--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So then, what's the difference? the transcendence is the > transcendent, right?
I think the point is that some are trying to say that what many TMers think is the transcdenant isn't really. I do not choose to weigh in on this subject; I'm just trying to clarify things, as I see them. If you believe what some have said of me, you should avoid any of my attempts at "clarification" like they were poison. > If it had a sign in it that said, "I'm a better transcendent > than the one you get with iddy-biddy mantras" then that > wouldn't be the transcendent, would it? Well, it would if you had been taught to *consider* that the transcendent, n'est-ce pas? I mean, *backtrack* a few steps to the subjective experience of "transcending." It's noticeable because it *is* transcendent; it goes beyond the boundaries or What You Knew Before. And that's a Good Thing, right? Who here on this forum, ferchrissakes, is going to argue that one should settle for What We Knew Before? So everyone transcends -- to some degree -- and to every single last one of them it is a transcendental experience. It took them so far beyond the boundaries of what they had previously conceived of *as* exper- ience that they had to consider the experience transcendental. I think I'm with you on this one. The transcendent is the transcendent, no matter how much others may protest that it's not *the* transcendent. What they perceive as *the* transcendent may *be*, for them. But not for others. They'd like us to believe that their definition of what the transcendent is *is*. They'd like to think that they rule, like Lester Burnham when he says so well in American Beauty, "I rule." But they don't. Each of us is free to determine just what transcendence is to *us*. And that's a form of transcendence in itself.
