Synthesis:Mystical Experience Questionnaire - Revision history

OlivierSandilands: /* Origins */

2025-03-12T15:09:24Z

Origins

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:09, 12 March 2025
Line 87:		Line 87:
	== Critical discussion ==		== Critical discussion ==
	=== Origins ===		=== Origins ===
	The very definitions of "mystical experience" at the root of the development of this scale ~~should be discussed~~. The Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ), along with other similar instruments like the Mysticism Scale (M-scale), are based on William James’ seminal work, ''Varieties of Religious Experience'', and that of W.T. Stace in ''Philosophy and Mysticism.'' These original definitions and the problems they pose are discussed at length in Sandilands and Ingram (2024):<ref name=":7" /><blockquote>Let us begin with James. Lectures XVI and XVII in the series which make up ''The Varieties of Religious Experience'' treat at length of the topic of “mystical phenomena”<ref name=":1">James, W. (2005). ''The varieties of religious experience: A study in human nature: Being the Gifford lectures on natural religion delivered at Edinburgh in 1901–1902''. Boston: Adamant Media Corporation.</ref> (p. 378) because, according to James, “personal religious experience has its root and center in mystical states of consciousness” (p. 379). Here, James sets himself the task of showing the “reality of the states in question,” and the “paramount importance of their function” (''ibid.'') He proposes a definition of the states comprised in the “mystical group” (p. 384) as characterized by “four marks”: (1) Ineffability, (2) Noetic quality, (3) Transiency and (4) Passivity (pp. 380–384).		The very definitions of "mystical experience" at the root of the development of this scale would benefit from discussion. The Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ), along with other similar instruments like the Mysticism Scale (M-scale), are based on William James’ seminal work, ''Varieties of Religious Experience'', and that of W.T. Stace in ''Philosophy and Mysticism.'' These original definitions and the problems they pose are discussed at length in Sandilands and Ingram (2024):<ref name=":7" /><blockquote>Let us begin with James. Lectures XVI and XVII in the series which make up ''The Varieties of Religious Experience'' treat at length of the topic of “mystical phenomena”<ref name=":1">James, W. (2005). ''The varieties of religious experience: A study in human nature: Being the Gifford lectures on natural religion delivered at Edinburgh in 1901–1902''. Boston: Adamant Media Corporation.</ref> (p. 378) because, according to James, “personal religious experience has its root and center in mystical states of consciousness” (p. 379). Here, James sets himself the task of showing the “reality of the states in question,” and the “paramount importance of their function” (''ibid.'') He proposes a definition of the states comprised in the “mystical group” (p. 384) as characterized by “four marks”: (1) Ineffability, (2) Noetic quality, (3) Transiency and (4) Passivity (pp. 380–384).

	In ''Mysticism and Philosophy'', W.T. Stace provides a summary of the common characteristics of what he calls “extrovertive” and “introvertive” mystical experiences.<ref>Stace, W. T. (1987). ''Mysticism and philosophy''. ed. J. P. Tarcher (New York: Distributed by St. Martin’s Press).</ref>		In ''Mysticism and Philosophy'', W.T. Stace provides a summary of the common characteristics of what he calls “extrovertive” and “introvertive” mystical experiences.<ref>Stace, W. T. (1987). ''Mysticism and philosophy''. ed. J. P. Tarcher (New York: Distributed by St. Martin’s Press).</ref>

OlivierSandilands: /* Origins */

2025-03-11T17:43:41Z

Origins

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:43, 11 March 2025
Line 126:		Line 126:
	# Interpretation with 3 sub-domains of Positive affect, Sacredness, and a Noetic quality.</blockquote>		# Interpretation with 3 sub-domains of Positive affect, Sacredness, and a Noetic quality.</blockquote>

	=== Limitations ===		=== Limitations with these definitions ===
	Continuing to quote Sandilands and Ingram (2024):<ref name=":7" /><blockquote>From our present perspective, critical comparison of these scale domains and James’ and Stace’s criteria with our inventory of contemporary scientific literature, as well as with traditional texts, reveals the profound limitations of the ways this notion is defined by these authors, with:		Continuing to quote Sandilands and Ingram (2024):<ref name=":7" /><blockquote>From our present perspective, critical comparison of these scale domains and James’ and Stace’s criteria with our inventory of contemporary scientific literature, as well as with traditional texts, reveals the profound limitations of the ways this notion is defined by these authors, with:

Line 144:		Line 144:

	In sum, there are key issues with the definition of mystical experience which lies at the root of questionnaires like the MEQ and other scales derived from the definitions proposed by Stace and James, and we suggest adopting expanded perspective grounded on reviewing both traditional and contemporary phenomenological evidence, as we are attempting here, would likely be beneficial.</blockquote>		In sum, there are key issues with the definition of mystical experience which lies at the root of questionnaires like the MEQ and other scales derived from the definitions proposed by Stace and James, and we suggest adopting expanded perspective grounded on reviewing both traditional and contemporary phenomenological evidence, as we are attempting here, would likely be beneficial.</blockquote>

			=== Sample issues with specific items ===
			Diving into specifics, we'll select a couple of examples to show how the scale items themselves are problematic, despite overall "good psychometric properties."

			Item 26., "Loss of your usual identity", seems particularly equivocal. The usual sense of identity is altered in a broad range of experiences, such as the Buddhist "insight stages", stages of psychological development, life eventes, but also in "pathological" ones like schizophrenia or DP/DR and various other states. This item does not specify the quality, degree, kind, or duration of this "loss".

			Item 41., "Experience of pure Being and pure awareness (beyond the world of sense impressions)", is quite ambiguous. Depending on the depth and intensity of the state, this description could apply to a huge range of experiences, including various specific altered states called jhānas in Hinduism and Buddhism, but also very different states, depending on the meaning the experiencer assigns to his experience. Furthermore, this could potentially describe an ephemeral and superficial state, an ephemeral and deep state, a permanent yet "light" state, or a permanent and more "profound" one. An experience of everyday perception as pure being and pure awareness is not uncommon in more advanced meditation practitioners. Indeed, one may question what the terms in this item mean, exactly. What is "Pure Being"? What is "pure awareness" ? To an advanced practitioner or philosopher, it will seem clear that it can be said that there is nothing which is not pure Being and pure awareness. In fact, this sort of insight is characteristic of later stages of development in several models from developmental psychology. It would be expected that the moment to moment experience of a person at the Unitive Stage of ego-development (in Susan Cook-Greuter's system<ref>Cook-Greuter, S. (2021). ''Ego Development: A Full-Spectrum Theory Of Vertical Growth And Meaning Making''. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356357233_Ego_Development_A_Full-Spectrum_Theory_Of_Vertical_Growth_And_Meaning_Making</ref>) or "spiritually realized" individuals<ref>Freimann, A., & Berkovich-Ohana, A. (2024). Enlightened Joy and Love, Selflessness and Beyond. In ''Happiness and the Psychology of Enlightenment [Working Title]''. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1007429</ref> would somewhat reflect such an experience as "Pure Being" at all times. This would also be expected to be in some way the baseline experience of a person at higher levels of development in many different contemplative traditions, such as Christian mysticism (John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, Eckhart's systems all culminate in some form of "Unitive" stage), Buddhist mysticism (e.g. the theravadin later stages of the Fourth Path model, the One-taste and later stages in the Yogas of Mahamudra, the stage of Non-meditation in the mahayana five-path model) : this could and should be made more explicit and more detailed for other systems used in other traditions (historical and contemporary).

