[Glice]

Yes. Mysticism provides one set of 'answers' for one set of people who have one set of understanding which appeals to them most. Religion, although often posited as a detraction or denial operates in a similar fashion. Philosophy endeavours to understand the general way in which understanding occurs throughout existence, which is in turn appealing to some. Mysticism and Religion are a naturally smaller field of understanding because their appreciation largely relies upon contingent factors such as culture or upbringing (&c). As soon as one endeavours to appreciate, but not involve oneself in, religions and myths from without ones own temporal confines, one is commiting an act of philosophy.

'Direct experience of the real' sounds like an elusive concept, certainly not one that would appreciate anything like a thorough investigation, although many believe they have asserted such. I don't mind too much if you want to think that, doesn't worry me in the slightest, but a Lacanian would shoot you down in flames for provocative statements like that.