confusing the absolute and the relative

[roger]

A Course in Miracles says that "error comes from confusing the levels". In other words, confusing the ABSOLUTE and the RELATIVE.

 

I asked a friend of mine once if he thought it was okay to lie. He said, "Ultimately no, but relatively yes."

 

He was confusing the absolute and the relative. The truth is that ultimately, it IS okay (because everything is happening perfectly), but relatively is where it might not be okay.

 

ACIM says, "Miracles as such do not matter, the only thing that matters is their Source, which is far beyond evaluation." That's in the absolute sense.

 

Yet the Universe says through Mike Dooley, "Everything matters." That's the relative.

 

What we truly desire is for all the suffering and darkness in the world to be perfect and to NOT matter in the absolute sense, but TO matter in the relative. That's the way it really is.

 

Most people confuse the absolute and the relative, and think that it DOES matter and is not okay in the absolute sense, but that it does NOT matter in the relative. That's where the dissatisfaction comes in.

Edited April 10, 2016 by roger

[Marblehead]

This might be an interesting discussion.  I do enjoy talking about the difference between the absolute and the relative.

 

I will start out with a proposal:

 

The absolute doesn't matter because everything is exactly as it must be at any given point in space/time.

 

The relative is what matters because it directly effects our life.  (It's wrong to kill {murder of another person} [absolute] but its okay to kill in self defense or survival [relative]).

[roger]

MH,

 

The way I see it is that everything we do is perfect and okay in the absolute sense.

 

But relatively, right and wrong exist and some things are not okay.

 

A non-physical entity once said, "No one enters into anything like the Holocaust by accident," and, (in reference to the Holocaust) "It is possible to serve others' agendas (humankind's purposes) while serving your own (the victims of the Holocaust) at the same time."

 

I feel that the victims of the Holocaust chose to be so before they were born, their souls wanted to.

 

So really, in actuality, what Hitler did was "okay," but in the relative it was very, very, very (add about a million very's) not okay.

[Karl]

Unless we talking ethics, then absolutes are what they are. A speck of dust is an absolute, the universe is an absolute, that you performed some action is an absolute.

 

So, if it's ethics, then there are no absolutes, as these are chosen human actions which are chosen against ones own set of values.

 

Is it OK to lie ? As an objectivist, the answer is yes, but only if the lie did not benefit you in some way that might give an unearned value. So, to lie to get someone to like you or give you money would not be ethical. However, if you were baby sitting and an axe murderer rang the bell and asked where the children were sleeping, then you don't need to tell him the kids are along the hallway and second on the left. Anything that supports ones own primary value of his own life as a good, can work out what is ethical quite easily. This does not mean these ethics are absolutes, neither are they relative, they can be judged directly by the application of reason.

 

This is an interesting subject as it goes straight to the heart of three philosophies. The intrincisist sees ethics as absolutes, as issued by God. The subjectivist sees ethics as relativistic and pragmatic. Objectivists can show that it is neither. Men can know, but they have the choice of deliberately evading or being ignorant of that knowledge.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Karl

[Marblehead]

MH,

 

The way I see it is that everything we do is perfect and okay in the absolute sense.

 

But relatively, right and wrong exist and some things are not okay.

 

A non-physical entity once said, "No one enters into anything like the Holocaust by accident," and, (in reference to the Holocaust) "It is possible to serve others' agendas (humankind's purposes) while serving your own (the victims of the Holocaust) at the same time."

 

I feel that the victims of the Holocaust chose to be so before they were born, their souls wanted to.

 

So really, in actuality, what Hitler did was "okay," but in the relative it was very, very, very (add about a million very's) not okay.

Well, I don't believe in pre-destined existence but what you said about Hitler is valid.  The trend at the time was to fuck with the Jews.  All of Europe was the way.  Even the Church.

 

So yes, those Jews who remained in Europe (the exodus to Israel had already started) knew what they were up against.

 

But back to absolute and relative -  well, I won't agree that everything we do is perfect but it is indeed what we had to do at the moment so in that sense it is absolute.

 

Relative is more at the thought we put into possible choices. 

[Marblehead]

Yes, lying is a good example of the relative.

[dust]

I feel that the victims of the Holocaust chose to be so before they were born, their souls wanted to.

 

And here we see a perfect example not only of the lunacy and illogicality of belief in 'souls' but, more importantly, the bizarre, disgusting, and potentially dangerous thinking it can lead to.

