Every year I say 'that's it I'm not going to watch the league any more'. But I always fail to avoid it. And I must say the A-League is looking pretty good this year, I think I am taking my ex-pat son to a match when he returns for Christmas.

@Punshhh - 'citta chatter' - (Y)

But, in so doing, Kant discovers the modern way of saving transcendence: this is no longer the transcendence of a Something, or of a One higher than everything (contemplation), but that of a Subject to which the field of immanence is only attributed by belonging to a self that necessarily represents such a subject to itself (reflection). — StreetlightX

This is the dead end of immanence, that the "field of immanence" must be attributed to a self. It is quite obvious that such a "field" goes far beyond the existence of the self, and therefore it is misnamed as the field of immanence, it should be the field of transcendence.

Yet one more step: when immanence becomes immanent "to" a transcendental subjectivity, it is at the heart of its own field that the hallmark or figure of a transcendence must appear as action now referring to another self, to an-other consciousness (communication). — StreetlightX

"Communication" cannot skirt the problem of the dead end. It is evident that the so-called "field" is prior to language and communication, as a necessary condition for these things. When we speak, it is necessary that there is something which we speak about, and this something is transcendent to us. The transcendent something is necessarily prior to the will to speak. This leads to the conclusion that the transcendent thing, whether it be conceived of as an object or an ideal, is necessarily prior to the field of immanence. The philosophers of immanence demonstrate that the transcendent thing is an ideal. The problem is that the fundamentals of immanence don't allow that the ideal is prior, nor do they allow that the field is prior.

Immanence sets the logical meaning (what you call the "ideal") outside the question of time. It understood to be infinite. That which is always true, no matter the time. Unlike the transcendent ideal, which functions as a causal means of the world, it breaks the entire question of the "prior field." The world is not derived from an ideal. There is no prior field of constraint which enables the world to be and mean as it does.

Instead, there is no enabling constraint ("the compass just points"), with the world expressing the infinite of meanings on its own. The world is always free and creating, an emergent expression, rather than something following the order of a predetermining ideal. The rejection of the prior field is the insight of immanence.

Immanence sets the logical meaning (what you call the "ideal") outside the question of time. It understood to be infinite

So how is this not transcendence?

Infinity is a nonsense concept, it can only possibly literally mean "immeasurable".

It does not act upon or within the world.

Transcendence is regarded in terms of a change. At some point, force acts to make, define or insert infinite meaning into being. Reality goes from a meaningless waste of space to something wonderful and wise. A story of rescue from a hell devoid of meaning.

When I say philosophies of the transcendent are nihilistic, this is what I mean. They view meaning to be added into a meaningless world by transcendence.

I don't mean, as you have assumed, various authoritarianisms of organised religions. My point is about the very notion of transcendence itself, of finding the new realm, the saviour of meaning, the "hidden meaning" which turns the world from worthless into something special.

In the world outside that tradition, the (supposedly) infinite is missing. Lost in its politics, in its greed, in its wars, in its pleasures, in its knowledge, in its logical sense, it is without the wonder and meaning of the infinite. Within the stories of transcendence the infinite is reserved for the few change appropriately, rather than understood as that which obtains regardless of space and time. For the infinite to be expressed, there has to be change, an entry into mystic tradition, to find the meaning which is otherwise absent. Accounts of transcendence do not understand meaning to be infinite. It thought to be "obtained" rather than "to be."

Immanence understands meaning to be infinite. From the first rock to past the death of the universe, there is meaning. Whether one has found love or is trapped in war, there is meaning. Whether one goes to the football or partakes in worship of the transcendent, there is meaning. At the birth of one's child and the death of a family member, there is meaning. No event takes it away or alters it. It is not denied anywhere and cannot be given, for it always is. The transcendent has no-one to save and is incoherent.

There is no prior field of constraint which enables the world to be and mean as it does.

