Religion has no monopoly on transcendent experience

(Jul 10, 2017 01:36 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:

Quote:Objects are, by definition, mundane....not inherently transcendent. Claiming an object is transcendent is irrationally contradictory, since transcendent literally means "surpassing the ordinary; exceptional". You are not in the superior state unless you transcend the normal limits of something. If it's "beyond you", your state remains the same...or as you repeatedly relate...lesser or diminished.

All objects transcend consciousness and the self and in this clear sense are transcendental. To transcend is to simply go beyond oneself, and objects, especially those of a transcendental nature like the cosmos or another mind or infinity or the noumena of Kant or death, express the limits of that self. This is philosophy 101. I'm not surprised you'd be ignorant of this too.

LOL! "objects...are transcendental"?
transcendental - relating to a spiritual or nonphysical realm.

Mind, infinity, noumena, and death are not objects.
object - a material thing that can be seen and touched

Not to mention you seem to be conflating "transcendental" and "transcendent" which Kant contrasted...Mr. Philosophy 101.

To Kant, the transcendent was beyond what could be known, while the transcendental was what could be known a priori (independent of experience).

"I call all knowledge transcendental if it is occupied, not with objects, but with the way that we can possibly know objects even before we experience them." - Kant

So you've just shit yourself twelve ways to Sunday.

(Jul 10, 2017 02:37 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

(Jul 9, 2017 07:43 PM)Syne Wrote:

(Jul 9, 2017 01:50 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: I’m asking and I’m listening, Syne.   Maybe it would help if you described your own personal experience.

Sure.
It's been decades since I've experienced anything akin to depression or even prolonged sadness. Part of the reason for this is because I had a personal epiphany that loneliness/sadness are largely the same experienced by everyone, which fostered a sense of connection that leaves little room for a feeling of personal self-pity.
While you may feel tiny or insignificant contemplating the vastness of the universe, I routinely view such vastness from the perspective of that vastness itself...not as greater than me, but as an extension of me.
These are experiences of significance and connection....as opposed to insignificance and indifference.
I am the primary driving force in my transcendent experience....rather than my environment or circumstances causing me to feel simple awe.

Oh, so similar to what Jason Silva is saying, right?

No. He seems to be trying really really hard to convince others of something. Very similar to what someone else is doing.

Quote:Is it along the same line as Jiddu Krishnamurti’s teachings because he's also advocating dissociation?

No. Dissociation is the opposite of connection.

---

The first question either of you should have asked is why neither of my related experiences seem to have anything to do with religion/spirituality. I can only guess that they are so far beyond your experience that you can only either attempt to interpret them through things you (or others like you) could experience or deride them with faulty assumptions.

Here's the definition of transcendental. Totally in line with my usage.

transcendental
[tran-sen-den-tl, -suh n-]
Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
adjective
1.
transcendent, surpassing, or superior.
2.
being beyond ordinary or common experience, thought, or belief; supernatural.
3.
abstract or metaphysical.
4.
idealistic, lofty, or extravagant.
5.
Philosophy.
beyond the contingent and accidental in human experience, but not beyond all human knowledge.
Compare transcendent (def 4b).
pertaining to certain theories, etc., explaining what is objective as the contribution of the mind.
Kantianism. of, pertaining to, based upon, or concerned with a priori elements in experience, which condition human knowledge.

Quote:Mind, infinity, noumena, and death are not objects.
object - a material thing that can be seen and touched

No moron..An object is anything that is an object of or cause of your experience. It is also anything that receives the action of a subject. It is any objective thing other the subject. Take an english course sometime.

ob·ject
noun
ˈ
a person or thing to which a specified action or feeling is directed.
"disease became the object of investigation"
synonyms: target, butt, focus, recipient, victim
"he spent five years as the object of a frenzied manhunt"

In regard to Kant:

"According to Kant, objects of which we are cognizant via the physical senses are merely representations of unknown somethings—what Kant refers to as the transcendental object—as interpreted through the a priori or categories of the understanding. These unknown somethings are manifested within the noumenon—although we can never know how or why as our perceptions of these unknown somethings via our physical senses are bound by the limitations of the categories of the understanding and we are therefore never able to fully know the "thing-in-itself"."----https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon

