Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Discussing the Transcendental

Philosophy Forum
» Epistemology
» Discussing the Transcendental

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

First, for those unfamiliar with the term, "transcendental" should not be confused with "transcendent." I'd be surprised if the transcendent doesn't make an appearance in this thread, but our focus, I hope, is on the transcendental.
Critique of Pure Reason - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

Transcendental is the philosophy that makes us aware of the fact that the first and essential laws of this world that are presented to us are rooted in our brain and are therefore known a priori. It is called transcendental because it goes beyond the whole given phantasmagoria to the origin thereof. Therefore, as I have said, only the Critique of Pure Reason and generally the critical (that is to say, Kantian) philosophy are transcendental.
Schopenhauer / - Parerga and Paralipomena

Quote:

With Kant the critical philosophy appeared as the opponent of this entire method [of dogmatic philosophy]. It makes its problem just those eternal truths (principle of contradiction, principle of sufficient reason) that serve as the foundation of every such dogmatic structure, investigates their origin, and then finds this to be in man's head. Here they spring from the forms properly belonging to it, which it carries in itself for the purpose of perceiving and apprehending the objective world. Thus here in the brain is the quarry furnishing the material for that proud, dogmatic structure. Now because the critical philosophy, in order to reach this result, had to go beyond the eternal truths, on which all the previous dogmatism was based, so as to make these truths themselves the subject of investigation, it became transcendental philosophy. From this it follows also that the objective world as we know it does not belong to the true being of things-in-themselves, but is its mere phenomenon, conditioned by those very forms that lie a priori in the human intellect (i.e., the brain); hence the world cannot contain anything but phenomena.
- The World as Will and Representation, Vol. I, Appendix: "Criticism of the Kantian Philosophy"

I find Kant pretty convincing, but by no means the last word.

@Reconstructo,

I relate phenomena with Time simulation and not only with perception...Time is off essence...I often try to imagine "objects" out of Time in a cubic frame...like three dimensional frames of a film...on top of that I still have the interpretation problem, the meta-Object without direct meaning...

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;131761 wrote:

I relate phenomena with Time simulation and not only with perception...Time is off essence...I often try to imagine "objects" out of Time in a cubic frame...like three dimensional frames of a film...on top of that I still have the interpretation problem, the meta-Object without direct meaning...

I'm not sure what you mean exactly, but I'm intrigued.

@Fil Albuquerque,

But what I get seeing everything perfectly standing still in absolute silence, is a pale idea of the BEING...

---------- Post added 02-24-2010 at 02:11 AM ----------

Reconstructo;131762 wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean exactly, but I'm intrigued.

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;131763 wrote:

But what I get seeing everything perfectly standing still in absolute silence, is a pale idea of the BEING...

Quote:

"Feeling the world as a limited whole -- it is this that is mystical"

Is it anything like Wittgenstein's description?

---------- Post added 02-24-2010 at 02:19 AM ----------

Fil. Albuquerque;131763 wrote:

I think I do get it. But I would like to here some more. Could you fit all the pieces together?

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;131767 wrote:

Is it anything like Wittgenstein's description?

---------- Post added 02-24-2010 at 02:19 AM ----------

I think I do get it.

Well limited in itself, not for itself, and not for me... as I, being part of it could not ask for more...because what I seek he provides a priori...

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;131769 wrote:

Well limited in itself, not for itself, and not for me... as I, being part of it could not ask for more...because what I seek he provides a priori...

Do you like Spinoza, or is that a total misunderstanding on my part?

@Fil Albuquerque,

same is to say that I seek seeking...and that is the path of TAO !

---------- Post added 02-24-2010 at 02:27 AM ----------

Reconstructo;131771 wrote:

Do you like Spinoza, or is that a total misunderstanding on my part?

---------- Post added 02-24-2010 at 02:32 AM ----------

Reconstructo;131767 wrote:

I think I do get it. But I would like to here some more. Could you fit all the pieces together?

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;131772 wrote:

Do you view time quasi-spatially? Do you conceive of existence/totality/tao as a four-dimensional stasis/sculpture?

