"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.)

These are very interesting ideas.

I wonder, would eternity and infinite space really be considered objective?
-

It seems to me that in order for living, intelligent beings to exist, they must subside within this flux where everything is relative and changing. God, therefore dies. The Universe is organic.. and dies eventually also. But the reasonable form must remain. Eternity and infinite space then, are possibilities of reason.
-

All phenomena are organic and relative and subject to change and there can be no knolwedge associataed with them (us). Because to be is always to be in a relative and provisional way only.

So, what is the status of life in the context of rational form? And what is the true relationship of the mind to reason?

If life could be turned into pure reason then we would be perhaps eternally united with the Universal rational form.

-

If life could be turned into pure reason then we would be perhaps eternally united with the Universal rational form.
-

This is Hegel, for the most part, as Kojeve presents him. Man didn't want to see that he was god because he didn't want to accept his mortality. So philosophy had to take a long and winding road in pursuit of the numen/self-consciousness.
The flux is changing but some forms, as Aristotle and Plato noted, do subsist. For instance, plants and animals. Also the sun, moon, stars, mountains. But as Heraclitus probably noted, it's all a matter of temporal perspective. If we speed the film up, mountains evaporate. Stars are blown out like candles. If we slow it down...
I agree that the reasonable Forms remain. It's Plato and Kant, except Kant realized that Plato's Forms were projections. In a way, Plato's Forms were the center of reality, but only because man is. Some of the forms are eternal/transcenental, but some of them are temporal. I don't think Plato noticed this. Causality and substance depend on time. Except that Plato and Pythagos projected substance on number? Number was abstract substance. Transparent substance. Non-spatial substance. I guess they even projected causality on triangles? In a way... But causality generally depends on a succession of event that are related spatially by necessity.
There is only one space, or else causality would make no sense. But this space is a transcendental intuition., even if there is "real" space beneath it. (Or is there "really" spacetime? )

But there's an exception to this. Phenomena have a constant structure imposed on them by man. Man is the structure in phenomena, but he didn't always know this. From Plato to Kant, he was figuring it out. With Kant, man is the eternal in relation to time. Man is the Forms he imposes on his experience. The source of his experience remains mysterious.

Reconstructo, your knowledge of philosophy is unique and I enjoy your ideas. I think we hold the same interests.

We are forced by our nature to be realists in regards to the self. And the self is in a relative position; it changes, it passes away. But how was it possible? How was its philosophy possible? We must admit that in some way it could have been all an illusion. I certainly don't believe in objective time and space. But even an illusion might be something and I would like to think that an objective form (rational form) of the self might exists which allows for the illusory self to practice philosophy. This rational form could be numbers or real passages of being which allow the self to practice a true philosophy.

That is well stated. I do believe that there is one space that is a transcendental intuition. I don't see any 'real' spacetime.

I see no objection to saying that the natural World eludes conceptual understanding. Indeed, this would only mean that the existence of Nature is revealed by mathematical algorthm, for example, and not by concepts--that is by words having a meaning. Now, modern physics leads in the end to this result: one cannot speak of the physical reality without contradictions; as soon as one passes from algorthm to verbal description, one contradicts himself (particle-waves for example). Hence there would be no discourse revealing the physical or natural reality. This reality (as presented as early as Galileo) would be revealed to man only by the articulated silence of algorthm.....Now it does seem that algorthm, being nontemporal, does not reveal Life. But neither does dialectic. Therefore it may be necessary to combine Plato's conception(for the mathematical, or better, geometrical, substructure of the world) with Aristotle's (for its biological structure) and Kant's (for its physical, or better, dynamic, structure), while reserving Hegelian dialectic for Man and History..

Man is God because he imposes forms. But he must know that he imposes the forms. He requires philosophy to know that his intuition imposes the forms. Philosophy could be numbers or it could be Rational Forms, but it is required. We must confess that we may not exist at all. We must apply the critical method to our own selves at the very point of our own thought and knowledge of our selves. What is the Form of our transcendental intuition? What is the transcendental in itself?