"The transcendental object was a theoretical consequence of Kant's confining human intuition to the receptivity of appearances and his belief that there can be no ‘appearance without anything that appears’ (CPR B xxvii). The transcendental object is postulated as that which ‘appears’ or the correlate to receptivity. When discussing the transcendental object Kant suspends his usual distinctions between Objekt and Gegenstand , and on occasions even uses ‘thing’ ( Ding ). This is a consequence of the unknowability of the transcendental object, a property which it shares with the noumenon and thing-in-itself; like them, it can be thought according to the principle of contradiction, but cannot be known as an object of experience. Indeed, on some occasions, mainly in the first edition of CPR, Kant uses the terms noumenon and thing-in-itself as synonyms for transcendental object (A 366, A 358, A 614/B 642). But while all three share the quality of being thinkable but not objects of experience, the transcendental object is specifically the intelligible correlate of sensible appearances."-----http://www.blackwellreference.com/public...324_ss1-23

(Jul 11, 2017 02:19 AM)Syne Wrote: The first question either of you should have asked is why neither of my related experiences seem to have anything to do with religion/spirituality. I can only guess that they are so far beyond your experience that you can only either attempt to interpret them through things you (or others like you) could experience or deride them with faulty assumptions.

Yep, I expected some sort of spirituality.  Sorry.  

Can we review and discuss Facticity and Transcendence, Syne? And how 'bout you, MR, do you mind?

Quote:Descartes rejected the traditional essential definitions of man in favor of a radical, first-person reflection on his own existence, the “I am.” Nevertheless, he quickly reinstated the old model by characterizing his existence as that of a substance determined by an essential property, “thinking.” In contrast, Heidegger proposes that “I” am “an entity whose what [essence] is precisely to be and nothing but to be”. Such an entity's existing cannot, therefore, be thought as the instantiation of an essence, and consequently what it means to be such an entity cannot be determined by appeal to pre-given frameworks or systems—whether scientific, historical, or philosophical.***

Of course, there is a sense in which human beings do instantiate essences, as Heidegger's phrase already admits.***

Though authenticity arises on the basis of my being alienated, in anxiety, from the claims made by norms belonging to the everyday life of das Man, any concrete commitment that I make in the movement to recover myself will enlist those norms in two ways. First, what I commit myself to will always be derived from (though not reducible to) some “possibility of Dasein that has been there” : I cannot make my identity from whole cloth; I will always understand myself in terms of some way of existing that has been handed down within my tradition. I “choose my hero” by, for instance, committing myself to a philosophical life, which I understand on the model of Socrates, or to a religious life, which I understand on the model of St. Francis. The point is that I must understand myself in terms of something, and these possibilities for understanding come from the historical heritage and the norms that belong to it. Heidegger thinks of this historical dimension as a kind of “fate” (Schicksal): not something inevitable that controls my choice but something that, inherited from my historical situation, claims me, holds a kind of authority for me.***

(Jul 11, 2017 03:36 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: Here's the definition of transcendental. Totally in line with my usage.

LOL!

Quote:transcendental
[tran-sen-den-tl, -suh n-]
Spell  Syllables
Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
adjective
1.
transcendent, surpassing, or superior.

So objects are superior to you? No argument here.

Quote:2.
being beyond ordinary or common experience, thought, or belief; supernatural.

3.
abstract or metaphysical.[/quote]
Objects are "beyond ordinary experience"? Supernatural?
They're metaphysical...you know, as opposed to physical?

Quote:4.
idealistic, lofty, or extravagant.
5.
Philosophy.
beyond the contingent and accidental in human experience, but not beyond all human knowledge.
Compare transcendent (def 4b).
pertaining to certain theories, etc., explaining what is objective as the contribution of the mind.
Kantianism. of, pertaining to, based upon, or concerned with a priori elements in experience, which condition human knowledge.

Do you even know what a priori means? It really doesn't seem like you do. Otherwise you'd quit conflating what Kant found to be contradictory concepts.

