A few months back Susan Cain asked a question: "Are you a 'Transcender'?" It's a reference to an idea proposed in a book titled Transcend, by Scott Barry Kaufman. The term, itself, is a shorthand way to describe "people who seek and sometimes find transcendent experiences and values."
If I might be so bold, I recommend looking into Deleuze's "immanence" as an alternative to "transcendence." Transcendence typically involves a "going over and above" or seeing oneself as "beyond" the ordinary, and seeking "higher" unities. Immanence is within - and grounds us within the ordinary, swimming in the fragmentary, ashen cinders of multiplicity. Personally, my poetics is one of immanence: folds, pleats, seams, etc. Not that I am myself Christian, but one way of exampling this is the difference between the god of the Old and New Testaments. Transcendence is the God of the old testament - above and beyond us, always at a distance, judging, and believing itself in command of all. Immanence is the God of the New Testament - the "kingdom of heaven is within." Just some thoughts. Love the art as always 🖤
By all means! I'm not nearly as well read on Deleuze as I should be , I appreciate the recommendation. There was a time when I was more philosophically invested than I am now. I've found myself becoming more and more impatient with words and concepts, I find myself less and less interested in language, in speech, in the effort it takes for me to say anything. I've become more and more content with quiet, with silence, with being more and more removed, yearning for more and more solitude, more time with the simplicity of paper cut and glued. On most matters, I find transcendence problematic for the same reasons you mention. Though I think a certain degree of transcendent thinking is required in order to imagine a more emancipatory future that moves beyond the bounds of rigid and exploitative structures. In that way, I appreciate the Hegelian turn Altizer does with the idea of kenosis, the transcendent self-emptied into immanence, the beyond poured out into pure presence. I'm not smart enough to grapple with most of it, but the both/and-ed-ness of it feels right to me. Thanks again!!
Also - I don’t know nothin haha. Having that feeling strong right now. And all these fancy terms and philosophies just feel distancing in some ways, if that makes sense. Love your work Duane and always enjoy reading about your journey - that’s all that really matters 🖤
Yeah I am with you on that. Much more interested in silence and peace these days, and far less interested in philosophical posturing and/or word games. I can see what yr saying - I think from my perspective, when the time comes the emancipatory future will not be made from any kind of transcendental thinking, but from hard work by those who want to make it happen, y'know - by immanent desire. Personally I don't think transcendental thinking is necessary to imagine this future. It is within us already. Nothing to transcend - just conversations and work to do. I'm with you on the both/andness of it all, but yeah, the Hegelian dialectic doesn't achieve both/and imo - for me, a dialectic is not both/and but a "synthesis" of both into a new "one" (a higher unity; no "and") - and in such a synthesis something always comes out "on top" (in that equation - transcendence, as it becomes a "necessary condition for imagining the future"). And yeah - I have a feeling this just leads to more and more oppositions and revolutions y'know.
Anyway - whatevs - all of this is just abstractions. We agree on the purpose of it all - achieve peace, calmness, niceness for all. And there's only so far abstractions can take us in that direction. Personally, I think it must be done person to person, flesh to flesh. And I think that's why I prefer immanence as the framework, because it is about a withiness, in the body, to be shared, and from this sharing a future will become, in discussion - and for me this "withinness" is not in opposition to "beyondness" (transcendence), and so doesn't need to be both/anded or synthesised with it. ;-) Instead it opens onto belonging. Anyway haha - I will have a look Altizer sometime :-) It does sound interesting. Chur Duane. Lovely work as always.
Great points! Well said! You'll have to excuse me I'm way out practice when it comes philosophical discourse. I was immersed in it in Grad school with aspirations of academia. I managed to get my MA but really only left with a sheer distaste for all of it. To be fair, I had no business being there in the first place. I suppose I was too afraid to admit i was an artist or to scared to really try to be.
Regardless, I forgot the cardinal rule of properly defining one's terms. I tried to imply what I mean by 'transcend' via shorthand laziness, but as is often the case I fear it may have only muddled my position (if something so ramshackle can even be called a position). Like you I have no use for visions of Utopia, for the beyondness of a Big Other, for the Overarching Ideal of an Otherwordly Metanarrative. These are problematic 'models of transcendence'.