			This could be extended to other items but this seems sufficient for our purposes.

	== References ==		== References ==

OlivierSandilands: /* Dimensions, sub-dimensions, and items */

2025-03-11T17:30:38Z

Dimensions, sub-dimensions, and items

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:30, 11 March 2025
Line 4:		Line 4:

	== Dimensions, sub-dimensions, and items ==		== Dimensions, sub-dimensions, and items ==
	The numbers associated with each item indicate the numerical sequence of the items on the ~~original~~ SoCQ.		The numbers associated with each item indicate the numerical sequence of the items on the SoCQ.

	1. Internal Unity (6 items)		1. Internal Unity (6 items)

OlivierSandilands at 17:28, 11 March 2025

2025-03-11T17:28:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:28, 11 March 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) is one of the most widely used scales in research.<ref>Prugger, J., Derdiyok, E., Dinkelacker, J., Costines, C., & Schmidt, T. T. (2022). The Altered States Database: Psychometric data from a systematic literature review. ''Scientific Data'', ''9''(1), 720. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01822-4</ref> It comprises 30 or 43 question items, depending on the version, divided into 6 domains.<ref name=":0">Barrett, F. S., Johnson, M. W., and Griffiths, R. R. (2015). Validation of the revised mystical experience questionnaire in experimental sessions with psilocybin. ''J. Psychopharmacol.'' 29, 1182–1190. doi: 10.1177/0269881115609019 </ref> The MEQ has been used in an expanded version, the States of Consciousness Questionnaire (SOCQ), containing distractor items unrelated to the mystical experience as defined by Stace’s framework, a 100-item questionnaire that contains the 43 items of the original ~~MEQ43~~ to which 57 distractor questions have been added.<ref name=":6" /><ref>https://www.scielo.br/j/rpc/a/VH69LmNV5byrxhHKZbSPMvG/?lang=en</ref> The remaining 57 items in the SoCQ questionnaire serve as distractor items are not scored at the end of the test.<ref>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5203697/</ref>		The Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) comprises 30 or 43 question items, depending on the version, divided into 6 domains.<ref name=":0">Barrett, F. S., Johnson, M. W., and Griffiths, R. R. (2015). Validation of the revised mystical experience questionnaire in experimental sessions with psilocybin. ''J. Psychopharmacol.'' 29, 1182–1190. doi: 10.1177/0269881115609019 </ref> The MEQ has been used in an expanded version, the States of Consciousness Questionnaire (SOCQ), containing distractor items unrelated to the mystical experience as defined by Stace’s framework, a 100-item questionnaire that contains the 43 items of the original questionnaire to which 57 distractor questions have been added.<ref name=":6" /><ref>https://www.scielo.br/j/rpc/a/VH69LmNV5byrxhHKZbSPMvG/?lang=en</ref> The remaining 57 items in the SoCQ questionnaire serve as distractor items are not scored at the end of the test.<ref>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5203697/</ref>

			The MEQ is one of the most widely used scales in research.<ref>Prugger, J., Derdiyok, E., Dinkelacker, J., Costines, C., & Schmidt, T. T. (2022). The Altered States Database: Psychometric data from a systematic literature review. ''Scientific Data'', ''9''(1), 720. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01822-4</ref> Yet despite its popularity, recent criticism of the MEQ instrument and the definitions and descriptions on which it relies have recently been put forward (see below).<ref name=":7">Sandilands, O., & Ingram, D. M. (2024). Documenting and defining emergent phenomenology: theoretical foundations for an extensive research strategy. ''Frontiers in Psychology'', ''15'', 1340335. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1340335</ref><ref name=":5" />

	== Dimensions, sub-dimensions, and items ==		== Dimensions, sub-dimensions, and items ==
Line 85:		Line 87:
	== Critical discussion ==		== Critical discussion ==
	=== Origins ===		=== Origins ===
	The very definitions of "mystical experience" at the root of the development of this scale should be discussed. The Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ), along with other similar instruments like the Mysticism Scale (M-scale), are based on William James’ seminal work, ''Varieties of Religious Experience'', and that of W.T. Stace in ''Philosophy and Mysticism.'' These original definitions and the problems they pose are discussed at length in Sandilands and Ingram (2024):<blockquote>Let us begin with James. Lectures XVI and XVII in the series which make up ''The Varieties of Religious Experience'' treat at length of the topic of “mystical phenomena”<ref name=":1">James, W. (2005). ''The varieties of religious experience: A study in human nature: Being the Gifford lectures on natural religion delivered at Edinburgh in 1901–1902''. Boston: Adamant Media Corporation.</ref> (p. 378) because, according to James, “personal religious experience has its root and center in mystical states of consciousness” (p. 379). Here, James sets himself the task of showing the “reality of the states in question,” and the “paramount importance of their function” (''ibid.'') He proposes a definition of the states comprised in the “mystical group” (p. 384) as characterized by “four marks”: (1) Ineffability, (2) Noetic quality, (3) Transiency and (4) Passivity (pp. 380–384).		The very definitions of "mystical experience" at the root of the development of this scale should be discussed. The Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ), along with other similar instruments like the Mysticism Scale (M-scale), are based on William James’ seminal work, ''Varieties of Religious Experience'', and that of W.T. Stace in ''Philosophy and Mysticism.'' These original definitions and the problems they pose are discussed at length in Sandilands and Ingram (2024):<ref name=":7" /><blockquote>Let us begin with James. Lectures XVI and XVII in the series which make up ''The Varieties of Religious Experience'' treat at length of the topic of “mystical phenomena”<ref name=":1">James, W. (2005). ''The varieties of religious experience: A study in human nature: Being the Gifford lectures on natural religion delivered at Edinburgh in 1901–1902''. Boston: Adamant Media Corporation.</ref> (p. 378) because, according to James, “personal religious experience has its root and center in mystical states of consciousness” (p. 379). Here, James sets himself the task of showing the “reality of the states in question,” and the “paramount importance of their function” (''ibid.'') He proposes a definition of the states comprised in the “mystical group” (p. 384) as characterized by “four marks”: (1) Ineffability, (2) Noetic quality, (3) Transiency and (4) Passivity (pp. 380–384).

	In ''Mysticism and Philosophy'', W.T. Stace provides a summary of the common characteristics of what he calls “extrovertive” and “introvertive” mystical experiences.<ref>Stace, W. T. (1987). ''Mysticism and philosophy''. ed. J. P. Tarcher (New York: Distributed by St. Martin’s Press).</ref>		In ''Mysticism and Philosophy'', W.T. Stace provides a summary of the common characteristics of what he calls “extrovertive” and “introvertive” mystical experiences.<ref>Stace, W. T. (1987). ''Mysticism and philosophy''. ed. J. P. Tarcher (New York: Distributed by St. Martin’s Press).</ref>
Line 125:		Line 127:

	=== Limitations ===		=== Limitations ===
	Continuing to quote Sandilands and Ingram (2024):<blockquote>From our present perspective, critical comparison of these scale domains and James’ and Stace’s criteria with our inventory of contemporary scientific literature, as well as with traditional texts, reveals the profound limitations of the ways this notion is defined by these authors, with:		Continuing to quote Sandilands and Ingram (2024):<ref name=":7" /><blockquote>From our present perspective, critical comparison of these scale domains and James’ and Stace’s criteria with our inventory of contemporary scientific literature, as well as with traditional texts, reveals the profound limitations of the ways this notion is defined by these authors, with:

