Mysticism Meta-Audit Protocol

Domain: Meta-Frameworks

Subdomain: Metaphilosophical Audit / Mysticism

Version: 1.0

Version-Lock: SNP v15.0 / MNM v14.6 / August 24, 2025

SID#1031-SP5V

Abstract

This protocol marks, reviews, and safeguards mystical experience—direct, ineffable apprehension of ultimate reality or union beyond analytic or doctrinal scrutiny. It establishes clear boundaries with Faith & Meaning protocols, sets robust standards for communal impact review, and maintains plural witness for authenticity. Hyperlinked anchors connect Mysticism’s domain to its essential meta-audit partners, anchoring it firmly within context and governance.

• Anchors:

  • Faith & Meaning Meta-Audit Protocol

  • Spectra of Being Protocol

  • Emergence-Scepticism Corpus

1. Functional Definition & Scope

Mysticism (Meta-Audit):First-person accounts of lived union, direct experience, or ineffable apprehension of ultimate reality—epistemically distinguished from belief, doctrine, or commitment.

Sharp Demarcation Clause:

• Faith & Meaning: Handles doctrinal, belief-based, or commitment-based claims about transcendent reality.

• Mysticism: Handles first-person, direct-experience claims of ineffable or unitive states, regardless of doctrinal content.

  • Example: Treatise arguing for the existence of God: Faith & Meaning. Personal testimony describing mystical union: Mysticism.

Scope Clause:

• Applies only to direct, first-person mystical experience claims.

• Does not adjudicate truth, only registry and boundary marking.

• Analytic review barred for ineffable claims; constitutional/public review applies only when communal impact threshold is met.

2. Trigger Criteria & Enhanced Triage Checklist

Activation Trigger:

• Formal registry submission marked as direct mystical/ineffable experience.

• Explicit refusal/unsuitability for analytic review.

Enhanced Triage Checklist:

1. Is the claim/testimony first-person, direct-experience, marked mystical or ineffable?

2. Are three (minimum) plural witnesses or contextual endorsements logged (multigenerational/multicontinental preferred)?

3. Contextual Plausibility: Is the claim consistent with, or thoughtfully divergent from, a recognized tradition of mystical practice/inquiry?

   • This is not a truth test; it ensures authenticity and prevents protocol misuse.

4. Would analytic review inherently violate the claim’s nature?

5. Is the assertion meaningfully distinguished from doctrinal argument (route to Faith protocol if ambiguous)?

6. Is the claim linked to tradition, cosmology, or communal protocol—are those boundaries cross-referenced?

7. Communal Impact Review: Is the claim being offered as a basis for actions or decisions that extend beyond private experience?

3. Audit, Documentation, & Review

• Registry:

  • Log: Claim/testimony, horizon marking (“Ineffability,” “Union,” or “Direct Vision”).

  • Plural witness/context required.

  • Plausibility in context annotated; cross-references to Faith, Spectra, Emergence as warranted.

  • Internal dissent/contestation documented—but does not trigger public override unless transitioning to action.

• Mandatory Public Impact Review:

  • If a mystical claim affects collective policy, law, ethical mandate:

    • Review Focus: Not on mystical experience itself, but on the action or decision proposed.

    • Process: Proposed action/mandate must be justified using frameworks accessible and debatable in public ethical/legal discourse (e.g., Ethics-Morality and Care Protocol), independent of occult authority.

    • Burden: Claimant must provide rationale accessible within relevant frameworks; ineffability alone cannot shield public action from scrutiny.

    • Documentation: All steps of policy/mandate review logged, dissent flagged.

• Constitutional Review:

  • Triggered if collective consequence or legal/ethical contestation arises.

  • Plural constitutional ruling determines legitimacy, harm, and governance impact.

• Meta-Audit Cycle:

  • Mysticism entries reviewed every five years, or upon relevant challenge, dissent, or impact escalation.

4. Boundaries, Override & Protection Clauses

• Sanctuary Clause:

  • Ineffable, personal mystical claims are protected from analytic or evidentiary reduction, unless public impact threshold is met.

  • Truth recognized as plural, contestations annotated—no forced singular resolution.

• Override Clause:

  • Only enacted by plural constitutional consent documenting ethical/legal necessity.

  • Override never applies to private mystical experiences lacking collective policy consequences.

5. Anchors & Corpus Integration

Anchors (Hyperlinked):

• Faith & Meaning Meta-Audit Protocol

• Spectra of Being Protocol

• Emergence-Scepticism Corpus

Corpus Integration:

• Mysticism registry mapped and hyperlinked for cross-domain review and boundary clarity; comparative and challenge cases routed for systemic review within the meta-audit suite.

Appendices

Appendix A: Registry Entry Template (Finalized)

Date	Mystical Claim	Witnesses	Context	Horizon Marking	Sanctuary Flag	Anchors	Notes
2025-08-24	Vision of Union	A, B, C	Ritual event	Ineffability	Protected	Faith, Spectra, Emergence	In tradition
2027-09-10	Direct Gnosis	X, Y, Z	Emergency	Direct Vision	Protected	Faith Protocol	Some dissent noted
2028-04-15	Prophetic Directive	F, G, H	Legal claim	Ineffable Impact	Impact review	Ethics Protocol	Public review logged

Appendix B: Constitutionality Checklist

• Mystical/ineffable nature clearly marked.

• Three plural witnesses or context endorsements.

• Plausibility checked against recognized tradition/practice.

• Claim distinct from doctrinal/belief argument.

• Communal impact threshold met? If so, public impact/constitutional review performed.

• Consent, dissent, and all review outcomes logged in registry.

Version-Locked Statement

From August 24, 2025, all Mysticism audit entries, dissent, constitutional/public reviews, and historical adaptation events are version-locked to SNP v15.0/MNM v14.6/SID#1031-SP5V. Any override, revision, or collective action based on mystical claims requires plural constitutional consent, full documentation, and strict adherence to operational safeguards.

This protocol protects ineffable experience and plural witness from analytic reduction while safeguarding the collective and ethical commons through mandatory contextual and procedural review. With sharpened distinctions and mandatory impact safeguards, Mysticism stands as a plural, responsible endpoint to the meta-audit series.