What Is The Transcendent?
The Transcendent claims some otherworldly status to significant portions of the human species. Something of a sense of the beyond the external, trans-external. By external, I would merely posit the evident, as in the evidence given by the senses to primitive peoples; the evidence of the sciences provided in centuries prior in its clunky manifestations; and, the modern sciences with more robust methodologies or operations, and sensory-enhancing tools, to come to ideas about the world.
In all, this “external” means an external to the cogito of the individual; the most essential part of the person as the core of the soul, as such, eventuating as in an evolved armature, material framework, for its potential to manifest outwards.
The soul, as the cogito, is the true internal, natural self, as in the knowingness of the self and the existing self: knowing that you know, and knowing that you exist as a being in the world. There is a fundamental distinction between these two while part of the unicity of reality, its unique unitary property.
When speaking of the Transcendent, two ideas come to the fore of the conversation. One of these is in the formulation of the transcendent beyond the previously defined external. Another aspect is the formulation of the transcendent as an extended external, as part and parcel of the external given before.
In the former, a sense of the ways in which the internal self connects to the external in an ordinary sense, as in the five senses. While, at the same time, a sort of extension into a transcendent realm with hidden powers, marvels, and beings.
Yet, quite necessarily, these are unnecessary constructs. The Transcendent, in this former sense, represents something of the mind, as, when tested in a modern stringent scientific sense, something outside of the bounds of the reasons given the normal externally.
In the latter, somehow, the external becomes something of the superphysical. In that, there is some beyond the world evident to the senses, even accessible to the experience of the senses in principle because of the nature of the “transcendent.”
The “latter” can tend to come with definitions of the supermaterial powers of individuals. In the light of these reflections of the Transcendent, one can find philosophical notions of a transcendent being, while, at other times, a process of a superphysical reality connecting all as a medium by which supernatural powers are claimed.
Whether the sense of some far beyond “being,” or a literal transcendent being, or human beings with supernormal capacities bleeding into the supernatural, the prime focus should be on two things. One, that which is self-evident; two, that which is evident.
To the self-evident, human beings exist to themselves individually, as beings who know that they exist and know that they know. There is a knowledge of self-existence and a recursive knowingness, as in knowing that one has the capacity to know without or with regard to having knowledge in the first place.
Beyond these, the probabilistic become the centerpiece, as in knowledge of Existence amounts to a statistical affair past the sole cogito. Which is to say, the senses as an extension into the natural world of the cogito, itself.
To speak of the Transcendent beyond these domains outside of mathematical principles or established scientific truths, one is in the position of a person explaining the dimensionality of something in mind rather than in the world, where those lines in the mind do not have an independent existence from the mind and, thus, exhibit no dimensionality and so comprise no space and no time as in the mind; whereas, that which exhibits an existence in this external existence from the cogito, generated independent of it, comprise true dimensionality, so finitude.
These in mind dimensions, rather ‘dimensions,’ exhibit dimensionality and spatiality in mind, while, since of the mind, comprise no real space and so no real dimension, thusly exhibiting neither infinitude nor finitude of dimensionality, but only nothingness.
While the Transcendent claims exhibit this in-mindedness, similarly, once removed from the canvas of the mind, they no longer exist, while forever exhibiting no properties as the dimensionality of mind exhibits neither finitude nor infinitude.
In this manner, the Transcendent is neither finite nor infinite, but a word claimed for something in the trans-external, the extended external, or even of the mind, while simply and purely being of the mind and then derived as truly nothing.
Opinions and Perspectives
Maybe the transcendent is simply what lies at the edge of our understanding, always just beyond reach.
The article's position on mental constructs versus reality deserves deeper exploration.
I appreciate how this challenges both religious and secular assumptions about reality.
The distinction between self-evident and evident truths seems crucial for modern epistemology.
Fascinating how this relates to current debates about consciousness and artificial intelligence.
The framework presented here might help bridge some gaps between scientific and religious thinking.
I keep coming back to the question of whether meaning itself is transcendent.
The article's treatment of probability versus certainty feels especially relevant today.
Makes me wonder about the role of language in shaping our understanding of the transcendent.
The idea that transcendent claims are meaningless seems too harsh. They might have practical value.
This discussion reminds me why philosophy still matters in our scientific age.
Never considered before how mental constructs might be neither finite nor infinite. That's fascinating.
The article makes me question how much of my own understanding is truly grounded in reality.
Perhaps we need new language to discuss these concepts. Our current vocabulary seems inadequate.
The distinction between mental and physical dimensionality is fascinating but troubling.
I'm struck by how this relates to current debates about the nature of consciousness in neuroscience.
The article's framework might help explain why some scientific discoveries feel spiritually meaningful.
Wonder what implications this has for how we think about consciousness and free will.
The discussion about the nature of the cogito feels particularly relevant in our digital age.
I find myself agreeing with the logic but resisting the conclusions. Anyone else feel that way?
The article's treatment of mathematics as somehow special seems arbitrary to me.
Maybe the real insight is that we need both scientific and transcendent ways of understanding.
The discussion of probabilistic knowledge versus certainty reminds me of quantum mechanics.
Interesting to consider how this applies to creativity and imagination. Are they truly dimensionless?
