Yes I certainly agree that it's possible to see a singular process and that it can have meaning, in fact I think there's a certain amount of compulsion to talk about it in such ways instead of just throwing our hands up in the air and leaving it there. Having said that, in my experience the most analogous example to draw upon with respect to a fundamental reality is meditation. To me, fundamental reality, ultimate reality, absolute reality whatever you might call it, certainly isn't an "it" in the normal sense (which is to say the ONLY sense). I started thinking about an ultimate reality being absolute with respect to it's existence rather than nature but again I think if we see it as a thing, we also see it as relative. Ordinarily we look at a thing and see it in respect to other things, I think ultimate reality is a void in so far as we want to throw a net around it and identify it's borders but I think in actuality it's the cessation of division (again even "it" is a misrepresentation but one I'm forced into). This totality, if you go down this route, (moving on from just individual laws etc) is neither relative nor absolute.
Cyracuz wrote:...observation centered around something other than selfness...
Definitely.
Quote: I started thinking about an ultimate reality being absolute with respect to it's existence rather than nature but again I think if we see it as a thing, we also see it as relative.
Not neccesarily. A "thing" that encompasses all the concepts that relate to eachother is not relative to anything. And the idea that this "everything" must be contained within something is a result of extending relativity beyond it's field of application.
Edit: By relativity, in this context, I do not mean relativity theory, just the concept that everything relates.
To me a "thing" that encompasses all the concepts that relate to each other is relative to that which it encompasses and is no different to any smaller scale example like food contains vegetables, fruits, meat, fish etc and vegetables contains carrots, potatoes and potatoes contains... and so on and so forth. I agree that the idea "everything" must be contained within something is unnecessary but I think this also applies to something encompassing all related concepts in an ultimate sense, also unnecessary in my eyes. I see an open ended system. I talk in terms of a closed system for the purposes of communication etc, that's just not how I "see" it in an ultimate sense.
Are you saying that "it" is relative to itself?
Thank you for the answers. Permit me to reciprocate in kind once my brain starts functioning again.
Naj
Can absolutism and relativism exist without each other?
Do they exist at all? Are they not just concepts we have created for ourselves? So they have existence as concepts, at least, and then the answer to your question is no, it seems to me.
In some contexts it is better to speak in terms of relativism, in others absolutism. I think they are both variations of explaining existence, and using them together can improve one's understanding of it.
Cyracuz wrote:Are you saying that "it" is relative to itself?
I don't see that there is an "it" when the self is transcended, I just talk of "it" in conversation with all it's dualistic tendencies. I think that the "cessation of division" is more akin to a representation of this totality of related "things" but it's an interesting topic that's for sure.
Yes, it is interesting.
I think that in a daily basis this shows itself as our tendencies to either generalize or over-specify.
I was thinking, we can see a tree, or we can see branches and leafs. It depends on the context of the situation in which we look.
Our concept of totality allows us to call many trees a forest, while our concept of dualism still allows us to see the smaller parts of this totality.
So absolutism and relativism seem to go arm in arm. They are constantly created and annihilated by eachother. In a way, perhaps this is the propulsion of human perception?
Nice. Now I'm thinking about flying in an aeroplane as it descends, seeing a massive area and designating it a city, then maybe blocks, specific buildings, vehicles, people...
Cryacus says, "In some contexts it is better to speak in terms of relativism, in others absolutism. I think they are both variations of explaining existence, and using them together can improve one's understanding of it."
Yes, that's how it seems to me as well. They are conventions serving different purposes at different times. We must simply not regard them as having reality independent of each other and of our thinking activity.
Ashers said: "To me a "thing" that encompasses all the concepts that relate to each other is relative to that which it encompasses and is no different to any smaller scale example like food contains vegetables, fruits, meat, fish etc and vegetables contains carrots, potatoes and potatoes contains... and so on and so forth."
Do we see "food" or do we just see (at a lower and equally problematic level of abstraction) meat and vegetables, and below that chickens and fish, and then carrots and potatoes. How about nutrients, and then molecules and atoms and then quarks.
And, speaking of molecules and atoms, we understand that things are really processes at those levels.
Ashers, elsewhere you say: " I'm thinking about flying in an aeroplane as it descends, seeing a massive area and designating it a city, then maybe blocks, specific buildings, vehicles, people..."
