In the third and final post on this stream of thought I will consider a more earthbound, strictly atheistic ‘law of nature’ perspective of human experiences. The argument is that on this view, nothing could possibly be actually ‘transcendental’ in any objective sense of the word as to be ‘beyond our own limits’ is to suggest the existence of something beyond our own world to make that comparison with!
Therefore, something can be ‘adjectively’ transcendental to me, yes – but arguably not transcendental by any objective measure or as a noun.
It would appear that I have to give up hope of ascribing a truly ‘out of the ordinary; beyond the limits of human experience’ description of ‘transcendental’ to my moment of enlightenment, because for the hard-core existentialist (referred to as epiphenomenalist – but that’s the last time I use that term) it is only material bodies which really exist. We should instead call my experience what it apparently was: a series of chemical reactions which my subjective conscious mind – thanks to fifteen years hence of experience and training – can now label as adjectively ‘transcendental’ and not objectively so.
And the problem with this? Do I now have to commit to a mechanistic, materialistic, universe? And what do I mean by these terms?
Well, put simply, a mechanistic-materialistic perspective of the universe is one where all things are reducible to being part of a large-scale mechanism with all that populates it being material things only – those things which are made of matter and have form, existing in time and taking up space. All our conscious thoughts do not take place outside or separate to our brain…they are, in fact, all generated by our physical brain neurologically. It’s a place in which there could exist no ‘universals’ as there are no shared essences which bind us – only similarities. The theist will easily paint a bleak, cold-deep recesses of space ‘where no-one can hear you scream’ scenario for any who should seek something more prosaic. But actually, that’s not what troubles me within the context of my story.
What troubles me is that such a mechanistic view commits me to what’s called ‘determinism’. For a superb debate and explanation on determinism and freewill you can’t go wrong with the excellent ‘Philosophy Bites’ and in particular May 2012’s episode on Neurology & Free Will
If we are part of a series of universal moving parts playing out to a seemingly eternal ‘Rube-Goldberg-esque series of events then there was at some point a ‘first cause’. Don’t get the theist started – they’ll tell you who caused that ‘first cause’ and it wasn’t simply the mega out of-nothing explosion neither but for the atheist it was the Big Bang that set in motion all the things that happened from the hydrogen in-rush to the point, that evening in 2005 when, in a top bedroom in a terraced house in a Leeds estate; Classic FM played the first mandolin strum of ‘How Sweet the Moonlight’ that would inevitably lead me on my journey. To be a determinist is to essentially say ‘it would ever have been thus’. All events in my life, like all the events preceding my conception, and my parent’s conception and so on, would have led to a new girlfriend’s love of classical music – a radio switched on and internet research on ‘countertenors’
I would suggest this makes ‘How Sweet the Moonlight’ incidental. It could have been any song that evening (though arguably, the Hard Determinist would say ‘no – it still would’ve always been ‘that song’) that would have driven me onto that new path in my life of self-discovery and growth. So does a purely existential universe view – devoid of objective perfections and divine interventions, concepts of free-will (debateable), immaterial souls and arguably a separate conscious mind make my experience ‘less transcendental’ because, quite frankly, there wasn’t really anything ‘special’ about it.
Now I need to make my stance on this matter. The time for explanations and ‘question-begging’ must come to an end.
In conclusion (finally)
I can accept determinism; I can accept that I was always going to have that evening which would have led me on my journey – and I can accept a world without an interventionist God. But I can also feel sound that it was a transcendental moment because, as I began to argue previously, irrespective of what would have always been – the moment was clearly ‘transcendental’. No, I didn’t know it at the time but I would in fact go on to push ‘beyond the limits of my experience and knowledge’ – I would indeed transcend self. I concede to a secular use of the term I yield to an existentialist viewpoint and it would appear I cannot satisfy my previous argument that ‘transcendental’ connotes ‘divine’ – but maybe in the future that could be a separate post.
a final thought…
But for all of us, theist and atheist alike – it is possibly the outcome rather than the inspiration that should be the focus of wonder. There is a warm feeling, a satisfied scratch of the itch knowing that there are moments in our lives where we could be on the cusp of something greater than what we are now. And when we reflect on those transcendental moments…we can offer insights and encouragement to others whose lives may feel all too horizontal. After all, our encouragement and belief that their life’s journey could turn on a dime might be the intervention their God had planned for them…
StoatAubergine 