In this article, in addition to laying the groundwork for a hermeneutic and epistemological approach to the collection of mystical reports, Peter Moore pursues two main goals: one is to identify and classify the phenomenological characteristics of the mystical experience and the other is to research the ontological and epistemological status of this experience. The importance of this article is also in two ways: one is the detailed outline of philosophical issues and the other is an attempt to obtain a more accurate phenomenological description for a better understanding and analysis of the raw data of mystical experience. In addition, the author's attempt is to show that previous attempts to provide an epistemological framework for the study of mysticism do not have sufficient conceptual precision. A framework without which all claims related to the existence of a common core in mystical experiences become unfounded.
Machine summary:
"Furthermore, the condition for the success of the analysis of a specific text is to consider it in relation to theories, behaviors and institutions that possibly affect both the experience itself and the way and method of retelling it, and the intended effects are not only Interpretation also includes selection, because the mystic is probably not only selective about what he remembers from his experience, but also - especially in secondary writings - about those details of his experience that he considers recordable. This may be true to some extent of some first-rate accounts of "natural" mystical experienceBut it is unlikely that it applies to many experiences whose reports are prepared and arranged in a particular religious tradition, especially reports that are related to secondary writings. In short, if teachings and theories are really an obstacle on the path of mystics to understand their experiences, there must be many evidences of this issue in different mystical traditions, while the problem is the opposite and mystics use their theoretical words as their helpers in organizing and interpreting their experiences. They know not to prevent itIt is true that the mystics, due to long meditations while experiencing, are more critical and skeptical about their observations than is usually thought, but if it is simple, one can understand why the mystics deny the external or "physical" type of observations as meaningless and worthless. Agreed, it is also quite clear why it is not possible for them not to take some of their subtler types seriously and with value, that is, those of the "imaginary" and especially "intellectual" type.