There can be only ONE Absolute. The Absolute is NOW. While existence within NOW is a process. We can become aware of a quality of reality within creation above Plato's divided line that is beyond our sensory limitations. We can call it mystical but it still may be logical

Do you agree with the four cognitive states described by Plato?

noesis (immediate intuition, apprehension, or mental 'seeing' of principles)
dianoia (discursive thought)
pistis (belief or confidence)
eikasia (delusion or sheer conjecture)

Secularism is limited to discursive thought while noesis experiences intuition. As a creature within creation serving the process of existence, noesis is the limit of our intellect. NOW IS while the process of existence and its relative states all takes place within NOW. — Nikolas

It's been decades since I have really gotten into anything overly intellectual (other than my work).

As far as NOW is concerned, the idea that we cannot access the present presents difficulties. You can go round and round and round with all of these ideas as people have through history and end up where?

I discovered meditation as a way to simply see things as close as I could to what they actually are. It has helped me in ways I could never relate but all the words that attempt to describe this are severely lacking. If a picture is worth a thousand words, an experience must be worth a trillion at the very least.

I just found a quote which I thought perhaps is useful for reflection, by an author called Bruno Scattolin:
'Truth is relative, reality is absolute. But as you are plunged into the world of relativism you can only have a partial perception of reality.'

So, what this is suggesting is that it is not that there is no absolute, but that we are locked into a particular limitation of perspective, in space and time, and one's whole cultural and personal embodiment. — Jack Cummins

Once when I was a novice student, my teacher told me that when I feel the need to intellectualize, I should go find the nearest tree and tell it everything that was on my mind. He then said to listen carefully for the tree's response as this would be the truth I was seeking.

It was great teaching then and just as good now. Instead of bothering you guys, I think I'll go outside and consult with the Oak and maybe the Maple, as well. :)

Give Oak & Maple my regards, syn, and don't forget your meds. :smirk:

I think that it is great if you enjoy the trees, but please don't let the trees think that they are so important that philosophy simply doesn't matter at all anymore.

I guess when you believe that you cannot (really) understand anything, philosophy is like the extra button sewn on your shirt (just in case you happen to lose one). Questioning is simply an indication that you are no longer paying attention (aware), a condition that leads us rapidly down the very short path to hell.

I shall. Never underestimate the vegetation. It will be here fighting the good fight long after the planet has disposed of our kind.

It is probably true to say that we often choose to overintellectualise, but I am also sure that you have going too far to say about not understanding anything. The problem may be more that we often wish to understand everything.

As far as the trees are concerned, I remember one idea I really like, in 'The White Goddess' by Robert Graves, and that is the idea of the 'battle of the trees', and I believe that it was based on a poem from Celtic mythology.

No, I believe that (literally) we cannot understand anything. It's pretty easy to prove. Just consider the fact that everything is changing. How is it possible to understand anything if it is constantly changing?

That is impermanence. I believe that we can take nothing for granted and that we are often taken aback by the unexpected. Many people try to develop a static viewpoint. I think it all about constant revision and evolution of thinking as we go with the flow, which has so many ups and downs.

That's EXACTLY what it is. But it's literal. It's only when you give up the idea of understanding can you understand. Real understanding is not an intellectual process, its understanding the flow, as you noted. It's understanding that reality is the change itself.

It's been decades since I have really gotten into anything overly intellectual (other than my work).

As far as NOW is concerned, the idea that we cannot access the present presents difficulties. You can go round and round and round with all of these ideas as people have through history and end up where?

I discovered meditation as a way to simply see things as close as I could to what they actually are. It has helped me in ways I could never relate but all the words that attempt to describe this are severely lacking. If a picture is worth a thousand words, an experience must be worth a trillion at the very least. — synthesis

I understand what you mean but for me, without being exposed to a certain quality of ideas including a sense of scale and relativity that allowed me to experience human meaning and purpose within universal meaning and purpose, I'd be dead now and a sacrifice to alcohol..