	# The ''de facto'' exclusion of experiences and effects of a challenging nature such as the “Dark Nights” — of the “Soul,” “Senses,” or “Spirit”,<ref name=":2">Kornfield, J. (1993). ''A path with heart: A guide through the perils and promises of spiritual life''. New York: Bantam Books.</ref><ref name=":3">St. John of the Cross (2010). ''Dark night of the soul'', Gastonia: TAN Books.</ref><ref>Lutkajtis, A. (2019c). “The answer to all your problems?” The overly positive presentation of meditation in the media. ''J. Acad. Study Relig.'' 32, 49–71. [[Doi: 10.1558/jasr.37863\|doi: 10.1558/jasr.37863]]</ref> often tellingly called “Mystical Nights” — which certainly cannot be characterized by a positive mood, nor necessarily by a short duration, nor any of the other criteria we just listed. However, these are a common and essential phase of spiritual development according to canonical Christian texts. Notice, that there are ''kinds'' of dark nights. One may think this is specific to some Christian authors. But a similar point can be made with the Buddhist notion of the “''Dukkha ñanas''” (Pali), meaning “Knowledges of Suffering,” a normative developmental phase within the context of Theravada Buddhist meditation theory.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":4">Sayadaw, Mahāsī . (1994). ''The Progress of insight''.</ref><ref>Grabovac, A. (2014). The stages of insight: clinical relevance for mindfulness-based interventions. ''Mindfulness'' 6, 589–600. [[Doi: 10.1007/s12671-014-0294-2\|doi: 10.1007/s12671-014-0294-2]]</ref><ref>Lutkajtis, A. (2019a). Delineating the ‘dark night’ in Buddhist postmodernism. ''Lit. Aesthet.'' 29.</ref><ref>Lutkajtis, A. (2019b). ''The dark side of dharma: meditation, madness and other maladies of the contemplative path''. London: Aeon.</ref><ref>Lutkajtis, A. (2020b). ''Meditation, madness and other maladies of the contemplative path''. London: Aeon.</ref> As their name suggests, these “stages” of deepening meditation include experiences of “fear,” “misery,” “disgust,” etc. Yet, in this traditional framework, they are preceded and followed by stages which could fit many or all of the above criteria. Also, notice again that several variants and phases of “knowledges of suffering” are traditionally distinguished. Even if one chose to consider that later commentarial texts like the ''Vissudhimagga''<ref>Buddhaghosa (1991). ''The path of purification: Visuddhimagga''. ed. Ñānamoli. Fifth ed. (Kandy, Sri Lanka: Buddhist Publication Society).</ref> where this model was elaborately described and expanded on beyond its roots in the ''Abhidhamma'' and ''Khuddaka Nikāya'', are “inauthentic,” one could respond that some texts which are canonical in ''all'' branches of Buddhism [the Pali canon<ref>Ñanamoli, B., and Bodhi, B. (1995). “The middle length discourses of the Buddha” in ''A translation of the Majjhima Nikaya''. ed. M. Nisargadatta (Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publication).</ref>] contain ample evidence that “mystical experience” is not ''just'' what James and Stace described. Beyond these two traditions, grief and trauma<ref>Yaden, D. B., and Newberg, A. (2022). ''The varieties of spiritual experience: 21st century research and perspectives'' : Oxford University Press.</ref> and generally speaking suffering-related experiences acting as triggers of spiritual development is a well-documented phenomenon. In fact, one may even say that in various traditional texts, mystical life begins with suffering and systematically involve negative experiences, sometimes to extreme degrees. This is reflected in Joseph Campbell’s ''monomyth'', or Hero’s journey, a universal model of the unfolding of narrative and mythological stories in world literature, where the hero enters the Underworld or Abyss, or undergoes some profoundly challenging Quest, before coming back transformed or renewed to the known world.<ref>Campbell, J. (2008). ''The hero with a thousand faces''. 3rd Edn. Novato, California: New World Library.</ref> Obviously, challenging EPEEs abound [...], such as negatively valenced and sometimes terrifying psychedelic experiences (“bad trips”). Yet these may have long-term positive effects (as well as further negative effects) on one’s spirituality and life in general, be existentially and paradigmatically transformative, and result in beneficial long-term outcomes. All these examples show that we should not frame “mystical” experiences and generally EPEEs as only “pleasant” and ignore or fail to properly categorize and study non-pleasant, sometimes challenging EPEEs, at the risk of fueling what has been described as the “overly positive presentation of meditation in the media”.<ref>Lutkajtis, A. (2019c). “The answer to all your problems?” The overly positive presentation of meditation in the media. ''J. Acad. Study Relig.'' 32, 49–71. [[Doi: 10.1558/jasr.37863\|doi: 10.1558/jasr.37863]]</ref> One may argue that contemporary research has developed specific instruments to that effect (e.g., the [[Challenging Experiences Questionnaire]]) but it is also clear that appraising all experiences which do not fit a simplistic definition of mystical experience as “challenging experiences,” “adverse effects” or “adverse events”,<ref>Farias, M., Maraldi, E., Wallenkampf, K. C., and Lucchetti, G. (2020). Adverse events in meditation practices and meditation-based therapies: a systematic review. ''Acta Psychiatr. Scand.'' 142, 374–393. [[Doi: 10.1111/acps.13225\|doi: 10.1111/acps.13225]] </ref> is problematic.		# The ''de facto'' exclusion of experiences and effects of a challenging nature such as the “Dark Nights” — of the “Soul,” “Senses,” or “Spirit”,<ref name=":2">Kornfield, J. (1993). ''A path with heart: A guide through the perils and promises of spiritual life''. New York: Bantam Books.</ref><ref name=":3">St. John of the Cross (2010). ''Dark night of the soul'', Gastonia: TAN Books.</ref><ref>Lutkajtis, A. (2019c). “The answer to all your problems?” The overly positive presentation of meditation in the media. ''J. Acad. Study Relig.'' 32, 49–71. [[Doi: 10.1558/jasr.37863\|doi: 10.1558/jasr.37863]]</ref> often tellingly called “Mystical Nights” — which certainly cannot be characterized by a positive mood, nor necessarily by a short duration, nor any of the other criteria we just listed. However, these are a common and essential phase of spiritual development according to canonical Christian texts. Notice, that there are ''kinds'' of dark nights. One may think this is specific to some Christian authors. But a similar point can be made with the Buddhist notion of the “''Dukkha ñanas''” (Pali), meaning “Knowledges of Suffering,” a normative developmental phase within the context of Theravada Buddhist meditation theory.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":4">Sayadaw, Mahāsī . (1994). ''The Progress of insight''.</ref><ref>Grabovac, A. (2014). The stages of insight: clinical relevance for mindfulness-based interventions. ''Mindfulness'' 6, 589–600. [[Doi: 10.1007/s12671-014-0294-2\|doi: 10.1007/s12671-014-0294-2]]</ref><ref>Lutkajtis, A. (2019a). Delineating the ‘dark night’ in Buddhist postmodernism. ''Lit. Aesthet.'' 29.</ref><ref>Lutkajtis, A. (2019b). ''The dark side of dharma: meditation, madness and other maladies of the contemplative path''. London: Aeon.</ref><ref>Lutkajtis, A. (2020b). ''Meditation, madness and other maladies of the contemplative path''. London: Aeon.</ref> As their name suggests, these “stages” of deepening meditation include experiences of “fear,” “misery,” “disgust,” etc. Yet, in this traditional framework, they are preceded and followed by stages which could fit many or all of the above criteria. Also, notice again that several variants and phases of “knowledges of suffering” are traditionally distinguished. Even if one chose to consider that later commentarial texts like the ''Vissudhimagga''<ref>Buddhaghosa (1991). ''The path of purification: Visuddhimagga''. ed. Ñānamoli. Fifth ed. (Kandy, Sri Lanka: Buddhist Publication Society).</ref> where this model was elaborately described and expanded on beyond its roots in the ''Abhidhamma'' and ''Khuddaka Nikāya'', are “inauthentic,” one could respond that some texts which are canonical in ''all'' branches of Buddhism [the Pali canon<ref>Ñanamoli, B., and Bodhi, B. (1995). “The middle length discourses of the Buddha” in ''A translation of the Majjhima Nikaya''. ed. M. Nisargadatta (Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publication).</ref>] contain ample evidence that “mystical experience” is not ''just'' what James and Stace described. Beyond these two traditions, grief and trauma<ref>Yaden, D. B., and Newberg, A. (2022). ''The varieties of spiritual experience: 21st century research and perspectives'' : Oxford University Press.</ref> and generally speaking suffering-related experiences acting as triggers of spiritual development is a well-documented phenomenon. In fact, one may even say that in various traditional texts, mystical life begins with suffering and systematically involve negative experiences, sometimes to extreme degrees. This is reflected in Joseph Campbell’s ''monomyth'', or Hero’s journey, a universal model of the unfolding of narrative and mythological stories in world literature, where the hero enters the Underworld or Abyss, or undergoes some profoundly challenging Quest, before coming back transformed or renewed to the known world.<ref>Campbell, J. (2008). ''The hero with a thousand faces''. 3rd Edn. Novato, California: New World Library.</ref> Obviously, challenging EPEEs abound [...], such as negatively valenced and sometimes terrifying psychedelic experiences (“bad trips”). Yet these may have long-term positive effects (as well as further negative effects) on one’s spirituality and life in general, be existentially and paradigmatically transformative, and result in beneficial long-term outcomes. All these examples show that we should not frame “mystical” experiences and generally EPEEs as only “pleasant” and ignore or fail to properly categorize and study non-pleasant, sometimes challenging EPEEs, at the risk of fueling what has been described as the “overly positive presentation of meditation in the media”.<ref>Lutkajtis, A. (2019c). “The answer to all your problems?” The overly positive presentation of meditation in the media. ''J. Acad. Study Relig.'' 32, 49–71. [[Doi: 10.1558/jasr.37863\|doi: 10.1558/jasr.37863]]</ref> One may argue that contemporary research has developed specific instruments to that effect (e.g., the [[Challenging Experiences Questionnaire]]) but it is also clear that appraising all experiences which do not fit a simplistic definition of mystical experience as “challenging experiences,” “adverse effects” or “adverse events”,<ref>Farias, M., Maraldi, E., Wallenkampf, K. C., and Lucchetti, G. (2020). Adverse events in meditation practices and meditation-based therapies: a systematic review. ''Acta Psychiatr. Scand.'' 142, 374–393. [[Doi: 10.1111/acps.13225\|doi: 10.1111/acps.13225]] </ref> is problematic.