You leave this statement open (...) because you can always (in principle and fact) reduce it further--when you land or crash--to smaller "things" like rocks, germs, molecules, atoms, etc. etc. ? The reality we conceptualize is a nesting phenomena. We can reduce down into subcategories or move up in terms of emergent more general categories of phenomena. Fresco has enlightened us on much of this. I hope he can remind us here of the man who could "see" the dorms and classrooms but not the university.
Quote:Yes, that's how it seems to me as well. They are conventions serving different purposes at different times. We must simply not regard them as having reality independent of each other and of our thinking activity.
It's a little strange too. When you buy grain, for instance, what is the price relative to? The market, quality and quantity. That's three absolutes we've conjured up to categorize the world.
So our relativity seems to be about how abstract absolutes relate to eachother. One pound or kilo. A dollar, a meter.
Relativity would be pointless without the absolutes that loom against eachother.
I know I am just elaborating on your point, JL. Just felt the need.. :wink:
JLNobody wrote:Ashers said: "To me a "thing" that encompasses all the concepts that relate to each other is relative to that which it encompasses and is no different to any smaller scale example like food contains vegetables, fruits, meat, fish etc and vegetables contains carrots, potatoes and potatoes contains... and so on and so forth."
Do we see "food" or do we just see (at a lower and equally problematic level of abstraction) meat and vegetables, and below that chickens and fish, and then carrots and potatoes. How about nutrients, and then molecules and atoms and then quarks.
And, speaking of molecules and atoms, we understand that things are really processes at those levels.
Yeah this reminds me of an example I think fresco gave actually which was to do with a half eaten apple and what that constitutes to differing degrees of hungry people. I guess we see what is currently applicable to us which is why I like this idea of relativism and absolutism mentioned as being applicable in different situations for understanding while still having that recognition of neither being examples of reality "behind the scenes". A starving man in a desert sees quite a few things as food, a pampered person used to the finest cuisine dismisses beans on toast and the biologist deals with foods in terms of internal structure and processes etc.
JLNobody wrote:Ashers, elsewhere you say: " I'm thinking about flying in an aeroplane as it descends, seeing a massive area and designating it a city, then maybe blocks, specific buildings, vehicles, people..."
You leave this statement open (...) because you can always (in principle and fact) reduce it further--when you land or crash--to smaller "things" like rocks, germs, molecules, atoms, etc. etc. ? The reality we conceptualize is a nesting phenomena. We can reduce down into subcategories or move up in terms of emergent more general categories of phenomena. Fresco has enlightened us on much of this. I hope he can remind us here of the man who could "see" the dorms and classrooms but not the university.
What I think is interesting here is that a discovery in science for example, say that of quarks or the heliocentric view of the solar system expands our understanding of reality which is to say, our interactions with it but it does not change reality itself. So you have views of the world which on one level work fine for every day life but on another level, only one is seen as applicable for a true vision of our interactions. The moving up and down in nested phenomena also seems like that same dynamic use of absolute and relative in terms of context so again it's about applicability and sound usage rather than a 'this is how it is' approach.
In a movie with Steve McQueen (Papillon?), the hero was imprisoned and left to starve. He would have since no "food" was given him. Fortunately he had cockroaches gallore and ate them raw, well squashed). Fortunately for him he had the concept of nutrition. If he were a person who only thought of "food" in terms of the conventionally identified items of his culture's cuisine, he would have starved. I don't consider roaches to be "food" but I recognize them as bearers of nutrition. That degree of conceptual breadth may save my life some day.
Interesting.
I think it's good to have a keen understanding and a loose application of absolutes
it isnt because God wants us to worship him, its because we need to worship him.
he doesnt need us to boost his ego or something. its because he made us in a way that it is in our nature to want to worship something. whether that is god, drugs, alcohol, our families, or a football team, we all have things that we worship.
I don't know, rockpie. At least some of us try to not worship anything.
rockpie wrote:it isnt because God wants us to worship him, its because we need to worship him.
he doesnt need us to boost his ego or something. its because he made us in a way that it is in our nature to want to worship something. whether that is god, drugs, alcohol, our families, or a football team, we all have things that we worship.
That's funny.... it is in
my nature
not to worship
anything.....
... does that mean someone else made me? Perhaps a rival god?
What is worship?
What is worship? Is worship a mechanical exercise, or is it the spontaneous expression of a full heart? When worship arises from the fullness of Divine Bliss within it expresses the love that one feels toward the source of life. God doesn't want worship, God wants us to experience a spiritual awakening that gives rise to greater love, bliss, and freedom. In that state, we are naturally moved to worship.
