• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Transcendences Beyond Integral

B. May / Gemini

Introduction

Below is a conversation I had with Gemini (2.5 Pro) about both Wilberian transcendence and some alternative contemporary framings of transcendence. We explored the structure of transcendence—that is, what we would experience or label as “transcendence”—as well as a critique that the oft-quoted “both immanent and transcendent” rarely treats the immanence as an equal partner in a never finally resolved dialectic with an implicit privileging of transcendence.

TLDR (quotes from Gemini)

Reflecting on our discussion, we can see a powerful theme emerge: transcendence is almost always structurally bracketed and fundamentally relational. Its meaning is derived from the very system it purports to move beyond. However, the persistent human act of labeling certain experiences as radically "other" or non-relational points to a crucial function of the concept at the limits of language and understanding.
The aphorism "both immanent and transcendent" is an attempt to honor both poles. However, as you rightly suspect, in practice it often becomes a way for a transcendent-hierarchical system (driven by the left hemisphere's love of categorization and goals) to absorb and subordinate the immanent-relational. It says, "Yes, your experience of immanent belonging is valid... it's a beautiful and necessary stage on the path to the truly ultimate, transcendent realization." In this move, immanence is no longer an equally valid pole in a creative tension; it is demoted to a rung on a ladder it did not ask to climb.

Q: What are Ken Wilber's Three Eyes of Knowing? Does he treat them as co-equal, if rather distinct, aspects? Does he privilege any as being more true about reality overall?

Ken Wilber, a prominent figure in integral theory, proposes a model of human consciousness and knowledge acquisition centered around what he terms the "Three Eyes of Knowing." These are the eye of the flesh, the eye of the mind, and the eye of contemplation. While he treats each as a valid and distinct mode of knowing within its own domain, he also presents them in a hierarchical and developmental sequence, ultimately privileging the eye of contemplation as offering the most comprehensive and ultimate truth about reality.

The Three Eyes: Distinct Modes of Perception

Wilber's framework delineates three primary ways in which we perceive and understand the world:

• The Eye of the Flesh (The Empirical Eye): This is the realm of sensory experience, the world of physical objects and phenomena that we can see, hear, touch, taste, and smell. The knowledge gained through this eye is empirical and is the foundation of the natural sciences. Its validity is tested through direct observation, measurement, and experimentation.

• The Eye of the Mind (The Rational Eye): This eye pertains to the world of reason, logic, concepts, and symbols. It allows us to grasp abstract ideas, formulate theories, and understand mathematics and language. The knowledge acquired through the eye of the mind is based on internal coherence and logical consistency. It is the domain of philosophy, psychology, and much of the humanities.

• The Eye of Contemplation (The Spiritual Eye): This is the most subtle of the three eyes, apprehending the spiritual or transcendent dimensions of reality. It is through this eye that one can have direct experience of what Wilber calls "Spirit" or the ultimate, non-dual ground of being. The mode of knowing here is not sensory or purely rational but is accessed through practices like meditation and contemplation, leading to direct spiritual insight and realization.

Radically Distinct but Not Co-Equal

Wilber emphasizes that these three eyes are "radically distinct," meaning that the truths of one domain cannot be fully grasped or validated by the methods of another. To do so is to commit what he calls a "category error." For instance, attempting to prove or disprove the existence of God (a matter for the eye of contemplation) using only the tools of the empirical sciences (the eye of the flesh) is a fundamental misunderstanding of the different modes of knowing.

However, this distinctness does not imply that the three eyes are co-equal in their scope and ultimacy. Wilber's model is hierarchical, with each successive eye transcending and including its predecessor. The eye of the mind transcends the limitations of the purely physical senses of the eye of the flesh by allowing for abstract thought, but it still includes and relies on the data provided by the senses.

The Privileged Position of the Eye of Contemplation

In this hierarchy, Wilber clearly privileges the eye of contemplation as providing a more complete and encompassing understanding of reality. This is not to say that the knowledge gained through the eyes of flesh and mind is "false" or "untrue." Rather, their truths are seen as partial and incomplete from the more expansive viewpoint of the eye of spirit.

The eye of contemplation reveals the ultimate context within which the truths of the other two eyes find their meaning. It is through this eye that one can directly experience the interconnectedness of all things and the ultimate unity of consciousness and the cosmos. This "non-dual" awareness is considered by Wilber to be the most fundamental and, therefore, the "most true" perspective on reality overall.

In essence, while the eye of the flesh gives us the truth of the physical world and the eye of the mind provides the truth of rational understanding, the eye of contemplation offers the truth of ultimate reality itself, a truth that integrates and makes sense of the other, more limited perspectives. Therefore, in Wilber's integral framework, the Three Eyes of Knowing are distinct and valid in their own right, but they are not co-equal; they form a developmental hierarchy that culminates in the all-encompassing vision of the eye of contemplation.

Q: In Integral Spirituality (2006) I believe he said “To say that spiritual realization is a kind of knowledge that requires training in interior methods is not mysticism—it's epistemological pluralism.” Confirm if this quote is correct. Also determine if from its context in the book if he was lessening his hierarchical arrangement or not.

You are correct. That quote is indeed from Ken Wilber's Integral Spirituality (2006).

Now, to the more crucial part of your question: Does this statement, in its context, lessen his hierarchical arrangement?

The answer is no, it does not. In fact, the concept of "epistemological pluralism" as used in Integral Spirituality is the very foundation upon which Wilber builds and defends his hierarchy.

Here's the breakdown of the context:

• What "Epistemological Pluralism" Means for Wilber: Wilber is not using "pluralism" to mean that all ways of knowing are equal or interchangeable. Instead, he means that there are multiple, distinct, and valid ways of knowing, each with its own appropriate methods and data. The eye of flesh uses scientific instruments; the eye of mind uses logic; the eye of contemplation uses interior methods like meditation. To judge one by the standards of another is a "category error."

