The Relative And The Absolute
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.
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.
Comments (126)
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.
...then why bother reading your post?
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).
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.
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.
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"?
If all truth is relative, then so is absolute truth. So all truth is relative - end of story?
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.
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).
:up:
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.
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.
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.
Quoting 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).
Quoting 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 wrote responding to Synthesis
Quoting 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.
[i]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.[/i]
Would you disagree that all things are changing?
Perhaps this refers to a different kind of absolute. The mystical type I refer to is not accessible to our intellect.
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.
Is that the same as objective truth and subject truth? Those are familiar concepts that seem relevant, but I'm not sure.
Doesn’t it feel wrong to contrive the duality of Relative/Absolute?
Quoting 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.
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:
[quote=Laozi]He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know.[/quote]
:sweat:
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.
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.
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.
This is meant to be understood on several levels. The Dao cannot be understood nor spoken.
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.
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. :)
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
Quoting synthesis
Oh, that might not be your intent, but you do. I also enjoy Snarks and Boojums...
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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting synthesis
This is risible. IF it cannot be understood, why is Synthesis trying to explain it?
Quoting synthesis
Indeed.
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.
What is so difficult about observing or understanding impermanence? It seems extraordinarily simple to me. It is also * * * dare I say it * * * an intellection.
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.
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.
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.
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.
...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.
Quoting synthesis
More fumbling with words. Are you claiming not to know how to add 1+1? That's hardly going to improve your standing.
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?
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.
"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.
What kind of sensory experience can one have to respond to the need for objective meaning? Does sex with the right partner reveal it?
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.
https://zenstudiespodcast.com/sandokai-1/
My point was that experience is real, fantasy (thinking) not so much.
Indeed; and I have been at pains to point out that this is incorrect.
That's a pretty good explanation.
We're both right, you from a relative perspective, me from an Absolute one. Read Wayfarer's link. He was having a better day than I am having.
Starlight is lazy?
Zen (Japanese, for meditation). There is only one lesson in Zen, meditate. The words simply point to the practice and it is in the practice is where you find realization.
I’m quite in agreement with the sentiment, but the presentation is another matter.
Philosophy is not the tool for doing philosophy.
How do you define an experience? Experience can be interpreted into fantasy just as easily as reason and they both become partial truths. Socrates wrote of a higher quality of reason called noesis which leads to direct experience. Does satori mean the same?
Experience can be had outside of conceptual thought. Getting into all the other philosophical stuff is really above my pay grade and,as well, specific questions about 'satori" and the like should be directed to a qualified teacher (of which I am not).
A person doesn't have an experience through conceptual thought. An experience requires the simultaneous cooperation of thought, emotions, and sensations. When they consciously work together and react as nature intended, they produce an experience. When just one aspect is dominant, we live in imagination.
According to whom?
Plato's description of the tripartite soul is easiest to understand. As explained in the chariot analogy, the horse on the left refers to our lower parts which have become corrupt. How can the driver fix a sick horse which denies us the ability to objectively experience as a normal human being?
Nothing against Plato, I am sure he was a brilliant guy and all that, but making the pile of bullshit higher doesn't make it any more correct.
This isn't that complicated. Experience. Need more be said?
It's not right to discuss the meanings of the tripartite soul and its repercussions from the corruption of our lower nature on your thread but how IYO does Zen understand resistance? Why does the human organism oppose Zen and adopt imagination to take its place? Can the struggle with imagination take place without the conscious mind acting as a purification protecting efforts of meditation from turning into imagination and the opposite of its intent?
Zen is the Japanese word for meditation. Zen doesn't understand anything. It's not about understanding, instead it's about realization through direct experience.
My own realization has told me that we cannot understand anything in its real sense. What we do understand is really not understanding, it's just that things seem to work for reasons (although unknown) seem to conform to current rationale.
It's just like science. Although science is ALWAYS changing and logic would suggest that nothing that is thought to be true today will be afforded the same privilege in the future, people still cling to contemporary scientific principles as if they were written in stone and handed down to Moses by God Himself.
Nobody knows how thinking works. Nobody really knows how anything works (although you'd never know by listening to the experts go on and on and on...). After all, even the absolute simplest of things is brought into being by an infinite number of events preceding. And this is happening each and every moment.
Why bother yourself about incredibly complex ideas such as imagination when when we can never (really) understand something elemental like why we still say, "God Bless you," after somebody sneezes!
Thinking is a tool and a rather crude one at that. Although critical to our daily functioning, people become over-dependent on it by taking 'what is' and making it into 'what isn't' (BIG time). Everything that can be known is so before your critical thinking kicks-in at which time the personal revisions begin and do not cease until you have taken what is pure and turned it into your personal fantasy (good, bad, or indifferent).
This an illustration of S?t? Zen monks sitting in meditation. The meditation master carries a keisaku, a stick with which any of those appearing drowsy are struck.
True, but I have two essential questions Zen by definition cannot answer. The first is the meaning and purpose of our universe and the second is the meaning and purpose of life including human life within it.
A Person may have a Zen experience but how is it used? Experience may be pure but when it begins being used interpretations set in. Humanity has a need to interpret. This is resistance. In order to DO as a normal human being, a person must become free of the dominant animal need to interpret. How does Zen protect one's being against the animal need for interpretations?
Zen, by definition, answers no questions. It is your own realization that accomplishes the task. The meaning and purpose of life becomes manifest in your actions and cannot be intellectualized.
Quoting Nikolas
Perhaps you should take up the practice of meditation and find out why this is not the case.
