The Relative And The Absolute

synthesis

Allow me to preface this discussion by suggesting that all intellectualization is an anemic attempt (at best) of accessing Truth or truth. And although many might feel that the following is an absurd take on such, it matters not, as all things are what they are (regardless).

The question of whether any sense of truth is accessible (intellectually) might come down to the following. The only truth we can know is that we cannot know the truth. Perhaps a more paradoxical statement has never been uttered, but such demonstrates the limits of intellectuealization (similar to how halving an amount can go on forever).

Just the same, few are privy to even a (relative) relative truth without initially traveling down an intellectual path with the hope of veering off when the need to conceptualize no longer manifests.

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.

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).

Students of various paths that follow these principles must live in both of these worlds until they can fully immerse themselves in The Absolute (where the Relative becomes subservient as its true nature is revealed).

Once you understand the nature of the Relative, you can see the changing nature of all things (especially your self). As all things Relative are born, have life, and pass, all things Absolute, transcend these states, having never been born, will never pass, and "exist" outside of existence.

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.

Jack Cummins

↪synthesis

This is a question I think about a lot, and I even started a thread on relativism and truth. I believe that it is a question which is central to the whole philosophy quest, and of course an interrelated issue is moral relativism vs absolutism. As far as the question of the transcendent, the biggest question is how we can we discover the ultimate truth. Science is one way, but that is one limited perspective and is sometimes, but not always, in conflict with religion.

In looking at the relative, anthropology throws a whole lot of light on cultural similarities and differences. I think relativism is limited when it becomes purely descriptive, as if no possible truth should be looked for. Perhaps, pluralism is a better approach because it tries to put together the various perspectives, but with a view to looking over and above the relative differences.

In searching for the transcendent absolute we are thrown back upon the epistemological principles. Also, some people look for one ultimate picture of truth, as in the supreme truth, beyond all others. Personally, I think that we all look for a subjective truth but, I am inclined to think that it is worth looking for the best from many disciplines and perspectives. However, that is, of course, my subjective slant and many other people probably view the matter differently altogether.

Anyway, I thought that after having had a whole thread discussion, I might as well join in, and you may get a very different debate going because mine was about 3 months ago and a lot of new members have joined in that time.

Banno

↪synthesis

Allow me to preface this discussion by suggesting that all intellectualization is an anemic attempt (at best) of accessing Truth or truth. — synthesis

...then why bother reading your post?

synthesis

↪Banno

Because it's only when you realize this can you be open to all things.

Since all things intellectual are transient (constantly changing), this limits our ability to understand. BUT, as that door closes, another opens, one which provides a completely different portal allowing us to participate in the change itself.

IOW, what's real is the change, not the illusory (momentary) appearance of things (or ideas).

Banno

↪synthesis

That's philosophy of the worst sort. On a par with Lewis Carol and Spike Milligan, but they knew they were writing nonsense.

synthesis

↪Banno

I am not here to entertain you. If you don't understand or like what I am writing, there are many other threads in which you can participate. If you have a particular point, then by all means, have your say.

javi2541997

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. I am atheist and I was raised in home of atheists. For my the absolute (you put as example God) is unknowable but also irrelevant in my way of living. It isn’t something that I never experienced at all neither feel it. I will never know what actually means because I do not put the effort to do it.
I guess you considered this characteristics of the absolute as something we know innately but I am quite disagree in that. This is an example, as you explained previously, of a relative concept of mind.
Probably you are used to have in your vocabulary or living abstract concepts as “God” and it’s omnipresence so this is why you believes it exists outside you. But what is consider as absolute to you, it is so relative for me.

synthesis

↪Jack Cummins

It always seemed to me that if there was something to figure out, somebody would have done this long, long ago. Instead, it seems like the most intelligent folks kept banging their heads against the wall while others attempted to find an alternative to such abuse.

synthesis

But what is consider as absolute to you, it is so relative for me. — javi2541997

Once intellectualized, it is relative for everybody. If you speak or think of God, then it is not the true God. Again, The Absolute "exists" outside of existence.

180 Proof

... that which exist outside of our intellect (The Absolute).

The absolute [ ... ] is unknowable, unchangeable, and exists outside of time. — synthesis

Which is it? The "intellect" and "time" are not the same, the latter is definitely "outside of" the former (in so far as "our intellect" is itself temporal).

And how does one even know that there is an X given that it is "unknowable"?

Pop

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.

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

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

synthesis

... that which exist outside of our intellect (The Absolute).

The absolute [ ... ] is unknowable, unchangeable, and exists outside of time.
— synthesis
Which is it? The "intellect" and "time" are not the same, the latter is definitely "outside of" the former (insofar as "our intellect" is itself temporal).

And how does one even know that there is an X given that it is "unknowable"? — 180 Proof

You are asking me intellectual questions concerning non-intellectual matters. There is really no way to answer these questions as it is something experiential. It would be like asking somebody to explain what being in love is about. Let me try again...

