Hard Constructivism
Hard constructivists oppose those who believe there could be a common core to mystical experiences . One of the foundational texts in support of hard constructivism is by Steven Katz who states that ‘ There are NO pure ( i . e . unmediated ) experiences ’ because all experiences are mediated ( author ’ s italics ). 14 Katz denies there can be any common core to mystical experience as he holds that all experiences are shaped by pre-existing cultural beliefs , concepts , and language , so , for example . a Christian has a Christian experience , a Buddhist has a Buddhist experience , monotheists encounter a personal God , non-dualists talk about identity with the Supreme and so on . These differences reflect their beliefs and expectations within their linguistic context . In other words , they are constructing their mystical experience out of pre-existing elements , and these will differ from tradition to tradition and individual to individual .
Katz further maintains that no new theological insights can arise from a mystical experience as it is constructed out of existing dogma and expectation . He views attempts to draw up lists of common characteristics as too generalised and criticises the work of scholars like Stace for incorrectly assuming that different terms ( such as Brahman or the ‘ One ’) refer to the same thing . 15 His hard constructivist standpoint therefore contests my own working hypothesis that there could be an experiential explanation for some of the theological or philosophical similarities across different traditions , particularly within the mystical aspects of those traditions . It does so firstly because it denies the possibility of a common core of mystical experience and secondly because it does not consider that mystical experience can give rise to new theological or philosophical insights . There are , however , some challenges to be made to hard constructivism .
22