But, as you point out, I also find it equally problematic to see Transcendence and Immanence as stark binaries.
I think that the work of the imagination is always-already 'transcendent', in the literal sense, in that the goal is to 'transcend' the bounds of the status-quo, to move beyond the rigid confines of greed, hatred, and delusion, to transcend the 'this-worldly' apathy and resignation of 'things-as-they-are' in order to do the work of creating the possibility of another-world as a present reality. Perhaps you could call it a transcendence within the immanent order. Thus, the idea of Kenosis, an 'incarnational' self-emptying of transcendence into a radical immanence. F*ck me, that was exhausting, hahaha!
You may or may not like Altizer. He was a radical theologian that helped to found the Death of God movement. He's Hegelian in many ways. But, Hegelian in a fashion similar to Zizek perhaps, in that he turns Hegel in on himself. He uses Hegel against Hegel. I haven't read any of it in years, but there was i time when I was wholly engrossed.
Same for me Duane - managed to get my MA, but it was like pulling teeth. I am a poet, not an academic. I then taught critical theory for 20 years and while I am glad I did it, and I really enjoyed teaching kids about being thoughtful and compassionate (that is my definition of critical theory anyhow haha), I have been a lot happier since not being in that world altogether and focusing on poetry. My poetry didn't really develop much the whole time I was enmeshed in that academic world. And after just over one year of being dedicated to poetry, I feel like so much more has come into focus, poetically speaking.
Haha - I get it - these terms, they all get muddled, and they rely on very precise meanings (often to the point of pointlessness haha). And yeah, it can be exhausting. I get quite excited about these kinds of concepts, though I am quite out of practice too. And then it all tumbles out and gives me energy, but then it often winds up making me really exhausted afterwards. Sometimes a good exhaustion. Sometimes not so much - I think abstract thought is a complex, many-headed beast. And like you said in your latest post my real beliefs are about turning up, working at it, and engaging with the messy in-person process of making words sing. The rest is all just fluff in a way. But since we're having this convo, I thought I would delve a little deeper, cause sometimes it's fun to live among the clouds.
I like your way of thinking about transcendence as a basic function and it makes sense. And yeah, I like the way you say a "transcendence within the immanent order." Very interesting. I think, for me, I am such a Deleuzian at heart I go down the total immanence route - but am probably describing the same thing as you with different words - as is often the case. Also like you - I haven't really studied this stuff in like 20 years, since I did my MA. I just have a few basic concepts which I riff on, and keep coming back to. But I thought I would do a little reading and brush up, cause it's always worth investigating why we think certain things. And I realised I wasn't entirely sure why I thought what I thought - nor why Deleuze is so dismissive of "transcendence" as a concept. None of this is intended in opposition to what you've said, or as an "argument" of any kind, I just wanted to unfold some of Deleuze's argument as best I could grasp it, cause it has been a part of my thinking for so long and I hadn't investigated it in so long. Hope that's ok to do here!
---FAR TOO COMPLICATED PHILOSOPHICAL MUMBO-JUMBO SECTION: TLDR, SKIP TO THE END HAHA---
So, after going back to basics and doing some reading, Deleuze talks about a "plane of immanence" or "plane of consistency" (reminds me of your discussions of consistency - turning up) - this is a sort of field of immanence in which reality are in their virtual state. And for Deleuze reality is always "virtual-becoming-actualized" (immanence) rather than any kind of "actual" in opposition to the "virtual" (transcendence). In this sense, to "transcend" reality via the imagination assumes there is an "actual" reality to transcend. What Deleuze asks, and I think it's an interesting question: what if this isn't the case? What if "reality" is entirely an assemblage of virtual connections, constantly actualizing. Something of this nature cannot be transcended. The imagination is a virtual field - always dealing in possibilities and potentials, never in "actuals". Hence, for Deleuze imagination is always-already-immanent, and transcendence is simply something we impose upon the imagination?