OlivierSandilands: OlivierSandilands moved page Mystical Experience Questionnaire to Synthesis:Mystical Experience Questionnaire

2025-03-11T17:24:26Z

OlivierSandilands moved page Mystical Experience Questionnaire to Synthesis:Mystical Experience Questionnaire

← Older revision	Revision as of 12:24, 11 March 2025
(No difference)

OlivierSandilands at 17:24, 11 March 2025

2025-03-11T17:24:11Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:24, 11 March 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) comprises 30 or 43 question items, depending on the version, divided into 6 domains.<ref name=":0">Barrett, F. S., Johnson, M. W., and Griffiths, R. R. (2015). Validation of the revised mystical experience questionnaire in experimental sessions with psilocybin. ''J. Psychopharmacol.'' 29, 1182–1190. doi: 10.1177/0269881115609019 </ref>		The Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) is one of the most widely used scales in research.<ref>Prugger, J., Derdiyok, E., Dinkelacker, J., Costines, C., & Schmidt, T. T. (2022). The Altered States Database: Psychometric data from a systematic literature review. ''Scientific Data'', ''9''(1), 720. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01822-4</ref> It comprises 30 or 43 question items, depending on the version, divided into 6 domains.<ref name=":0">Barrett, F. S., Johnson, M. W., and Griffiths, R. R. (2015). Validation of the revised mystical experience questionnaire in experimental sessions with psilocybin. ''J. Psychopharmacol.'' 29, 1182–1190. doi: 10.1177/0269881115609019 </ref> The MEQ has been used in an expanded version, the States of Consciousness Questionnaire (SOCQ), containing distractor items unrelated to the mystical experience as defined by Stace’s framework, a 100-item questionnaire that contains the 43 items of the original MEQ43 to which 57 distractor questions have been added.<ref name=":6" /><ref>https://www.scielo.br/j/rpc/a/VH69LmNV5byrxhHKZbSPMvG/?lang=en</ref> The remaining 57 items in the SoCQ questionnaire serve as distractor items are not scored at the end of the test.<ref>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5203697/</ref>

	The ~~SOCQ is the MEQ43 to which 57 distractor questions have~~ been ~~added. These are not scored at~~ the ~~end~~ of the ~~test. "The SOCQ is~~ a 100-item questionnaire that contains the 43 items of the original MEQ43"(<~~nowiki~~>https://www.~~ncbi~~.~~nlm.nih.gov~~/~~pmc~~/~~articles~~/~~PMC5203697~~/</~~nowiki~~>~~). "~~The remaining 57 items in the SoCQ questionnaire ~~served~~ as distractor items ~~and were~~ not scored~~" (<nowiki>https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~jfkihlstrom/ConsciousnessWeb/Psychedelics/Pahnke-Richards_Mystical_Experiences_Questionnaire.pdf</nowiki>).~~

	~~"[...]~~ the ~~MEQ has been used in an expanded version containing distractor items unrelated to~~ the ~~mystical experience as defined by Stace’s framework~~. ~~This larger version, including 57 distractor items (in a total of 100 items), is called the States of Consciousness Questionnaire (SOCQ)" (~~<~~nowiki~~>https://www.~~scielo~~.br/j/~~rpc~~/~~a/VH69LmNV5byrxhHKZbSPMvG~~/~~?lang=en~~</~~nowiki~~>).

			== Dimensions, sub-dimensions, and items ==
	The numbers associated with each item indicate the numerical sequence of the items on the original SoCQ.		The numbers associated with each item indicate the numerical sequence of the items on the original SoCQ.

