In existential semiotics, the notion of transcendence emerges as one of the most challenging and innovative contributions to contemporary semiotic theory. Eero Tarasti presents transcendence as “perhaps the most provocative new issue which existential semiotics tries to launch for theoretical reflection,” and develops a framework in which transcendence assumes three distinct forms: empirical, existential, and radical. Each form reflects a different mode of semiotic articulation and a different relationship between human existence and the structures of meaning that shape it.
At the empirical level, transcendence concerns the absence embedded within the everyday world of Dasein. Tarasti describes empirical transcendence as the intelligible aspects of lived experience, “elements in our living world which are abstract,” following a tradition associated with German sociological understanding. Within the structure of the zemic model — composed of body (Moi1), person (Moi2), praxis (Soi2), and values (Soi1) — these absent yet operative elements appear as part of the movement from corporeality toward the domain of values. In this sense, empirical transcendence names the invisible categories that organize the world of experience and give shape to cultural norms, expectations, and meanings.
The second form, existential transcendence, emerges when the subject interrupts the organic movement of the zemic world through reflection. According to Tarasti, the subject “can stop it either by negation or affirmation,” and this act of suspension opens access to what he calls the “supra-zemic level.” At this level, the subject evaluates and judges its modes of being. Concepts such as Hegel’s Geist, Emerson’s oversoul, Husserl’s transcendental ego, and Sartre’s version of the same are situated here. Tarasti explicitly includes these figures within existential transcendence, noting that this form of transcending occurs when the subject addresses its own condition, confronting the insufficiency or indeterminacy of its empirical situation.
Radical transcendence, the third form, designates what lies beyond all temporal, narrative, and empirical determination. It is, in Tarasti’s terms, “a purely conceptual state, of which we can speak only by metaphors.” This final form encompasses Kant’s das Ding an sich and Hegel’s absolute. It also resonates with theological traditions that regard transcendence as an ultimate principle emanating its influence into the world. Radical transcendence cannot be fully approached through empirical observation or existential reflection; it remains beyond conceptual grasp except through symbolic or metaphorical language.
Tarasti emphasizes that transcendence may be conceived in two main epistemic directions. One may “naturalize” transcendence, treating it as an aspiration toward a more complete form of being — an expanded response to the deficiencies of Dasein. Alternatively, one may consider it as an autonomous principle whose influence radiates downward, as certain theological doctrines propose. This epistemic choice determines how one interprets the relation between semiotics, metaphysics, and the experience of meaning.
Through this tripartite model — empirical, existential, and radical — existential semiotics offers a framework capable of addressing not only European philosophical traditions from Plato to Kant and Hegel, but also diverse cultural systems, including Sufi mysticism and medieval theology. Tarasti’s project aims to outline a transcultural theory of transcendence that would provide the metalanguage necessary to compare these heterogeneous conceptions while preserving their specificity. Such a theory, he argues, would carry “far-reaching pragmatic consequences” for semiotics and for the study of culture.
Bibliographic reference: Eero Tarasti, Culture and transcendence – the concept of transcendence through the ages, in Semiotics and Its Masters, Volume 1, De Gruyter Mouton.