Notes on Transcendence

Transcendence connotes permanence and irreversibility. That is, if one transcends a particular condition, the agent may no longer experience that condition. If I transcend “the tragic,” I can no longer experience tragedy.

It appears that transcendence, then, involves temporality. There must be a sequence of before, during, and after. The prefix trans assures us of this dimension of the word.

Or, is transcendence non-temporal? Is transcendence an attitude with which the agent perceives the world? Hence, I would continuously transcend. (I strongly doubt this. It seems impossible to me to transcend conditions that one has not yet encountered. Must one be familiar with or experience a condition in order to transcend it. Is transcendence retroactive?)

Transcendence is a way the agent relates to internal or external conditions. Transcendence is relational.

He transcends and is transcendent. As a verb transcend marks a process, as an adjective or noun, an end-state or product.

Transcendence is value-laden. I simply cannot think of a case in which transcendence is immoral. Can I transcend goodness? It would seem that, if I did, I would transcend the entire sphere of morality and would not, therefore, assert evil. (Nietzsche does this when he calls for an end to morality but not ethics.)

Transcendence is the route to Zen. When I think of transcend I imagine an ascending curve that tapers off. The slope of the curve is greater at the onset. But why?

What is the opposite of transcendence? …Immanence? I am not sure.