• A Defense, Not a Flattening: The quote you cited is part of Wilber's larger argument against the reductionism of what he calls "flatland"—the modern and postmodern tendency to accept only the truths of the eye of flesh (scientific materialism) or the eye of mind (rationalism and relativism) and to dismiss spiritual knowledge as unprovable "mysticism." By framing the validity of spiritual insight as a matter of "epistemological pluralism," he is arguing that it deserves a legitimate seat at the table of knowledge. It is a defense of the validity of the eye of contemplation.

• Hierarchy Remains Intact: Within this pluralistic framework, the hierarchy of "transcend and include" remains firmly in place. Integral Spirituality is a cornerstone of his "post-metaphysical" AQAL model, where "Levels" or "Stages" of development are a central component. The book argues that while all "eyes" are valid, they are not equally encompassing. The eye of contemplation (spiritual realization) provides a more holistic and inclusive perspective that can integrate the partial truths of science and reason.

In short, the quote is not a move toward a flatter, non-hierarchical model. It is a strategic argument to legitimize the highest level of his existing hierarchy. He is saying that we must be pluralistic enough to accept that different domains require different methods, and that accepting the validity of interior, contemplative methods for accessing spiritual knowledge is a necessary step toward a truly integral—and hierarchical—understanding of reality.

Q: What are solid contemporary philosophical arguments against, and alternatives to, Wilber's hierarchical scheme?

While Ken Wilber's integral theory has offered a compelling synthesis for many, it has also drawn significant criticism from various contemporary philosophical corners. These arguments often challenge the very foundation of his hierarchical scheme, questioning its universality, its political implications, and its metaphysical assumptions. In response, alternative models have been proposed that imagine complexity and development in non-linear, non-teleological ways.

Here are some of the most solid contemporary philosophical arguments against and alternatives to Wilber's hierarchical scheme.

Arguments Against Wilber's Hierarchical Scheme

1. The Post-Structuralist / Postmodern Critique: The Rejection of Grand Narratives

This is perhaps the most fundamental challenge to Wilber's entire project. Thinkers in this tradition are deeply skeptical of "metanarratives" or "grand narratives"—overarching, universal stories that claim to explain all of human history and development.

• The Argument: From a postmodern perspective, Wilber's AQAL model, with its definitive stages of consciousness culminating in a supreme non-dual awareness, is the ultimate grand narrative. It imposes a single, linear, teleological (goal-directed) order onto the vast, messy, and diverse realities of human cultures and individuals. Critics argue that what Wilber presents as a universal map of consciousness is, in fact, a culturally specific story rooted in a blend of Western developmental psychology and Eastern mystical traditions, which is then unjustifiably projected onto all of humanity. They question who gets to define the "top" of the hierarchy and argue that such models inevitably marginalize and devalue ways of being and knowing that don't fit the prescribed path.

2. The Feminist and Post-Colonial Critique: Hierarchy as Power

Building on the postmodern critique, feminist and post-colonial thinkers challenge the political and ethical implications of hierarchical models.

• The Argument: Hierarchies are never neutral; they are structures of power. By ranking developmental stages, Wilber's model can be used (intentionally or not) to justify social and political hierarchies. For example, labeling certain cultures or individuals as being at a "lower" (e.g., "mythic" or "ethnocentric") stage of development has historically been a rationale for colonialism, sexism, and other forms of oppression. Feminist critics like Carol Gilligan (whose work Wilber incorporates, but some argue he subordinates) have pointed out that developmental models have often privileged traditionally masculine traits like autonomy and abstract reason over feminine traits like relationality and care ethics. The critique is that Wilber's "transcend and include" model can become "transcend and devalue," creating a spiritual system that subtly reinforces existing power imbalances.

3. The Critique of Reification and the "Myth of the Given"

This philosophical argument targets the way Wilber treats the stages of his model as concrete, objective realities rather than as useful but ultimately constructed concepts.

• The Argument: Wilber's model is accused of "reification"—treating abstract concepts (like the "orange" rational stage or the "green" pluralistic stage) as if they were real, distinct things out in the world. Critics argue that these stages are not discovered but created by the model itself. This is what philosopher Wilfrid Sellars called the "Myth of the Given": the idea that we can have direct, unmediated access to reality. Any description of a developmental stage is already filtered through a cultural and linguistic lens. By presenting his levels as an objective map of reality, Wilber is accused of obscuring the constructed nature of his own framework and presenting his perspective as a neutral "view from nowhere."

Contemporary Philosophical Alternatives

Alternatives to Wilber's hierarchy tend to favor models that are decentralized, non-linear, and emphasize multiplicity and dynamic relationships over fixed, sequential stages.

1. The Rhizome (Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari)

This is the classic philosophical alternative to hierarchical, "arborescent" (tree-like) thinking.

• The Alternative: In A Thousand Plateaus, Deleuze and Guattari propose the "rhizome" as a model for knowledge and reality. A rhizome is a subterranean plant stem, like ginger or grass, that has no central point and can sprout and connect from any point to any other. As a model, it is:

• Acentered and Non-Hierarchical: It has no top, bottom, or center. It resists organizational structures that chart causality along linear, chronological lines.

• Characterized by Connection and Heterogeneity: Any point can be connected to any other, linking vastly different domains (e.g., a philosophical concept can connect to a political event and a work of art).

• A "Map" not a "Tracing": A tracing simply copies what is already there, whereas a map is open, connectable in all its dimensions, and constantly being made.