Everything that we can conceive (things, ideas, etc.) exist within the four dimensions. They are characterized by their transient nature, that is, everything we can conceive of constantly changes. This is the known Universe and it has a relative nature.

The Absolute is that which is unknowable. For instance, what on the other side of the Universe? Where were you before you were born? If it is unknowable, then it does not conform to the four dimensions.

synthesis

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

There are two types of truth, Relative truth and Absolute Truth. You are correct, though, if you speak of Absolute Truth, then you are intellectualizing it and making it relative. Agreed.

In the non-intellectual realm (pure meditation, for example), there is no conceptualization so this does not become an issue and Absolute Truth is present (although this is just the name somebody came up for it). The words are simply pointing towards the truth and The Truth.

Many people use "truth" (lower case "t) to mean the truth of things as close as we can intellectually perceive it, whereas uppercase "T" as Absolute Truth (then same distinction as god or God).

Pop

In the non-intellectual realm (pure meditation, for example), there is no conceptualization so this does not become an issue and Absolute Truth is present — synthesis

:up:

180 Proof

↪synthesis

If that's so, why are you even talking about "the absolute"? Can't eff the ineffable – that's patent nonsense (i.e. woo woo babytalk).

Jack Cummins

↪synthesis

You speak of two forms of truth, relative and absolute. I am not sure that it can be divided so distinctly and think that there may be a whole spectrum of possibilities. Also, in thinking about the idea of the inevitable, I think that this is a word chosen by the mystics. The problem with this for philosophy is that we are trying to get to the whole where we can grasp to explain everything in words.

However, one of the problems with this is that there are levels of reality which are beyond us in the epistemological sense. Obviously, I don't think that we should make excuses for ourselves, but our brains and perceptual apparatus may not have the capability. Plato's idea of the Forms behind the cave of shadows was one round it, but I am sure that the whole idea of Forms is open for debate.

Perhaps the way forward in the current paradigm is in the realm of quantum dimensionality. Nevertheless, even then, this is the territory of the mystics, although most people seem to just stand back in awe of quantum physics. Perhaps that is because it is seen as mystique as opposed to mystical, because people feel blinded by the knowledge and language of the new physics.

Humean316

All things knowable (intellectual) are relative. These things that exist intellectually are constantly changing, exist in time, therefore their relative nature.

I think that's where you lose me a bit because this takes far more rigor to prove than what you have stated. Moreso, I think there are knowable things that are absolute, like math for instance, and since you said all my one example fails your argument.

synthesis

↪180 Proof

Because many people are simply unaware of such a thing. It expands possibilities and that's always a good thing.

synthesis

You speak of two forms of truth, relative and absolute. I am not sure that it can be divided so distinctly and think that there may be a whole spectrum of possibilities. Also, in thinking about the idea of the inevitable, I think that this is a word chosen by the mystics. The problem with this for philosophy is that we are trying to get to the whole where we can grasp to explain everything in words. — Jack Cummins

Jack, as you know, I don't believe anything can be understood, but since we are human beings attempting to communicate with one another, language is pretty much all we have at our disposal. And as mentioned previously, if it were possible to achieve any kind of great understanding, it would have happened long, long ago.

However, one of the problems with this is that there are levels of reality which are beyond us in the epistemological sense. Obviously, I don't think that we should make excuses for ourselves, but our brains and perceptual apparatus may not have the capability. Plato's idea of the Forms behind the cave of shadows was one round it, but I am sure that the whole idea of Forms is open for debate. — Jack Cummins

From what I can tell, we seem to operate at a fairly low level. Just think about everything that goes on in our field of view is logarithmically larger than what we are actually able to process (consciously).

Perhaps the way forward in the current paradigm is in the realm of quantum dimensionality. Nevertheless, even then, this is the territory of the mystics, although most people seem to just stand back in awe of quantum physics. Perhaps that is because it is seen as mystique as opposed to mystical, because people feel blinded by the knowledge and language of the new physics. — Jack Cummins

I am sure that folks in the future will laugh at the idea of quantum mechanics just like we do at those that preceded us with all their wacky notions.

Nikolas

Nikolas wrote responding to Synthesis

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.

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).

Students of various paths that follow these principles must live in both of these worlds until they can fully immerse themselves in The Absolute (where the Relative becomes subservient as its true nature is revealed).

Once you understand the nature of the Relative, you can see the changing nature of all things (especially your self). As all things Relative are born, have life, and pass, all things Absolute, transcend these states, having never been born, will never pass, and "exist" outside of existence.

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

There are some who have experienced the inner vertical direction beginning at the relative level and concluding at the Absolute and some who are not yet able if it exists. The Absolute is beyond our sensory limitations but can be experienced by noesis or a higher form of intellect. Plato's Ladder of Love is good example. It begins at the animal level and concludes as a "form" and part of the eternal unchanging beyond. Contemplating the ladder allows us to experience this inner vertical direction which connects the relative with the Absolute.

