StoatAubergine

Tag: transcendental

  • An Incidental Experience – Something resembling a resolution

    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

    https://philosophybites.com

    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… 

  • The ‘Transcendental’ Experience

    In my previous blog I talked about a single experience some fifteen years ago which would go on to promote tremendous personal, cultural and intellectual growth. It was from hearing Jocelyn Pook’s ‘How Sweet the Moonlight’ sung by the countertenor Andreas Scholl. I often reflect on that experience as being ‘transcendental’ but is this description problematic for the non-believer? My heart wishes to retain this moment in my life as ‘out of the ordinary’ but to do so, must I commit to what a theist might call ‘the hand of God’?

    Transcendent: exceeding usual limits; extending or lying beyond the limits of ordinary experience; (In Kantian philosophy): being beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge

    Merriem Webster Dictionary

    Part of my problem is that I don’t think it’s possible to use the word ‘transcendental’ without it’s other-worldly connotation. For the very existence of the term almost demands at the very least that something beyond the limits of ordinary experience could exist. There is an argument that terms such as ‘sacred’ and ‘transcendental’ can absolutely have secular meaning and that all we need is the ‘idea’ that such fantastical – natural law-breaking entities could exist. But if I commit to my 2005 experience as being truly transcendental – I get the benefit of believing that forces outside those of my own conscious mind can affect me directly.

    For the theist reading this, there is probably a slow sagacious nodding of the head. She is possibly reading this thinking ‘yes – this is what we Christians/Muslims/Jews/ or any faith that believes in an interventionist God have known since revelation. You can only truly have a transcendental experience by the will of an entity that is itself – transcendental. How is it possible for your own limited human mind, contained within three pounds of grey matter, to truly experience anything other than that which you can account for either by sight, taste, touch or sound. Your feelings back then in 2005 as Andreas Scholl’s voice captivated and inspired you was not simply a psychological reaction culminating from the physiognomy of chemical signals in your brain flooding within you a hormone induced feeling of transcendence – it was God, actually ‘lifting’ you to a higher place of knowing, albeit briefly, to set you on your path to greater enlightenment. You know that the experience was truly other-worldly as your subjective world as it was, to all intents and purposes, forever changed.

    Alright. Well…now I have a problem. I like this. I like this a lot. There is a tremendous amount of comfort in knowing that experiences that are transcendental could be evidence that a power, greater than that which I can imagine, are finding ways to help me grow and improve – and if it were possible to simply park the role of a celestial being in my life right there – then that would be useful. I love my God because She only gets involved to make sure I’m not missing any great opportunities to improve. Were it that simple. That rabbit hole entrance to faith (God as interventionist and interested in ‘me’) comes with a series of other commitments which, as I said in the previous blog, I simply cannot make. Commitments to doctrine, to ritual, to the paradoxes of Scripture and the fallible human hand making sense of the ineffable. I will absolutely concede that we are not limited to the Abrahamic faith’s interpretation of a divine being – there’s other ideas out there – but the natural world, understood by others and witnessed by me gives no objective proof that such a thing exists. There’s a reason why a belief in God is called a leap of faith.

    So I still have the ‘transcendental’ problem. I can’t (or won’t) cross that Rubicon to a belief in God. So before I give over to the a-theist view, can my experience be saved from a simply psychological one? Let’s be clear on what exactly was the ‘transcendental’ moment for me in 2005. At that moment of hearing ‘How Sweet the Moonlight’ I was ‘transfixed’ ‘mesmerised’ ‘transported’ – as I have been in many other experiences before and since. No doubt I was experiencing strong psychological affects all of which were very pleasant. Within those four minutes and fifteen seconds I was not lifted to an astral plane nor did I glimpse Nirvana. In actual fact – the incredibleness of that evening was only realised upon reflection. I would certainly not have described that evening as a ‘religious experience’.

    Ahhh! So is that the true nature of transcendence? It is not something one ‘feels’ rather something one ‘realises’. Transcendence only comes through context – through careful study of the whole story – not simply a tiny section of it. Maybe I can describe it as transcendental because it is only some years after the event I can fully appreciate the significance. Now I have context – I can clearly state that was a moment beyond the ordinary. I can only know I was beyond the limits of my own experiences because I had no idea what was to come next. This has potential for allowing transcendental to retain the meaning above but not tie me to the divine.

    But yet it would appear then that I must concede that the experience itself was purely psychological and it’s lasting affects assigned to more earthly and ultimately human reasoning – so why do I feel a little disappointed? And why should I feel that psychological explanations are simply a ‘silver medal’?

    It seems reasonable to ascribe ‘transcendental’ to the effects of the experience later on in my life, as I see it as part of a longer journey – but why did it happen then? Was that moment simply incidental?

    In my last blog on this train of thought I will explore what it would mean to say it was simply incidental that “How Sweet the Moonlight’ would come to be such a significant moment. There may be some problems linked to free will and causality to consider – but as I prepare my thoughts, I wonder if the itch that remains present is whether my conscious mind could ever be enough to explain how some experiences can be so…beyond my limits.