Transcendentalism

Green Gaia · Jul 28, 2004

Transcendentalism is a conglomeration of similar, but diverse ideas about literature, religion, culture and philosophy. It has its roots in the Transcendental Club established in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on September 8, 1836, by several prominent Americans including George Putnam, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Henry Hedge. The club was a protest against the general state of culture and society at the time, and in particular, the state of intellectualism at Cambridge and Harvard.

Transcendentalism itself is difficult to define concisely, due to the diverse expressions of those involved in the movement. However, the main tenet of transcendentalists is the desire to go beyond (transcend) the prevailing literature and philosophies of the masses in order to improve society. One of the reasons that transcendentalism spans so many disciplines is the strength of this desire amongst those involved.

Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote a novel, The Blithedale Romance, satirizing the movement, and based on his experiences at Brook Farm.

The term Transcendentalism was derived from the philosopher Immanuel Kant, who called "all knowledge transcendental which is concerned not with objects but with our mode of knowing objects." Ralph Waldo Emerson formulated and expressed the philosophy of Transcendentalism in his 1836 essay Nature, although his usage of the term was quite different from Kant's. His stance was "We will walk on our own feet; we will work with our own hands; we will speak our own minds...A nation of men will for the first time exist, because each believes himself inspired by the Divine Soul which also inspires all men."

Other prominent Transcendentalists included Henry David Thoreau, Margaret Fuller and Theodore Parker.

One could also call Transcendentalism the classical philosophy that God transcends the manifest world. As John Scotus Erigena put it to Frankish king Charles the Bald in the year 840 A.D., "We do not know what God is. God himself doesn't know what He is because He is not anything. Literally God is not, because He transcends being."

http://en.wikipedia.org

trishtrish10 · Aug 9, 2004

no one knows the mind of God. it transcends all of nature and supernature. wouldn't it be lovely to be able to speak a word and matter is created, how is amazing. if u were to receive Holy Communion u would receive the Body and Blood of Christ into your body and become Divine yet not God, as we are mere humans. even angels are are perfect but not God. they are intelligences way beyond our own comprehension, but not God. all everyone in heaven wants to do is just stare at God. he is so amazing.

Green Gaia · Aug 18, 2004

trishtrish10 said:
if u were to receive Holy Communion u would receive the Body and Blood of Christ into your body and become Divine yet not God, as we are mere humans.

What?

Allan · Aug 18, 2004

trishtrish10 said:
no one knows the mind of God. it transcends all of nature and supernature. wouldn't it be lovely to be able to speak a word and matter is created, how is amazing. if u were to receive Holy Communion u would receive the Body and Blood of Christ into your body and become Divine yet not God, as we are mere humans.

This missing part that should be in the Christian Church today is what you describe.
To know the Love of Christ.
To be filled with all the fullness of God. EPH 3-19

A process takes a person into a Sanctuary, a Holy Place of God.

It needs to be known what is being escaped from and the process of undoing
and setting a new pattern of believing and speaking out of the Mind of Christ that purifies and gives a nature that is acceptable to God.

This is a real experience and can be had through belief that it is possible and talking out to confirm the new belief as it becomes apparent in the mind.

The process is written in the Holy Bible here and there but never used in modern Christianity because it is a culture of handed down misconceptions.

trishtrish10 · Aug 27, 2004

God shared in our humanity and we can share in his divinity thru the bread of life.

lilithu · Sep 30, 2005

Maize said:
One could also call Transcendentalism the classical philosophy that God transcends the manifest world. As John Scotus Erigena put it to Frankish king Charles the Bald in the year 840 A.D., "We do not know what God is. God himself doesn't know what He is because He is not anything. Literally God is not, because He transcends being."

Interesting. Kierkegaard would agree that God is transcendant and unknowable. Yet in contrast he says that God is the only one who is. To use Sartre's language, the rest of us are all "becoming." We do not exist in and of ourselves, but only as dependant upon God. Or, from the Buddhist perspective, dependant upon the interdependant web of existence. Of course the process theologians would say that neither God nor any of us "is." All of us, including God are always only "becoming." "Is" is an illusion.

Maize said:
What?

I think she means that even when we are divine we're still finite created beings, whereas God is infinite creator.

scitsofreaky · Sep 30, 2005

One could also call Transcendentalism the classical philosophy that God transcends the manifest world. As John Scotus Erigena put it to Frankish king Charles the Bald in the year 840 A.D., "We do not know what God is. God himself doesn't know what He is because He is not anything. Literally God is not, because He transcends being."