[Bindi]

And here we see a perfect example not only of the lunacy and illogicality of belief in 'souls' but, more importantly, the bizarre, disgusting, and potentially dangerous thinking it can lead to.

 

Personally I would prefer to blame neo-advaitan teaching rather than belief in souls. 

[roger]

And here we see a perfect example not only of the lunacy and illogicality of belief in 'souls' but, more importantly, the bizarre, disgusting, and potentially dangerous thinking it can lead to.

 

I'll explain my perspective, and I'm sure everyone will understand because it's quite simple, whether or not you agree is a different matter.

 

What I believe is that All That Is, the Self, or however you want to put it, desires to FULLY experience love, truth, joy, and all good things. It desires TOTAL SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE.

 

Without anger, there would be no such thing as forgiveness; without sickness, healing couldn't be; without problems, there'd be no problems to solve.

 

Without all manner of experience, both positive and negative, there couldn't be total spiritual experience, the Self couldn't FULLY experience ALL good things.

 

There's a glory in life, in coming to earth and suffering profoundly, like a soldier dying for his country.

Edited April 13, 2016 by roger

[Marblehead]

There's a glory in life, in coming to earth and suffering profoundly, like a soldier dying for his country.

That hurt.  I indeed disagree.  Being a soldier I am glad I lived for my country.  Dying for it serves no purpose.

 

And I totally disagree with the concept that we must experience pain before we can appreciate pleasure.  Dualistic thinking.  I really can enjoy the beauty of the rose flower without pricking my finger on one of its thorns.

[roger]

That hurt.  I indeed disagree.  Being a soldier I am glad I lived for my country.  Dying for it serves no purpose.

 

And I totally disagree with the concept that we must experience pain before we can appreciate pleasure.  Dualistic thinking.  I really can enjoy the beauty of the rose flower without pricking my finger on one of its thorns.

 

I apologize. And THANK YOU sincerely for defending our country.

 

I didn't say we must experience pain before we can appreciate pleasure. You misquoted me.

 

The fact is that certain forms of positive experience are only possible because of certain forms of negative experience.

 

If you never got angry, you would never have any reason to forgive another. If sickness did not exist, there would be no such thing as healing. If there were no crime, police wouldn't have a job.

 

So certain positive experiences are made possible because of certain kinds of negative experience.

 

Without alcoholism, there'd be no need for Alcoholics Anonymous.

[Karl]

Without the possbility of death there would be no possibility of life.

[Marblehead]

I apologize. And THANK YOU sincerely for defending our country.

Thanks.  I know you didn't intend what you said to be taken as I took it but that's the thing with words.

 

I didn't say we must experience pain before we can appreciate pleasure. You misquoted me.

I didn't actually quote you.  What I said I felt needed to be said.

 

The fact is that certain forms of positive experience are only possible because of certain forms of negative experience.

 

If you never got angry, you would never have any reason to forgive another. If sickness did not exist, there would be no such thing as healing. If there were no crime, police wouldn't have a job.

 

So certain positive experiences are made possible because of certain kinds of negative experience.

 

Without alcoholism, there'd be no need for Alcoholics Anonymous.

I pretty much agree with the rest of this.

 

But still, if the negative doesn't happen life would be a lot more pleasant.  Imagine:  no need for government, politicians or police.

 

But we seem to have gotten off topic.

 

Absolute vs relative.  Not many absolutes out there.

[Diaitadoc]

Humorously, neither "the absolute" nor "the relative" matter more or less than one another.

 

One side of a coin is not worth more than the other side.

Edited April 13, 2016 by Diaitadoc

[Marblehead]

One side of a coin is not worth more than the other side.

Now that's pretty close to an absolute.

[Bud Jetsun]

If a human is capable of expressing it with words, its inherently relative as words function through preconceived relations if they hold a meaning to the listener.

 

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

[Karl]

If a human is capable of expressing it with words, its inherently relative as words function through preconceived relations if they hold a meaning to the listener.

 

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

 

How is that relative ? If a word had no meaning what so ever to you how could it be relative. We come across words we don't understand all of the time, we just learn the meaning of that word as best we can the first time and then work to get that meaning as clearly defined as possible. It isn't relative to be mistaken about the meaning of a word, it's just erroneous.