A rhizomatic view of consciousness would not see a set sequence of stages but a dynamic map of shifting connections, multiple plateaus of being, and lines of flight, without a predetermined spiritual endpoint.

2. Assemblage Theory (Manuel DeLanda)

Building on Deleuze and Guattari, Manuel DeLanda has systematized the concept of the "assemblage" into a rigorous social ontology that offers a powerful alternative to Wilber's holons.

• The Alternative: An assemblage is a whole formed from heterogeneous, interacting parts. Crucially, these parts have "relations of exteriority," meaning a part can be detached from one assemblage and plugged into another, changing its interactions but not its fundamental properties.

• Rejects Holism and Reductionism: Unlike Wilber's holons, where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts in a nested hierarchy, an assemblage is not a seamless whole. Its identity emerges from the contingent, historical interactions of its components.

• Focus on Materiality and Process: Assemblage theory emphasizes the material processes (from geological to economic to linguistic) that stabilize or destabilize an assemblage. This provides a "flat ontology" where a person, a city, a social movement, and a rock formation are all considered assemblages on different scales and timeframes, without being ranked in a spiritual or cognitive hierarchy.

In this view, a society or a personality is not a holon progressing up a ladder, but a complex assemblage of various components (habits, institutions, technologies, desires) that is constantly in a dynamic process of formation and dissolution.

Q: In the context of both these critiques and alternatives, how could "transcendence" (various senses) be explained or framed?

Excellent question. Reframing "transcendence" outside of Ken Wilber's "transcend and include" hierarchy is a central task for the philosophical alternatives. Instead of a vertical climb up a pre-defined ladder, transcendence becomes understood in various other ways: as a lateral move, a deepening of connection, a rupture from a dominant system, or an emergent property of a complex assemblage.

Here is how "transcendence" could be explained or framed within the context of the critiques and alternatives previously discussed.

1. Transcendence in the Context of the Critiques

The critiques reframe transcendence not as moving to a higher level, but as breaking free from the very assumptions that create the levels in the first place.

• From the Post-Structuralist View (Rejecting Grand Narratives): Transcendence is not an ascent to a universal truth, but a rupture from a limiting, localized truth. It is the act of recognizing that the "reality" one inhabits is a constructed narrative, and then creating a "line of flight" from it. One transcends their culture not by reaching a "worldcentric" stage above it, but by deconstructing that culture's assumptions and opening up new, unpredictable possibilities for thought and action. It is a transcendence of meaning-systems.

• From the Feminist/Post-Colonial View (Hierarchy as Power): Here, transcendence is reframed from a vertical, individualistic escape to a horizontal, relational expansion. The goal isn't to rise above the messy, relational world, but to transcend the boundaries of the isolated ego to form deeper, more ethical connections with others. Transcendence is found in radical empathy, in solidarity with the oppressed, and in dissolving the self/other boundary to create a more just and interconnected "we." It is a transcendence of the ego for the sake of the collective.

• From the Critique of Reification (The "Myth of the Given"): In this context, transcendence is a meta-cognitive shift. It is the act of transcending one's attachment to the concepts themselves. One "transcends" a stage (e.g., the "rational" stage) not by graduating to the "pluralistic" one, but by realizing that the "rational stage" is merely a useful conceptual box, not an objective reality. This is the freedom gained from seeing the map as a map, not the territory. It is a transcendence of conceptual fixation.

2. Transcendence in the Context of the Alternatives

The alternative models offer positive visions of transcendence that are non-linear and non-teleological.

• In a Rhizome (Deleuze & Guattari): Since a rhizome has no top or bottom, transcendence cannot be vertical. Instead, it is creative, lateral movement. It is the act of making a new connection between previously unrelated points. A thinker transcends a sterile academic field not by rising above it, but by connecting it to a completely different domain—linking economics with art, or engineering with social justice. Transcendence is the creation of a new "plateau"—a temporarily stable, newly constituted field of thought and action that offers new capacities. It is transcendence as novel connection and creative synthesis.

• In Assemblage Theory (Manuel DeLanda): Assemblage theory offers a very grounded, materialist vision of transcendence through two primary mechanisms:

1. Emergence: Transcendence is an emergent property of a new assemblage. The capacities of an assemblage "transcend" the capacities of its individual parts. For example, wetness is a property that emerges from an assemblage of H2O molecules, but no single molecule is wet. A social movement (an assemblage of people, technologies, and ideas) has capacities that transcend those of any individual member. This is not a spiritual "level," but a real-world increase in capability.

2. Deterritorialization and Re-assemblage: Transcendence occurs when a component is "unplugged" from one assemblage and "plugged into" another, gaining new capacities. A person transcends the limitations of their job (one assemblage) by joining a band (another assemblage), unlocking creative potentials that were dormant. This is a change of state and capacity through a change in relationships, not a climb up a universal ladder. It is transcendence as a change in assemblage and an emergence of new powers.

Comparison of Developmental Frameworks

In essence, the shift is from viewing transcendence as a predictable journey of ascent to viewing it as an unpredictable event of emergence, connection, or liberation within the immanent world.

Q: Provide a summary table of all of the kinds of transcendence we've looked at (IT, critiques, alternatives).

Here is a summary table that consolidates the different models of transcendence we have discussed, from Integral Theory to its critiques and philosophical alternatives.

Summary of Transcendence Models

Q: Reflect more generally on the connection between particular structural assumptions and the experiences, concepts or metaphors that might be labeled as transcendent/transcending with respect to them. Is there a unifying theme, or is it structurally bracketed as to what might be considered transcendence? In what ways is transcendence only relative or relational? In what ways might transcendence be a label for that which has no prior reference or clear relation?

