Transcendentalism appeared in New England in the 1830's-- with Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau serving as its most recognizable proponents. It did not last as a movement, because it wasn't interested in lasting, as in making disciples, telling people why they ought to belong, and competing for market share via oratory and theology wars. Their basic stance was to hold up a flower, as the Buddha once did, and say, "You can look at this flower and see it, or not see it. That is up to you." For them, transparency to transcendence was everywhere all the time. It was only a matter of seeing or not seeing what is "right there." And doing or not doing what needs to be done about it. They realized that no one can be talked into seeing, or told how to see-- and certainly that no one can be told what is to be seen, or how it got there, or what it means. We "let the mystery be" (Iris Dement), and do what we think needs to be done about it, knowing that thinking we can say anything about it is completely absurd, because it is transcendent, don't you see? The transcendent is like the Tao, about which Lao Tzu said, "The Tao that can be said/told/explained/talked about is not the eternal Tao." Or, as Martin Palmer said, "The path that can be discerned as a path is not a reliable path." That's Transcendentalism for you. We see it or see it not. And that's all we can say about it. See?
–0–
Jim Dollar's Photography and Philosophy 