@Fil Albuquerque,

What about space-time? The theory of Stephen Hawking. Where space is 3 dimensional and time is brought into the realm of a fourth dimension? I honestly think time is an abstract concept that humans have invented for the personal use of seasons and sleep. If it were not for this use then I would see no need for time. However since it does exist presently, it must exist in this universe. So where does it fit into space? Are humans the only beings who "count" on it? What other life forms on this planet depend on it's meaning? Also I noticed your mention of Tao. If you haven't done so already you should read "The Tao of Physics" by Fritjof Capra. I am doing so presently.

@AntiCHRISTian669,

AntiCHRISTian669;131781 wrote:

What about space-time? The theory of Stephen Hawking. Where space is 3 dimensional and time is brought into the realm of a fourth dimension? I honestly think time is an abstract concept that humans have invented for the personal use of seasons and sleep. If it were not for this use then I would see no need for time. However since it does exist presently, it must exist in this universe. So where does it fit into space? Are humans the only beings who "count" on it? What other life forms on this planet depend on it's meaning? Also I noticed your mention of Tao. If you haven't done so already you should read "The Tao of Physics" by Fritjof Capra. I am doing so presently.

These are excellent comments and questions. I would say that spacetime is a great abstraction. We can't visualize it except by means of mathematics. Kant's view of time is not about time-as-it-really-is but time as humans intuitively experience it. So Kant's time is not in the way of spacetime, not at all. The Tao of Physics is great. It's been awhile. More recently I've read the Dancing Wu Li Masters.

Kant describes the structure automatically imposed on experience by our minds/brains. Spacetime is something else. It's a brilliant invention, a new way for humans to conceive of rather than to intuit time. You should check out the Critique of Practical Reason summary. It's great stuff. It's up your alley I think.

Good to have you on the forum.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;131777 wrote:

Do you view time quasi-spatially? Do you conceive of existence/totality/tao as a four-dimensional stasis/sculpture?

One true dimension..no more needed...the others are replicas from the first one...they are all Axis of Order in the first one...kind of functions inside functions...

---------- Post added 02-24-2010 at 03:28 AM ----------

...From the inside perspective one can imagine a four dimensional sculpture...but from the outside perspective the AXIS of ONE would be more like a ring line...

---------- Post added 02-24-2010 at 03:34 AM ----------

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;131786 wrote:

One true dimension..no more needed...the others are replicas from the first one...they are all Axis of Order in the first one...kind of functions inside functions...

Reminds me of "arrays" from computer programming. At the beginning of the program you declare their size, dimension by dimension. But all these dimensions are unified by the name of the array. Individual elements are referenced via indices. Array data type - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But functions inside of functions? So is there a sort of master function then? Are we talking about numen + master-function/equation?

---------- Post added 02-24-2010 at 04:02 PM ----------

Fil. Albuquerque;131786 wrote:

...From the inside perspective one can imagine a four dimensional sculpture...but from the outside perspective the AXIS of ONE would be more like a ring line...

Is the Vision from Outside experience within as an imaginative construct? Or does one alternate between interior and exterior view? I see that the Unity is crucial here.

---------- Post added 02-24-2010 at 04:04 PM ----------

Fil. Albuquerque;131786 wrote:

Could you elaborate?

---------- Post added 02-24-2010 at 04:05 PM ----------

Fil. Albuquerque;131786 wrote:

One true dimension..no more needed...the others are replicas from the first one.

Are they exactly replicas or are they derived from the first one?

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;131947 wrote:

Reminds me of "arrays" from computer programming. At the beginning of the program you declare their size, dimension by dimension. But all these dimensions are unified by the name of the array. Individual elements are referenced via indices. Array data type - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reconstructo;131947 wrote:

But functions inside of functions? So is there a sort of master function then? Are we talking about numen + master-function/equation?

The One dimension contains the others dimension functions programming in it...

Reconstructo;131947 wrote:

Is the Vision from Outside experience within as an imaginative construct? Or does one alternate between interior and exterior view? I see that the Unity is crucial here.