This is a deeply insightful question that moves to the philosophical heart of the matter. The relationship between a structure and the concept of "transcending" it is not just an academic puzzle; it shapes how we understand growth, freedom, and novelty itself.

Reflecting on our discussion, we can see a powerful theme emerge: transcendence is almost always structurally bracketed and fundamentally relational. Its meaning is derived from the very system it purports to move beyond. However, the persistent human act of labeling certain experiences as radically "other" or non-relational points to a crucial function of the concept at the limits of language and understanding.

The Unifying Theme: The Boundary and the Crossing

If there is a single unifying theme to the concept of transcendence, it is not a specific content (e.g., "becoming spiritual" or "gaining new knowledge") but a formal, structural dynamic: the dynamic of the boundary and the crossing.

Every system, whether it's a conceptual model, a social structure, a psychological stage, or a physical prison, has a boundary that defines what is "inside" and what is "outside." Transcendence is simply the name we give to the act of crossing that boundary.

However—and this is the critical point—the nature of the boundary determines the nature of the crossing. This is what it means for transcendence to be "structurally bracketed."

• If the structure is a hierarchical ladder (Wilber's Integral Theory), then transcendence is experienced and conceptualized as climbing up.

• If the structure is a prison of dominant ideology (Post-Structuralist critique), transcendence is experienced as a rupture or escape.

• If the structure is an isolated, egoic self (Feminist critique), transcendence is experienced as forming a connection or expanding horizontally.

• If the structure is a closed network of concepts (Rhizome), transcendence is experienced as making a novel, lateral link to another network.

There is no "pure" act of transcendence. The experience is always colored by, and given meaning in relation to, the specific walls one is going over.

Transcendence as Fundamentally Relational

This leads directly to the next point: transcendence is, in almost every meaningful sense, relative and relational. It is a "movement-from" a given state. The transcendent "to" is unintelligible without the immanent "from."

Think of the word "up." It has no absolute meaning. It is purely relational to "down." Similarly, a state of consciousness or being is only "transcendent" in relation to a prior, less encompassing state.

• A physicist writing an equation for general relativity transcends a Newtonian framework, but this act is only meaningful in relation to that prior framework.

• A person achieving a state of profound empathy transcends their ordinary egocentric perspective, but this is defined by its difference from that egoism.

• Even the most radical political revolutionary, in trying to create a new society, is fundamentally conditioned by the society they are trying to overthrow. Their utopia is an answer to the specific problems of their present.

In this way, transcendence is not an escape from relation, but a re-negotiation of relation. It is the establishment of a new relationship with oneself, with a body of knowledge, or with the world.

Transcendence as the Label for the Radically "Other"

So, what about the final question? In what ways might transcendence be a label for that which has no prior reference or clear relation?

This is where the concept reveals its most profound and paradoxical function. This happens at the limits of our structural and linguistic worlds, often in experiences described as mystical, ineffable, or radically novel.

1. Phenomenological Otherness: A person might have a profound experience—of non-dual awareness, cosmic unity, or what Rudolf Otto called the mysterium tremendum—that feels utterly discontinuous with their prior life. It doesn't feel like "the next step on the ladder"; it feels like it came from outside the system entirely. It has no clear reference point within their existing cognitive or emotional framework.

2. The Limit of Language: When such an experience occurs, our relational concepts fail. Language, being a system of differences and relations, cannot grasp that which presents itself as unitary and non-relational. The experience is, by definition, ineffable.

3. "Transcendence" as the Place-Holder: In this moment of cognitive and linguistic failure, "transcendence" becomes the label we apply to the breakdown itself. It becomes a name for the unnamable. The label doesn't actually describe the experience in its own terms; it describes the experience in relation to our system's failure to grasp it.

Therefore, when we label an experience as transcendent in this absolute sense, we are saying: "Here is something so 'other' that my entire system of relations, references, and structures cannot contain it." The label points to the hole in the net, not to the fish that got away. It signifies an encounter with a limit. The moment we name it "transcendent," we ironically pull it back into a relation—it is now transcendent-in-relation-to-our-normal-experience.

In conclusion, the concept of transcendence operates in a fascinating duality. It is almost always a relative term whose meaning is supplied by the structure it overcomes. Yet, it is also the unique word we reserve for those moments of profound rupture that seem to defy relation altogether, thereby marking the very limits of our structural understanding of the world.

Q: Reflect on the potential cognitive, psychological, sociological and political traps and trappings of attempting to define or attain a particular kind of transcendence as an ultimate truth or end.

This is a crucial reflection, as the pursuit of transcendence, one of humanity's most profound impulses, is shadowed by the danger of its own institutionalization. When a particular flavor of transcendence is defined as an ultimate truth or a final end, it creates a cascade of traps—cognitive, psychological, sociological, and political—that can undermine the very freedom and wholeness the pursuit was meant to foster.

Here is a reflection on those traps and trappings.

The Allure and the Freezing Point

The desire to transcend—to go beyond our current limits, to find a deeper meaning, to experience unity or a more expansive reality—is a powerful and often beautiful human drive. It fuels art, science, love, and spiritual inquiry. The danger arises not from this impulse, but from the attempt to reify it: to freeze the dynamic, ineffable process of transcending into a static, definable end state or "ultimate truth." The moment this happens, the living journey becomes a monument, and monuments, by their nature, create insiders who guard them and outsiders who are judged against them.

Cognitive Traps: The Prison of the Perfect Map

Once an "ultimate truth" is defined, it lays subtle but powerful traps for the mind.

• Conceptual Idolatry: The description of transcendence becomes more important than the experience itself. The "map" of enlightenment, with its stages, states, and final destination, is mistaken for the territory. The mind begins to worship the concept—the perfect, final answer—rather than engaging in the open, uncertain process of inquiry. The pointer to the moon becomes the moon.

