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
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
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
And self-contradictory. Synthesis knows god is unknowable, and quite a few other things about this unknown...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
Oh, that might not be your intent, but you do. I also enjoy Snarks and Boojums...I am not here to entertain you. — synthesis
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.
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
This is risible. IF it cannot be understood, why is Synthesis trying to explain it?Jack, as you know, I don't believe anything can be understood, — synthesis
If it is word-play you seek, then you can pretty much prove anything you wish, — 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.. — Nikolas
The teaching is to get you to see the relative (impermanent) nature of all things intellectual and get back to your task...meditation. — synthesis
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
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
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. — Banno
Just because we can do something does not mean we can understand it... — synthesis
...since every "thing" that exists in the Universe is (technically) unique, how can more than one of anything exist? — synthesis
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
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. — synthesis
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
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.