To get super finicky and technical, i.e. the transcendence of "status-quo" assumes there is an "actual" unity being the "status-quo" which we can transcend, but perhaps there is no such unity to begin with? Perhaps no such "status quo" actually exists - rather it is a virtual assemblage of multiplicities of attempts at survival, which we take the average of and call the "status quo". Same with greed, etc. Of course, I completely agree with you in the everyday sense - 100% no questions asked - buuuut from a technical standpoint, when we say we need to "transcend" greed, for instance, it places us (the philosopher/thinker, etc.) outside greed, outside our own involvement with "greed", etc. And assumes that all the problems of inequity can be reduced to an "actual" concept called "greed." But everyone's engagement with resources and the world is so diffuse and complex to unify it into a monolithic concept called "greed" which can be "transcended" leads to a kind of simplification or "over coding" as Deleuze calls it. So from this perspective, transcendence is just one possible model of the imagination. From a Deleuzian perspective, transcendence imposes "unities" on the imagination, and assumes they are "actual". On the other hand, the imagination from the perspective of immanence (an immanence that is immanent to itself, rather than to an "actual") is always-already-virtual.
In this sense, from a Deleuzian perspective, to "transcend" is always to produce an over-coded unity, an "actual" reality where none exists, which invariably oversimplifies the "problem" of life, and the current-state-of-things. For Deleuze life is always-already-virtual and is only actualised in the moment of living itself. Hence, the imagination is the plane of immanence, in which we encounter the "virtual" in a pre-actualised state. Here we can explore possible or virtual assemblages - that is, test out possibilities and potentials (i.e. the work of the imagination). This, for Deleuze, is where a future can be imagined?
---END OF OVERCOMPLICATED AND PROBABLY POINTLESS PHILOSOPHICAL RAMBLING---
So yeah - annnyway - I want to reiterate - none of this is meant to be in opposition to what you've outlined, or to try and prove a point to anyone - only trying to unpack Delezue's perspective, which is not necessarily right - and why I have come to think the way I do. We all have different paths to similar ideas y'know - and I totally respect your path. Been so long since I exercised these parts of my brain. Hope it is ok to do this in your comments section. I really enjoy and respect your perspectives Duane, and really look forward to your newsletter, both the writing and collages. Loved the interview as well - everything you said was so close to my heart. Lotsa love.
By all means! Feel free to be as technical, complicated, and finicky as you like! In some cases these really can be exhausting things, but there is a sense of playfulness and wonder and perhaps even a kind of mischievousness in your approach to these topics that i really appreciate.
You've definitely given me a lot to chew on here. As I've mentioned I am only peripherally acquainted with Deleuze, so I'm more than just a little out of my depth. But, I love the idea of a "plane of consistency" for obvious reasons. I'd definitely like to read into that further.
The thing that I think stuck out of me the most was the question: 'What if "reality" is entirely an assemblage of virtual connections, constantly actualizing?' - I'm still chewing on this. That's incredibly intriguing and there's a lot to unpack there. I'm in no position to even attempt to do so, but I'm enjoying the pondering.
For one reason or another I can't help but think of some ideas within Object Oriented Ontology, which I also only a cursory (mis)understanding of, lol. Graham Harman would say that “Objects are not immanent, because they lie deeper than any theory and any praxis to an equal degree”, that they are, more or less, “non-relational”, not because they do not come into relational contact, but because “no entity is capable of fully registering the depths of another”, that is to say, real objects are not only irreducible to what they are made of but also irreducible to their connections or relations. Objects are inexhaustible. No connection can grasp the entirety of an object. There is always a “hidden reserve in the heart of all things”. There is always an excess. “[R]eal objects”, Harman says, “always exceed their contexts, always withdraw from our control, and are always filled with surplus and surprise.” Now, I have no idea if any of this really applicable to the conversation, I’m also not entirely sure that’s a thesis I agree with or hold, but it intrigues me and I thought it might be worth mentioning, if no other reason than to muddy the waters more, haha!
Thanks for all the thoughtfulness and insight you’ve shared here!
I wholeheartedly agree, Duane. Every day is sacred. Thank you for the reminder—I needed this today! As always, your collages are stunning and I’m glad you’re willing to sell them. They are potent and beautiful works of art that one can only fully appreciate in person.
