Mystical epistemology deals with knowledge that transcends the limits of human reason and sense perception, inviting us to explore the realm of metaphysics.

In Plato’s dialogues, Socrates portrays knowing as an act often entangled with perplexity. Knowledge claims, seemingly straightforward, reveal their complexity under philosophical scrutiny. The field of epistemology, studying our assumptions about the nature, extent, and validity of knowledge, becomes even more intriguing when knowledge itself is the subject of investigation. While empiricism and rationalism have dominated Western philosophy, the exploration of knowledge beyond reason and sense perception opens new questions. Is such knowledge attainable? If so, how is it possible? These questions are central to understanding mystical epistemology.

Defining mysticism in philosophy is challenging due to its broad scope, encompassing various phenomena characterized by personal encounters with a transcendent reality, often deemed divine. Mystical experiences typically include feelings of unity, ecstasy, love, or contemplation, and are fundamentally knowledge-bearing. These experiences, non-discursive, non-conceptual, and experiential, occur in altered states of consciousness and are unmediated by mental processes or sense perception. For instance, in Sufism, experiential knowledge is analogized as “taste” (thawq), illustrating its incommunicability to those who have not experienced it.

Mystical knowledge’s feasibility hinges on one’s metaphysical stance. If one denies the existence of a transcendent reality, then mystical knowledge is deemed impossible. Conversely, affirming such a reality, as mystical traditions do, bases epistemology on metaphysical principles validating mystical knowledge. Skeptics, however, explain mystical knowledge materially, questioning its legitimacy.

Exploring the Metaphysical Roots of Mystical Epistemology

Sufism:

The Heart of Islamic Mysticism Painting of Sufi Whirling Dervishes, Asia and Pacific Museum, Poland

In Sufism, mystical knowledge is central. Sufis view creation’s purpose as attaining mystical knowledge, supported by the Hadith Qudsi where God expresses a desire to be known. Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali, a key Islamic figure, regarded mystical knowledge as superior to all other sciences. This knowledge, termed “knowledge not of this world” (‘ilm la-duney), or knowledge from within, is central to Sufism’s epistemology, the Science of Unveiling (‘ilm al-mukashafa).

Ghazali likens the human heart and the Preserved Tablet to two immaterial mirrors reflecting each other. In Sufism, the heart, beyond its physical counterpart, is the locus of gnosis, receiving inspired knowledge. The Preserved Tablet, akin to the Universal Soul, contains all potential knowledge and existence. The heart, as “the inner-eye” (ayn-batineya), strives to reflect the Preserved Tablet, but veils must be lifted, a process central to Sufi practice.

Jewish Mysticism:

Central to Jewish mysticism is the concept of the ten sefirot, which form the metaphysical structure of divine emanations or attributes leading to our world’s creation. These ten sefirot, illustrated as the Tree of Life, encompass Chochma (wisdom), Bina (understanding), Daat (knowledge), Chessed (mercy), Gevurah (judgment), Tiferet (beauty), Netzach (victory), Hod (splendor), Yesod (foundation), and Malchut (kingdom). Initially understood at a macrocosmic level as divine emanations, the sefirot also mirror attributes within humans, linking them to the soul’s powers. Notably, Chochma and Bina embody wisdom and understanding in the human soul.

On a microcosmic scale, Chochma is the source of inspired knowledge. Rabbi Moshe Miller describes Chochma in the soul as “an intuitive flash of intellectual illumination not yet processed by Bina’s understanding power.” This contrasts with Sufism, as Jewish mysticism, especially in the Chabad Hasidic school, associates Chochma’s inner wisdom with the mind’s new insights or inspirations, rather than conceptual understanding.

Bina, on the other hand, is linked to the heart. It interprets and develops the mind’s insights from Chochma into communicable concepts, demonstrating a unique interplay between heart and mind in Jewish mystical thought.

Madness, Mysticism, and Philosophy in Epistemology

In the realm of epistemology, the intersection of mysticism, madness, and philosophy sparks a fascinating debate. Elena Averina’s work, “The Road of Life,” published in 2020 via Artmajeur.com, delves into the enigmatic terrain of mysticism and psychosis, raising poignant questions about the nature of knowledge.

Remaining true to Katz’s skeptical spirit, one might assert that knowledge acquired through mysticism, if not a mere rehash of pre-existing concepts along the mystic’s journey, could be attributed to fantasies or delusions. Some might even contend that mystical experiences are manifestations of psychological imbalances, backed by a wealth of studies drawing parallels between mysticism and psychosis. This prompts us to ponder: is mysticism a path to spiritual enlightenment or a descent into madness?

Contrary to our conventional perspective, history reveals that madness and spiritual enlightenment were not always viewed as polar opposites. From an anthropological standpoint, shamanic cultures regarded symptoms often labeled as pathological in modern psychology as indicators of spiritual emergence. Those who experienced such symptoms were considered initiates in a process of spiritual training.

In Plato’s dialogues, Socrates reminds us that “the men of old who gave things their names saw no disgrace or reproach in madness” (Plato, 370 BCE). According to him, “the highest goods come to us in the manner of madness, inasmuch as it is bestowed on us as a divine gift and rightly frenzied and possessed” (Plato, 370 BCE). Notably, Socrates does not perceive madness as an ailment; on the contrary, he regards it as a remedy for the “dire plagues and afflictions of the soul” (Plato, 370 BCE). What Socrates terms madness is known as theia mania, or divine madness.

Socrates delineates four forms of divine madness, with the one of interest for our exploration being associated with prophecy. In Joseph Pieper’s book, “Divine Madness: Plato’s Case Against Secular Humanism,” an in-depth analysis of Plato’s theia mania describes it as a “loss of rational sovereignty [in which] man gains a wealth, above all, of intuition, light, truth, and insight into reality, all of which would otherwise remain beyond his reach” (Pieper, 1989). In this sense, theia mania appears closely aligned with mystical knowledge. Plato’s dialogues challenge us to reevaluate our pejorative perception of madness and contemplate its potential superiority over sanity, with the former being divine and the latter human.

Plato, the originator of the term philosophy (philosophia) in his renowned dialogues, would have opposed skeptical philosophers who dismiss the possibility and validity of mystical epistemology. In the “Phaedo,” Socrates declares, “mystics are, I believe, those who have been true philosophers… and I have striven in every way to make myself one of them” (Plato, 360 BCE). In this light, the true lover (philo) of wisdom (sophia) is better characterized as a mystic, blurring the conventional boundaries we draw between mysticism and philosophy.