...one cannot visualize from outside in one dimension, so I would say this is an abstract concept construction...

Reconstructo;131947 wrote:

Could you elaborate?

The sculpture can be experimented as a sort of Cosmic Silent elongated Monolith...with everything frozen in the frames...but the extreme silence and the cold is what makes the strongest impression...in these experience you only suppress time and therefore can see the entire frame simultaneously, everything elongates in a cubic grid...its like if you were in a huge tunnel...

...imagination at its best I guess... Smile

Reconstructo;131947 wrote:

Are they exactly replicas or are they derived from the first one?

...well, they must be very similar in the coded structure...and they are not derived they are in the One AXIS...

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;132011 wrote:

...well, they must be very similar in the coded structure...and they are not derived they are in the One AXIS...

I find this all quite fascinating. Sincerely. Why this metaphor "axis"? I like it. I just want to know more why it's an axis.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;132014 wrote:

I find this all quite fascinating. Sincerely. Why this metaphor "axis"? I like it. I just want to know more why it's an axis.

It is literally...from left to right you have the coded information in ordered sequence...imagine an entire book written in one huge sentence...

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;132023 wrote:

It is literally...from left to right you have the coded information in ordered sequence...imagine an entire book written in one huge sentence...

Brilliant. So the other dimensions would be the projections/interpretations of the "reader." Or are multiple dimensions just a misreading of this axis?

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;132093 wrote:

Brilliant. So the other dimensions would be the projections/interpretations of the "reader." Or are multiple dimensions just a misreading of this axis?

From the first on you can go either way...but the others must be "fakes", or to be more consensual sub-dimensions in the actual AXIS...
(they are programmed faked Axis)

Their structure is similar to the first one, an Axis also, but then they relate to each other, which changes everything...of you go 2,3,4,5...in relation to each other...

_____________AXIS 1______________
---------------------^-----------------------
{ ...AXIS...(axis 2)<->(axis 3)<->(axis 4)<->(axis 5)...AXIS...] <->THE ONE

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;132204 wrote:

_____________AXIS 1______________
---------------------^-----------------------
{ ...AXIS...(axis 2)<->(axis 3)<->(axis 4)<->(axis 5)...AXIS...] <->THE ONE

I can understand the beauty of such a conception/numen. It reminds me of Spinoza's "intellectual love of God." God is the Self Consciousness of the Axis? Or man is given a peep into the massive beauty of it ALL and this experience of beauty makes his face to shine. I've suggested before that philosophy was conceptual art. But it's representational art. Philosophy as the art of conceptual non-fiction. It's non-fiction because it is a structuring of experience. It's not fiction because it creates reality. Or at least while we contemplate it is an image of that reality which it is part of.

The Axis is good. I hope you keep elaborating. I'm on a kick myself lately with Hegel via Kojeve via Reconstructo.

@Reconstructo,

"Transcendental" is a modest euphemism for eternal. The transcendental is Eternity For Men, or the only eternity we humans, arguably, can know. And this eternity is us. This eternity is the essence of our minds. Flux flows over us, arguably, but this flux is never known in-itself. Our eternal or transcendental mind structures this flux automatically and constantly. Kant did what Plato could not do. He associated eternity with time.

Whereas for Plato, time was the emanation of eternity. (Is this correct?) Aristotle rejected this, and proposed something else. Eternity does exist in time, but only to the degree that time is the recurrence of structures. Species of animals and plants, varieties of government. Time is Eternal only to the degree that certain forms subsist in matter which comes and goes. Why is the eternal important? Because truth is impossible unless what truth corresponds to subsists. If the world changes essentially then all knowledge is only opinion, never truth. Or it's truth that spoils. I think the numen from the very beginning drove philosophy toward eternal non-relative truth. Parmenides is actually quite important. Already he joined the numinous and the transcendental. (By the way, I associate the numen with "transcendence," but numen feels like a safer word.)

Philosophy Forum
» Epistemology
» Discussing the Transcendental

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Discussing the Transcendental

Quick Links

My Account

able2know