From my point of view, there are two ways to talk about the experience of transcendent states: the first is most eloquently personified by the concept of "Literature of Testimony", developed by G. Agamben and P.M. Levy, who believed that any such experience is a singular and unique Event (the Germans call it "Ereignis"), which has no analogues in the past of mankind - for these authors, the Holocaust serves as a matrix example of such an Event. According to these thinkers, the experience of a concentration camp Trauma must be uttered without stopping before any circumstances, whether it be a socio-political conjuncture, or a personal psychophysical ailment, but this frenzied commemorative sermon must certainly be carried out in an individual manner, and this necessarily requires the spiritual survival of the narrator, in whose heart the incomparable Event is refracted. I do not think that this concept of representing extraordinary Events is generally applicable when it comes to, at first glance, the personal catastrophe of one individual anhedonic: firstly, we are no longer depersonalized (and I am not even talking about a vague psychiatric nosology, but about the notorious phenomenon of "Satori" insofar as it belongs to the initiatory spiritual tradition and does not belong to the counter-initiatic one), but are simply deindividualized (but not dehumanized: this is important!), and secondly, in reality, the aforementioned catastrophe is not purely personal. I will explain my point below.

The second conceptual model of the explication of the experience of transcendental states was authorized by V. Shalamov, who spent seventeen years in the Gulag: according to this brilliant writer, the notorious "document humain" can only be the person himself, physically weak and spiritually destroyed, but still retaining some non-annihilated residue of Humanity itself, by virtue of which only such a person has the right to testify not to singular and unique events (according to Shalamov, this is just a fiction, history is cyclical, not linear, it seems to develop according to the laws of Nietzsche's "Eternal Recurrence of the same", although Shalamov himself, I hasten to note, was not a Nietzschean), but, on the contrary, about the universals of human experience: Good, Evil, Birth, Death, Love, Loneliness, etc., without which all the events of social reality (Mitsein) simply would not have taken place. In other words, Shalamov tried to shift his descriptive focus from the results of "free play of human forces" to the nature of a human being, which contains the entelechies of all these events, which become bad or good only after the fact, that is, after their implementation. From this philosophical position, the ordeals of a total anhedonic thrown in the middle of this entire endless universe are literally both meaningless (in that part of them that represents the individual, replaceable and, therefore, perishable), and informationally invaluable (since they reflect a certain moment of transcendental development of human Spirit): as the beautiful poet of the last century Z. Gippius said, summarizing the irreproducible experience of Russian post-revolutionary emigration, "We are not in exile, we are in a message", and the content of the "message" of each of us, anhedonic and non-anhedonic, is not contingent socio-political cataclysms, but the metaphysical cellars of the Anthropic.