Humans have a desire for clarity: to know something as true, whether that is the definitions of “Absolute” or “Relativity.” For instance, I know I talk to you and you exist in my world. Anything other than this knowledge is as unsure as the clues I give in response to you. Much of what you last stated seems true to you, and is reflected in my initial reply. But that you say you do not understand me cannot rid us of our relationship to the truth. And this: the relationship (the relativity) to the truth is as Absolute as things get. We both have clues we are relative to the truth, although the truth evades us. My key point is that the Absolute is a relationship (relativity), not knowledge. So again, if you have “no clue,” we still have a relationship (relativity), and this is Absolute.

It could be a million different things. It never fails to amaze me that (the vast majority) of people simply cannot handle the notion that they have no clue. — synthesis

No clue about how to properly do the laundry, how the human mind works, or no clue about the nature of reality? Can you be clear about what you mean?

And this: the relationship (the relativity) to the truth is as Absolute as things get. We both have clues we are relative to the truth, although the truth evades us. My key point is that the Absolute is a relationship (relativity), not knowledge. So again, if you have “no clue,” we still have a relationship (relativity), and this is Absolute. — d Luke

You are using different definitions which is fine but we end up talking past each other. The Absolute I am referring to is non-intellectual. You state that the Absolute is a relationship, that the relatively of all things is as absolute as it gets.

You might want to consider that any of these words (I use) are simply pointing at the truth and there is no relative and no Absolute. These are ideas that hold no true meaning. It is like the metaphor of crossing the river on the boat of knowledge. Once you get to the other side, do you keep carrying the boat with you or do you let it go?

No clue about anything (intellectual). Look out into the world of living things and marvel at what these creatures can accomplish without conceptual thought!

Look out into the world of living things and marvel at what these creatures can accomplish without conceptual thought! — synthesis

And some of the accomplishments of conceptual thought are: medicine, art, technology, science, space exploration, engineering, the Internet, etc. Not bad eh?

"Do you wish to know God? Learn first to know yourself." - Abba Evagrius the Monk.
— Nikolas

Know one thing, know everything. Understanding One-ness, understand The Absolute.

The freedom you seek is not from some metaphorical cave. Accept the limitations of being human by not being tempted to swim across the ocean, fly across in the sky, or engage in conceptual thought. — synthesis

I'm aware by experience what it means to not be human. I also know there have been those seeking freedom from Plato's cave in order to become human. Like it or not it includes the conscious cooperation of the three parts of our tripartite soul: thought, emotion, and sensation.

Thomas Merton records being asked to review a biography of Weil (Simone Weil: A Fellowship in Love, Jacques Chabaud, 1964) and was challenged and inspired by her writing. “Her non-conformism and mysticism are essential elements in our time and without her contribution we remain not human.”

I don't see the sense in accepting the limitations of not being human. I admire those who inspire me to leave Plato's cave so as to experience "meaning" or the inner vertical direction which leads to the Absolute or the eternal unchanging.

No clue about anything (intellectual). — synthesis

That's nonsensical because you would have to have a clue in order judge.

All is one, whether it is Logos or God, the relative and the absolute. The only time this is not true is when you disassociate God into divisions, which is humanity's flawed MO.

"And some of the accomplishments of conceptual thought are: medicine, art, technology, science, space exploration, engineering, the Internet, etc. Not bad eh?"

You are right, not fully bad. Respectfully, I'm sorry for using your quote but it reminds me of a reply from a catholic engineer, when I told him that there is proof that primates and others, have been using tools and maybe it is God's plan, evolution of all things over large spans of time. He said, "can they make 777s?"

My point is this, we can conceptually create many things but if they betray our environment, like a 777 clearly does, is this human exclusivity all that? Maybe primates would stick with using nature as guide instead of un-natural human needs.

And some of the accomplishments of conceptual thought are: medicine, art, technology, science, space exploration, engineering, the Internet, etc. Not bad eh? — emancipate

In the end, a species ability to adapt to their environment is most important. It doesn't appear to this observer as if our conceptual capacity has led to anything more than getting that much closer to extinction.

It was not really my intention to argue with anybody here about these issues. I wanted to introduce such for those who might have an interest.

I also understand that there are many ways to skin a cat and if your way works for you, that is what's most important.