That is a great quote!:clap

if u were to receive Holy Communion u would receive the Body and Blood of Christ into your body and become Divine yet not God, as we are mere humans

I think that this misses the idea of transcendence. Transcending something is not being above it but beyond it, it is negating and preserving. Transcending as Emerson used it meant that Spirit is beyond nature (and Nature) but not separate from it. It is like the relationship of rectangles and squares: all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Squares lay within the domain of rectangles, and Nature lays within the domain of Spirit.
So we are a part of the domain of Spirit, we are a piece. This is where my analogy becomes inaccurate, but I believe that it served its purpose. Spirit contains everything that is below it, and if a lower piece is destroyed then everything above is also destroyed. So we, along with ever piece within Nature, are an integral part of Spirit, and not separate.

lilithu · Sep 30, 2005

scitsofreaky said:
Transcending something is not being above it but beyond it, it is negating and preserving. Transcending as Emerson used it meant that Spirit is beyond nature (and Nature) but not separate from it. It is like the relationship of rectangles and squares: all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Squares lay within the domain of rectangles, and Nature lays within the domain of Spirit.
So we are a part of the domain of Spirit, we are a piece. This is where my analogy becomes inaccurate, but I believe that it served its purpose. Spirit contains everything that is below it, and if a lower piece is destroyed then everything above is also destroyed. So we, along with ever piece within Nature, are an integral part of Spirit, and not separate.

So where do you see transcendentalism fitting in with integral deism fitting in with process theology?

I must admit that deism as you and Davidium seem to use it is different from the deism as was explained to me years ago. I have no use for a god that sets things into motion and then "walks away" to let things run on their own (which is how deism was originally explained to me). But clearly that is not what you and other deists here mean.

I very much agree with Hindu/Buddhist "theology" upon which transcendentalism is based. In Hinduism, our individual souls (jiva-atman) are all part of the collective Soul (Param-Atman). In Buddhism, we all have Buddha nature within us, and we are all interconnected ("no self" or anatman). This is what I believe Emerson was refering to when he talked about the Oversoul flowing into and thru us. (This view also exists in Qaballah, but we'll leave that alone until the trendoid factor dies down a bit.)

What's confusing me is that the way you describe spirit "and if a lower piece is destroyed then everything above is also destroyed", it almost sounds like an emergent property, utterly and completely dependant upon the "lower." That, I do not buy, tho you are free to of course.

For me, immanence and transcendance are two sides of the same coin. God (or Spirit) is the very fabric of our existence (like the Oversoul), or as Paul Tillich described, "the ground of being" By being the very fabric of existence (by being immanent) God at the same time transcends existence. But if existence no longer existed, there would still that upon which existence is based, the fabric, the ground, "God." It's just that it would be inconceivably different from what it is now and we wouldn't be around to relate to it anyway so who cares?

scitsofreaky · Sep 30, 2005

lilith I am mulling over this to give the best reply I can.
While you are waiting, some food for thought:

The world is illusory;
Brahman alone is Real;
Brahman is the world.

~Sri Ramana

lilithu · Sep 30, 2005

Sri Ramana said:
The world is illusory;
Brahman alone is Real;
Brahman is the world.

Or as Mahayana Buddhists say, Samsara is Nirvana.

scitsofreaky · Oct 1, 2005

I must admit that deism as you and Davidium seem to use it is different from the deism as was explained to me years ago. I have no use for a god that sets things into motion and then "walks away" to let things run on their own (which is how deism was originally explained to me). But clearly that is not what you and other deists here mean

That would be correct. What most people were taught, including myself, is basically generic classical deism. Classical deism was(is), at the very least, heavily influenced by the Enlightenment. It seems to me to be an utter rejection of the major religions (for the most part Abrahamic beliefs), but since it did not have a scientific replacement of creation, it had to still rely on God. There are still many classical deists today. But now deism has expanded, and it seems to be taken more as a philosophy than a religion, so people are appplying it to different religious beliefs (eg buddhism, christianity, taoism). The differences are most apparent in the different views of god. A major movement seems to be panendeism, which is the belief that the universe (or Universe, Kosmos) is part of God.

This is where one can tie in "integral." Integral philosophy as I know it is based on the ideas of Ken Wilber. It is an expansion, I guess you could say, on process theory. The main concept is that no one thing is the whole true, but (at best) a partial truth. It is also based on the idea of a holarchy in which the higher one is, the more encompassing it is because each holon is a part of the holons above. In Wibler's terms, the higher is more significant, and the lower in more fundamental. You may be seeing where this is going (unless if not it is probably my fault). With the belief that the Kosmos is a part of God, God is a higher(est?). God, or Spirit, is all encompassing, so by definition it must be a higher holon.

In regards to the idea of destroying us is destroying Spirit, since we are more fundamental, ie a part of the holon that is Spirit, if we do not exist, Spirit would not exist as it is, just as if all molecules were destroyed, all cells would be destroyed and everything above. But while we are more fundamental, Spirit is more significant because it encompasses all.

