Paradox of transcendence

[xerosaburu]

If transcendence is having no boundary conditions then can it even exist if to exist is to have the boundary conditions of existence.

A given thing exists or it doesn't.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Transcendence has boundaries in that there are states which are not transcendence.

[xerosaburu]

Transcendence has boundaries in that there are states which are not transcendence.

Then transcendence is a lie.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

xero,

A given thing exists or it doesn't.

Any concept that is transcendental is not a thing, and describing such in terms of existence or non-existence is meaningless.

For instance, the transcendental concept of "causality" applies to all of existence, but causality does not exist (nor does it not-exist).

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Perhaps a more clear example of what by the meaninglessness of this question is this:

Suppose A implies B. Does A imply "implies"? Conversely, does A somehow not imply "implies"?

It should be clear that A does neither of these, and the question is caused by a misunderstanding of what it means for something to be implied by something else. Causality functions in the same way.

[xerosaburu]

xero,

A given thing exists or it doesn't.

Any concept that is transcendental is not a thing, and describing such in terms of existence or non-existence is meaningless.

For instance, the transcendental concept of "causality" applies to all of existence, but causality does not exist (nor does it not-exist).

A concept IS a thing and necessarily non-transcendent as one cannot conceptualize the transcendent except with reference to the non-transcendence.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Well, excuse the grammar. A concept is a thing, but what the concept points to is not.

However, considering what you just said, you should be well aware that transcendence is not a lie. It's just difficult to explain.

[xerosaburu]

Well, excuse the grammar. A concept is a thing, but what the concept points to is not.

However, considering what you just said, you should be well aware that transcendence is not a lie. It's just difficult to explain.

Not at all. The fact that you and I exist give the lie to transcendence.

[hades]

so silly

[Trevor Salyzyn]

xero,

The fact that you and I exist give the lie to transcendence.

On the contrary, that which makes us exist (Existence) is transcendental. The fact that we exist means that a transcendental [something] is at play. But Existence itself does not exist.

[Jamesh]

If transcendence is having no boundary conditions then can it even exist if to exist is to have the boundary conditions of existence.

There is nothing that is transcendental. Those who promote enlightenment is such a manner, and they all do to some extent, are lying or delusional.

This does not mean that parts of consciousness cannot grow in strength, but that is transcending up a scale, not trancendence.

When folks talk as if they enlightenment gives them a feeling of being one with infinity, this is only partly true. They are still bounded by the physical limitations of their mind, which prevent true godliness - non-beingness. There is beauty in knowing what is real, what is the nature of physical infinity, but they will never actually know infinity. To me infinity does not mean complete unboundedness, we've been lead astray when we think of it in this manner - what it actually means is that certain of its properties are not-bounded, otherwise regardless of what it is, it is always bounded by what it is not.

In the end there are only two causes that are infinite, and they bind each other, which has the effect of creating things. No effect, except space, can be infinite. Even there may be no limit to the universe, so there may be an infinite number of units of matter, stars etc, this is different to saying that "matter is infinite" - it clearly is not because there is empty space.

Anything with a definition is by default not 100% infinite, but seen without the definition of form, then it is. We make the mistake of saying space is intrinsically different from matter. It is not, it is the exactly the same as matter or the electromagnetic spectrum, with the only difference being the ratio of one fundamental infinity over the other.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Jamesh,

There is nothing that is transcendental. Those who promote enlightenment is such a manner, and they all do to some extent, are lying or delusional.

This does not mean that parts of consciousness cannot grow in strength, but that is transcending up a scale, not trancendence.

How are you using the word transcendence? I use it primarily to speak of a certain quality of metaphysical concepts -- specifically, in that they are 'above and beyond' physical ones (they can't be measured empirically, for instance). Consciousness doesn't need to transcend anything to understand a transcendental concept.