Instead, there is no enabling constraint ("the compass just points"), with the world expressing the infinite of meanings on its own. The world is always free and creating, an emergent expression, rather than something following the order of a predetermining ideal. The rejection of the prior field is the insight of immanence. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Exactly, that's why I said it's a dead end, and earlier, that it's somewhat naïve. The rejection you refer to is just that, a rejection, it is not an insight. We can reject all the formerly accepted metaphysical principles, in the mode of skepticism, then attempt to re-establish our own, but the necessary principles will shine through, in continuity. That's reality, and reality necessitates. This is what allows us to avoid the dead ends.

Yes I see what you mean, but I dont recognise it, in my own understanding of transcendence. For me transcendence is a process of accessing an interdimensional reality, or eternity present in the here and now. It doesn't contain meanings, these are known in the personal self, but are interpretations. It seems as I delve into this issue that what I consider transcendent is what you and perhaps the PMs call the immanent. And what you consider immanence is what is to me transcendence.

This can be explained by your refering to what is understood as an exoteric understanding of transcendence. While I am not considering that, but rather considering an esoteric transcendence which appears to equate with your immanence. Which is as I explained the authentic transcendent in the mystical traditions, which only the initiated were to work with.

So the immanence of PM is the equivalence of the esoteric transcendence In the mystical traditions.

the perverse effects that postmodernism has had on the humanities: tons of crappy theories, bad arguments, superficial historical recollections, paranoid political interpretations of major novels, untenable positions on basic biological facts, etc., all of which have been produced over the past 25 years or so in the name of a dubious ideological agenda of “debunking” the deeply concealed motivations of the ‘truth-producers’, whose shameful aim is to serve the interests of powerful groups. — Gloria Origgi

I think that is what John was criticising, and I'm inclined to agree. (I was trying to be diplomatic before.)

@punshhh - it is pointless discussing 'the transcendent' with TheWillowOfDarkness. And I think you're being far too charitable to postmodernist philosophers as well. Delueze, et al, are committed atheists and implacably opposed to anything spiritual. 'The immanent' means: the world of common experience, shorn of any spooky 'woo-stuff' that the likes of us like to blather on about. (Here's the obituary of a philosopher that you and I are far more likely to find congenial, namely, Timothy Sprigge.)

Yes that might well be the case, but they are using terminology which apes what we are familiar with in a study of the self. It's like they are coming up with some insights into the self by looking into a mirror, but without considering what might be there which isn't currently known, or what doesn't fit within a current logical narrative.

Yes, on one hand I'm very suspicious of the taken-for-granted dichotomy that seems so transparently exclusive to our discursive minds: 'just panned out that way' or 'planned that way'.

On a different tack, do you think that in this passage Capra is wanting to suggest that although there is no planning of precise details the overall schema of evolution is determined by an overarching necessity? The thought these days is very much that any overt large-scale miraculous divine intervention would disrupt the order of nature. And this is simply not considered possible, because then our whole tidy picture of evolution would be threatened. On the other hand since we have been present as a species for so short a time, and in such a tiny place, cosmologically speaking, how could we possibly know if there had been such miraculous interventions or not?

So, if the form of evolution is necessitous such that spiritual intelligence must evolve, does that mean something like that God 'tweaks' the random mutations to nudge evolution in a certain direction? Does He with a "still small voice" speak to the fundamental particles and forces, inviting them to do his bidding, as He apparently does to people?

The reason I quoted that passage is because this kind of late-20th c philosophy of biology is in some sense 'post-modern' but can also accomodate the spiritual. Also I quoted that passage because I have long been a fan of Capra's Tao of Physics. But the books of Varela and Maturana and Kaufmann and others, embody many of those qualities. They're neither materialist nor the opposite; they've escaped that old dichotomy.

On a different tack, do you think that in this passage Capra is wanting to suggest that although there is no planning of precise details the overall schema of evolution is determined by an overarching necessity? The thought these days is very much that any overt large-scale miraculous divine intervention would disrupt the order of nature. And this is simply not considered possible, because then our whole tidy picture of evolution would be threatened. — John

In another thread, I posted a link to the Wikipedia article on 'religious naturalism'. This is the view that in some sense religious experience or sensibility is a natural process. I am cautiously receptive to that, with the caveat that one ought not to conclude that it is something that can be therefore understood in terms of what we currently understand as 'naturalism'. But it is certainly naturalistic in the sense of denying the notion of God as a 'divine architect' or director or artificer, which has been a constant tendency in the Western theological tradition.