Now this is all I personally can really conclude. But I have read that most great sages have many things in common, and are at a stage that Wilber calls "nondual." This is, in a sense, a sort of ultimate integration (that is until we get beyond it perhaps?). At this level it seems that one remembers that he/she is not separate from Spirit. This is the level at which I get lost, and not surprisingly so. It is said that the higher reaches of human potential are transverbal so all words fall short (unless you have also attained this level, then you know what the words mean). So it is something that one must experience.

lilithu · Oct 1, 2005

Namaste scitsofreaky, thanks for the response.

scitsofreaky said:
A major movement seems to be panendeism, which is the belief that the universe (or Universe, Kosmos) is part of God.

I have heard this term but do not see how it is different from panentheism. The view that I put forth previously (Hindu/Buddhist) is panentheistic. God (or ultimate reality or whatever you want to call it but certainly not a personal god), God is intimately connected with creation but is not identical to creation.

scitsofreaky said:
This is where one can tie in "integral." Integral philosophy as I know it is based on the ideas of Ken Wilber. It is an expansion, I guess you could say, on process theory. The main concept is that no one thing is the whole true, but (at best) a partial truth. It is also based on the idea of a holarchy in which the higher one is, the more encompassing it is because each holon is a part of the holons above. In Wibler's terms, the higher is more significant, and the lower in more fundamental. You may be seeing where this is going (unless if not it is probably my fault). With the belief that the Kosmos is a part of God, God is a higher(est?). God, or Spirit, is all encompassing, so by definition it must be a higher holon.

In regards to the idea of destroying us is destroying Spirit, since we are more fundamental, ie a part of the holon that is Spirit, if we do not exist, Spirit would not exist as it is, just as if all molecules were destroyed, all cells would be destroyed and everything above. But while we are more fundamental, Spirit is more significant because it encompasses all.

If I understand you correctly then, an integral deist is not a pandeist, as there is no God/Spirit independant of the "lower holons."

So then God/Spirit is an emergent property. The sum is greater than the parts. We create Spirit by our existence, not the other way around. What then does this Spirit do?

scitsofreaky said:
Now this is all I personally can really conclude. But I have read that most great sages have many things in common, and are at a stage that Wilber calls "nondual." This is, in a sense, a sort of ultimate integration (that is until we get beyond it perhaps?). At this level it seems that one remembers that he/she is not separate from Spirit. This is the level at which I get lost, and not surprisingly so. It is said that the higher reaches of human potential are transverbal so all words fall short (unless you have also attained this level, then you know what the words mean). So it is something that one must experience.

Yes, unlike the Prophetic or Abrahamic traditions, the Wisdom traditions teach nondualism. There is no distinction between "matter" and "spirit". The two are integrally connected to each other. "God" is with us, in us, and all around us, and we are God. I believe this to be true.

One way to understand nondualism is by reducing everything to the material, which is what I feel the holarchy theory that you describe does. You start with matter and build your way up to God/Spirit. But another way to understand nondualism is to start with God/Spirit and say that everything comes from and is God/Spirit. This is what the great Eastern traditions do.

This isn't a debate forum so I won't go into what I think is wrong with conceiving God/Spirit as an emergent property. But I'll bring us back to the OP by saying that I think Emerson agreed latter view. If one reads his essay on the "Oversoul," the oversoul is not the result of our existence, it is the basis of our existence. It "pours" into us. (The same imagery is used in Qabalistic thought.) I don't want to overstate this distinction because I'm sure that Emerson believed, as do I, that we in turn affect the Oversoul by our choices. It's a two way relationship, but the initial impetus is "top down," not "bottom up."

scitsofreaky · Oct 1, 2005

This isn't a debate forum so I won't go into what I think is wrong with conceiving God/Spirit as an emergent property. But I'll bring us back to the OP by saying that I think Emerson agreed latter view. If one reads his essay on the "Oversoul," the oversoul is not the result of our existence, it is the basis of our existence. It "pours" into us. (The same imagery is used in Qabalistic thought.) I don't want to overstate this distinction because I'm sure that Emerson believed, as do I, that we in turn affect the Oversoul by our choices. It's a two way relationship, but the initial impetus is "top down," not "bottom up."

Actually in the nondual stage Wilber one realizes, or remembers, that Spirit is both the top and the bottom and everything in between, ie no seperation. It is a concept I am quick to realize I don't really get, the only thing I can think of is a circle, an analogy he(Wilber) gives but with the note that it is also desceptive. So even if you wanted to debate, I couldn't because I don't really get it myself.

