What does the word "sacred" conjure for you?
Maybe distant images of divine beings—or felt notions of untouchable realms?
But what if you tried looking at it differently?
What if the sacred was a kind of felt depth—that calls you to attention and transformation?
The following is an invitation…
Maybe distant images of divine beings—or felt notions of untouchable realms?
But what if you tried looking at it differently?
What if the sacred was a kind of felt depth—that calls you to attention and transformation?
The following is an invitation…
…a way of approaching the sacred with a new perspective—not an attempt at a final definition:
This notion of the sacred (as a kind of felt depth) is based on converging arguments from different thinkers.
One of them is the quadruple of ultimacy—an expansion of Schellenberg’s “triple transcendence.”
In this framework, you are invited to discern four dimensions through which the sacred becomes accessible as a participatory reality.
Let me explain…
This notion of the sacred (as a kind of felt depth) is based on converging arguments from different thinkers.
One of them is the quadruple of ultimacy—an expansion of Schellenberg’s “triple transcendence.”
In this framework, you are invited to discern four dimensions through which the sacred becomes accessible as a participatory reality.
Let me explain…
J.L. Schellenberg’s notion of the triple transcendence includes the following:
That which is most real, most orienting, and most transformative.
Also known as The True, The Beautiful, and The Good.
These are not metaphysical absolutes but modes of contact.
They are the qualities you intuitively seek when you yearn for depth, meaning, or something “more” than the flatness of everyday distraction.
These three dimensions form a powerful triad—but something essential is missing…
That which is most real, most orienting, and most transformative.
Also known as The True, The Beautiful, and The Good.
These are not metaphysical absolutes but modes of contact.
They are the qualities you intuitively seek when you yearn for depth, meaning, or something “more” than the flatness of everyday distraction.
These three dimensions form a powerful triad—but something essential is missing…
That’s why (in the quadruple of ultimacy) a fourth dimension is added: resonance.
Resonance is the felt sense that we are in touch with something meaningful. It is when something “clicks,” or evokes awe, wonder, and insight.
It pulls you into an altered mode of awareness—one in which attention is heightened and the boundary between self and world begins to blur.
After all, the quadruple of ultimacy is not describing the attributes of an object—but the dimensions of a transformative encounter.
And this notion of sacred encounter is deepened in the work of William Desmond…
Resonance is the felt sense that we are in touch with something meaningful. It is when something “clicks,” or evokes awe, wonder, and insight.
It pulls you into an altered mode of awareness—one in which attention is heightened and the boundary between self and world begins to blur.
After all, the quadruple of ultimacy is not describing the attributes of an object—but the dimensions of a transformative encounter.
And this notion of sacred encounter is deepened in the work of William Desmond…
Desmond articulates transcendence not as an upward leap into some metaphysical beyond—but as a layered, multidirectional field.
He proposes a threefold structure—interior, exterior, and superior transcendence.
Interior transcendence refers to those forces within you that pull you beyond your ego.
These are the very movements through which the self exceeds itself.
Exterior transcendence gestures to the inexhaustibility of reality itself.
Here we encounter the sacred as the way the real insists on being more than our representation of it.
Superior transcendence—the metaxu (meaning the between)—is a reciprocal opening where interior and exterior disclose each other in a transformative relation…
He proposes a threefold structure—interior, exterior, and superior transcendence.
Interior transcendence refers to those forces within you that pull you beyond your ego.
These are the very movements through which the self exceeds itself.
Exterior transcendence gestures to the inexhaustibility of reality itself.
Here we encounter the sacred as the way the real insists on being more than our representation of it.
Superior transcendence—the metaxu (meaning the between)—is a reciprocal opening where interior and exterior disclose each other in a transformative relation…
…where you are changed by reality as you come to know it—and where reality becomes more visible as you become more attuned.
The metaxu is not the possession of sacredness—but the event of it.
Desmond shows us that the sacred is not static, but relationally alive—always inviting, always exceeding, always calling you into a deeper form of participation.
And this model converges powerfully with Paul Tillich’s conception of the “depth of being”…
The metaxu is not the possession of sacredness—but the event of it.
Desmond shows us that the sacred is not static, but relationally alive—always inviting, always exceeding, always calling you into a deeper form of participation.
And this model converges powerfully with Paul Tillich’s conception of the “depth of being”…
Tillich shifts the sacred from the domain of objects to the ground of being itself.
He rejects the image of God as a supreme being among beings.
Why?
Because in Tillich’s view it would turn God into just one more thing within the totality of things—one being among others.
Tillich’s proposal is the following…
He rejects the image of God as a supreme being among beings.
Why?
Because in Tillich’s view it would turn God into just one more thing within the totality of things—one being among others.
Tillich’s proposal is the following…
He speaks of God as the urgrund—the ground of being that makes being possible.
The sacred is not elsewhere—it is the depth dimension of the real.
Think of this as the condition underneath the subject-object distinction—the space that gives rise to both the one who knows (subjective knower) and the thing known (cognitive object).
In Tillich’s vision, the sacred is not found but disclosed.
It is not encountered as a separate domain (it’s not “up there”) but in and through the depths of being itself.
The sacred is not elsewhere—it is the depth dimension of the real.
Think of this as the condition underneath the subject-object distinction—the space that gives rise to both the one who knows (subjective knower) and the thing known (cognitive object).
In Tillich’s vision, the sacred is not found but disclosed.
It is not encountered as a separate domain (it’s not “up there”) but in and through the depths of being itself.
TL;DR:
Together these frameworks invite you to reorient your understanding of the sacred.
From their perspective, the sacred ceases to be a separate metaphysical tier and becomes instead the resonance between reality and the self—where the sacred is not an object in the world, nor merely a subjective state—it is the relation between the two, the opening that draws them together.
Together these frameworks invite you to reorient your understanding of the sacred.
From their perspective, the sacred ceases to be a separate metaphysical tier and becomes instead the resonance between reality and the self—where the sacred is not an object in the world, nor merely a subjective state—it is the relation between the two, the opening that draws them together.
P.S.: If you enjoyed this—join the Lectern Letters—they go deeper on topics like this (and you get the first 3 chapters of our new Book for free): vervaeke.kit.com/lecternnewslet…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