I have known all kinds of people on many different paths and they were almost all really nice people with virtuous intentions and positive outcomes.

I wish you all the best of luck on your journeys. Keep the faith and never stop trying!

In the end, a species ability to adapt to their environment is most important. It doesn't appear to this observer as if our conceptual capacity has led to anything more than getting that much closer to extinction. — synthesis

At least we get a little existential dread to spice things up. Afterall, the dinosaurs became extinct without conceptual capacity.

The Relative and The Absolute stand opposed to each other as that which we use intellectually (the Relative) and that which exist outside of our intellect (The Absolute). All things knowable (intellectual) are relative. These things that exist intellectually are constantly changing, exist in time, therefore their relative nature. — synthesis

I think you've got this backward. The absolutes are ideals, they are within your mind. Things outside your mind are relative. "All things knowable (intellectual) are relative." is an absolute which your mind has for some reason produced. "God" is an absolute which human minds have for some reason produced.

Accessing The Absolute is the goal of all spirituality and religion, as this is where the The Truth lies. And although you can never know this Truth, you can be with and part of it, a need that has apparently driven man's behavior for thousands of years. — synthesis

Once you see that the absolutes are within you, you'll have no problem to access them, just direct your attention that way, and learn how to ignore the external distractions.

Instead of bothering you guys, I think I'll go outside and consult with the Oak and maybe the Maple, as well. — synthesis

It's a very good time to consult with the maples, they've got much to offer. I'm about to go make some syrup myself. The oaks appear to be dormant right now so maybe they've got nothing to offer. Come to think of it, the maples appear to be dormant too. Looks are deceiving because you judge your sensations relative to your intentions. And your intentions may be misguided.

If the Absolute is non-intellectual, it is irrational. So do you mean unintelligible? If that is what you mean, how can I think of the Absolute if it is unintelligible? For instance, I can think of a 100-foot pineapple or a clear apple. And such thought does not make these things Absolute. But what if I cannot think of clear water or a 100-foot building? What if such is beyond my intellectual capabilities? Does this failure in thought make the clear water and tall building Absolute? In other words, if we know the Absolute only by its unintelligibility definition, the Absolute can be anything independent of thought. In this sense we deify or re-categorize the limits of human knowledge as God or meaninglessness.

Our relationship to or distance from the Absolute is relativity. Although this distance might create unintelligibility, this distance and relationship is relative. But you say, “there is no relative and no Absolute.” I wonder what you mean by this. I think I agree with you on the second point—no Absolute—because even this Absolute is relative to us in some sense. The Absolute could be an incorrect conception of something never meant to be or serve as a concept.

As far as the boat of knowledge and river analogy you gave, I would keep carrying the boat just in case I have to go back across the river again because I forgot something. I might carry the boat because there is a larger river just ahead to cross.

I think you've got this backward. The absolutes are ideals, they are within your mind. Things outside your mind are relative. "All things knowable (intellectual) are relative." is an absolute which your mind has for some reason produced. "God" is an absolute which human minds have for some reason produced. — Metaphysician Undercover

So if I understand you correctly, God is an idea and ideas are absolutes. So God must be an absolute? If so, are you also saying that since absolutes are things we know, we also know God? If that is what you're implying, how do we know God or what does know mean regarding absolutes?

Looks are deceiving because you judge your sensations relative to your intentions. And your intentions may be misguided. — Metaphysician Undercover

Perhaps you can explain yourself here.

If the Absolute is non-intellectual, it is irrational. — d Luke

Many people have difficulty accepting the notion of The Absolute. It might be similar to trying to convince a bunch of seven year old boys (who believe that girls are super-yucky) how you believe your gorgeous girlfriend (who you just happen to be head over heels in love with) is an angel that descended from the heavens just for you. It would be a really tough sell.

Similarly, it is just as difficult for most to believe that anything "exists" outside of our intellect for the same exact reasons. Most people drawn to the non-intellectual are so because they have reached an intellectual impasse. Philosophy, science, and traditional religion are just not getting the job done.

So let me try this one more time...

That which is intellectual (The Relative) is constantly changing (impermanent). Although you can know it, you cannot really understand it in any real sense (although most believe they can). The intellectual exists in time and is subject to birth, life, and death.