1. A particular beautiful body. This is the starting point, when love, which by definition is a desire for something we don’t have, is first aroused by the sight of individual beauty.

2. All beautiful bodies. According to standard Platonic doctrine, all beautiful bodies share something in common, something the lover eventually comes to recognize. When he does recognize this, he moves beyond a passion for any particular body.

3. Beautiful souls. Next, the lover comes to realize that spiritual and moral beauty matters much more than physical beauty. So he will now yearn for the sort of interaction with noble characters that will help him become a better person.

4. Beautiful laws and institutions. These are created by good people (beautiful souls) and are the conditions which foster moral beauty.

5. The beauty of knowledge. The lover turns his attention to all kinds of knowledge, but particularly, in the end to philosophical understanding. (Although the reason for this turn isn’t stated, it is presumably because philosophical wisdom is what underpins good laws and institutions.)

6. Beauty itself – that is, the Form of the Beautiful. This is described as "an everlasting loveliness which neither comes nor goes, which neither flowers nor fades." It is the very essence of beauty, "subsisting of itself and by itself in an eternal oneness." And every particular beautiful thing is beautiful because of its connection to this Form. The lover who has ascended the ladder apprehends the Form of Beauty in a kind of vision or revelation, not through words or in the way that other sorts of more ordinary knowledge are known.

synthesis

All things knowable (intellectual) are relative. These things that exist intellectually are constantly changing, exist in time, therefore their relative nature.

I think that's where you lose me a bit because this takes far more rigor to prove than what you have stated. Moreso, I think there are knowable things that are absolute, like math for instance, and since you said all my one example fails your argument. — Humean316

Would you disagree that all things are changing?

synthesis

There are some who have experienced the inner vertical direction beginning at the relative level and concluding at the Absolute and some who are not yet able if it exists. The Absolute is beyond our sensory limitations but can be experienced by noesis or a higher form of intellect. Plato's Ladder of Love is good example. It begins at the animal level and concludes as a "form" and part of the eternal unchanging beyond. Contemplating the ladder allows us to experience this inner vertical direction which connects the relative with the Absolute. — Nikolas

Perhaps this refers to a different kind of absolute. The mystical type I refer to is not accessible to our intellect.

T Clark

There are two types of truth, Relative truth and Absolute Truth. — synthesis

Is that the same as objective truth and subjective truth? It seems like it is. I'm not questioning your terminology, just clarifying for myself.

synthesis

↪T Clark

Relative truth is getting as close as possible to the truth intellectually, whereas Absolute Truth is THE Truth (which we cannot access).

T Clark

Relative truth is getting as close as possible to the truth intellectually, whereas Absolute Truth is THE Truth (which we cannot access). — synthesis

Is that the same as objective truth and subject truth? Those are familiar concepts that seem relevant, but I'm not sure.

praxis

Once you understand the nature of the Relative, you can see the changing nature of all things (especially your self). As all things Relative are born, have life, and pass, all things Absolute, transcend these states, having never been born, will never pass, and "exist" outside of existence. — synthesis

Doesn’t it feel wrong to contrive the duality of Relative/Absolute?

Accessing The Absolute is the goal of all spirituality and religion — synthesis

It may be the goal of spirituality but it’s certainty not the goal of religion. If it were the goal of religion then it would all be geared towards that end, but it’s not. Even in a relatively austere tradition like zen it’s not.

180 Proof

The Dao that can be told is not the eternal Dao. The names that can be named are not eternal names. — Laozi

↪synthesis

Whatever you/we say about the unsayable, syn, is all noise & no signal (i.e. you're not conveying information). Of course people aren't "aware" – don't know – of the "unknowable" in so far as it's "unknowable", and telling them/us about it only begs the question: how do you/we even know that there is the/an "unknowable" if it is, in fact, "unknowable"? :eyes:

He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know. — Laozi

:sweat:

Nikolas

Perhaps this refers to a different kind of absolute. The mystical type I refer to is not accessible to our intellect. — synthesis

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.

Jack Cummins

↪synthesis

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.

synthesis

It may be the goal of spirituality but it’s certainty not the goal of religion. If it were the goal of religion then it would all be geared towards that end, but it’s not. Even in a relatively austere tradition like zen it’s not. — praxis

Of course it is. Some of the most serious Zen students are Christian mystics.

If it is word-play you seek, then you can pretty much prove anything you wish, but in attempting to chat about the non-intellectual, you must allow the participants some slack.

The reason Zen masters teach in such a cryptic manner is just this. You cannot make sense of it. The teaching is to get you to see the relative (impermanent) nature of all things intellectual and get back to your task...meditation.

synthesis

He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know. — Laozi

This is meant to be understood on several levels. The Dao cannot be understood nor spoken.

The Relative And The Absolute

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions