Mysticism and Its Contexts
The Problem of Pure Consciousness March 29, 1990 Peer reviewed DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780195059809.003.0007
Summary
The essay argues that the philosophical analysis of mysticism does not have to choose between mystical essentialism and mystical relativism. It suggests a methodology that acknowledges the context-dependent nature of mystical experiences while still allowing for experiential novelty and what Ninian Smart refers to as consciousness-purity.
Study at a glance
| Key finding | The recognition of the context-dependent nature of all mystical experience can coexist with both experiential novelty and consciousness-purity. |
|---|
Abstract
Abstract In 1983 Steven Katz thusly characterized the methodological dilemma which has come to dominate discussion of mysticism and mystical experience since the publication of his edited collection entitled Mystical Experience and Philosophical Analysis in 1978. My overall aim in this essay is to demonstrate that the philosophical analysis of mysticism is not compelled to adopt either of these apparently mutually exclusive positions and that it is possible, perhaps even necessary, to formulate a methodology which coherently steers between the Scylla of mystical essentialism, on the one hand, and the Charybdis of mystical relativism, on the other. In particular will argue that the recognition of the context- dependent nature of all mystical experience is neither incompatible with experiential novelty nor with the occurrence of what Ninian Smart labels the experience of consciousness-purity.