The Absolute (e.g., The Dao, God) is unknowable, unchangeable, and exists outside of time. It is something you may sense or feel but never something you can know (intellectually).
— synthesis

Interesting point. — javi2541997

And self-contradictory. Synthesis knows god is unknowable, and quite a few other things about this unknown...

But coherence is apparently not important for synthesis.

Edit: I see already made this point, and agrees that we are here in the presence of nonsense.

I am not here to entertain you. — synthesis

Oh, that might not be your intent, but you do. I also enjoy Snarks and Boojums...

In the midst of the word he was trying to say,
In the midst of his laughter and glee,
He had softly and suddenly vanished away—
For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.

You started the thread asking what comes after the linguistic turn. It would have been well if you had first learned the lessons of that turn. You've simply, and seemingly in ignorance, turned again, back to absolutes and transcendence. That's fine, if you address the criticism.

If all truth is relative, then so is absolute truth. So all truth is relative - end of story? — Pop

You speak of two forms of truth, relative and absolute. — Jack Cummins

That's pivotal here. The discussion of truth in the OP is set as if it were an analysis, but isn't.

It's statements that are true or false. Synthesis appeals to a different thing, Truth. inventing a dichotomy between relative and absolute; then complains that one cannot talk about the absolute, while all along talking about it.

So as Pop points out, the dichotomy collapses on itself.

Jack, as you know, I don't believe anything can be understood, — synthesis

This is risible. IF it cannot be understood, why is Synthesis trying to explain it?

If it is word-play you seek, then you can pretty much prove anything you wish, — synthesis

Indeed.

I understand what you mean but for me, without being exposed to a certain quality of ideas including a sense of scale and relativity that allowed me to experience human meaning and purpose within universal meaning and purpose, I'd be dead now and a sacrifice to alcohol.. — Nikolas

Those things that are purely experiential open up entirely new possibilities and leave thinking in the proverbial dust. Even your ultimate internet fantasy cannot come anywhere close to competing with a blissful sexual experience with a live partner.

While ideas are one thing, experience is the real thing.

The teaching is to get you to see the relative (impermanent) nature of all things intellectual and get back to your task...meditation. — synthesis

What is so difficult about observing or understanding impermanence? It seems extraordinarily simple to me. It is also * * * dare I say it * * * an intellection.

That's pivotal here. The discussion of truth in the OP is set as if it were an analysis, but isn't.

It's statements that are true or false. Synthesis appeals to a different thing, Truth. inventing a dichotomy between relative and absolute; then complains that one cannot talk about the absolute, while all along talking about it.

So as Pop points out, the dichotomy collapses on itself. — Banno

Thanks for giving me the credit but you'll have to go back around 2500 years ago (or better) to find the originators of such thinking (Truth and truth). I am simply attempting to put this out there for whomever to consider.

If you would agree that it is impossible for us to understand reality (because of the limitations of our intellect, temporal consideration, etc), then you might consider that Reality (Absolute Truth) exists outside of our ability to perceive it.

The best we can do is go with the flow of change and operate within our limited ability to perceive. Once the processing begins, then heaven and hell appear along all the other intellectual goodies.

What is so difficult about observing or understanding impermanence? It seems extraordinarily simple to me. It is also * * * dare I say it * * * an intellection. — praxis

Of course it is, but you would be amazed at how many people refuse to grasp this truth (lowercase t). Understanding impermanence (intellectually) is one thing, realizing it opens the door to The Absolute.

If you would agree that it is impossible for us to understand reality... — synthesis

But it 's not impossible. We do understand reality. You, for example, understand how to write in English on a web forum.

In an attempt to deal with the ineffable, you repeatedly say things that are wrong.

Better to spend time with the trees.

I realize impermanence in just about every moment. It is made real with every change.

I know what you're trying to say. To me it seems like you're focussing too much on impermanence and should rather be explaining non-duality or transcendence to us.

But it 's not impossible. We do understand reality. You, for example, understand how to write in English on a web forum. — Banno

Just because we can do something does not mean we can understand it (especially considering that we are incapable of understanding anything :).

For example, you say 1+1=2, but I say that since every "thing" that exists in the Universe is (technically) unique, how can more than one of anything exist? The same would apply to everything else.

