Indeed, unless mysticism were a literary tradition of veiled protest, we'd never have heard of it. The theory of mysticism that I am proposing should now be clearly in view. According to the Modern view of mysticism, as we have seen, the mystics first had great and ineffable experiences, in states of consciousness that were prior to and out-side language, and then they subsequently tried to put into inadequate words what they had experienced. I reject that theory. The Modern idea of the mind as an inner theatre, and of experience as a show seen by an audience of one, is itself a secondary cultural and literary creation.
Language goes all the way down.
St John of the Cross did not first have a language-transcending experience and then subsequently try to put it into words. On the contrary, the very composition of the poem was itself the mystical experience.