What are absolutes?

Re: What are absolutes?


Absolutely not!

The phrase, "The world is characterized by opposites" is not an accurate DESCRIPTION of the world, which consists of degrees between so-called polar extremes. The world IS characterized by humans in terms of contrasting or complementary sets. This has to do with conception not description. But everywhere I see only greys. The most famous dualism, I think, is the Chinese Yin-Yang symbol wherein each side is defined by the other. This powerful symbol represents a unity rather than a duality. It represents, to me, the paradoxical principle that the Cosmic Unity necessarily takes the form of a multiplicity. I was talking with a friend about this Unity and she asked, increduously, you mean that we are one despite the space between us and the fact that I can only experience my mind and not yours? I could only answer that what she described was the character of our Unity. Meditation, not logic, is the way to see/intuit this Unity.

Let me add that DUALISM, i.e., the polarities of self-other, good-bad (and virtue-evil), true-false, etc., have to do with the way we normally THINK about reality. But MONISM better DESCRIBES the character of reality. In monism all things are interdependent, mutually constituted, and conditional in a relativistic and unitary reality. Nothing is completely independent, self-constituted, and unconditioned within a world of absolutes, such as Newton's transcendent time and space.

JL, that was a really interesting post. Sorry its taken me a while to reply.

I also see the world as a lot of greys.
Maybe even not as grey, but just as the world.
The black/white divide is a human invention to help understand the world.
I think it would be true to say that we are the minority in our perception of the world. The dualist theory does seem to be more popular, no doubt due to our christian history amongst other things.
What problems do you think arise from the impersonal/grey perception.
It would be a lot nicer to believe absolutes exist.

Good morning, Pentacle Queen

Humans chase after absolutes like crazy--truly crazy. I like the argument that the mechanism that urges us to focus a complexity down to a simpler view is part of our genetic inheritance, having to do with our survival. To survive, we must simplify our environment. However, to persist in simplification to the point of a false absolute may be a more modern desire. At the genetic level, we reflect a need to come to a decision in a hurry: Those ARE a tiger's stripes moving about among the shadows of the cane. Let's get out of here, NOW.

The unity of grays statement that I like best is S.T. Coleridge's:

"Unity in multeity and multeity in unity."

Infinitely large spectrum of possible interpretations, moving both ways, with no final resolution possible in either direction.

I am open to the unprovable concept that the only absolute is the infinity of expanding possibilities.

I am encouraged by the last two posts.

vision
When you see something, you know it is there, and that is an absolute. There is also a degree you know it is there, there is a degree to which it exists, some things exist more than others, so while things exist on an absolute basis those same absolutes exist relative to other things, making them degrees themselves

Re: vision


The nature of our pattern-making brains makes this a non-absolute. I see faces in the patterns on quilts, I see things in dreams, I think I see someone ahead on the side of the road who later turns out to be a sign behind a bush. Right now I can see blurry movement in my lateral vision (tunnel vision, migraine coming) but seeing it doesn't mean it's there. Sight is just the brains interpretation of electric signals sent along the optic nerve that have been triggered by light falling on the retina.

Sight cannot determine absolutes.

I do think, however, that all sensation is absolute. I see something, or I just see, and that is both absolute and eternal. But my thoughts about it are relative to other thoughts. I deny all absolutism regarding ideas, but I consider all immediate sensation/experience absolute (and eternal because it cannot be undone).

But sensation is just the brain's interpretation of nerve signals from sense organs (the sight issue I mentioned translates to all the senses).

Can you have an absolute that only you perceive?

Are the voices a schizophrenic hears urging and cajoling absolutes?

I am not saying that we perceive absolutes; we falsely think absolutes. Perception itself IS absolute, even that of schizophrenics.

I see, thanks JL, sort of 'I think therefore I am'

JL denies absolutes, but states his denial in absolute terms.

You deny absolutism with ideas, but i think that all ideas are absolute to a certain degree, just like seeing something is absolute. You know you have that idea, just you don't know its merit. you don't know that it is absolutely true, but you know it is absolutely there

I am so very grateful that no one wishes to argue about brains-in-vats and the like. Distinguishing what we see is a personal operation; therefore, it's not any more absolute than what we think that we perceive. However, a good argument can be made that sensation itself (although the sensation from the same source may differ in measure and, sometimes, in kind for every individual recipient) is absolute.

I agree, Testy, the experience of an idea is absolute (is that what you mean when you say that all ideas are absolute to a certain degree?). But I am not endorsing (the ideology of) Absolutism as a system of ideas. I am saying that experential immediacy is absolute, but ideas are intermediate constructions, "referring" (as do all symbols) to something else; they are not absolutes.

Miklos, members of this philosophy forum have almost exhausted the topic of brain versus mind. To me, the dualism is not very helpful. We can't have mind, I think, without a brain; and the idea of "brain" is itself an expression of mind. Yin-Yang
I see that your last sentence shares my position.

JL, i like your opinions.
It appears there are people who do not need the idea of absolutes in order to understand the world. Maybe this is laterally a step in the right direction, or maybe a resistance against general human perception which contains no actual truth.

Without wanting to sound elitist, because that is no way my intention, do you think that certain brains are more developed so as to be able to understand the world in it's 'grey tones' rather than the simplistic 'black and white' that dualism provides?
What do you think is the value the understanding of the world we have? And would it be beneficial if more people thought in this sense?

hi PQ,

There are others who do indeed understand why you may reject absolutes, but disagree with this POV because it is inherently contradictory.

It does sound elitist if you think that the only reason someone wouldn't agree with your POV is that they do not (or can not) understand it.

Pentacle Queen, I don't know about differences in the brains of absolutists and non-absolutists. Interesting question for neurological research, however.
I think that non-absolutism and monism are mental postures that both reflect and generate a greater (and higher, if you'll pardon MY elitism) of joyous living.
And I think it would be more difficult to recruit suicide bombers, and even Shock and Awe enthusiasts among the latter.
I like your perspective too.