[Nikolai1]

 We come across words we don't understand all of the time, we just learn the meaning of that word as best we can the first time and then work to get that meaning as clearly defined as possible. It isn't relative to be mistaken about the meaning of a word, it's just erroneous.

The word has no final meaning.  It can mean different thing to different people, and to the same person in different contexts.  Meaning comes in the uniqueness of the moment, hence the truth of a word or statement is only ever relatively true.

[Diaitadoc]

So it's settled, then. From now on, we shall all converse via mathematical equations.

[Marblehead]

So it's settled, then. From now on, we shall all converse via mathematical equations.

Count me out.  We cannot get emotional with mathematical equations.  What would life be without our emotions?  Boring!

[Michael Sternbach]

MH,

 

The way I see it is that everything we do is perfect and okay in the absolute sense.

 

But relatively, right and wrong exist and some things are not okay.

 

A non-physical entity once said, "No one enters into anything like the Holocaust by accident," and, (in reference to the Holocaust) "It is possible to serve others' agendas (humankind's purposes) while serving your own (the victims of the Holocaust) at the same time."

 

I feel that the victims of the Holocaust chose to be so before they were born, their souls wanted to.

 

So really, in actuality, what Hitler did was "okay," but in the relative it was very, very, very (add about a million very's) not okay.

Everything is "okay" insofar everything serves a higher purpose, which might be understood as the evolution of the individual soul/humanity/Gaia/the Universe toward their Telos or omega point. A child learns how to walk not least by understanding how NOT to do it, that is by falling down again and again. The only difference is that when the "cosmic child" falls down, this can mean the death of millions of people. Nevertheless, it's okay insofar this is one of its inevitable learning experiences.

 

Did the victims of the Holocaust "agree" to their fate? If so, then only in the sense that there was a decision made (again, inevitably in a sense, as the underlying issues needed to be worked out) on the level of their transpersonal soul, collective consciousness etc. These levels do belong to them (or they belong to these levels), as there are no real divisions in the field of consciousness, as would be recognizable from the higher POV that the sources of this philosophy stand for, but not from the POV of the personality that is nevertheless going through these horrible experiences.

 

So even though I agree with the sources of that philosophy (ACIM, Seth, Kryon etc) in essence, I would emphasize that we must be careful not to confuse levels and misuse this knowledge as a poor excuse for destructive behaviour (either by commission or omission), based on low motives, as is sometimes seen in "New Age" circles.

 

That said, it is indeed possible under certain circumstances to act in a manner that would seem inappropriate by ordinary standards, but which is appropriate from a holistic perspective.

 

Only higher wisdom and intuition can differentiate between the two. We are treading a thin line here. Generally, the ones who don't need the rules are the ones who are not prone to act against them anyway.

[Michael Sternbach]

And here we see a perfect example not only of the lunacy and illogicality of belief in 'souls' but, more importantly, the bizarre, disgusting, and potentially dangerous thinking it can lead to.

 

The belief in the existence of the soul is not lunatic or illogical as such, despite the possibility of drawing wrong conclusions from it.

 

Further, the philosophy that the OP refers to isn't bound to the concept of the soul at all, essentially. The aim is transcending the dualism of good and evil, right and wrong, positive and negative - which is also the very heart of Daoism.

[Karl]

The word has no final meaning. It can mean different thing to different people, and to the same person in different contexts. Meaning comes in the uniqueness of the moment, hence the truth of a word or statement is only ever relatively true.

Bullshit.

 

Is that meaningful enough for you, or do you doubt what it means ? :-)

Edited April 14, 2016 by Karl

[Karl]

The belief in the existence of the soul is not lunatic or illogical as such, despite the possibility of drawing wrong conclusions from it.

 

Further, the philosophy that the OP refers to isn't bound to the concept of the soul at all, essentially. The aim is transcending the dualism of good and evil, right and wrong, positive and negative - which is also the very heart of Daoism.

 

You can definitely transcend everything when you are dead. Alive, not so much.

Why would you wish to transcend the good ?

[Nikolai1]

Bullshit.

 

Is that meaningful enough for you, or do you doubt what it means ? :-)

Your reference to bovine excrement seems somewhat out of context.  How did we get from discussing the relative and the absolute to bovine excrement?

 

I'm left wondering if you are speaking in metaphors?

Edited April 14, 2016 by Nikolai1