	~~Number of Items~~

	~~30 or 43~~

	~~States of Consciousness Questionnaire~~

	~~== Dimensions, sub-dimensions, and items ==~~
	1. Internal Unity (6 items)		1. Internal Unity (6 items)

Line 79:		Line 69:

	== Scoring instructions ==		== Scoring instructions ==
	<blockquote>Instructions:		<blockquote>Looking back on the extended session you have just experienced, please rate the degree to which at any time during that session, you experienced the following phenomena. In making each of your ratings, use the following scale:

	Looking back on the extended session you have just experienced, please rate the

	degree to which at any time during that session, you experienced the following

	phenomena. In making each of your ratings, use the following scale:

	0 – none; not at all.		0 – none; not at all.
Line 95:		Line 79:
	3 – moderate		3 – moderate

	4 -- strong (equivalent in degree to any previous strong experience or		4 -- strong (equivalent in degree to any previous strong experience or expectation of this description)

	expectation of this description)

	5 – extreme (more than ever before in my life and stronger than 4)"<ref>https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~jfkihlstrom/ConsciousnessWeb/Psychedelics/Pahnke-Richards_Mystical_Experiences_Questionnaire.pdf</ref></blockquote>		5 – extreme (more than ever before in my life and stronger than 4)"<ref name=":6">https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~jfkihlstrom/ConsciousnessWeb/Psychedelics/Pahnke-Richards_Mystical_Experiences_Questionnaire.pdf</ref></blockquote>

	== Critical discussion ==		== Critical discussion ==
Line 142:		Line 124:
	# Interpretation with 3 sub-domains of Positive affect, Sacredness, and a Noetic quality.</blockquote>		# Interpretation with 3 sub-domains of Positive affect, Sacredness, and a Noetic quality.</blockquote>

	=== ~~Issues~~ ===		=== Limitations ===
	Continuing to quote Sandilands and Ingram (2024):<blockquote>From our present perspective, critical comparison of these scale domains and James’ and Stace’s criteria with our inventory of contemporary scientific literature, as well as with traditional texts, reveals the profound limitations of the ways this notion is defined by these authors, with:		Continuing to quote Sandilands and Ingram (2024):<blockquote>From our present perspective, critical comparison of these scale domains and James’ and Stace’s criteria with our inventory of contemporary scientific literature, as well as with traditional texts, reveals the profound limitations of the ways this notion is defined by these authors, with:

OlivierSandilands: /* Origins */

2025-03-11T17:17:38Z

Origins

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:17, 11 March 2025
Line 129:		Line 129:
	The aforementioned scales directly derive from these two definitions. Indeed, the Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) comprises 30 or 43 question items, depending on the version, divided into 6 domains.<ref name=":0" /> These are:		The aforementioned scales directly derive from these two definitions. Indeed, the Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) comprises 30 or 43 question items, depending on the version, divided into 6 domains.<ref name=":0" /> These are:

	1. A sense of unity,		# A sense of unity,
			# Transcendence of time and space,
	2. Transcendence of time and space,		# Ineffability and paradoxicality,
			# A sense of sacredness,
	3. Ineffability and paradoxicality,		# A noetic quality, and.
			# A deeply-felt positive mood.
	4. A sense of sacredness,

	5. A noetic quality, and.

	6. A deeply-felt positive mood.

	Similarly the Mysticism Scale (M-scale) comprises three domains:<ref>Streib, H., Klein, C., Keller, B., and Hood, R. (2020). The Mysticism Scale as Measure for Subjective Spirituality in A. L. Ai, P. Wink, R. F. Paloutzian, and K. A. Harris. (2021). Assessing Spirituality in a diverse world. ''Spring. Int. Pub.'' 467–491.</ref>		Similarly the Mysticism Scale (M-scale) comprises three domains:<ref>Streib, H., Klein, C., Keller, B., and Hood, R. (2020). The Mysticism Scale as Measure for Subjective Spirituality in A. L. Ai, P. Wink, R. F. Paloutzian, and K. A. Harris. (2021). Assessing Spirituality in a diverse world. ''Spring. Int. Pub.'' 467–491.</ref>

	1. Extrovertive, with 2 sub-domains of Inner Subjectivity and Unity,		# Extrovertive, with 2 sub-domains of Inner Subjectivity and Unity,
			# Introvertive, with 3 sub-domains of Timelessness/Spacelessness, Ego loss, Ineffability, and.
	2. Introvertive, with 3 sub-domains of Timelessness/Spacelessness, Ego loss, Ineffability, and.		# Interpretation with 3 sub-domains of Positive affect, Sacredness, and a Noetic quality.</blockquote>

	3. Interpretation with 3 sub-domains of Positive affect, Sacredness, and a Noetic quality.</blockquote>

	=== Issues ===		=== Issues ===

OlivierSandilands: /* Origins of the definition */

2025-03-11T17:16:50Z

Origins of the definition

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:16, 11 March 2025
Line 102:		Line 102:

	== Critical discussion ==		== Critical discussion ==
	The very definitions of "mystical experience" at the root of the development of this scale should be discussed. ~~As explained in Sandilands and Ingram (2024), the~~ Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ), along with other similar instruments like the Mysticism Scale (M-scale), are based on William James’ seminal work, ''Varieties of Religious Experience'', and that of W.T. Stace in ''Philosophy and Mysticism.''		=== Origins ===
			The very definitions of "mystical experience" at the root of the development of this scale should be discussed. The Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ), along with other similar instruments like the Mysticism Scale (M-scale), are based on William James’ seminal work, ''Varieties of Religious Experience'', and that of W.T. Stace in ''Philosophy and Mysticism.'' These original definitions and the problems they pose are discussed at length in Sandilands and Ingram (2024):<blockquote>Let us begin with James. Lectures XVI and XVII in the series which make up ''The Varieties of Religious Experience'' treat at length of the topic of “mystical phenomena”<ref name=":1">James, W. (2005). ''The varieties of religious experience: A study in human nature: Being the Gifford lectures on natural religion delivered at Edinburgh in 1901–1902''. Boston: Adamant Media Corporation.</ref> (p. 378) because, according to James, “personal religious experience has its root and center in mystical states of consciousness” (p. 379). Here, James sets himself the task of showing the “reality of the states in question,” and the “paramount importance of their function” (''ibid.'') He proposes a definition of the states comprised in the “mystical group” (p. 384) as characterized by “four marks”: (1) Ineffability, (2) Noetic quality, (3) Transiency and (4) Passivity (pp. 380–384).
	~~=== Origins of the definition ===~~
	These original definitions and the problems they pose are discussed at length in Sandilands and Ingram (2024):

	Let us begin with James. Lectures XVI and XVII in the series which make up ''The Varieties of Religious Experience'' treat at length of the topic of “mystical phenomena”<ref name=":1">James, W. (2005). ''The varieties of religious experience: A study in human nature: Being the Gifford lectures on natural religion delivered at Edinburgh in 1901–1902''. Boston: Adamant Media Corporation.</ref> (p. 378) because, according to James, “personal religious experience has its root and center in mystical states of consciousness” (p. 379). Here, James sets himself the task of showing the “reality of the states in question,” and the “paramount importance of their function” (''ibid.'') He proposes a definition of the states comprised in the “mystical group” (p. 384) as characterized by “four marks”: (1) Ineffability, (2) Noetic quality, (3) Transiency and (4) Passivity (pp. 380–384).

	In ''Mysticism and Philosophy'', W.T. Stace provides a summary of the common characteristics of what he calls “extrovertive” and “introvertive” mystical experiences.<ref>Stace, W. T. (1987). ''Mysticism and philosophy''. ed. J. P. Tarcher (New York: Distributed by St. Martin’s Press).</ref>		In ''Mysticism and Philosophy'', W.T. Stace provides a summary of the common characteristics of what he calls “extrovertive” and “introvertive” mystical experiences.<ref>Stace, W. T. (1987). ''Mysticism and philosophy''. ed. J. P. Tarcher (New York: Distributed by St. Martin’s Press).</ref>
Line 151:		Line 147:
	2. Introvertive, with 3 sub-domains of Timelessness/Spacelessness, Ego loss, Ineffability, and.		2. Introvertive, with 3 sub-domains of Timelessness/Spacelessness, Ego loss, Ineffability, and.

	3. Interpretation with 3 sub-domains of Positive affect, Sacredness, and a Noetic quality.		3. Interpretation with 3 sub-domains of Positive affect, Sacredness, and a Noetic quality.</blockquote>

	=== Issues ===		=== Issues ===
	From our present perspective, critical comparison of these scale domains and James’ and Stace’s criteria with our inventory of contemporary scientific literature, as well as with traditional texts, reveals the profound limitations of the ways this notion is defined by these authors, with:		Continuing to quote Sandilands and Ingram (2024):<blockquote>From our present perspective, critical comparison of these scale domains and James’ and Stace’s criteria with our inventory of contemporary scientific literature, as well as with traditional texts, reveals the profound limitations of the ways this notion is defined by these authors, with:

	# The ''de facto'' exclusion of experiences and effects of a challenging nature such as the “Dark Nights” — of the “Soul,” “Senses,” or “Spirit”,<ref name=":2">Kornfield, J. (1993). ''A path with heart: A guide through the perils and promises of spiritual life''. New York: Bantam Books.</ref><ref name=":3">St. John of the Cross (2010). ''Dark night of the soul'', Gastonia: TAN Books.</ref><ref>Lutkajtis, A. (2019c). “The answer to all your problems?” The overly positive presentation of meditation in the media. ''J. Acad. Study Relig.'' 32, 49–71. [[Doi: 10.1558/jasr.37863\|doi: 10.1558/jasr.37863]]</ref> often tellingly called “Mystical Nights” — which certainly cannot be characterized by a positive mood, nor necessarily by a short duration, nor any of the other criteria we just listed. However, these are a common and essential phase of spiritual development according to canonical Christian texts. Notice, that there are ''kinds'' of dark nights. One may think this is specific to some Christian authors. But a similar point can be made with the Buddhist notion of the “''Dukkha ñanas''” (Pali), meaning “Knowledges of Suffering,” a normative developmental phase within the context of Theravada Buddhist meditation theory.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":4">Sayadaw, Mahāsī . (1994). ''The Progress of insight''.</ref><ref>Grabovac, A. (2014). The stages of insight: clinical relevance for mindfulness-based interventions. ''Mindfulness'' 6, 589–600. [[Doi: 10.1007/s12671-014-0294-2\|doi: 10.1007/s12671-014-0294-2]]</ref><ref>Lutkajtis, A. (2019a). Delineating the ‘dark night’ in Buddhist postmodernism. ''Lit. Aesthet.'' 29.</ref><ref>Lutkajtis, A. (2019b). ''The dark side of dharma: meditation, madness and other maladies of the contemplative path''. London: Aeon.</ref><ref>Lutkajtis, A. (2020b). ''Meditation, madness and other maladies of the contemplative path''. London: Aeon.</ref> As their name suggests, these “stages” of deepening meditation include experiences of “fear,” “misery,” “disgust,” etc. Yet, in this traditional framework, they are preceded and followed by stages which could fit many or all of the above criteria. Also, notice again that several variants and phases of “knowledges of suffering” are traditionally distinguished. Even if one chose to consider that later commentarial texts like the ''Vissudhimagga''<ref>Buddhaghosa (1991). ''The path of purification: Visuddhimagga''. ed. Ñānamoli. Fifth ed. (Kandy, Sri Lanka: Buddhist Publication Society).</ref> where this model was elaborately described and expanded on beyond its roots in the ''Abhidhamma'' and ''Khuddaka Nikāya'', are “inauthentic,” one could respond that some texts which are canonical in ''all'' branches of Buddhism [the Pali canon<ref>Ñanamoli, B., and Bodhi, B. (1995). “The middle length discourses of the Buddha” in ''A translation of the Majjhima Nikaya''. ed. M. Nisargadatta (Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publication).</ref>] contain ample evidence that “mystical experience” is not ''just'' what James and Stace described. Beyond these two traditions, grief and trauma<ref>Yaden, D. B., and Newberg, A. (2022). ''The varieties of spiritual experience: 21st century research and perspectives'' : Oxford University Press.</ref> and generally speaking suffering-related experiences acting as triggers of spiritual development is a well-documented phenomenon. In fact, one may even say that in various traditional texts, mystical life begins with suffering and systematically involve negative experiences, sometimes to extreme degrees. This is reflected in Joseph Campbell’s ''monomyth'', or Hero’s journey, a universal model of the unfolding of narrative and mythological stories in world literature, where the hero enters the Underworld or Abyss, or undergoes some profoundly challenging Quest, before coming back transformed or renewed to the known world.<ref>Campbell, J. (2008). ''The hero with a thousand faces''. 3rd Edn. Novato, California: New World Library.</ref> Obviously, challenging EPEEs abound [...], such as negatively valenced and sometimes terrifying psychedelic experiences (“bad trips”). Yet these may have long-term positive effects (as well as further negative effects) on one’s spirituality and life in general, be existentially and paradigmatically transformative, and result in beneficial long-term outcomes. All these examples show that we should not frame “mystical” experiences and generally EPEEs as only “pleasant” and ignore or fail to properly categorize and study non-pleasant, sometimes challenging EPEEs, at the risk of fueling what has been described as the “overly positive presentation of meditation in the media”.<ref>Lutkajtis, A. (2019c). “The answer to all your problems?” The overly positive presentation of meditation in the media. ''J. Acad. Study Relig.'' 32, 49–71. [[Doi: 10.1558/jasr.37863\|doi: 10.1558/jasr.37863]]</ref> One may argue that contemporary research has developed specific instruments to that effect (e.g., the [[Challenging Experiences Questionnaire]]) but it is also clear that appraising all experiences which do not fit a simplistic definition of mystical experience as “challenging experiences,” “adverse effects” or “adverse events”,<ref>Farias, M., Maraldi, E., Wallenkampf, K. C., and Lucchetti, G. (2020). Adverse events in meditation practices and meditation-based therapies: a systematic review. ''Acta Psychiatr. Scand.'' 142, 374–393. [[Doi: 10.1111/acps.13225\|doi: 10.1111/acps.13225]] </ref> is problematic.		# The ''de facto'' exclusion of experiences and effects of a challenging nature such as the “Dark Nights” — of the “Soul,” “Senses,” or “Spirit”,<ref name=":2">Kornfield, J. (1993). ''A path with heart: A guide through the perils and promises of spiritual life''. New York: Bantam Books.</ref><ref name=":3">St. John of the Cross (2010). ''Dark night of the soul'', Gastonia: TAN Books.</ref><ref>Lutkajtis, A. (2019c). “The answer to all your problems?” The overly positive presentation of meditation in the media. ''J. Acad. Study Relig.'' 32, 49–71. [[Doi: 10.1558/jasr.37863\|doi: 10.1558/jasr.37863]]</ref> often tellingly called “Mystical Nights” — which certainly cannot be characterized by a positive mood, nor necessarily by a short duration, nor any of the other criteria we just listed. However, these are a common and essential phase of spiritual development according to canonical Christian texts. Notice, that there are ''kinds'' of dark nights. One may think this is specific to some Christian authors. But a similar point can be made with the Buddhist notion of the “''Dukkha ñanas''” (Pali), meaning “Knowledges of Suffering,” a normative developmental phase within the context of Theravada Buddhist meditation theory.