic until the "science of mysticism" becomes better established.
> Maybe it makes sense to have more than one working definition of the topic until the "science of mysticism" becomes better established.
Yeah absolutely agree with this.
Honestly I'm always amazed at the level of resistance I get from some scientifically-oriented people, regardless of how the ideas are presented. They're very quick to describe these experiences as "nothing but X" and have no interest in seeing them first-hand.
Agreed that multiple competing definitions is the best way to draw a wide audience.
I think conceptualizing mysticism as a specific form or knowledge is problematic. It seems to me more useful to consider mysticism to be about particular forms of experience.
Experience is always to some extent ineffable, so mysticism wouldn't be unusual in that regard. The particularity of the mystic experience is that it might be very different to other experiences, exceptionally intense, and seemingly disconnected to the external world, potentially creating a big impact in the subject (the "mattering" in your triad).
In my view, a key aspect of knowledge is that it can be transmitted efficiently. This allows us to build upon the knowledge of others, enabling great progress. That's why I think mysticism as a form of knowledge is problematic. It seems that each individual has to rediscover mysticism largely by himself, which would be consistent with mysticism as experience, and not as knowledge.
Of course, some knowledge about specific forms of experience is possible. One experience can be compared to others, one can know about ways that typically lead people to having that experience and so on. But that knowledge is clearly different to the experience itself.
Yeah I think you’re hitting on some good points here.
A lot of this (esp Mary’s Room) comes down to how we define the word “knowledge”. I agree with you that a natural and simple definition would require it to be transmissible, i.e. encoded in language, which would exclude direct experience. But that also betrays some common usage (most people would say Mary gains knowledge when she sees blue). And from a purely political/cultural perspective, calling mystical experience “knowledge” tends to draw in the sorts of people I’m trying to win over (namely science-oriented people who value knowledge).
About the political/cultural perspective, I think some science-oriented people who value knowledge might be put off by the idea of ineffable knowledge, and might instead be drawn to the mysticism topic by a more prosaic (perhaps more consistent?) definition.
I think many would agree that the experience of green, or being in love, or music or orgasm are interesting. And the claimed existence of a class of experiences that are unusual but described as exceptionally intense and often meaningful, together with apparently reliable ways to access these experiences, is enough to attract many people.
I would think that the fact that mysticism is often tied to faith-based reason-suspending claims is what puts off science-oriented people.
Maybe it makes sense to have more than one working definition of the topic until the "science of mysticism" becomes better established.
> Maybe it makes sense to have more than one working definition of the topic until the "science of mysticism" becomes better established.
Yeah absolutely agree with this.
Honestly I'm always amazed at the level of resistance I get from some scientifically-oriented people, regardless of how the ideas are presented. They're very quick to describe these experiences as "nothing but X" and have no interest in seeing them first-hand.
Agreed that multiple competing definitions is the best way to draw a wide audience.