Just because we can do something does not mean we can understand it... — synthesis

...then you mean something curious by "understand". One checks that a child understands addition by having them add various numbers; one checks that someone understands the road rules by watching their driving.

...since every "thing" that exists in the Universe is (technically) unique, how can more than one of anything exist? — synthesis

More fumbling with words. Are you claiming not to know how to add 1+1? That's hardly going to improve your standing.

I know what you're trying to say. To me it seems like you're focussing too much on impermanence and should rather be explaining non-duality or transcendence to us. — praxis

From the frying pan to the fire, eh? Some days I can put this stuff into words and other days the words are far, far away. I'll give it a shot...

Oneness (non-duality). You guys are going to love this! :) One-ness is literal. Consider the following...

Let's get off the planet for a moment and place ourselves out in the middle of space. An observer is watching a light source (that happens to be 100 light-years away), explode (instantaneously). Observer 2 is also looking at the same object and is 200 LYs away, so on and so forth until you have an entire Universe of observers looking at the same object explode. The infinite number of observers all see the explosion "live" but see it at different times (relative to their distance from the light source).

If you eliminate time (which is a human construct, after all), you can see that the same event is happening everywhere simultaneously. Not only that, but this applies to all things. What makes it seem otherwise is our relative frame of reference.

Another example. An observer is sitting in a room. Since each object in the room lies at a different distance from the observer, this should mean that each object exists in a different time frame (albeit a small difference, the principle applies). Why do we see it all happening at the same time? Go outside and stand on a hill on a cloudless/moonless night and tell me how you can see the tree next to you at the same time you can see the light emanating from a star many, many LYs away. How is it possible to see the near present (tree) and the past (star light) at the same time?

Just because we can do something does not mean we can understand it...
— synthesis

...then you mean something curious by "understand". One checks that a child understands addition by having them add various numbers; one checks that someone understands the road rules by watching their driving.

...since every "thing" that exists in the Universe is (technically) unique, how can more than one of anything exist?
— synthesis

More fumbling with words. Are you claiming not to know how to add 1+1? That's hardly going to improve your standing. — Banno

What I am claiming is that you think you know but you don't. You can go along with the system that says that 1+1=2, but so what. It's only true if you believe that more than 1 exists.

People have historically done all kinds of bizarre things thinking they were true. Perhaps the next time you go to the doctor complaining of a headache, s/he can drill a couple of holes in your cranium to allow the evil spirits to escape.

What I am claiming is that you think you know but you don't. You can go along with the system that says that 1+1=2, but so what. It's only true if you believe that more than 1 exists. — synthesis

"Going along with the system" is all there is to 1+1=2. All you have done is recognise that you are part of the game. When you talk to the trees, you begin to move away from the game. The mistake is to think you can tell us about it.

In the end, silence.

Those things that are purely experiential open up entirely new possibilities and leave thinking in the proverbial dust. Even your ultimate internet fantasy cannot come anywhere close to competing with a blissful sexual experience with a live partner.

While ideas are one thing, experience is the real thing. — synthesis

What kind of sensory experience can one have to respond to the need for objective meaning? Does sex with the right partner reveal it?

Going along with the system" is all there is to 1+1=2. All you have done is recognise that you are part of the game. When you talk to the trees, you begin to move away from the game. The mistake is to think you can tell us about it. — Banno

No, I am the one who says that we cannot really understand anything. What I am trying to do is suggest to a bunch of folks with inquiring minds that there is more out there, but you must embark on your own journey to find it. That's it.

What do you want me to tell you? I am just pointing out inconsistencies in our normal thinking. If you take it further, you will find that these inconsistencies are ubiquitous.

Relevant textual source;

https://zenstudiespodcast.com/sandokai-1/

What kind of sensory experience can one have to respond to the need for objective meaning? Does sex with the right partner reveal it? — Nikolas

My point was that experience is real, fantasy (thinking) not so much.

I am the one who says that we cannot really understand anything. — synthesis

Indeed; and I have been at pains to point out that this is incorrect.

Cheers.