Your OP defines it as "beyond our experiences". Which is it? As long as we define things this way, we can circularly argue just about anything.
I'm not arguing in favor of anything with regard to this notion of noumena. Rather, I'm offering a proposition, one that can be explored in any number of ways. The way in which you're exploring it now (by asking me to clarify what I meant) is one way.
The way I'm framing the proposition might not be very skillful. I might not be giving you the tools you need to at least contemplate what I'm pointing toward. After you read this post, if you think you have any idea of what I'm trying to convey, maybe you could describe those aspects of the proposition that seem to make sense, and I could build on that. If none of this makes any sense, then I'm just not doing my job of explaining it well.
I described noumena in the OP as "beyond our experiences and ideas but simultaneously at the very core of our being." So there's a twofold way of looking at this. Noumenon is apparently "beyond our experiences," but since it is at the core of our being, we experience it by definition. We can't help but experience it. Problem is, we're not aware of it. Thus, in a very real way, we fail to experience it (in one sense) even as we experience it constantly (in another sense).
When I was a child, I thought that the space around me was empty. I thought there was nothing there. In reality, I was surrounded by a heavy layer of atmosphere, but I didn't experience it that way. If the wind blew, I thought it was just "wind," and when the wind was gone, I thought there was nothing there again. I was in the atmosphere, yet in a sense I didn't experience the atmosphere (although in another sense of course I was constantly experiencing it). I was unaware of the atmosphere. Roughly, that's what I was trying to describe in the OP.
In my previous post, I wrote that the experience of noumena would be clearly distinguished from imagination, and you asked: "Clearly? How? (seriously, how?)"
I can't tell you how. A premise of this proposition is that it would be possible to make this differentiation. Maybe we could use the analogy of atmosphere again. If the wind blows and you feel it on your skin, that's not your imagination. Most of the time, we don't pay any attention to the sensation of air on our skin. If you sit quietly in a still room and pay attention to the sensations on your skin, you might notice a subtle draft that ordinarily you would not notice at all. You know it's not your imagination; it's a very slight movement of air. I'm trying to describe something like that.
If something cannot be experienced, is beyond our powers of speech to describe, it is not something which one person can teach another, nor something that we can be assured any two people who use the same term actually agree upon.
In my OP, I wrote: "Imagine that direct experience is possible." The fact that something is "beyond our experiences" does not mean that it cannot be experienced. I also wrote that "it's beyond our skills of language to describe adequately," but then I gave several words that people might use in their attempts to describe it. So it can be described, but just not fully or perfectly.
This would make it something that people could talk about, but that discussion would never be the same as direct observation. You could hear about it from someone else, but that would not provide you with full understanding until you experience it directly yourself.
This also might raise the possibility of two people disagreeing or even arguing about noumena, or trying to convince one another who is right and who is wrong. You can see how such conversations probably could never subsitute for finding out for oneself. I can tell you what chocolate mint ice cream tastes like, but you won't really know what it tastes like until you taste it yourself.
As you describe it, there is no "there" there. Absolutely no way for 2 people to check their concepts against one another.
I don't think that's how I described it.
These other words I used are not defined a priori as beyond experience.
The words you used were "spirit, mind, god, love." I believe many people have conceptualized some of those things (particularly god) as being beyond experience in the sense that our conditioned, day-to-day method of experiencing "reality" may exclude an experience of "spirit" or "god" or whatever.
So the language and social precedent does indeed exist to conceptualize this proposition and talk about it.
Your OP defined this thing/nothing as beyond experience and beyond language. If you retreat from that, you may find an answer, but it will not be to the question as you asked it.
If that is so, then I did not ask the question skillfully.
Unless you have evidence of direct mind-to-mind communication, bypassing publicly available referents for language, the "different ways" have enough in common for my criticism to remain in play. If you do have such evidence, let me suggest you apply for the million.
Well, I'm not talking about anything supernatural here. It is possible to learn about our world all by oneself, without relying on what others tell us. For example, I might wonder about a strange sound outside. One way I could learn about the sound is to ask someone, "What is that sound?" Another way I could learn would be to go outside and look for the source of the sound. If I learn by looking for myself, then language doesn't really come into play.
How do you suppose it would allow one to see anything, let alone oneself, more fully, when it is beyond experience and words? How would one know one had experienced it? Perhaps I just experienced it while writing this sentence? Can you confirm or deny it? How?
I have no method of understanding your experiences, except through what you tell me here in the forum. How would one know when one has experienced noumena? Again, go back to the analogy of atmosphere. If you pay attention, you can tell when moving air touches your skin. It's a matter of learning how to pay attention.
How would this allow one to see oneself more fully? Well, the proposition assumes that one encounters "noumena" at the core of being.
Don't get me started on "mind". But given the commonly accepted concept of mind... if it is unknowable with the mind, how is it knowable?
I can't tell you how. The proposition is that it is in fact possible.
I'm also not sure which commonly accepted concept of mind your are thinking of. Maybe we have different ideas about what "mind" is.
When I think of "mind," I think of all of those little interpretations that I apply to my direct experience. My expectations, categories, judgments. I see a tree, and I label it "tree" and compare it with my expectations of what a "tree" is supposed to be, all in a split second. This is my mind at work, interpreting my direct experience.
So there is a relationship between our conditioned "mind" and "direct experience." They are not necessarily the same thing.
I don't know if any of this has helped you to understand the proposition, or if at this point you think there is no meaningful proposition. Or it could be that you understand the proposition but feel it falls outside the scope of skepticism.
If I have failed to communicate the proposition in a way that makes it understandable for you, then for the purposes of the OP, you could consider some other proposition involving something like god or whatever, and then think about how adjusting the "dials" might influence how one applies skepticism to that proposition. In some cases, people believe they are applying pure skepticism (if there is such a thing) even as they add other considerations to their skepticism without realizing it.
.)
Don't get me started on "mind". But given the commonly accepted concept of mind... if it is unknowable with the mind, how is it knowable?