Did they define the word 'transcendence' by any chance? Only, those people who tend to use these impressive-sounding but empty deepities seem to be in the habit of splashing it around like cheap scent without stopping to say what they mean by it. See also 'spiritual.'
1: I knew you would come running when I posted this.
2: I knew you would accuse the author of the statement of deepity and therefore had prior opportunity for consideration.
It is impossible for anyone except somebody of your belief set to commit deepity. Deepity is therefore any sentimental or romantic development associated with a material event or thing.
Dawkins is therefore guilty of deepity, Sagan is therefore guilty of deepity, Brian Cox is guilty of deepity, anybody who says how great and wonderful any part or the whole of material existence unless of course they do really see through to Transcendence is guilty of deepity.
3: You of course are never guilty of deepity.......only of the staccato utterings of an Orwellian villain.
