Transcendent experiences: What are they? What role should they play in our lives

Human experience is often organized into two types: the transcendent and the mundane. The mundane typically refers to objective experience commonly shared by all humans: the sky looks blue, fire feels hot, dirty diapers have an odor, a jet engine makes a sound, etc.. In contrast, the transcendent typically refers to experiences not commonly shared by most humans: sensing presences, seeing god, feeling a unity with all people and things, etc…). Because transcendent experiences are phenomenological (only experienced by the person having them) it is difficult—if not impossible—for others to directly and objectively evaluate their credibility. Despite that, in many cultures both past and present, transcendent experiences hold the same validity as mundane experiences. Both types, according to these cultures, are to be taken seriously and both types should influence how we live our lives.

In contrast, according to our own culture’s post-enlightenment positivist philosophy—a philosophy that values objectivity, reason, logic, and empiricism—all transcendent experiences lack credibility, should never be taken seriously, and should never influence how we live our lives. According to this philosophy, the source of transcendent experience is not our environment. The source is not, for example, an immaterial god or other type of phenomena that exist unseen in the environment. Transcendent experiences are instead, according to this philosophy, fabricated by our own mind due to unusual changes in the neurochemistry and electrical functioning of the human brain. Supporting this position are laboratory experiments that can induce transcendent experiences in human subjects at will through electrical simulation of the brain and drugs like DMT, LSD, and other psychedelics.

This argument against the credibility of transcendent experience may seem superficial at best, since these experiences can never be objectively measured or studied. At worst, the argument seems based on a type of selective reasoning. If transcendent experiences are invalid because they are triggered by brain neurochemistry and electrical simulation, why aren’t mundane experiences also considered invalid? After all, mundane experiences are also triggered by electrical stimulation and brain neurochemistry—where the source of the trigger can be easily traced back to electrical signals generated by our five major sense organs (eyes, ears, tongue, skin, and nose).

Upon closer examination, the argument against the validity of transcendent experience seems to be based on an implicit ideology within our culture. This ideology seems to be generally accepted as true by most people, despite not being critiqued or reasonably considered. The ideology states that only experiences that can be shared and confirmed by others are to be considered credible. If you happened to be born 1,000 years ago, you would need your village to confirm that you did, indeed, experience what you thought you did. Today, you need a scientist, psychologist, and/or a book. Why should we take as credible only the set of experiences that are confirmable by others? Why accept mundane experience simply because they are shared by large groups of people, only to ridicule other experiences (i.e., transcendent experience) simply because they are not shared by large groups of people? Why should one set of experiences be taken seriously and the other not? Simply because we can pinpoint an objective environmental cause of one experience, but not the other? What if we lack the ability to pinpoint certain causes?

Phenomenology is the study of structures of consciousness (emotions, sense of self, thoughts, experience of reality, etc…) as experienced from the first-person point of view. From this standpoint all experience—both transcendent and mundane—are experienced from the first-person point of view and are therefore phenomenological. For example, we experience the vision of earth’s sky as blue from a first-person (phenomenological) point of view; we experience the sound of a jet engine from a first-person point of view; we experience the smell of dirty diapers from a first-person point of view; we experience the emotion of happiness from a first-person point of view; we experience the feeling of an invisible presence from a first-person point of view; we experience the feeling of unity with all things from a first-person point of view; etc... Absolutely everything we ever have and ever will experience during the entirety of our lives will be, exclusively, from a first-person point of view. Given that, if the standard of credibility for any human experience is communal agreement (as dictated by post-enlightenment positivist philosophy) then it becomes impossible for any experience—either transcendent or mundane—to be credible because 1) all human experience is phenomenological (experienced from a first-person point of view), and 2) it is impossible for any first-person experience to be shared with others—by the very definition of “first-person experience”. From a phenomenological perspective therefore, judging experience as credible solely on the judgment of a third-party—whether a community or an individual—is irrational.

What are transcendent experiences?

What makes a transcendent experience a credible or valid experience?

What does it mean for someone’s personal experience to lack credibility or validity?

If someone tells you that your transcendent experience is not a credible or “real” experience, what does that mean? Does that mean the experience didn’t really happen?

Are transcendent experiences valuable to a person? How are they valuable?

How are transcendent experiences different from common mundane experiences?

Should we prevent transcendent experiences from influencing our lives simply because they cannot be explained rationally?

Should we reject transcendent experiences simply because there is no empirical, objective evidence for their existence?