Mystics agree, scholars disagree?
"This upsurge in scientific and scholarly interest has not brought about consensus on mystical matters. Quite the contrary. Scholars disagree about the causes of mystical experiences, the best means of inducing them, their relation to mental illness and morality, and their metaphysical significance. Some experts maintain that psychology and even physics must be completely revamped to account for mysticism's supernatural implications. Others believe that mainstream, materialistic science is quite adequate to explain mystical phenomena. Similarly, scholars disagree about whether mystical visions affirm or undermine conventional religious faith."
Let this sink in: "not brought consensus on mystical matters. Quite the contrary."
What would the integral response be to this situation. Everyone is (partially) right?
On the one hand we have this inconclusive state of affairs in scholarship. On the other hand we have the integral view of four basic stages of mystical development c.q. states of consciousness, which basically hasn't changed over the past quarter of a century.
How and where do these views connect? Has the integral view become a religious faith in its own right now, which has to be defended and promoted, even marketed?
Or is it a view which potentially could stir up the field of mystical scholarship? But then, it has to open itself to the opinions of other scholars, even as to its own validity.