If I might be so bold, I recommend looking into Deleuze's "immanence" as an alternative to "transcendence." Transcendence typically involves a "going over and above" or seeing oneself as "beyond" the ordinary, and seeking "higher" unities. Immanence is within - and grounds us within the ordinary, swimming in the fragmentary, ashen cinders of multiplicity. Personally, my poetics is one of immanence: folds, pleats, seams, etc. Not that I am myself Christian, but one way of exampling this is the difference between the god of the Old and New Testaments. Transcendence is the God of the old testament - above and beyond us, always at a distance, judging, and believing itself in command of all. Immanence is the God of the New Testament - the "kingdom of heaven is within." Just some thoughts. Love the art as always 🖤
By all means! I'm not nearly as well read on Deleuze as I should be , I appreciate the recommendation. There was a time when I was more philosophically invested than I am now. I've found myself becoming more and more impatient with words and concepts, I find myself less and less interested in language, in speech, in the effort it takes for me to say anything. I've become more and more content with quiet, with silence, with being more and more removed, yearning for more and more solitude, more time with the simplicity of paper cut and glued. On most matters, I find transcendence problematic for the same reasons you mention. Though I think a certain degree of transcendent thinking is required in order to imagine a more emancipatory future that moves beyond the bounds of rigid and exploitative structures. In that way, I appreciate the Hegelian turn Altizer does with the idea of kenosis, the transcendent self-emptied into immanence, the beyond poured out into pure presence. I'm not smart enough to grapple with most of it, but the both/and-ed-ness of it feels right to me. Thanks again!!
Also - I don’t know nothin haha. Having that feeling strong right now. And all these fancy terms and philosophies just feel distancing in some ways, if that makes sense. Love your work Duane and always enjoy reading about your journey - that’s all that really matters 🖤
If you know nothing, than I know less than. lol
Haha - naaah 🖤
Yeah I am with you on that. Much more interested in silence and peace these days, and far less interested in philosophical posturing and/or word games. I can see what yr saying - I think from my perspective, when the time comes the emancipatory future will not be made from any kind of transcendental thinking, but from hard work by those who want to make it happen, y'know - by immanent desire. Personally I don't think transcendental thinking is necessary to imagine this future. It is within us already. Nothing to transcend - just conversations and work to do. I'm with you on the both/andness of it all, but yeah, the Hegelian dialectic doesn't achieve both/and imo - for me, a dialectic is not both/and but a "synthesis" of both into a new "one" (a higher unity; no "and") - and in such a synthesis something always comes out "on top" (in that equation - transcendence, as it becomes a "necessary condition for imagining the future"). And yeah - I have a feeling this just leads to more and more oppositions and revolutions y'know.
Anyway - whatevs - all of this is just abstractions. We agree on the purpose of it all - achieve peace, calmness, niceness for all. And there's only so far abstractions can take us in that direction. Personally, I think it must be done person to person, flesh to flesh. And I think that's why I prefer immanence as the framework, because it is about a withiness, in the body, to be shared, and from this sharing a future will become, in discussion - and for me this "withinness" is not in opposition to "beyondness" (transcendence), and so doesn't need to be both/anded or synthesised with it. ;-) Instead it opens onto belonging. Anyway haha - I will have a look Altizer sometime :-) It does sound interesting. Chur Duane. Lovely work as always.
Great points! Well said! You'll have to excuse me I'm way out practice when it comes philosophical discourse. I was immersed in it in Grad school with aspirations of academia. I managed to get my MA but really only left with a sheer distaste for all of it. To be fair, I had no business being there in the first place. I suppose I was too afraid to admit i was an artist or to scared to really try to be.
Regardless, I forgot the cardinal rule of properly defining one's terms. I tried to imply what I mean by 'transcend' via shorthand laziness, but as is often the case I fear it may have only muddled my position (if something so ramshackle can even be called a position). Like you I have no use for visions of Utopia, for the beyondness of a Big Other, for the Overarching Ideal of an Otherwordly Metanarrative. These are problematic 'models of transcendence'.
But, as you point out, I also find it equally problematic to see Transcendence and Immanence as stark binaries.