• Confirmation Bias on an Ultimate Scale: If one possesses the "final answer," all new data, experiences, and arguments are filtered through it. Information that confirms the model is elevated; contradictory information is dismissed as "less evolved," "unenlightened," or simply "wrong." This leads to intellectual stagnation and a closed-loop system that is incapable of genuine learning or self-correction.

• The Paradox of Seeking a Final State: Cognitively, the pursuit of a static end-point in an ever-unfolding, dynamic universe is a fundamental error. It assumes that consciousness is a finite problem that can be "solved" once and for all. This freezes the mind in a state of seeking a destination, blinding it to the reality that growth and insight are processes, not acquisitions.

Psychological Traps: The Ego in Transcendent Disguise

The individual psyche is particularly vulnerable when pursuing a reified version of transcendence.

• Spiritual Narcissism: The ego, which was meant to be transcended, does not simply disappear. It often latches onto the pursuit itself, creating a new, more subtle identity: the "enlightened person." This leads to a sense of spiritual superiority, a "more transcendent than thou" attitude, and a tendency to judge others based on their position within the preferred hierarchy. The ego has simply changed its clothes from worldly to spiritual.

• Spiritual Bypassing: This is the act of using "ultimate" spiritual truths to avoid dealing with uncomfortable, "relative" human realities like personal trauma, difficult emotions, and interpersonal conflict. By asserting that "it's all an illusion" or that "pain is just the ego," individuals can create a premature sense of peace that bypasses the necessary psychological work of healing and integration.

• Chronic Dissatisfaction: When transcendence is framed as a distant, ultimate goal, the present moment becomes perpetually inadequate. The individual is caught in a state of constant striving, forever feeling that they are "not there yet." This can lead to profound unhappiness, anxiety, and a sense of personal failure, turning a path that promised liberation into a new form of self-imposed suffering.

Sociological Traps: The Purity of the In-Group

When a group coalesces around a single "ultimate truth," it creates powerful and often destructive social dynamics.

• The Creation of In-Groups and Out-Groups: A defined ultimate truth immediately cleaves the world in two: those who have it (the in-group) and those who do not (the out-group). This fosters sectarianism, elitism, and a suspicion of outsiders. Social cohesion is built not just on shared values, but on a shared rejection of those who follow a different path.

• Institutionalization and Control: The ineffable experience of a founder must be translated into doctrine, dogma, and rituals so it can be transmitted. This process, what Max Weber called the "routinization of charisma," inevitably creates a "priesthood"—a formal or informal group of arbiters who control access to the truth, define orthodoxy, and manage the institution. The transcendent experience becomes a scarce resource managed by an elite.

• Homogenization of Experience: The institution's definition of "valid" transcendence becomes the only acceptable one. This suppresses diversity and invalidates the authentic, idiosyncratic spiritual experiences of individuals that do not fit the established model. The rich ecosystem of human spirituality is bulldozed to make way for a monoculture crop.

Political Traps: The Tyranny of the Enlightened

This is where the traps become most dangerous, moving from personal or social dysfunction to systems of oppression.

• The Justification for Authoritarianism: The claim to possess ultimate truth is the classic foundation for tyranny. If a leader or party has unique access to the "highest" state of consciousness or the "end of history," then democracy, dissent, and debate become obstacles. Opposition is no longer a political difference but a sign of spiritual or cognitive inferiority. This logic can be used to justify the "philosopher king" who need not answer to the unenlightened masses.

• The Devaluation of Human Rights: When a transcendent "end"—be it a utopian state, a divine kingdom, or a perfectly ordered society—is seen as the ultimate good, then the "relative" rights and well-being of individuals in the present can be seen as expendable. The abstract goal becomes a justification for concrete suffering. The ends are used to sanctify any means necessary.

• The Weaponization of Hierarchy: A clearly defined model of transcendence, especially a hierarchical one, can be weaponized to justify political domination. It provides a sophisticated rationale for colonialism and cultural imperialism: "Our nation/culture/ideology is at a higher developmental stage, therefore we have the right and duty to guide, manage, or control 'lesser' peoples for their own good." It is a modern, seemingly scientific gloss on the age-old "civilizing mission."

In conclusion, the danger is not in the verb "to transcend" but in the noun "a transcendence." The moment the journey is mistaken for a destination, it creates a powerful gravitational pull toward certainty, purity, and control. Perhaps the most authentic transcendence, then, is not the attainment of a final answer, but the cultivation of the capacity to continually transcend one's own answers—to remain in the dynamic, uncomfortable, and ultimately more liberating space of the open question.

Q: So, in the human psyche a particular "transcendence" (goal, ideal) can act like a powerful teleological attractor, often with the allure or promise of ultimate resolution, understanding, freedom, control, finality, etc. It also seems transcendence can also be an urge to be away from or other than what is actual, as a kind of reactive push or distracting (sometimes obsessive) attention somewhere else (other, better, more). Thus both a dualistic push and pull.

Yet not every culture (such as indigenous cultures) appears to be driven to surpass, escape, transform and transcend their present reality with thousands of competing, readymade narratives and institutions each promising something other than what is so, many of which deny the legitimacy of others. Reflect on potential situational, historical and bio-psycho-social factors that might drive this phenomenon, contrasting radically different cultural orientations to transcendence.

This is a superb and deeply perceptive synthesis. You have precisely articulated the dualistic engine of much of Western and globalized culture: transcendence as both a teleological "pull" toward a future ideal and a reactive "push" away from a dissatisfying present. Your observation that this impulse often seems prior to any specific goal, like a basic feature of a certain kind of ego, is the crucial starting point for a deeper cultural analysis.