The article's emphasis on scientific truth versus mental constructs feels very Western to me.
I wonder how different cultural perspectives on transcendence would fit into this framework.
The relationship between consciousness and external reality remains one of our biggest philosophical puzzles.
We might be overthinking this. Sometimes the transcendent is simply what we feel but can't explain.
The article's treatment of finitude versus infinitude in mental constructs is particularly interesting.
I think my personal experiences with meditation add another perspective to this discussion.
There's something both liberating and unsettling about reducing transcendent claims to mental constructs.
Reading through these comments, I'm amazed at how differently we all interpret the same text.
The article's position on self-evidence versus external evidence deserves more exploration.
I'm particularly struck by the idea that mental constructs have no true dimensionality. That's a mind-bending concept.
This analysis might explain why scientific and religious worldviews often talk past each other.
Seems like we're still wrestling with the same questions Plato was asking about forms and reality.
The distinction between mind-space and real-space is fascinating. Never thought about it that way before.
Has anyone considered how this relates to artificial intelligence and machine consciousness?
The article makes me think about how much of our reality is constructed through language and concepts.
Wonder how quantum mechanics would fit into this framework? It seems to challenge both our internal and external understanding.
The discussion of probabilistic knowledge versus certain knowledge is particularly relevant in our age of big data.
I appreciate how this challenges both materialist and spiritualist assumptions about reality.
The article's conclusion feels too neat. Reality is messier than these clean philosophical distinctions suggest.
Wouldn't Kant disagree with this entire framework? Time and space are forms of intuition, not external realities.
I find it interesting how we're all interpreting this through our own philosophical lenses.
The article's treatment of space and time as purely external seems problematic given what we know about relativity.
Not sure I agree that mathematical principles are fundamentally different from other mental constructs.
This actually helps explain why some people can be both scientific and spiritual. They're operating in different domains.
The discussion of scientific truths versus transcendent claims really highlights our modern epistemological challenges.
I'm curious about how this framework would apply to collective consciousness or shared human experiences.
The article seems to ignore the role of intuition in human understanding. Not everything can be reduced to logic.
What I find most valuable here is the framework for thinking about what we can and cannot know with certainty.
Does anyone else feel that the article's definition of transcendent is too limited?
I work in scientific research, and this reminds me of how we struggle to define consciousness empirically.
The argument about dimensionality is clever but feels like a semantic trick rather than a substantive point.
But isn't that the point? That the mind itself is real and therefore what exists in it has its own kind of reality?
Reading this made me realize how much of what we consider real is actually just in our minds.
The article's position on mathematical principles versus other transcendent concepts seems inconsistent to me.
I'm particularly interested in how this relates to modern neuroscience. What happens to the cogito when we can map consciousness?
Anyone else notice how the article seems to contradict itself when discussing the nature of the cogito?
The distinction between self-evident and evident is crucial here. It's changing how I think about what I really know.
I feel like the article dismisses too quickly the possibility that there might be ways of knowing beyond the scientific method.
The bit about dimensions of the mind versus real dimensions is fascinating. Never thought about it quite that way before.
True self-knowledge seems central to the argument, but how can we be sure our self-knowledge is reliable?
Sometimes I think we overcomplicate these things. Our ancestors seemed to understand the transcendent without all this philosophical baggage.
I'm struck by how the article treats the soul as essentially cognitive. That's quite different from traditional religious perspectives.
The article's definition of external reality seems too narrow to me. What about shared human experiences that can't be measured?
Loving this discussion! It's refreshing to see people engaging with these deep philosophical questions.
Makes me wonder about the relationship between consciousness and reality. Are they really as separate as the article suggests?
The whole argument seems to rest on a materialist worldview. Not everyone accepts that starting premise.
That's actually a great point about mathematics. I'd love to hear the author's response to that challenge.
I'm confused about why mathematical principles get a pass but other transcendent concepts don't. Aren't they also constructs of the mind?
Really intriguing how the article breaks down the difference between what's self-evident and what's merely probable.
The discussion about the cogito reminds me of my philosophy classes. But I wonder if we're still too stuck in Cartesian dualism.
I think the author is right about being careful with claims that go beyond what we can verify, but maybe goes too far in dismissing them entirely.
The article makes some valid points but seems to ignore the fact that many people's lived experiences include what they'd call transcendent moments.
I disagree with the dismissive attitude toward transcendent experiences. Just because something exists in the mind doesn't make it less real or meaningful.
Interesting how they argue that transcendent claims are essentially meaningless since they exist only in our minds without real dimensionality.
Can anyone explain the part about dimensions in mind versus real dimensions? I'm having trouble wrapping my head around that concept.
What interests me most is how the article distinguishes between self-evident truths and everything else we claim to know. It really challenges our assumptions.
I actually appreciate the detailed analysis. Sometimes complex ideas need careful unpacking to really understand them properly.
The writing seems unnecessarily complex. Why not just say these transcendent experiences are all in our heads and leave it at that?
I find the distinction between the internal cogito and external reality fascinating. It reminds me of Descartes, but takes it in a different direction.
This article really makes me think about how we construct our understanding of what's beyond the physical world. I've always wondered about that boundary between what we can perceive and what might exist beyond our senses.