In his lectures at the World Parliament of Religions, Swami Vivikenanda spoke of 'evolution and involution' (probably a neologism). But the drift is that, an acorn can only become an oak because it falls from an oak, the oak has 'involved' into the acorn which then 'evolves' into another oak. (Of course we nowadays know, which he didn't, that the acorn carries DNA.) But in his allegory, the process of evolution occurs because humans in a sense embody or express the Universe itself, which has 'involved' into the form that can then give rise to evolution; the process of evolution is that 'what is latent becoming patent', as my lecturer in Hindu philosophy used to say.

The meaning is that the process of evolution is like the manifestation of latent form. So that maps against the Vedantic insight that ātman is an instantiation of Brahman, the universal source of being. But again, my current (and always tentative) feeling is that when life evolves to a certain point, it becomes capable of realising its own true nature or real identity (a recurring theme in Alan Watts' books). But again that kind of understanding is much more like Advaita Vedanta or Tantric Buddhism, than anything in mainstream Western thought; I think this attitude was actively suppressed in the Western tradition, which is why gnosticism, hermeticism, and the like, were forced underground (although that is a big subject in its own right. And the beauty of this understanding is, it doesn't actually exclude 'the Gospel', although it's asymmetric; from this viewpoint, the Gospels are an embodiment of perennial wisdom, but from their viewpoint, their Gospel is the only truth. )

if theres one lesson to be learned from this thread, its that 5 or 6 people who appear to have read almost no 'pomo' literature have very strong feelings about 'pomo' literature. @Wayfarer for example,has some incisive things to say about deleuze but seems to have read, at most, a wiki article or two. (& you know wayfarer would have no patience for someone criticizing buddhism who knew only bare wiki stuff) I have all sorts of problems with many of the 'pomos' but c'mon guys what are you even doing here.

I admit, I have no real interest in post-modernism, which is why I generally stay out of threads on the subject, like the one that is underway on Derrida. So what I am doing here, anyway, is discussing another line of thought altogether - 'counter-cultural spirituality as an alternative to continental post-modernism'.

I have no animosity toward your tradition - in fact I have a lot of sympathy - but the packaging of it as an alternative is strange if you dont know what its actually an alternative to. (it seems like you're content to render pomo as self-interested, anything-goes secularism and leave it at that.)

What I was attempting to do, was in the post about Romantic poets and Zen was to show some other renditions of 'the immanent and the transcendent', and then, in the post about biological systems theory, to demonstrate a post-modern 'philosophy of biology'.

I'm as confused as you are about 'porno' getting into the convo, why'd you bring it up?

Sorry, I misread your post., I was typing on an iPad and typeface was very small. You will have noticed I have deleted that remark. I know I have completely de-railed this thread, I really ought to bail.

I know I have completely de-railed this thread, I really ought to bail.

Stick up for yourself! I stand by my criticisms, but you had something to say about other ways of looking at similar themes. I don't think there's anything wrong with criticism provided one is upfront about the degree to which one is familiar with what one's criticizing. That's the real bone of contention here, not that you don't like some of the guys that I like. How do you understand pomo and how do you understand it as antithetical to what you hold dear?

Thanks, CS, very gracious of you.

it seems like you're content to render pomo as self-interested, anything-goes secularism and leave it at that. — Salisbury

It is determinedly 'secularist', if I could put it like that. The main proponents of it are highly educated in the Western philosophical tradition but I think their approach is very much conditioned by the requirement to avoid anything that can be construed as spiritual. So it seems to me that what they're referring to as 'radical immanence' is the exclusion of what could be allegorised as the 'vertical dimension'.

