While it is true that G-d is ineffable, we must not deny G-d's existence. Rather, we must accept that only G-d may know the true meaning of G-dself. As Søren Kierkegaard puts it, "the works of G-d are such that only G-d may understand them -.
James' statement that Mystical states must possess a Noetic quality provides for a much more direct approach to establishing the existence of G-d. James stipulates that mystical states plunge the experiencer into an insightful state of truth and knowledge. This poses the question: from where is this knowledge gained? There only two options. It is either a prior or a posteriori. Let us for a moment assume that the knowledge gained in mystical states of consciousness is a priori. If this is so, then knowledge is, as Plato puts it, "simply recollection ."" The mystic is merely accessing knowledge in parts of his/her mind which could not be accessed while in a rational state of consciousness. This statement, however disposes of the concept of a governing body over mystical states of consciousness. If the Noetic quality of mystical states of consciousness is approached with the conjecture that the knowledge gained is a posteriori, then one can clearly state that the governing body - G-d - is that source of that knowledge. And while the mystical state and the source of knowledge in that mystical state are both ineffable, we do not deny the validity of their existence.
Secondly, James submits that there are two more characteristics which, though "less sharply marked, - are commonly applied to most mystical states of consciousness. The first is transiency. James proposes that:.
Mystical states cannot be sustained for long. Except in rare instances, half an hour, or at most an hour or two, seems to be the limit beyond which they fade into the light of common day. .
With this in mind, we must now address a prevailing question which has followed us throughout this critique.
