The destruction of the transcendent. 

Evidence and verification. 

The beginning of this blog began with my question upon L of why he’s using jargon to convey a simple idea; in short why is he in bad faith.

It is not difficult for one to notice when they read my early essays of this blog that I had very little practical knowledge of Lorelle or his books, and yet indeed I knew exactly what he was talking about from the very first couple sentences I ever read of him. As I have said earlier in my blog, once a person understands the point of contention the rest follows automatically. One needs only gain an understanding of what vector and author is moving along, because there are only so many things to be said about the situation at hand. One of course can take one of these limited avenues and use it to say many other things, what I call issues of subsequence, and then the further question arises of whether these authors understand that their issues are indeed of subsequence and if they acknowledge the common factors of the issue at hand.

This is what I will be referring to when I speak about the significant event and the pocket veto. Through these vehicle terms we will be able to understand how various authors are able to come to their respective arguments. We thereby will be giving a description of how arguments arrive in their placement and meaning; this will not be so much another argument but rather will be a description, like a forensics of philosophical method. Because, as L notes, Philosophy (what I call conventional philosophy or conventional method) is indeed theology, and in so much as philosophy may be involved in discerning a proper ontology, it is rather more involved in developing a dogmatic religious cosmology.

Author: landzek

My name is Lance Kair, a philosopher, a counselor and a musician who is being questioned.

9 thoughts on “The destruction of the transcendent. ”

  1. Transcend, to climb beyond or over, has slightly more connotation of ascending from lower to higher on a scale of values, while transcede, merely to go beyond or over, suggests a passage between alternatives at the same level of desirability.


    1. Wow. I didn’t know. Matter fact when I searched Google I was still spelling it incorrectly of my incorrect spelling so I didn’t get any results. Lol.
      But it seems still in there’s a lot of confusion between transcendence and transcendence which I imagine is pronounced ‘tranz-seed-dence’.

      Interesting. I’m glad I made the mistake and I’m glad you pointed it out. I have to wonder of all the various Internet sites that use ‘transcedence’ realize that they are using that word or if they even know what it means.

      (Maybe it’s pronounced ‘trans-sa-dence. ?



Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s