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":4">Sayadaw, Mahāsī . (1994). ''The Progress of insight''.</ref><ref>Grabovac, A. (2014). The stages of insight: clinical relevance for mindfulness-based interventions. ''Mindfulness'' 6, 589–600. [[Doi: 10.1007/s12671-014-0294-2\|doi: 10.1007/s12671-014-0294-2]]</ref><ref>Lutkajtis, A. (2019a). Delineating the ‘dark night’ in Buddhist postmodernism. ''Lit. Aesthet.'' 29.</ref><ref>Lutkajtis, A. (2019b). ''The dark side of dharma: meditation, madness and other maladies of the contemplative path''. London: Aeon.</ref><ref>Lutkajtis, A. (2020b). ''Meditation, madness and other maladies of the contemplative path''. London: Aeon.</ref> As their name suggests, these “stages” of deepening meditation include experiences of “fear,” “misery,” “disgust,” etc. Yet, in this traditional framework, they are preceded and followed by stages which could fit many or all of the above criteria. Also, notice again that several variants and phases of “knowledges of suffering” are traditionally distinguished. Even if one chose to consider that later commentarial texts like the ''Vissudhimagga''<ref>Buddhaghosa (1991). ''The path of purification: Visuddhimagga''. ed. Ñānamoli. Fifth ed. (Kandy, Sri Lanka: Buddhist Publication Society).</ref> where this model was elaborately described and expanded on beyond its roots in the ''Abhidhamma'' and ''Khuddaka Nikāya'', are “inauthentic,” one could respond that some texts which are canonical in ''all'' branches of Buddhism [the Pali canon<ref>Ñanamoli, B., and Bodhi, B. (1995). “The middle length discourses of the Buddha” in ''A translation of the Majjhima Nikaya''. ed. M. Nisargadatta (Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publication).</ref>] contain ample evidence that “mystical experience” is not ''just'' what James and Stace described. Beyond these two traditions, grief and trauma<ref>Yaden, D. B., and Newberg, A. (2022). ''The varieties of spiritual experience: 21st century research and perspectives'' : Oxford University Press.</ref> and generally speaking suffering-related experiences acting as triggers of spiritual development is a well-documented phenomenon. In fact, one may even say that in various traditional texts, mystical life begins with suffering and systematically involve negative experiences, sometimes to extreme degrees. This is reflected in Joseph Campbell’s ''monomyth'', or Hero’s journey, a universal model of the unfolding of narrative and mythological stories in world literature, where the hero enters the Underworld or Abyss, or undergoes some profoundly challenging Quest, before coming back transformed or renewed to the known world.<ref>Campbell, J. (2008). ''The hero with a thousand faces''. 3rd Edn. Novato, California: New World Library.</ref> Obviously, challenging EPEEs abound [...], such as negatively valenced and sometimes terrifying psychedelic experiences (“bad trips”). Yet these may have long-term positive effects (as well as further negative effects) on one’s spirituality and life in general, be existentially and paradigmatically transformative, and result in beneficial long-term outcomes. All these examples show that we should not frame “mystical” experiences and generally EPEEs as only “pleasant” and ignore or fail to properly categorize and study non-pleasant, sometimes challenging EPEEs, at the risk of fueling what has been described as the “overly positive presentation of meditation in the media”.<ref>Lutkajtis, A. (2019c). “The answer to all your problems?” The overly positive presentation of meditation in the media. ''J. Acad. Study Relig.'' 32, 49–71. [[Doi: 10.1558/jasr.37863\|doi: 10.1558/jasr.37863]]</ref> One may argue that contemporary research has developed specific instruments to that effect (e.g., the [[Challenging Experiences Questionnaire]]) but it is also clear that appraising all experiences which do not fit a simplistic definition of mystical experience as “challenging experiences,” “adverse effects” or “adverse events”,<ref>Farias, M., Maraldi, E., Wallenkampf, K. C., and Lucchetti, G. (2020). Adverse events in meditation practices and meditation-based therapies: a systematic review. ''Acta Psychiatr. Scand.'' 142, 374–393. [[Doi: 10.1111/acps.13225\|doi: 10.1111/acps.13225]] </ref> is problematic.
Line 170:		Line 166:
	Additional history and criticism of these definitions and the psychometric instruments that derive from them can be found in Taves (2020).<ref name=":5">Taves, A. (2020). Mystical and other alterations in sense of self: an expanded framework for studying nonordinary experiences. ''Perspect. Psychol. Sci.'' 15, 669–690. [[Doi: 10.1177/1745691619895047\|doi: 10.1177/1745691619895047]] </ref> The author also reminds us that, “When William James criticized the contemptuous disregard with which scientists treated the ‘mass of phenomena generally called mystical’ in 1890, he presupposed a widely accepted definition of mysticism that included ‘''divinations, inspirations, demoniacal possessions, apparitions, trances, ecstasies, miraculous healings and productions of disease, and occult powers''’”.<ref name=":5" /> Furthermore, “James also linked such experiences with drugs”,<ref name=":5" /> writing that, “The drunken consciousness is one bit of the mystic consciousness,” and with certain “pathological conditions”.<ref name=":1" /> It is only later that he, alongside others, adopted a “narrower definition”,<ref name=":5" /> crystallizing in Stace’s limiting, contradictory, and biased definition of mysticism, which would inform 20th century thinking and research. Clearly, James’ original view of mysticism was closer to what we call [[Synthesis:Emergent Phenomena\|emergent phenomena, experiences, and effects (EPEEs)]]. Thus, in many ways, we are returning to the original Jamesian spirit.		Additional history and criticism of these definitions and the psychometric instruments that derive from them can be found in Taves (2020).<ref name=":5">Taves, A. (2020). Mystical and other alterations in sense of self: an expanded framework for studying nonordinary experiences. ''Perspect. Psychol. Sci.'' 15, 669–690. [[Doi: 10.1177/1745691619895047\|doi: 10.1177/1745691619895047]] </ref> The author also reminds us that, “When William James criticized the contemptuous disregard with which scientists treated the ‘mass of phenomena generally called mystical’ in 1890, he presupposed a widely accepted definition of mysticism that included ‘''divinations, inspirations, demoniacal possessions, apparitions, trances, ecstasies, miraculous healings and productions of disease, and occult powers''’”.<ref name=":5" /> Furthermore, “James also linked such experiences with drugs”,<ref name=":5" /> writing that, “The drunken consciousness is one bit of the mystic consciousness,” and with certain “pathological conditions”.<ref name=":1" /> It is only later that he, alongside others, adopted a “narrower definition”,<ref name=":5" /> crystallizing in Stace’s limiting, contradictory, and biased definition of mysticism, which would inform 20th century thinking and research. Clearly, James’ original view of mysticism was closer to what we call [[Synthesis:Emergent Phenomena\|emergent phenomena, experiences, and effects (EPEEs)]]. Thus, in many ways, we are returning to the original Jamesian spirit.

