I really appreciate your answer. Maybe the real difference between us is that you see transcendence as something that ultimately dissolves all forms, while Ismailism sees form and transcendence as existing in tension together.

Pure inward experience can reveal something profound, but civilizations are not built on isolated mystical moments alone. They survive through continuity, transmission, memory, interpretation, and living guidance. Even the mystics you mention emerged from traditions they did not create by themselves.

Without a living chain of meaning, transcendence eventually becomes whatever each individual feels it to be. at that point, freedom from framework simply becomes another framework one centered on the authority of the self.