Actually SLX and I had a debate about the idea of hierarchical ontologies - the 'great chain of being' - a few months back, and he was very critical of any such idea. But I don't particularly want to try and persuade him of it. I am not trying to court conflict. Even so, I think there really is a culture war going on, between materialism (broadly understood) and spirituality (ditto). So, for example, the spiritual aspects or elements of the Western tradition (for example in Platonism) are re-interpreted in broadly Marxist or biological terms or political terms or 'power relationships' by the post-modern secular intelligentsia.

So the Euro-PoMos, as far as I can see, are generally secularist, in that sense - lacking a sense of the spiritual or indeed the sacred. I think there are exceptions to that, although I'm not very well-read - but I think, perhaps, Levinas. But you're right in saying, my knowledge of them is scanty - life is short, there is an immense amount of knowledge in circulation, one has to pick one's interests.

thanks for the respose - presidential debate is starting and im watching out of morbid curiosity but ill respond after the carnage finishes

I should note that there is a rich tradition of theological thought among those authors considered 'post-modern' as well (another reason why the label is so reductively stupid): Jean-Luc Marion and Levinas being the 'big names', not to mention John Caputo, a reader of Derrida who thoroughly theologizes deconstruction. And there's also Michel Henry, who, in some sense holds to a thesis of immanence even more radical than Deleuze's, and who thoroughly understands it according to the Christian tradition. I do very little reading in this area, so I dont really mention them much, but the veins of this line of thought run very deep indeed.

I have run across all of them, often as a consequence of Forum interactions. I am aware of the influence of Heidegger on contemporary theology - the likes of Tillich and John McQuarrie. I've also read something of Heidegger's and Jacques Ellul's critiques of technology. Which is why I said, at the beginning of the other thread, that post-modernism ought to be understood in an historical sense, not as a school of thought.

But then, there's the kind of fashionable post-modernism which does see itself as a school of thought, or a multi-disciplinary approach, which is the subject of criticism by the likes of Sokal and the quote at the top by Gioria Orrigi. That is what this thread had in mind, and I think it's a fair comment.

It's more than that. When I say "infinite" or "meaning," I am only pointing to something which my language never is. All language does this. My thoughts and speech about my eye are not my eye. Talk about my computer is not my computer. Speech about the infinite is not the infinite.

The infinite cannot be known in the personal. It cannot be an interpretation. Either requires that the infinite be subject to change, for it be a object depending on the actions, understanding or existence of the finite human.

Transcendent accounts consider the infinite something to be obtained, through study, through living, through following a tradition: belief in the spiritual (to use Wayfarer's term), then the infinite will be present, the world will be saved from the absence of the infinite. Ironically, the argument for the transcendent is that we become the infinite, that we cease living in the finite realm and enter the eternal.

We might describe immanence as the understanding that the infinite is inaccessible to us. No matter what we do, we will not live the infinite. Whatever our lives, we will still be finite creatures of change, no matter how much we understand the world or the infinite which it expresses. While there is infinite expressed everywhere and anywhere, the most we will ever do is point to it, no matter how much we understand (or do not understand) it.

For me transcendence is a process of accessing an interdimensional reality, or eternity present in the here and now. — Punshhh

It is in the respect that immanence and transcendence are similar, both refer to eternity expressed in reality. The difference is that transcendence understands eternity to be an object obtained or accessed though specific action, while immanence understands it to be necessary and unavoidable. Even you, more a pluralist in these matters, would say that it's particular action, a particular life, a particular mystic tradition which brings the eternal, which accesses it.

I say that no-one needs to do anything to express the eternal. Everyone necessarily does so, no matter who they are. The whole world does. God (the eternal) is necessary and not something that is obtained or acts. Even the despairing or suffering express it. There is no means to obtain it (God, tradition, etc.,etc.) because it not the sort thing that is obtained. It's outside the world of change, greed and desire. No-one ever accesses it, no matter how much they understand or feel it.