And philosophically in general:

An object is a technical term in modern philosophy often used in contrast to the term subject. A subject is an observer and an object is a thing observed. For modern philosophers like Descartes, consciousness is a state of cognition that includes the subject—which can never be doubted as only it can be the one who doubts–—and some object(s) that may be considered as not having real or full existence or value independent of the subject who observes it. Metaphysical frameworks also differ in whether they consider objects exist independently of their properties and, if so, in what way. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_%28philosophy%29

Quote:

Quote:Mind, infinity, noumena, and death are not objects.
object - a material thing that can be seen and touched

No moron..An object is anything that is an object of or cause of your experience. It is also anything that receives the action of a subject. It is any objective thing other the subject.  Take an english course sometime.

ob·ject
noun
ˈ
a person or thing to which a specified action or feeling is directed.
"disease became the object of investigation"
synonyms: target, butt, focus, recipient, victim
"he spent five years as the object of a frenzied manhunt"

LOL! You're own definition contradicts your stupid claim. "Cause" is contradictory to "target, butt, focus, recipient, victim". That usage of "object" is synonymous to "effect".

Quote:An object is anything that is an object...

And most children know defining something by itself is idiotically meaningless.

Quote:In regard to Kant:

"According to Kant, objects of which we are cognizant via the physical senses are merely representations of unknown somethings—what Kant refers to as the transcendental object—as interpreted through the a priori or categories of the understanding. These unknown somethings are manifested within the noumenon—although we can never know how or why as our perceptions of these unknown somethings via our physical senses are bound by the limitations of the categories of the understanding and we are therefore never able to fully know the "thing-in-itself"."----https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon

"The transcendental object was a theoretical consequence of Kant's confining human intuition to the receptivity of appearances and his belief that there can be no ‘appearance without anything that appears’ (CPR B xxvii). The transcendental object is postulated as that which ‘appears’ or the correlate to receptivity. When discussing the transcendental object Kant suspends his usual distinctions between Objekt and Gegenstand , and on occasions even uses ‘thing’ ( Ding ). This is a consequence of the unknowability of the transcendental object, a property which it shares with the noumenon and thing-in-itself; like them, it can be thought according to the principle of contradiction, but cannot be known as an object of experience. Indeed, on some occasions, mainly in the first edition of CPR, Kant uses the terms noumenon and thing-in-itself as synonyms for transcendental object (A 366, A 358, A 614/B 642). But while all three share the quality of being thinkable but not objects of experience, the transcendental object is specifically the intelligible correlate of sensible appearances."-----http://www.blackwellreference.com/public...324_ss1-23

Apparently you just quote something you obviously don't understand at all.

(Jul 11, 2017 02:41 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

(Jul 11, 2017 02:19 AM)Syne Wrote: The first question either of you should have asked is why neither of my related experiences seem to have anything to do with religion/spirituality. I can only guess that they are so far beyond your experience that you can only either attempt to interpret them through things you (or others like you) could experience or deride them with faulty assumptions.

Yep, I expected some sort of spirituality.  Sorry.  

What I was pointing out is that it didn't seem to even occur to you...in an argument specifically about the need for such in a transcendent experience. That hints at a huge blind spot on the subject.

Quote:Can we review and discuss Facticity and Transcendence, Syne?  And how 'bout you, MR, do you mind?

Quote:Descartes rejected the traditional essential definitions of man in favor of a radical, first-person reflection on his own existence, the “I am.” Nevertheless, he quickly reinstated the old model by characterizing his existence as that of a substance determined by an essential property, “thinking.” In contrast, Heidegger proposes that “I” am “an entity whose what [essence] is precisely to be and nothing but to be”. Such an entity's existing cannot, therefore, be thought as the instantiation of an essence, and consequently what it means to be such an entity cannot be determined by appeal to pre-given frameworks or systems—whether scientific, historical, or philosophical.***

Of course, there is a sense in which human beings do instantiate essences, as Heidegger's phrase already admits.***

Though authenticity arises on the basis of my being alienated, in anxiety, from the claims made by norms belonging to the everyday life of das Man, any concrete commitment that I make in the movement to recover myself will enlist those norms in two ways. First, what I commit myself to will always be derived from (though not reducible to) some “possibility of Dasein that has been there” : I cannot make my identity from whole cloth; I will always understand myself in terms of some way of existing that has been handed down within my tradition. I “choose my hero” by, for instance, committing myself to a philosophical life, which I understand on the model of Socrates, or to a religious life, which I understand on the model of St. Francis. The point is that I must understand myself in terms of something, and these possibilities for understanding come from the historical heritage and the norms that belong to it. Heidegger thinks of this historical dimension as a kind of “fate” (Schicksal): not something inevitable that controls my choice but something that, inherited from my historical situation, claims me, holds a kind of authority for me.***