The contrast you draw with cultures that do not seem dominated by this dynamic is the key. It suggests that this relentless drive to "surpass, escape, transform and transcend" is not a universal human constant, but a phenomenon amplified or attenuated by a complex web of conditioning factors.

Let's reflect on those potential factors by contrasting two broad, idealized cultural orientations to transcendence.

Two Orientations to Transcendence

For clarity, we can name the two poles of this contrast:

1. The Vertical / Eschatological Orientation: Views transcendence as a climb out of a flawed present toward a perfected future or a higher, separate realm. It is "eschatological" because it is fundamentally concerned with an end state (whether a heavenly afterlife, a secular utopia, or personal enlightenment). This model thrives on the "push and pull" dynamic.

2. The Cyclical / Immanent Orientation: Views transcendence as a deepening of connection within the present world. The sacred is immanent—indwelling within nature, community, and the cycles of life. Transcendence is about maintaining balance and participating skillfully in this sacred web, not escaping it.

Here are the factors that feed into each orientation:

Factors Driving the Vertical / Eschatological Orientation

This is the orientation that has come to dominate globalized, post-Axial Age societies.

• Historical Factors:

• The Axial Age (c. 800-200 BCE): This period saw the rise of world religions (Buddhism, Abrahamic monotheism, Zoroastrianism) that created a radical conceptual break between a flawed, transient, or "fallen" world and a transcendent, eternal, or "saved" reality. Concepts like samsara vs. nirvana, or Earth vs. Heaven, established the ultimate metaphysical push and pull.

• The Development of Linear Time: The Judeo-Christian worldview introduced a powerful model of linear time: Creation -> Fall -> History -> Redemption -> End of Time. This frames life not as a cycle to be maintained, but as a dramatic story driving toward a final, transcendent resolution. This makes the future the locus of ultimate meaning.

• Large-Scale Agriculture and Empire: The shift away from foraging led to food surpluses, labor specialization, urbanization, and vast social stratification. For the majority, life became a mode of toil, often under oppressive rule. When the material world is experienced as a place of suffering and injustice, the allure of a transcendent "other world"—or a perfected future on earth—becomes overwhelmingly powerful.

• Bio-Psycho-Social Factors:

• The Dis-embedded, Individualistic Self: Modernity champions the idea of the self as an autonomous, separate individual. This "buffered self," cut off from the deep, embedding ties of tribe and place, experiences a profound existential alienation. It becomes a personal "project," responsible for forging its own meaning and achieving its own salvation or self-actualization, often by pursuing a transcendent goal.

• Future-Oriented Cognition: The human brain's prefrontal cortex gives us a unique, powerful capacity for abstract planning and future simulation. When combined with the anxiety of a separate self aware of its own mortality, this can fuel an obsessive drive to control the future and secure a permanent state of happiness, safety, or meaning.

• Market-Based Economies: Modern capitalism masterfully co-opts the transcendent impulse. It relentlessly generates a sense of lack (the push from what you are) and then offers products, services, and lifestyles as the means to achieve a perfected state of being (the pull to what you could be). The promise of ultimate freedom, connection, or happiness is packaged and sold, creating thousands of competing secular narratives of transcendence.

Factors Driving the Cyclical / Immanent Orientation

This orientation is more characteristic of many indigenous, earth-based, and pre-Axial cultures.

• Situational / Historical Factors:

• Hunter-Gatherer / Small-Scale Context: Living in direct, daily, and dependent relationship with the land fosters a worldview where nature is not a dead resource to be transcended, but a living, intelligent web of relations to be honored. Survival depends on keen attention to the is, not an obsessive focus on a "what could be."

• Cyclical and Rhythmic Time: Time is not a line driving to an end, but a rhythm patterned on the cycles of the sun and moon, the seasons, generations, and life-and-death. The goal is not to end the cycle, but to participate in its renewal. The past is not left behind but is ever-present through ancestors; the future is not a final destination but the next turn of the wheel.

• Bio-Psycho-Social Factors:

• The Embedded, Relational Self: Identity is not located in an isolated individual but is distributed across a web of kinship, ancestry, and—crucially—place. The phrase "I am the river and the river is me" is not a metaphor but a statement of identity. The well-being of the self is inseparable from the health of the community and the land.

• Immanence of the Sacred: The sacred is not in a distant heaven but is here—in specific mountains, groves, animals, and stories. Ancestors are not gone but are present spirits. Transcendence, therefore, is not an act of leaving but of attuning and entering into deeper relation with the sacredness of the present world.

• Ritual as World-Maintenance: Rituals are often aimed at renewal, reciprocity, and the restoration of balance. They are acts of "world-making" or "world-maintaining." One performs a ceremony to thank the spirits of the hunt, to help the sun rise, or to renew the bonds of community. The aim is to ensure the continuation of the sacred cycle, not to achieve a personal escape from it.

Summary of Contrasting Orientations

Q: The aphorism “both immanent and transcendent" (and variants) is common in New Age and integral circles. While it attempts to point to some kind of "paradoxical" nonduality, it also seems like a potential way to smuggle a privileged transcendence into a metaphysics that otherwise might be content with a relational reality (and consciousness). A purely immanent-relational metaphysics is unsatisfactory for those who see other/more/beyond mere existence. In contrast, a purely transcendent-hierarchical metaphysics is seen as reductive or dissociative for those who see a richness of existence without need for other/more/beyond.

These poles, then, seem to be perpetually at odds across history, including among integralists (who read integral theory as either primarily hierarchical or primarily pluralistic), with neither side of the dialectic ever winning or seeing the other's perspective. Reflect on the potential sources of this dichotomy (below or beyond particular philosophies and narratives).