I think that the work of the imagination is always-already 'transcendent', in the literal sense, in that the goal is to 'transcend' the bounds of the status-quo, to move beyond the rigid confines of greed, hatred, and delusion, to transcend the 'this-worldly' apathy and resignation of 'things-as-they-are' in order to do the work of creating the possibility of another-world as a present reality. Perhaps you could call it a transcendence within the immanent order. Thus, the idea of Kenosis, an 'incarnational' self-emptying of transcendence into a radical immanence. F*ck me, that was exhausting, hahaha!
You may or may not like Altizer. He was a radical theologian that helped to found the Death of God movement. He's Hegelian in many ways. But, Hegelian in a fashion similar to Zizek perhaps, in that he turns Hegel in on himself. He uses Hegel against Hegel. I haven't read any of it in years, but there was i time when I was wholly engrossed.
Thanks so much for this conversation!
Same for me Duane - managed to get my MA, but it was like pulling teeth. I am a poet, not an academic. I then taught critical theory for 20 years and while I am glad I did it, and I really enjoyed teaching kids about being thoughtful and compassionate (that is my definition of critical theory anyhow haha), I have been a lot happier since not being in that world altogether and focusing on poetry. My poetry didn't really develop much the whole time I was enmeshed in that academic world. And after just over one year of being dedicated to poetry, I feel like so much more has come into focus, poetically speaking.
Haha - I get it - these terms, they all get muddled, and they rely on very precise meanings (often to the point of pointlessness haha). And yeah, it can be exhausting. I get quite excited about these kinds of concepts, though I am quite out of practice too. And then it all tumbles out and gives me energy, but then it often winds up making me really exhausted afterwards. Sometimes a good exhaustion. Sometimes not so much - I think abstract thought is a complex, many-headed beast. And like you said in your latest post my real beliefs are about turning up, working at it, and engaging with the messy in-person process of making words sing. The rest is all just fluff in a way. But since we're having this convo, I thought I would delve a little deeper, cause sometimes it's fun to live among the clouds.
I like your way of thinking about transcendence as a basic function and it makes sense. And yeah, I like the way you say a "transcendence within the immanent order." Very interesting. I think, for me, I am such a Deleuzian at heart I go down the total immanence route - but am probably describing the same thing as you with different words - as is often the case. Also like you - I haven't really studied this stuff in like 20 years, since I did my MA. I just have a few basic concepts which I riff on, and keep coming back to. But I thought I would do a little reading and brush up, cause it's always worth investigating why we think certain things. And I realised I wasn't entirely sure why I thought what I thought - nor why Deleuze is so dismissive of "transcendence" as a concept. None of this is intended in opposition to what you've said, or as an "argument" of any kind, I just wanted to unfold some of Deleuze's argument as best I could grasp it, cause it has been a part of my thinking for so long and I hadn't investigated it in so long. Hope that's ok to do here!
---FAR TOO COMPLICATED PHILOSOPHICAL MUMBO-JUMBO SECTION: TLDR, SKIP TO THE END HAHA---
So, after going back to basics and doing some reading, Deleuze talks about a "plane of immanence" or "plane of consistency" (reminds me of your discussions of consistency - turning up) - this is a sort of field of immanence in which reality are in their virtual state. And for Deleuze reality is always "virtual-becoming-actualized" (immanence) rather than any kind of "actual" in opposition to the "virtual" (transcendence). In this sense, to "transcend" reality via the imagination assumes there is an "actual" reality to transcend. What Deleuze asks, and I think it's an interesting question: what if this isn't the case? What if "reality" is entirely an assemblage of virtual connections, constantly actualizing. Something of this nature cannot be transcended. The imagination is a virtual field - always dealing in possibilities and potentials, never in "actuals". Hence, for Deleuze imagination is always-already-immanent, and transcendence is simply something we impose upon the imagination?
To get super finicky and technical, i.e. the transcendence of "status-quo" assumes there is an "actual" unity being the "status-quo" which we can transcend, but perhaps there is no such unity to begin with? Perhaps no such "status quo" actually exists - rather it is a virtual assemblage of multiplicities of attempts at survival, which we take the average of and call the "status quo". Same with greed, etc. Of course, I completely agree with you in the everyday sense - 100% no questions asked - buuuut from a technical standpoint, when we say we need to "transcend" greed, for instance, it places us (the philosopher/thinker, etc.) outside greed, outside our own involvement with "greed", etc. And assumes that all the problems of inequity can be reduced to an "actual" concept called "greed." But everyone's engagement with resources and the world is so diffuse and complex to unify it into a monolithic concept called "greed" which can be "transcended" leads to a kind of simplification or "over coding" as Deleuze calls it. So from this perspective, transcendence is just one possible model of the imagination. From a Deleuzian perspective, transcendence imposes "unities" on the imagination, and assumes they are "actual". On the other hand, the imagination from the perspective of immanence (an immanence that is immanent to itself, rather than to an "actual") is always-already-virtual.