You might want to quote the part about transcendence:

Transcendence refers to that attitude toward myself characteristic of my practical engagement in the world, the agent's perspective. An agent is oriented by the task at hand as something to be brought about through its own will or agency. Such orientation does not take itself as a theme but loses itself in what is to be done. Thereby, things present themselves not as indifferent givens, facts, but as meaningful: salient, expedient, obstructive, and so on. To speak of “transcendence” here is to indicate that the agent “goes beyond” what simply is toward what can be: the factual—including the agent's own properties—always emerges in light of the possible, where the possible is not a function of anonymous forces (third-person or logical possibility) but a function of the agent's choice and decision.[8] Just as this suddenly empty pen is either a nettlesome impediment to my finishing this article, or a welcome occasion for doing something else, depending on how I determine my behavior in relation to it, so too my own factic properties—such as irrascibility, laziness, or bourgeois workaholism—take on meaning (become functioning reasons) on the basis of how I endorse or disavow them in the present action.
- https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/exist...sm/#FacTra

If that's the limit of what you experience as transcendent...well, that's fairly routine for most artists, writers, programmers, etc..

(Jul 9, 2017 07:43 PM)Syne Wrote:

(Jul 9, 2017 01:50 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Semantics, it’s always semantics.  

Sorry deary, words actually mean specific stuff.

No, not really. All living languages undergo semantic change over time.

(Jul 15, 2017 03:24 AM)Syne Wrote: If that's the limit of what you experience as transcendent...well, that's fairly routine for most artists, writers, programmers, etc..

I never said that I’ve experienced transcendence.  The word itself is riddled with connotations.  I have experienced awe, though, where my attention is directed away from myself and towards the environment or other individuals.

This is a good read.

Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual, and aesthetic emotion

This is starting to get a little creepy, Syne. I hope that it isn’t taking a narcissistic turn like MR predicted, but the king Stargher scene from "The Cell" is starting to flash through my mind.  

(Jul 15, 2017 05:47 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

(Jul 9, 2017 07:43 PM)Syne Wrote:

(Jul 9, 2017 01:50 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Semantics, it’s always semantics.  

Sorry deary, words actually mean specific stuff.

No, not really. All living languages undergo semantic change over time.

Of course it does, but as long as you insist on your very limited usage of "transcendence" that is equivalent to "awe", intellectual honesty alone would demand you use a different term for spiritual/religious transcendence. Otherwise you're just equivocating to obfuscate that they actually are not the same thing.

But it could very well be that you really just don't understand anything about the spiritual/religious....and are thus fundamentally incapable of significant discourse on the topic.

Quote:

(Jul 15, 2017 03:24 AM)Syne Wrote: If that's the limit of what you experience as transcendent...well, that's fairly routine for most artists, writers, programmers, etc..

I never said that I’ve experienced transcendence.

Hence the equivocation.

So this was a completely empty argument:

Quote:The Grand Canyon could easily provoke a state of self-transcendence.

If you've never experienced it, how would you know? O_o

 

Quote:The word itself is riddled with connotations.  I have experienced awe, though, where my attention is directed away from myself and towards the environment or other individuals.

And I've agreed that awe can be a factor in many types of experience...including transcendence. But this thread specifically addresses religious transcendence, of which simple awe alone does not entail.

Quote:This is a good read.

Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual, and aesthetic emotion

Simple awe does not entail transcendence, so comparisons of the two are necessarily naive.

Abraham Maslow is well known for his descriptions of ``peak experiences'',
which clearly involve awe. Based on his interviews with hundreds of people,
Maslow 01964) listed 25 features of peak experiences. These include: dis-
orientation in space and time, ego transcendence and self-forgetfulness; a per-
ception that the world is good, beautiful, and desirable; feeling passive,
receptive, and humble; a sense that polarities and dichotomies have been
transcended or resolved; and feelings of being lucky, fortunate, or graced.
- https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c338/39...2efb68.pdf

The various experiences described only "involve awe". They are not equivalent to awe.
This is the second time I've made the same point referencing Maslow.