One way to understand nondualism is by reducing everything to the material, which is what I feel the holarchy theory that you describe does

I realize why you may think that, but it is not so. I've been using the physical to describe the holarchy(s) because they are the easiest for me to conceptualize. Wilber's philosophy is based on the idea, as I said, that no one truth is a full truth. He thinks that everything has four components, in his words: Exterior-Individual(Behavioral), Interiror-Individual(Intentional), Exterior-Collective(Social), and Interior-Collective(Cultural), what he calls the four quadrants. The exterior quadrants are the empirical quandrants, the things that can be seen (ie physical), while the interior cannot. Excuse me for not being clear on this.

lilithu · Oct 1, 2005

Hey scits,

are you familiar with Davidium's website?
http://dynamicdeism.org/
If not, check it out. You may enjoy it. I also think that you would enjoy talking with PantaRhea, who occasionally posts in the UU forum. He's voiced an interest in process theology.

Well if your integral deism is nondualist and nonreductionist, then I have no problem with it! Everything else is just us trying to describe the indescribable.

scitsofreaky · Oct 1, 2005

I am a member of davids forum, but thank you for the link.

Well if your integral deism is nondualist and nonreductionist, then I have no problem with it! Everything else is just us trying to describe the indescribable.

I went to long be reductionist (materialist) to tolerate any personal belief (for me personally) in anything that tries to reduce something to what it isn't. To paraphrase one of my favorite Einstein quotes(I think it was Einstein any way): Reduce only as much as you need to. (I wont even bother with quotations, i wouldn't be surprised if every word was different from the actual quote, but the idea is the same).

Aaron CT · Feb 24, 2006

Great discussion guys...

Maxist · Feb 27, 2006

If God were truly to trancend beings then how could we perceive either Him or His son? How could somthing that is not truly a being, but greater then that even have a son? He would impregnate a human woman? And for what purpose other then to tell the world His teachings? But a good many of us have perceived a God? A being of perfection that can do no evil, but can decern between it. Bhuddists would not say any of that about theogens, because Bhuddists beleive in equalisty, that no single being can be wither better, or worse then any other being in any way. But can, instead better themselves without gaining or losing the equality that they share with all other beings on this earth. Transendentalism is simply put, a way of describing a thing that we beleive that we cannot comprehend (as are many other things in religion). It just so happens that in this case the thing happens to be god. True Kant was a genius, btu like most of his work, it was stolen and twisted into what the user wanted it to mean. For that is what Kant wanted, was to make people think by way of Philosophy, but he did too good a job on it all and allowed people to do what they do.

PureX · Feb 27, 2006

I view Transcendentalism from an artist's perspective, because that's my background. And I have two different impressions of it at the same time, that are somewhat contradictory.

The function and purpose of art in society has been discussed and argued over the centuries, but one aspect of the purpose of art seems clear: that art is an activity engaged in with an intent to "transcend" one's own current state of knowledge and consciousness. As such I feel that the art endeavor is a very important, honorable and useful activity. And if the artist records this endeavor in some medium, it can then be shared with the rest of us, to the benefit of all. I had a professor who once claimed that a work of art was like having a round trip ticket through the heart and mind of another human being at the moment of their greatest inspiration. And ideally I believe that this is really true. My own knowledge and consciousness have been wonderfully and permanently raised through the experience of other people's art and artifacts.

However, I think there is a down side to this endeavor (as there is with most things). And that down side is that the transcendent experience of great art tends to cause a longing in us, for more. And sadly, that longing for the experience of transcending one's own knowledge and consciousness often becomes a lust for pointless novelty, in leu of an actual transcendent experience. And as a result, our society becomes inundated with objects and practices that are nothing more than a mindless pursuit of novelty masquerading as transcendence. Which in turn obscures and even delegitimizes for a lot of people, the real transcendence that can be achieved and shared and that is so good for all humankind.

A glaring example of this phenomena in the arts can be found in the art movement called "Modernism". One the one hand, the Modern art movement produced some fantastic examples of transcendent art experiences. On the other hand, it also produced a mountain of pointless art objects, performances and artifacts that were nothing more than the blind pursuit and glorification of novelty for novelty's sake. And so much of this nonsense was created in the name of Modern art that a lot of people simply dismissed Modern art all together. And that's a shame, because in doing so they missed the opportunity to transcend their own knowledge and consciousness in some very enlightening and positive ways.

... Just my two cents.

Transcendentalism

Green Gaia

Veteran Member

trishtrish10

Active Member

Green Gaia

Veteran Member

Allan

Member

trishtrish10

Active Member

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate

scitsofreaky

Active Member

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate

scitsofreaky

Active Member

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate

scitsofreaky

Active Member

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate

scitsofreaky

Active Member

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate

scitsofreaky

Active Member

Aaron CT

New Member

Maxist

Active Member

PureX

Veteran Member