That which is non-intellectual (The Absolute) is unchanging (permanent). You cannot understand it but you can be in its presence. The Absolute "exists" outside of time and is not subject to birth, life, and death.

The Absolute is that which we cannot know in any way except by the fact that (intellectually) it's the only thing that makes sense (well isn't that paradoxical). In order to get to the point where you can realize this, you must do the work necessary by enabling yourself to see things as they truly are. There is no intellectual pathway to this point. Meditation is one way to get there.

So it takes a bit of faith to believe that this is possible. Many people never do (even those who meditate for long periods of time as they are never able to let go of conceptual thought).

The Absolute is that which we cannot know in any way except by the fact that (intellectually) it's the only thing that makes sense (well isn't that paradoxical). In order to get to the point where you can realize this, you must do the work necessary by enabling yourself to see things as they truly are. There is no intellectual pathway to this point. Meditation is one way to get there.

So it takes a bit of faith to believe that this is possible. Many people never do (even those who meditate for long periods of time as they are never able to let go of conceptual thought). — synthesis

Curious! A dog does this all the time. It just "is" and sees things as they are without conceptual thought. Yet it takes a lot of effort for a person to become like a dog and experience the Absolute.

It's a nice poem!

Curious! A dog does this all the time. It just "is" and sees things as they are without conceptual thought. Yet it takes a lot of effort for a person to become like a dog and experience the Absolute. — Nikolas

What makes you suggest that a dog does not have conceptual thought?

I agree that It does appear is if animals are much more in tune with 'what it is' but who knows?

Remember, according to me, we are incapable of (really) understanding anything. Although speculating on the this, that, and the other thing might satisfy a need to feel as if we have some kind of handle on our lives, it doesn't appear to be this way. The best we can do is go with the flow and react with the greatest skill possible.

What makes you suggest that a dog does not have conceptual thought? — synthesis

Dogs are obviously capable of differentiating between things in the environment. So they see things as serving different purposes; the steps for running up and down, the doorway for going in or out, the food bowl for eating from, the ball for chasing and so on. Doers this count as conceptual thought?

If you see something as something you can say—to others and to yourself—what you see it as. This is abstract conceptual thought, and it seems reasonable to think this requires linguistic ability. Is it our ability to see concrete difference, or is it our ability to abstract and generalize from that via language that takes us out of the absolute (the eternal present)?

The best we can do is go with the flow and REACT with the greatest skill possible. — synthesis

The best we can do is go against the flow and ACT with the greatest skill possible.

Dogs mechanically react while human beings have the potential for conscious action. How many sense the difference?

The Absolute is that which we cannot know in any way except by the fact that (intellectually) it's the only thing that makes sense (well isn't that paradoxical). In order to get to the point where you can realize this, you must do the work necessary by enabling yourself to see things as they truly are. There is no intellectual pathway to this point. Meditation is one way to get there — synthesis

I think I understand your point a lot better now. So my next questions may be for another thread. But why is it worth the work, faith, or meditation to realize the Absolute? What does the Absolute do for us if anything? What is its relationship to the relative or does it explain away the relative at all? Or, when we realize the Absolute, what happens then?

Dogs mechanically react while human beings have the potential for conscious action. How many sense the difference? — Nikolas

Doesn't sound like you have much experience with dogs.

Who knows but all of my dogs seem to have been pretty smart (and seemingly a lot smarter than their human :). After all, whom was serving who's needs?

After all, whom was serving who's needs? — synthesis

It's mutual I would say.

The best we can do is go against the flow and ACT with the greatest skill possible. — Nikolas

If you are going against the flow, you'll end up just like the salmon.

Is there anything better in this life than a truly great dog!

Not much! A truly great person perhaps?

It was synthesis who raised the idea that God is an absolute. I was just saying that this idea, of God as an absolute was in synthesis' mind.

Perhaps you can explain yourself here. — synthesis

The maple trees look like they're dormant, but if you tap them they'll give you sap, so they're really not dormant. Looks are deceiving.

It was synthesis who raised the idea that God is an absolute. I was just saying that this idea, of God as an absolute was in synthesis' mind. — Metaphysician Undercover

I wish I could take credit for but these ideas are thousands of years old.