This is a masterful distillation of one of the most persistent and consequential tensions in human thought. Your framing is precise: the aphorism "both immanent and transcendent" often acts as a rhetorical bridge, attempting to reconcile two deeply felt, yet seemingly contradictory, orientations to reality. You astutely point out that this bridge can be used to "smuggle a privileged transcendence" into worldviews that might otherwise rest in relationality.

The historical stalemate between these poles—the immanent-relational and the transcendent-hierarchical—suggests that their origins lie deeper than any particular philosophy or narrative. They are not merely intellectual positions to be debated, but may be rooted in the very structure of our biology, psychology, and capacity for experience.

Let's reflect on these potential pre-philosophical sources.

Source 1: The Neurological Divide – Two Ways of Attending

Our brains are not monolithic. The division of labor between the cerebral hemispheres, while often oversimplified in pop psychology, offers a powerful metaphor and a potential neurobiological substrate for this dichotomy. Drawing on the work of psychiatrists and writers like Iain McGilchrist, we can see two fundamentally different ways of attending to the world hardwired into our neurology.

• The Transcendent-Hierarchical Pole maps closely to the functions typically associated with the Left Hemisphere. This hemisphere is adept at:

◦ Focus and Abstraction: It isolates details from their context to manipulate them.

◦ Linearity and Sequence: It understands the world through step-by-step processes and causal chains.

◦ Goal-Orientation: It is driven by purpose, utility, and achieving a future outcome. It is the hemisphere of "getting and grasping."

◦ Language and Categorization: It uses explicit labels to create fixed, re-usable categories, building conceptual ladders and systems.

• This mode of attention naturally gives rise to philosophies of becoming. It sees the world as a set of problems to be solved, resources to be used, and levels to be climbed. It is the architect of hierarchies, grand narratives, and teleological projects aimed at a final, transcendent goal.

• The Immanent-Relational Pole maps closely to the functions of the Right Hemisphere. This hemisphere is specialized for:

◦ Holism and Context: It sees the whole picture and understands things only in their rich, living context.

◦ Presence and Being: It is grounded in the present moment, experiencing the world as it is.

◦ Relationality: It reads implicit meaning, non-verbal cues, and understands the complex, flowing web of relationships.

◦ Embodiment and Place: It connects us to our physical bodies and our sense of place in the world.

• This mode of attention naturally gives rise to philosophies of being. It sees the world as a living, interconnected whole to be participated in, not a problem to be solved. It is the source of our sense of belonging, our connection to nature, and our appreciation for the sacredness inherent within existence, not beyond it.

The historical dialectic, then, can be seen as a cultural manifestation of the tension between these two essential ways of knowing. A culture that heavily privileges the goal-oriented, abstracting function of the left brain will inevitably produce transcendent-hierarchical metaphysics.

Source 2: The Psychological Divide – Two Modes of Motivation

Beyond neurology, this dichotomy is rooted in two fundamental and often competing motivational drives within the human psyche.

• The Drive for Agency and Control (The Transcendent Pull): This is the psychological engine of "becoming." It is rooted in our awareness of lack, danger, and mortality. This drive pushes us to overcome limits, solve problems, build security, and create a legacy. It is future-oriented, seeking to close the gap between the perceived "is" and a desired "ought." This is the psychology of ambition, self-improvement, and salvation projects. It seeks a final state of resolution, freedom, or control—a transcendent end to striving.

• The Drive for Belonging and Presence (The Immanent Pull): This is the psychological engine of "being." It is rooted in our need for connection, intimacy, and acceptance. This drive is not about changing reality but about experiencing it fully. It finds satisfaction not in future attainment but in present-moment richness—in flow states, in communion with nature, in deep interpersonal connection. It seeks wholeness not by adding something that is missing, but by realizing the fullness of what is already here.

The philosophical divide emerges from which of these drives a culture or individual identifies as the primary path to a meaningful life. Is meaning found in achieving a goal, or in inhabiting the journey?

Source 3: The Experiential Divide – Two Flavors of Awe

Ultimately, philosophies are often attempts to make sense of our most profound experiences. The transcendent/immanent dichotomy maps onto two distinct, primary flavors of awe.

• Awe as Vastness (The Transcendent Experience): This is the feeling of being small and humbled before something infinitely large, powerful, or "wholly other"—contemplating the star-filled night sky, a towering mountain range, or a conception of an absolute God. This experience naturally generates metaphors of verticality, scale, and hierarchy. It posits a reality so far beyond our own that it can only be described as "transcendent."

• Awe as Interconnection (The Immanent Experience): This is the feeling of dissolving into a larger whole, of losing the sense of a separate self and merging with the web of life. It can be found in holding a newborn child, feeling a deep sense of belonging in a community, or walking through an ancient forest and sensing its intricate, interdependent life. This experience naturally generates metaphors of networks, cycles, and webs. It reveals the sacred within the relational fabric, making a separate, transcendent realm feel redundant.

The perpetual conflict arises, in part, because people who have had one type of experience as their defining moment of clarity often build an entire metaphysical system around it, which then cannot fully account for or grant equal weight to the other.

Conclusion

The aphorism "both immanent and transcendent" is an attempt to honor both poles. However, as you rightly suspect, in practice it often becomes a way for a transcendent-hierarchical system (driven by the left hemisphere's love of categorization and goals) to absorb and subordinate the immanent-relational. It says, "Yes, your experience of immanent belonging is valid... it's a beautiful and necessary stage on the path to the truly ultimate, transcendent realization." In this move, immanence is no longer an equally valid pole in a creative tension; it is demoted to a rung on a ladder it did not ask to climb.

