Wiktionary
a. (context of thought, experience etc. English) Beyond the rational; of a scope superseding yet including the rational.
Wikipedia
Transrational, or "transrational reality," refers to the experience of objective nonpersonal, nonrational phenomena occurring in the natural universe, information and experience that does not readily fit into standard cause and effect logical structure; the kinds of experience that typically are labeled and dismissed as superstition, irrational, and, in the extreme, abnormal or crazy. It differs from the ‘supernatural’ and the ‘rational’ in that it neither directly controverts nor affirms logical sense or reason. A transrational experience is not pathological. Rather, the transrational does not engage with the question of how to sensibly fit an experience into a rational framework, allowing the experience to remain as it was experienced or witnessed, uninterpreted by rational sensemaking or meaning-making. The experience is what it is and is taken on its own terms.
The concept was first conceptualized in this sense by Jungian analyst Jerome Bernstein in 2000, however it had also been used to very different effect by Ken Wilber in his 1995 book, Sex, Ecology, Spirituality.
People are so afraid of being considered pre-rational that they avoid and deny the very possibility of the transrational. Others substitute mere pre-rational emotions for authentic religious experience, which is always transrational. Ken Wilbur
Usage examples of "transrational".
In their understandable zeal to go transrational, they often embrace any prerational occasion simply because it is nonrationalany occasion that looks biocentrically oriented, from horticultural planting mythology to rampant tribalism to blood magic and sensual glorification of a sentimental nature, all in the name, of course, of saving Gaia.
They can be experienced only by a transrational contemplative development, whose stages unfold in the same manner as any other developmental stages, and whose experiences are every bit as real as any others.
But in my opinion, if we are not much more careful in how we interpret this expanded knowledge questif we do not draw on all four quadrants equally, and if instead we simply orient ourselves around basically the lowest holons in the Upper-Right quadrantwe are constantly in danger of tilting our interpretations in prerational, not transrational, directions.
If we take formop as the reference point, then the higher stages are simply postrational, or transrational, or transpersonal.
Nor are subtle archetypes located in the mythic structure: all dimensions are based on the transrational Forms lying next to the causal, not next to the magical.
Campbell, however, is quite right that a very, very few individuals, during the magic and mythic and rational eras, were indeed able to go beyond magic, beyond mythic, and beyond rationalinto the transrational and transpersonal domains.
And so it is with the wonders and the terrors of reason: it brings enormous new capacities and new solutions, while introducing its own specific problems, problems solved only by a transcendence to the higher and transrational realms.
In their understandable zeal to go transrational, they often embrace any prerational occasion simply because it is nonrationalany occasion that looks biocentrically oriented, from horticultural planting mythology to rampant tribalism to blood magic and sensual glorification of a sentimental nature, all in the name, of course, of saving Gaia.