If we can’t see ourselves (ego), we cannot perceive an existant. No perception of existents means non existence.
Transcendence is not a delight if you transcend sociopathy in a planet filled with them.
It causes concern and alienation.
When you lose the attachment, you just become another sociopath.
Transcendence is not about being unable to see the ego. It is, at the very least, about seeing the ego from a different point of view. A larger perspective.
So to you there’s only two alternatives, attachment or sociopathy. I assume you’re talking about emotional attachment. It seems that can be looked at two ways: as a subjective experience or as a psychological construct.
In either case it’s a relative phenomenon. Absolute non-attachment is unimaginable. Absolute attachment is identity.
As a subjective experience, you would have to address what it’s like to have a social disorder. To address it as a psychological construct we would have to look at scientific research.
So as much as possible we should try to get away from diagnostic psychiatric generalizations and talk in concrete first person descriptive and behavioral terms.
Transcending is the theme of Ernst Bloch in “Tubingen Introduction to Philosophy” according to Hans Kung’s “Does God exist?”. Transcending here includes
“crossing frontiers”
“surmounting barriers”
and
the “philosophy of not-yet”
Human life is unfinished incomplete and never holding fulfilled. Man is not sufficient he wants more. He is a defective being. But he transcends himself as he overcomes his defects.
“The fact of being in want is the first thing that dawns upon us. All other instincts have their root in hunger; from that point, every instinct presses outward and around, seeking satisfaction in something appropriate to its nature and it’s something beyond its nature. That is to say, whatever lives must be intent on something or get moving toward and be on the way to something; the unquiet void satisfies outside the need that comes from within itself.”
The urge to seek is present more or less in every moment,
Therefore our experience of the present always has the future embedded in it. And the past that got us to the present moment, is here and now in the present as well.
As Kung says “… Man’s necessity and wonder take him beyond the mere fact of being and in this way renew his fundamental openness.” According to Bloch, the “not” is part of our very first experiences. Man is not as he might be. That’s a basic experience. The “not” is the " not yet" which can be redeemed if man actively cooperates in his own redemption.
Items?
Just this one of course:
Given your own understanding of “secular existence” and “transcendence”, and given your own beliefs in regard to moral, political and spiritual value judgments, how would you answer this question…
“How ought one to live in a world awash in both conflicting goods and contingency, chance and change?”
…given particular sets of circumstances most here will be familiar with. And juxtaposed to the manner in which I construe value judgments as rooted largely in dasein.
No, just the No God world in regard to value judgments.
No, in a No God world there is still the possibility that philosophically – or even scientifically? – an objective morality can be confirmed to exist in one or another deontological or ideological or [re Ayn Rand] “metaphysical” font. Or it might reside in the intellectual contraptions of those like Satyr at KT: in the optimal or only rational manner in which to understand Nature.
I would never argue that morality is not objective, only that in regard to those who insist it is, that they provide me with a substantive/substantial demonstration that what they value all rational men and women are obligated to value as well.
Then of course that argument in the context of “the gap” and “Rummy’s Rules”…going back to the really, really, really profound mystery of existence itself.
How do you factor “the human condition” into the context of “all there is”?
Answer to your question in blue font:
As best as one can.
About what I expected.
On the other hand, there’s still the part where “one” comes to conclude that what is best for him is derived more from “serious philosophy”, the one true spiritual path, or from a fractured and fragmented “I” rooted existentially in dasein.
If only from the cradle to the grave. And given all of the profoundly unique experiences that can aggregate for any particular individual down through the centuries historically and across the globe culturally.
How to capture that in a general description spiritual contraption anchored firmly to one or another take on Transcendence.
And not just a God, the God, my God, right?
For example:
You are obviously not familiar with Hans Küng …
On the contrary, back when I was a member of the Unitarian Church here in Baltimore, Carol a friend of mine who had abandoned Catholicism, was still drawn to Küng. She gave me a copy of Does God Exist?
Though, admittedly, that was “way back” then and I recall practically nothing about the content. I read about 150 pages of it as I recall.
You are considerably more familiar with him of course.
So, given what you have discerned from him, how do you imagine Küng [who died just this year] would respond to this:
On the contrary! I…
Well, ok, I…
Yeah, I’m not very familiar.
The Pedro’s Corner Syndrome!!!
Or, sure, we can explore your own take on Secular Existence & Transcendence given this…
And/or this…
Note to phoneutria:
Help him out please. 
All of those contingencies don’t change the categorical imperative to make the best of this life I’ve been thrown into moment by conscious moment.
Well, given the assumption that we live in and interact with others in a free will world.
Click.
Done.
But, again, my aim is to explore Secular Existence & Transcendence given the existential reality that, in the is/ought world, when some make the best of their lives it becomes detrimental to others attempting the same.
Joe deems it best for his life to rid the community of guns. Jim, on the other hand, deems it best for his life to accumulate as many guns as he believes it will take for him to protect himself and his loved ones.
Is there a transcendental element here that might lead them to a resolution?
As for their secular existence, “I”, in my view, is rooted far more in dasein than in anything those inclined to explore the self philosophically or spiritually are likely to come up with.
See what I mean? This is the pathological compulsion I was talking about. ‘Dasein’ is the product of someone’s inclination to explore the self philosophically or spiritually. If not Heidegger’s, than your own bastardized interpretation.
Though you do present the interesting consideration that maybe phenomenologists should stop calling what they do philosophy altogether, and just call it phenomenology.
Dasein: the thought that you pretended you didn’t have.
Alright, alright, carry on.
Speaking of pathological, what is it with your own rather peculiar serial posting tic? You do it all the time. You post one or two lines. Then 3 minutes or 5 minutes or 10 minutes later, one or two more lines. Sometimes it can be 10 or more posts in the space of 20 minutes. It reminds me of d63 back in the days when ILP actually was a philosophy venue. Back when Carleas himself often participated and the moderation wasn’t complete bullshit.
Only d63 would invariably be completely drunk when he did this. How about you?
We’ll need an actual context of course.
How about one of these:
I’m afraid I don’t have the excuse.