The stalemate is perpetual because both orientations arise from irreducible, fundamental aspects of our being. A healthy human life, and perhaps a healthy culture, requires both: the ability to strive, plan, and build (transcendence), and the ability to rest, connect, and appreciate (immanence). The source of the conflict is not that one is right and one is wrong, but that our philosophical and cultural systems have consistently failed to hold them in a dynamic, respectful, and non-hierarchical balance.

Q: What would be some ways to frame or resuscitate the aphorism in a way that doesn't privilege either pole?

Excellent question. To move beyond the hierarchical trap where transcendence inevitably implies superiority, we need to shift the very grammar of the conversation. The frameworks you suggest—dialectical, ecological, postmetaphysical, and post-postmodern—are perfectly suited for this task. They move us from thinking about immanence and transcendence as static realms or nouns to understanding them as dynamic processes, perspectives, or poles in a relationship.

Here are several ways to frame or resuscitate the aphorism "both immanent and transcendent" in a way that doesn't privilege either pole.

1. The Dialectical Framing: A Process of Mutual Co-Arising

In a non-teleological dialectic (unlike Hegel's, which has a final endpoint), immanence and transcendence are not separate domains but are mutually creating and defining each other in an ongoing process.

• Immanence gives rise to Transcendence: The limitations, particulars, and conditions of our immanent existence (this body, this moment, this problem) generate a natural pull or yearning for what is beyond those conditions—for connection, meaning, pattern, or freedom. This drive is the process of transcending. Without the friction of the particular, the desire for the universal would have no meaning.

• Transcendence finds meaning in Immanence: A transcendent principle (like "love," "justice," or "truth") is an empty abstraction without its concrete, immanent expression. Justice is only real when it is enacted in a specific situation. Love is only meaningful through embodied acts of care. The transcendent ideal must continually ground itself in the immanent world to have any substance.

The Reframed Aphorism: "Reality is the ceaseless, generative dialectic between the particular and the universal, where each gives birth to the other."

Here, neither is superior. They are two inseparable movements in a single dance. To privilege one would be like saying the inhale is more important than the exhale.

2. The Ecological Framing: Symbiotic Nestedness and Emergence

An ecological perspective sees reality as a series of nested systems where wholes and parts are symbiotically linked. "Transcendence" can be reframed as an emergent property of a complex immanent system.

• Transcendence as Emergence: Life "transcends" non-living chemistry, but it is not metaphysically separate from it; it is a particular organization of that chemistry. Consciousness "transcends" the firing of individual neurons, but it has no existence apart from the neural network. In this view, transcendence is not an escape from the system but the emergence of a new level of organization and wholeness within the system.

• Immanence as the Ground of Being: The emergent whole (the "transcendent" level) remains completely dependent on the health and vitality of its constituent parts (the "immanent" level). A culture transcends an individual, but if all individuals disappear, so does the culture. The health of the biosphere transcends the health of a single species, but it is dependent on the web of all species.

The Reframed Aphorism: "The whole is nested within and emergent from its parts, just as the parts find their meaning and function within the whole."

This model replaces a vertical ladder with a model of nestedness. The "higher" level isn't better, it's just a wider scope of organization that remains utterly dependent on the "lower" levels it contains.

3. The Post-metaphysical Framing: From Nouns to Verbs

This approach, wary of making claims about ultimate reality, shifts the focus from metaphysics to practice and experience. It stops talking about "The Transcendent" and "The Immanent" as objective places and starts talking about them as human actions.

• Transcendence becomes "transcending": This is the act of going beyond a current limit, perspective, or egoic boundary. It is always relative and contextual. We transcend a personal bias to achieve empathy. A community transcends its divisions to collaborate. Science transcends a paradigm to create a new one. It's a pragmatic, repeatable action, not an arrival in a higher dimension.

• Immanence becomes "dwelling" or "embodying": This is the act of being fully present to the concrete, the embodied, the relational, the here-and-now. It is the necessary ground from which any meaningful act of transcending can occur. You cannot transcend a bias you aren't first aware of and fully present to.

The Reframed Aphorism: "Meaningful action requires both the grounding of embodied presence and the creative potential of transcending one's limits."

This turns a metaphysical statement into a practical, psychological, and ethical instruction. The two poles are equal and necessary capacities for a flourishing life.

4. The Post-postmodern (or Metamodern) Framing: Pragmatic Oscillation

This framing accepts the postmodern critique of grand narratives but refuses to remain in irony or deconstruction. It seeks to reconstruct meaning by holding opposing ideas in a "constructive paradox."

• Immanence and Transcendence as Two Essential "Lenses": Instead of a unified state, imagine them as two different but equally necessary lenses for viewing the world. The "immanent lens" allows us to see the particular, the personal, the complex messiness of reality. It fosters empathy and concrete action. The "transcendent lens" allows us to see patterns, universal principles, and long-term goals. It fosters direction and shared purpose.

• Wisdom as Oscillation: A Wilberian integralist might see the goal as fusing these into a single "super-lens." A metamodern approach would suggest the goal is to become skillful at oscillating between the two lenses as the situation demands. Wisdom is not in finding the one right view, but in the fluid ability to switch between the close-up, relational view (immanence) and the wide-angle, principled view (transcendence) without getting stuck in either.

The Reframed Aphorism: "We must oscillate between a commitment to universal truths and the radical acceptance of the particular case, holding both in a state of informed naiveté."

This framing emphasizes dynamism and pragmatism. Neither pole is the destination; they are tools for navigating reality effectively.

Conceptual Reframings Across Frameworks

By adopting these frames, the aphorism "both immanent and transcendent" is rescued from being a static, hierarchical map of the cosmos and is resuscitated as a dynamic, relational, and profoundly practical description of how living, conscious systems function and flourish.