[Jamesh]

How are you using the word transcendence? I use it primarily to speak of a certain quality of metaphysical concepts -- specifically, in that they are 'above and beyond' physical ones (they can't be measured empirically, for instance). Consciousness doesn't need to transcend anything to understand a transcendental concept.

transcendental = Existing outside of or not in accordance with nature [or in other words - not caused]

This does not mean that parts of consciousness cannot grow in strength, but that is transcending up a scale, not trancendence.

I'll change this to
This does not mean that parts of consciousness cannot grow in strength, but that is ascending up a scale, not trancendence.

in that they are 'above and beyond' physical ones

There is nothing that does this. "Above and beyond" simply means more levels of relativity, which in minds, due to their limitiations, means more ability to see the relationships between things using the mental tool of generalisation (providing such generalisation is rational).

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Jamesh,

transcendental = Existing outside of or not in accordance with nature [or in other words - not caused]

Then transcendence is impossible. Since everything is by definition natural, there cannot be a transcendental anything, also by definition.

There is nothing that does this. "Above and beyond" simply means more levels of relativity, which in minds, due to their limitiations, means more ability to see the relationships between things using the mental tool of generalisation (providing such generalisation is rational).

On the contrary, there must be at least one something above and beyond the physical world: Reality. That is the prime metaphysical concept.

Any description of this something would also be "above and beyond" the physical world.

Since your definition of "transcendental" only points to something impossible, I believe my definition is superior: it actually has some use. (Actually, I'm going by Kant's definition, but I disagree with Kant on enough things that I pardon myself for stealing his word.)

[Jamesh]

On the contrary, there must be at least one something above and beyond the physical world: Reality. That is the prime metaphysical concept.

No. I do not accept the emotional words "above" and "beyond", as they infer a higher power. That something(s) are infinite does not mean they are greater. No value scale can apply to them.

I would have less complaint with "causally preceding" and "not caused by the physical world".

[xerosaburu]

For me to think of a transcendent being, I have to imagine a being that both is and is not, for if this being is not both simultaneously then it cannot be transcendent. But, this being would cease to be fully transcendent upon doing anything besides existing and not existing simultaneously.

transcendent - having no boundary conditions

[Dan Rowden]

Your offered definition of "transcendent" has no meaning (other than as a synonym for Reality) therefore there's no reason for this thread to even exist.

[xerosaburu]

Your offered definition of "transcendent" has no meaning (other than as a synonym for Reality) therefore there's no reason for this thread to even exist.

Ever heard of brainstorming?

[Dan Rowden]

Um, yeah, but what is there to storm in this instance?

[xerosaburu]

Um, yeah, but what is there to storm in this instance?

I'm thinking through this.

It seems that people often imagine something non-transcendent and then complain that it IS non-transcendent.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Jamesh,

No. I do not accept the emotional words "above" and "beyond", as they infer a higher power. That something(s) are infinite does not mean they are greater. No value scale can apply to them.

I was not using the words in an emotional way, just descriptively. Nor was I using them to imply a higher power. But I can see your complaint.

I would have less complaint with "causally preceding" and "not caused by the physical world".

I would have an issue with "not caused by the physical world", though, because this allows non-existent things (and magic) to be considered transcendent as well. "Causally preceding" only makes sense in a temporal sense, so I also believe that a weak way to define transcendental.

The word is best understood by example:

The Totality both contains and transcends the empirical world. When describing any Universal feature, you will be talking about transcendental ideas: these include causality, existence, thing-ness, logic, ontology, and other similar notions.

I know how to use the term, but I'd have a tough time defining it. Loosely speaking, I would say "transcendental" is synonymous with "metaphysical".

[hades]

both, the paradox, and transcendence exist in your little imagination

[David Quinn]

Is that what you imagine?

-

[hades]

Is that what you imagine?

-

of course, we all do, and when we see it for what it is, how can we take it seriously??

Paradox? Transcendence.....Masculine and Feminine?
jokes

[Steven Coyle]

Transcendence: 1. the belief that Reality conforms to the individual, an illusion based on presumption 2. the degree of separation between the ego and the past 3. the highest subjectivity