You underestimate resistance. As soon s a person begins to do something they begin to interpret or they wouldn't know what to do. If the value of the Zen experience leads to the truth, then a person has to deal with acquired resistance. Krishnamurti gave a good example concerning the power of imagination leading to resistance: “You may remember the story of how the devil and a friend of his were walking down the street, when they saw ahead of them a man stoop down and pick up something from the ground, look at it, and put it away in his pocket. The friend said to the devil, “What did that man pick up?” “He picked up a piece of Truth,” said the devil. “That is a very bad business for you, then,” said his friend. “Oh, not at all,” the devil replied, “I am going to let him organize it." Krishnamurti[/i]
That is why I prefer contemplation of contradictions rather than meditation as leading towards the Absolute
When a contradiction is impossible to resolve except by a lie, then we know that it is really a door. Simone Weil
It can only be resolved by a quality of mind which can place the contradiction into a higher level of reality dualism is incapable of finding the door..
We are on two different paths. Who knows, we both may end up on the Way or where the paths meet. Different strokes for different folks.
How do you respond to Plato given that your idea of Relative vs Absolute truth shares similarities with his theory of forms (absolute & eternal) vs the world as simply imitations of these forms? I ask because per Plato, the mind is fully capable of apprehending forms, in fact this is precisely the raison d'être of philosophy (intellectualizing).
99.99....% of what you perceive leaves no time for interpretation. Just think about how much is going on in your field of view at once (an infinite number of things). You have the ability to process (before conceptualization) all of this information in order to make your way, but there is no time for interpretation.
Quoting Nikolas
You are hung-up on form. Things are what they are, correct? You believe you can use your ability to conceptualize to see this truth, but there seem to be all kinds of reasons this is not the case. If we were able to intellectualize the truth, it would be universally applied.
Quoting Nikolas
I get what you are saying but the human intellect is simply not capable of taking an infinite amount of information and processing it in real time (for all kinds of reasons). Most people take forever to process one thing (and then they get it wrong!).
Quoting Nikolas
There are all kinds of different paths. It really doesn't matter which one you are on, only that you believe in yourself 100%. Good luck to you in your quest!
"Do you wish to know God? Learn first to know yourself." - Abba Evagrius the Monk.
When I awaken to experience that I live in the prison of Plato's cave, it is natural to want to escape. I see that things are not what they are since I am creating my own reality through my corrupted emotions and imagination. I can admit that "I Know Nothing." Conscious attention and imagination are mutually exclusive. When I am governed by imagination I am incapable of conscious attention. However, the more I become capable of conscious attention rather than directed attention, I become closer to realistically perceiving the external world.
I see that if I want freedom from Plato's cave I must learn what it means to Know Thyself rather than imagine thyself. A certain method is essential since it doesn't happen by itself. Conscious attention is a higher intellectual process and not to be confused with dualistic associative thought.
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.
The process is based in prediction, it’s generally believed. For example:
The rain in Spain falls mainly on the ________.
Jake and Jill went up the ________.
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes, well, you might find
You get what you _______.
Chances are that your brain filled in at least one of the blanks above automatically and without your conscious consent. It is continuously making predictions in this manner. Do these predictions reflect ‘reality’? No, they are frequently wrong. Worse, they usually reflect some bias, and worse still, may trigger a maladaptive emotional response.
There are good reasons to value the mental state that your talking about but this ‘seeing reality’ business is pure fantasy.
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. Coming to this conclusion is the first step down any reasonable path.
'Seeing reality' (or any of the other hundreds of ways of intellectualizing something that cannot be intellecutalized) is not what it is. It is just cutting yourself a break by not having to figure everything (or anything) out. Accept what we can perceive, make the best of it, and move on. OR, you can struggle 24/7/365 and make up all kinds of bizarre reasons for this, that, and the other thing. Your choice.
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?
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?
And some of the accomplishments of conceptual thought are: medicine, art, technology, science, space exploration, engineering, the Internet, etc. Not bad eh?
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.
That's nonsensical because you would have to have a clue in order judge.
"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.
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.
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!
At least we get a little existential dread to spice things up. Afterall, the dinosaurs became extinct without conceptual capacity.
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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
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.
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?
Perhaps you can explain yourself here.
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).
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.
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.
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 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?
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?
Doesn't sound like you have much experience with dogs.
It's mutual I would say.
If you are going against the flow, you'll end up just like the salmon.
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.
Quoting 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.
I wish I could take credit for but these ideas are thousands of years old.
Malcolm Muggeridge said: “Never forget that only dead fish swim with the stream.”
The salmon fights the stream to escape Plato's cave and return to its origin. The dead fish follow the flow to deteriorate into the sea. The world needs more of the awakening salmon influence than the dead fish influence in order to avoid sinking into the sea.
Quoting synthesis
Okay. This then makes me think of the non-intellectual, God, or Absolute as a possession. By possession I mean even the non-intellectual or incomprehensible is a part of the human world, an idea in the mind, not the world or mind of the Absolute. For instance, can the Absolute say anything is non-intellectual? Does the Absolute call anything else Absolute? What I am trying to understand is if we see the Absolute as in or coming from our limited minds, what makes it something different from a very human thing, not transcendental? What makes this leap of faith to the Absolute different from an escape or invalid reversal of the non-intellectual?
.
At some point, though, you either have faith that this is case, or you do what 99.999...% of everybody does and just dismiss it.
I was on a four year long ultra-intensive philosophical journey (after the death of my son) and I simply reached the end where the words provided me with nothing. A friend on a car group on the very early internet introduced me to Zen and I took to it immediately. I was ready because I was incredibly burned-out intellectually.
Perhaps people just need to be ready to accept the possibility that such a thing might "exist." I don't know (and cannot know). What I do know is what it has allowed me to do and how it profoundly changed my life.