Quote:This is starting to get a little creepy, Syne. I hope that it isn’t taking a narcissistic turn like MR predicted, but the king Stargher scene from "The Cell" is starting to flash through my mind.  

People often fear that which they truly do not understand.
The intellectually honest still seek to understand, while others simply seek to signal the amorphous danger of the unknown to others.

(Jul 15, 2017 08:01 PM)Syne Wrote: Of course it does, but as long as you insist on your very limited usage of "transcendence" that is equivalent to "awe", intellectual honesty alone would demand you use a different term for spiritual/religious transcendence. Otherwise you're just equivocating to obfuscate that they actually are not the same thing.

But it could very well be that you really just don't understand anything about the spiritual/religious....and are thus fundamentally incapable of significant discourse on the topic.

"In religion, transcendence refers to the aspect of a god's nature and power which is wholly independent of the material universe, beyond all physical laws."

Yeah, not a fan.  Sorry.

Quote:But this thread specifically addresses religious transcendence, of which simple awe alone does not entail.

No it isn't about religious transcendence. It's about ego dissolution in an ecstatic experience which includes awe and unity with something greater than oneself. Hence the title and the lead in:

"Religion has no monopoly on transcendent experience"

"Dissolving the ego
You don’t need drugs or a church for an ecstatic experience that helps transcend the self and connect to something bigger"

"Think about a time you’ve experienced awe. Maybe you were gazing up at a massive mountain range, or looking down into the depths of an infant’s eyes, or watching lightning as it seemed to crack the sky open. Maybe you felt humbled, or shaken; maybe you were struck by the vastness of the universe and your own tiny part in it. Psychologists consider awe a form of “self-transcendence”: you temporarily blur at the edges, feeling a connection to something greater than yourself."

Jason Silva on "Awe"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QyVZrV3d3o

What about peak experiences? Well there's this:

"So what exactly does it feel like to have a peak experience?

Some describe these moments as a sense of awe, wonder and amazement. Think of the sense of awe you may feel while watching a sunset or the excitement you might experience during the final moments of close basketball game."---https://www.verywell.com/what-are-peak-e...es-2795268

(Jul 15, 2017 08:27 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

(Jul 15, 2017 08:01 PM)Syne Wrote: Of course it does, but as long as you insist on your very limited usage of "transcendence" that is equivalent to "awe", intellectual honesty alone would demand you use a different term for spiritual/religious transcendence. Otherwise you're just equivocating to obfuscate that they actually are not the same thing.

But it could very well be that you really just don't understand anything about the spiritual/religious....and are thus fundamentally incapable of significant discourse on the topic.

"In religion, transcendence refers to the aspect of a god's nature and power which is wholly independent of the material universe, beyond all physical laws."

Ya, not a fan.  Sorry.

Spiritual/religious as in the individual spiritual aspect/ideas of religion...not the theological stance.

Self-transcendence is a personality trait associated with experiencing spiritual ideas such as considering oneself an integral part of the universe. It is one of the "character" dimensions of personality assessed in Cloninger's Temperament and Character Inventory. Self-transcendence is distinctive as the first trait concept of a spiritual nature to be incorporated into a major theory of personality. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-transcendence

Remember self-transcendence? You referenced it here:

Quote:The Grand Canyon could easily provoke a state of self-transcendence.

I can only assume you're really that unaware of things spiritual/religious. At least for you, that would seem to answer the question of whether religion has a monopoly on transcendence.

(Jul 15, 2017 08:38 PM)Syne Wrote: Spiritual/religious as in the individual spiritual aspect/ideas of religion...not the theological stance.

Self-transcendence is a personality trait associated with experiencing spiritual ideas such as considering oneself an integral part of the universe. It is one of the "character" dimensions of personality assessed in Cloninger's Temperament and Character Inventory. Self-transcendence is distinctive as the first trait concept of a spiritual nature to be incorporated into a major theory of personality. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-transcendence

Well, now where getting somewhere.  

From your link:

"High self-transcendence has been linked to psychotic tendencies, such as schizotypy and mania, particularly in individuals low in both self-directedness and cooperativeness."


From what I gather, it’s just different hierarchal concepts of the self.  The self as an autonomous individual, a member of society, and an integral part of the universe, which I have already acknowledge.