In this sense, from a Deleuzian perspective, to "transcend" is always to produce an over-coded unity, an "actual" reality where none exists, which invariably oversimplifies the "problem" of life, and the current-state-of-things. For Deleuze life is always-already-virtual and is only actualised in the moment of living itself. Hence, the imagination is the plane of immanence, in which we encounter the "virtual" in a pre-actualised state. Here we can explore possible or virtual assemblages - that is, test out possibilities and potentials (i.e. the work of the imagination). This, for Deleuze, is where a future can be imagined?
---END OF OVERCOMPLICATED AND PROBABLY POINTLESS PHILOSOPHICAL RAMBLING---
So yeah - annnyway - I want to reiterate - none of this is meant to be in opposition to what you've outlined, or to try and prove a point to anyone - only trying to unpack Delezue's perspective, which is not necessarily right - and why I have come to think the way I do. We all have different paths to similar ideas y'know - and I totally respect your path. Been so long since I exercised these parts of my brain. Hope it is ok to do this in your comments section. I really enjoy and respect your perspectives Duane, and really look forward to your newsletter, both the writing and collages. Loved the interview as well - everything you said was so close to my heart. Lotsa love.
By all means! Feel free to be as technical, complicated, and finicky as you like! In some cases these really can be exhausting things, but there is a sense of playfulness and wonder and perhaps even a kind of mischievousness in your approach to these topics that i really appreciate.
You've definitely given me a lot to chew on here. As I've mentioned I am only peripherally acquainted with Deleuze, so I'm more than just a little out of my depth. But, I love the idea of a "plane of consistency" for obvious reasons. I'd definitely like to read into that further.
The thing that I think stuck out of me the most was the question: 'What if "reality" is entirely an assemblage of virtual connections, constantly actualizing?' - I'm still chewing on this. That's incredibly intriguing and there's a lot to unpack there. I'm in no position to even attempt to do so, but I'm enjoying the pondering.
For one reason or another I can't help but think of some ideas within Object Oriented Ontology, which I also only a cursory (mis)understanding of, lol. Graham Harman would say that “Objects are not immanent, because they lie deeper than any theory and any praxis to an equal degree”, that they are, more or less, “non-relational”, not because they do not come into relational contact, but because “no entity is capable of fully registering the depths of another”, that is to say, real objects are not only irreducible to what they are made of but also irreducible to their connections or relations. Objects are inexhaustible. No connection can grasp the entirety of an object. There is always a “hidden reserve in the heart of all things”. There is always an excess. “[R]eal objects”, Harman says, “always exceed their contexts, always withdraw from our control, and are always filled with surplus and surprise.” Now, I have no idea if any of this really applicable to the conversation, I’m also not entirely sure that’s a thesis I agree with or hold, but it intrigues me and I thought it might be worth mentioning, if no other reason than to muddy the waters more, haha!
Thanks for all the thoughtfulness and insight you’ve shared here!
I wholeheartedly agree, Duane. Every day is sacred. Thank you for the reminder—I needed this today! As always, your collages are stunning and I’m glad you’re willing to sell them. They are potent and beautiful works of art that one can only fully appreciate in person.
I need the reminder daily, more than daily actually, haha. Thanks so much! I always appreciate your feedback!
Oh nice, do you ship abroad at all?
Sure!
Cool, will keep an eye on your page :)
Sounds great!
Right now I’m working on transcending some lower vibrational thoughts.
Totally understand, my head tends to full of them. Thanks for reading!
Thanks brother! This was great, as always.
My pleasure!
The last collage is stunning!!
Thank you! I’m really enjoying that structuring, planning to do a few more in this vein. I’m becoming more and more interested in working in series.