I am very interested in the Pomo being discussed in the other thread, but lack the vocabulary within the tradition. It mirrors closely my own studies which are from the perspective of the mystical traditions, but in a different language of metaphor. Personally I don't see a need for a fuss about one's the particular route into the study, or who is or isn't a deist, an atheist, materialist, idealist etc. If god exists, or not, these things are not important to me in a study of ideas. It is the ideas themselves that I collect and I am well aware that we are all focussing on pretty much the same ideas anyway, just with our own personal take, or colouring.

I am interested in the take from the christian tradition, it might help me to access the ideas better. I will look up Michael Henry. Can you recommend any other sources, perhaps in the Christian mystical traditions?

Hmm, like I said, I'm not super familiar with these lines of thought, and the only work I've read of Henry's is his Material Phenomenology, which requires a pretty decent understanding of Husserlian phenomenology, so I don't think it'll be up your alley. His other books, Words of Christ, I Am the Truth and Incarnation might be of more interest to you (Words of Christ is supposed to be a relatively easy read). I know that Catherine Keller wrote a well received book on negative theology recently (Cloud of the Impossible, but I've not read it myself.

Eugene Thacker has written some very interesting things in the tradition of negative theology, but his is a kind of 'negative atheology' in the line of Georges Bataille. Still his book After Life is easily one of my favorite ever books, as I can't recommended it enough. Daniel Barber Colucciello released an intriguing book not too long ago about reading Deleuzian immanence in a theological key (Deleuze and the Naming of God), but, again I've not read it. Otherwise John Caputo is supposed to be quite easy to read and is a pretty popular theologian in the Derridian vein.

And there's also Michel Henry, who, in some sense holds to a thesis of immanence even more radical than Deleuze's, and who thoroughly understands it according to the Christian tradition. — StreetlightX

I've been reading Henry lately and I just want to note that Henry's notion of immanence, which is referred to the subject, is so radical that it precludes any kind of relationality.The self, for Henry is utterly untouched by worldly relations, including power relations and discourse (Foucault), the text and semiosis (Derrida) and the transcendental empirical (Deleuze). This is immanence as a kind of absolute innerness, which from the point of view of the world is actuality a radical transcendence, as I read him.

In any case, I wouldn't class Henry or Levinas as Postmodernist thinkers but as phenomenologists. What defines the Postmodern then? It's (notoriously) not easy to say, but I would say the overarching idea is that subjects are constructed by cultural, textual, discursive and/or power relations. The upshot of this idea would seem to be that there can be nothing universal in human nature (other than the fact that it is always constructed by cultural forces). This is arguably not the case for either Henry or Levinas.

I'm not familiar with late Foucault. Why do you say he would not be classed as a postmodernist? Also re your comment about Marx, note that if the conditions I gave are necessary to class someone as a postmodernist (which itself is questionable), it doesn't not follow that they must also be sufficient. Another criterion might be their location in history.

Michel Henry, abstract of his essay Barbarism:

Science is a form of culture in which life denies itself and refuses itself any value. It is a practical negation of life, which develops into a theoretical negation in the form of ideologies that reduces all possible knowledge to that of science, such as the human sciences whose very objectivity deprives them of their object: what value do statistics have faced with suicide, what do they say about the anguish and the despair that produce it? These ideologies have invaded the university, and are precipitating it to its destruction by eliminating life from research and teaching. Television is the truth of technology; it is the practice par excellence of barbarism: it reduces every event to current affairs, to incoherent and insignificant facts.

This negation of life results from the "disease of life", from its secret dissatisfaction with the self which leads it to deny itself, to flee itself in order to escape its anguish and its own suffering. In the modern world, we are almost all condemned from childhood to flee our anguish and our proper life in the mediocrity of the media universe — an escape from self and a dissatisfaction which lead to violence — rather than resorting to the most highly developed traditional forms of culture which enable the overcoming of this suffering and its transformation into joy. Culture subsists, despite everything, but in a kind of incognito; in our materialist society, which is sinking into barbarism, it must necessarily operate in a clandestine way.

(Y)

Incidentally, rather than 'post-modernism', per se, it's possible the actual issue is the technique or tendency of 'deconstruction'.