	In sum, there are key issues with the definition of mystical experience which lies at the root of questionnaires like the MEQ and other scales derived from the definitions proposed by Stace and James, and we suggest adopting expanded perspective grounded on reviewing both traditional and contemporary phenomenological evidence, as we are attempting here, would likely be beneficial.		In sum, there are key issues with the definition of mystical experience which lies at the root of questionnaires like the MEQ and other scales derived from the definitions proposed by Stace and James, and we suggest adopting expanded perspective grounded on reviewing both traditional and contemporary phenomenological evidence, as we are attempting here, would likely be beneficial.</blockquote>

	== References ==		== References ==

OlivierSandilands: /* Issues */

2025-03-11T17:14:19Z

Issues

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:14, 11 March 2025
Line 162:		Line 162:
	## The question of ''ineffability'', might be an invalid criterion all together. Difficulty articulating a novel experience happening at the pre-reflexive level is a well-known fact of life. That is a basic premise of phenomenological research, with qualitative methods such as micro-phenomenology having been designed, precisely, to help experiences make “what experiences are like” explicit [...]. The (perfectly legitimate) sense that talking about a given event would somehow diminish its value, leading to a form of privacy or secrecy, is not exactly the same thing as that experience being impossible to express.		## The question of ''ineffability'', might be an invalid criterion all together. Difficulty articulating a novel experience happening at the pre-reflexive level is a well-known fact of life. That is a basic premise of phenomenological research, with qualitative methods such as micro-phenomenology having been designed, precisely, to help experiences make “what experiences are like” explicit [...]. The (perfectly legitimate) sense that talking about a given event would somehow diminish its value, leading to a form of privacy or secrecy, is not exactly the same thing as that experience being impossible to express.
	## As for ''transiency'', traditional knowledge and recent research shows that various meditative states, sometimes highly refined and rare, such as Buddhist ''Nirodha Samāpatti'' can last quite a long-time (in the case of NS, Laukkonen et al. (2023) report a duration of 90 min,<ref>Laukkonen, R. E., Sacchet, M. D., Barendregt, H., Devaney, K. J., Chowdhury, A., and Slagter, H. A. (2023). “Cessations of consciousness in meditation: advancing a scientific understanding of nirodha samāpatti” in ''Progress in brain research'' (Elsevier), S0079612322001984.</ref> and the commentarial literature, such as the ''Visuddhimagga'', reports such attainments may last for 7 or more days). Further, if one considers the “Dark Nights” and “''Dhukka ñanas''” as variants of mystical states, then these could actually last for months, years, or decades.		## As for ''transiency'', traditional knowledge and recent research shows that various meditative states, sometimes highly refined and rare, such as Buddhist ''Nirodha Samāpatti'' can last quite a long-time (in the case of NS, Laukkonen et al. (2023) report a duration of 90 min,<ref>Laukkonen, R. E., Sacchet, M. D., Barendregt, H., Devaney, K. J., Chowdhury, A., and Slagter, H. A. (2023). “Cessations of consciousness in meditation: advancing a scientific understanding of nirodha samāpatti” in ''Progress in brain research'' (Elsevier), S0079612322001984.</ref> and the commentarial literature, such as the ''Visuddhimagga'', reports such attainments may last for 7 or more days). Further, if one considers the “Dark Nights” and “''Dhukka ñanas''” as variants of mystical states, then these could actually last for months, years, or decades.
	## The ''noetic'' criterion — meaning the experience involves a sense of “knowing,” or of perceiving something “true” — although sometimes seemingly very valid, should be used with discernment, as it can be misleading or even deceptive, and some (though not all!) forms of “noesis” are commonly described as pitfalls in many traditions. For instance the “Arising and Passing Away” stage we mentioned is described in some Buddhist mediation manuals as involving the arising of a “''brilliant light'',” “strong mindfulness,” “'''keen, strong, and lucid ''knowledge''''',” “strong ''faith'',” “''rapture'' in its five grades,” “''tranquillity'' of mind,” “a very sublime feeling of ''happiness'',” “''energy'',” “strong ''equanimity'',” and “a subtle ''attachment''”. Yet these are clearly noted as “ten corruptions of insight” and “mistaking what is not the path for the path”.<ref name=":4" /> The prescription here is to “purify” these corruptions by noticing that “The brilliant light, and the other things […] are not the path” and that “Delight in them is merely a corruption of insight”.<ref name=":4" /> This applies to the noetic component, but also to other phenomenal features which are commonly attributed to mystical experiences by, e.g., Stace. Similar warnings around the early fruits of meditative practice can be found in Christian manuals.<ref name=":3" /> In fact, classical mystical texts like the ''Cloud of Unknowing'', would likely make the case that high mystical states rather involve a sense of ''unknowing'', or ''not knowing'' (Wolters, 2001). The value of the sense of “knowing” in EPEEs is also questioned in contemporary research on psychedelic experiences (e.g., Timmermann et al., 2022 argue that “the ability of psychedelics to induce noetic feelings of revelation may enhance the significance and attribution of reality to specific beliefs, worldviews, and apparent memories […] might exacerbate the risk of iatrogenic complications that other psychotherapeutic approaches have historically faced, such as false memory syndrome”),		## The ''noetic'' criterion — meaning the experience involves a sense of “knowing,” or of perceiving something “true” — although sometimes seemingly very valid, should be used with discernment, as it can be misleading or even deceptive, and some (though not all!) forms of “noesis” are commonly described as pitfalls in many traditions. For instance the “Arising and Passing Away” stage we mentioned is described in some Buddhist mediation manuals as involving the arising of a “''brilliant light'',” “strong mindfulness,” “'''keen, strong, and lucid ''knowledge''''',” “strong ''faith'',” “''rapture'' in its five grades,” “''tranquillity'' of mind,” “a very sublime feeling of ''happiness'',” “''energy'',” “strong ''equanimity'',” and “a subtle ''attachment''”. Yet these are clearly noted as “ten corruptions of insight” and “mistaking what is not the path for the path”.<ref name=":4" /> The prescription here is to “purify” these corruptions by noticing that “The brilliant light, and the other things […] are not the path” and that “Delight in them is merely a corruption of insight”.<ref name=":4" /> This applies to the noetic component, but also to other phenomenal features which are commonly attributed to mystical experiences by, e.g., Stace. Similar warnings around the early fruits of meditative practice can be found in Christian manuals.<ref name=":3" /> In fact, classical mystical texts like the ''Cloud of Unknowing'', would likely make the case that high mystical states rather involve a sense of ''unknowing'', or ''not knowing'' (Wolters, 2001). The value of the sense of “knowing” in EPEEs is also questioned in contemporary research on psychedelic experiences (e.g., Timmermann et al., 2022 argue that “the ability of psychedelics to induce noetic feelings of revelation may enhance the significance and attribution of reality to specific beliefs, worldviews, and apparent memories […] might exacerbate the risk of iatrogenic complications that other psychotherapeutic approaches have historically faced, such as false memory syndrome”<ref>Timmermann, C., Watts, R., and Dupuis, D. (2022). Towards psychedelic apprenticeship: developing a gentle touch for the mediation and validation of psychedelic-induced insights and revelations. ''Transcult. Psychiatry'' 59, 691–704. [[Doi: 10.1177/13634615221082796\|doi: 10.1177/13634615221082796]] </ref>),
	## The ''passivity'' criterion seems less ambiguous, but is nevertheless contradicted by the canonical description of, e.g., the first ''jhāna'', which as we have seen involves intentionally “aiming” and “maintaining” one’s attention on the meditation object. Yet many would call the first jhāna a mystical experience.		## The ''passivity'' criterion seems less ambiguous, but is nevertheless contradicted by the canonical description of, e.g., the first ''jhāna'', which as we have seen involves intentionally “aiming” and “maintaining” one’s attention on the meditation object. Yet many would call the first jhāna a mystical experience.
	# Various other terminological issues also arise:		# Various other terminological issues also arise:

OlivierSandilands at 17:13, 11 March 2025

2025-03-11T17:13:01Z

Show changes