I propose a new more pragmatic definition for the terminology "transcendent".
A dictionary definition of the term “transcendent” can be 1) above or beyond the range of normal or physical human experience, 2) higher than Aristotle’s 10 categories (essence, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, position, habitus, action, affection) 3) beyond comprehension or 4) exceeding usual limits.
In my philosophy I would like to give a new definition to the term “transcendent”: Reconciling opposing or even mutually exclusive concepts in a higher dimensional framework (e.g. of understanding or as nested levels of a program) that exceeds yet includes both concepts without contradiction. In other words "both...and" instead of "either...or".The reason for this different definition is that whatever is not knowable or what is not part of reality is not worth bothering about and whatever is part of this reality must be knowable to a sufficient extent and can ultimately not be beyond comprehension or beyond our experience.
There are concepts and phenomena which may not be within the framework of experience or understanding of the average person today, but society evolves and within a few generations, what is now cutting edge technology may be part of common knowledge. So ultimately there will be nothing that fits the traditional meaning of “transcendent” and those traditional meanings that still apply do find a place within my new definition.
In my philosophy “Transcendent” is a kind of synonym of “all-inclusive”. This is perhaps best illustrated by the Indian parable of the elephant. Several blind man touch an elephant to learn what it is. One touches the tail and concludes that it’s a broom, another one touches a leg and concludes it’s a pillar, a third touches the tusk and concludes it’s a horn etc. Whereas from their own perspective none of them is really wrong, from the higher all-inclusive perspective they are all wrong to a certain extent and right to another extent. The dichotomies are resolved by a higher dimensional entity and perspective, which is the elephant, which transcends but does not exclude the partial perspectives.
Hence the famous quote by Nagarjuna:
“Anything is either true,
Or not true,
Or both true and not true,
Or neither true nor not true;
This is the Buddha's teaching”.
My philosophy embraces this perspectivism view and considers the Aristotelian principle of the “excluded middle” as a limited perspective of linear logic thinking, which can only describe parts but cannot properly take into account wholes which are more than the sum of their parts.
More about this topic in my book "Transcendental Metaphysics".
If you liked this post, please upvote and if possible resteem.
