<blockquote>The nature of schizophrenia, and other forms of psychosis, is still under debate and a significant issue is the relationship between psychosis and the mystical, or religious, experience. Throughout history this question has been addressed by scholars from all fields of inquiry. Currently, psychologists are looking at the similarities and differences between the experiences, hoping to shed light on the nature, process, and treatment of psychosis. I was curious to see what has been discovered.

The information available on mystical experience and psychotic episodes seems limitless. This paper will focus on the current psychological perspective which examines mystical and psychotic experiences as a natural, universal phenomena. This is not a new idea; however, specific to recent research is its objective, systematic nature. Looking to define both in value-neutral, experiential terms, psychologists are scrutinizing the biological, psychological, and behavioral correlates of the two experiences, combining information from ongoing measurement and personal interviews and the body of knowledge available from philosophy and the study of religion.

In order to discover the relationship between mystical experience and psychosis, analysis must first be directed at defining each individually. Therefore I present not only a review of the current psychological research regarding this relationship, but also a look at theories addressing the questions "what is a mystical experience?" and "what is psychosis?"

DEFINING MYSTICISM:
One topic scholars agree on is the need for a formal definition of mystical experience; they intend to determine the characteristics common to all descriptions of mystical experience, and have this be a "working definition" for present research. In this manner, studies can be related simply and without confusion of terms. Authors of the material I reviewed began discussion with their definition of mystical experience; the following characteristics emerged repeatedly as each author attempts to define mystical experience: experience of unity, intense affective experience, time/space distortion, noetic quality, ineffability, and a sense of holiness or sacredness. In addition, the authors generally included the concept of universality in their definitions. There are aspects of the definition which scholars are not able to agree on; however, the recent development of tools of measurement (e.g. scales, questionnaires) may be able to provide information to help answer such questions.

During the early 1900's, William James wrote about the idea of a spectrum - or continuum - of mystical states of consciousness ranging from the non-religious to the most religiously profound (James, 1985). Beginning with the "simplest" sort of mystical experience, James notes the strong sense of significance and knowledge associated with the experience, its "noetic" quality. It is one of four qualities that James uses to define mystical states of consciousness. "Ineffable" is another characteristic which marks an experience as mystical; the experience defies expression. Due to its subjective nature, the experience is much like states of feeling. James asserts that these two qualities "entitle any state to be called mystical" (p.302). However, there are other qualities usually associated with the experience. He explains that the experiences are generally transient. Fading quickly, it is hard to recall the quality of the experience in memory; they remain just out of reach. But, some memory content always remains, and this can be used to "modify the inner life of the subject between the time of their recurrence" (p.303). When having a mystical experience, however, individuals do not seem to actively process the information. Instead it is a passive experience - James' fourth characteristic mark. Even though people actively study and/or practice techniques to produce mystical states of consciousness, once occurring, the experience seems to happen without their will.

Later, James goes on to suggest that these experiences occur as our "field of consciousness" increases (James, 1980). One can assert these "simple" experiences connote a slight widening of this field, whereas the more profound experiences come when consciousness expands to include items usually filtered, hidden, or just out of reach. Such could include memories and sensations. As awareness increases to include more external and internal information, a sense of self, a boundary between self and environment, expands, seems to dissipate. The experience is one of unity with information formerly defined as non-self. This expansion of the self, often referred to as loss of self, may not be beneficial for someone who does not have a "strong" sense of self to begin with. To these people, a mystical experience can be frightening and confusing, to say the least.

In his earlier writings, James refers to "diabolic" mysticism (p.337). Half of mysticism, he explains, is not a religious mysticism, but cases where "mystical ideas" are seen as symptoms of insanity. He refers to these as "lower mysticisms," springing forth from the same psychological mechanisms as the classic, religious sort. However, the messages and emotions are experienced as negative. This idea does not combine well with his proposed spectrum of mystical states of consciousness, where simple experiences are also referred to as non-religious, but are not accompanied by negative affect. James reconciles the difference, and concludes that the definition of mystical states must be value-neutral. All mystical experience, he writes, whether experienced as positive or negative, deserves recognition as available states of consciousness. He ends debate over which is a superior form of consciousness; instead he suggests that, like our rational states, mystical states encompass both truth and deception, pleasure and pain.

Read more here: The Relationship Between Schizophrenia & Mysticism

See also: Commentary: Schizophrenia & Mysticism</blockquote>