Absolutism

Posted on January 10, 2004
Filed Under Journal, Society |

In our pursuit for understanding we come across many obstacles. Some of these obstacles we recognise and attempt to overcome. Whilst other obstacles we fail to perceive, and thus they get caught up with us becoming a part of our search, causing us to deviate.

Of course, it is only natural to expect that we cannot perceive all the obstacles life has to offer. However our chances of overcoming them greatly increase if we heighten our sense of discernment. Our discernment – if it is to be clear – must posses a solid, yet flexible foundation. An attempt has to be made then, to bring our introspection upon ourselves in order to correctly understand the natures of our own personal discernment. If we are to use our minds to focus upon the nature of our reality then we needs know our mind to be at least as clear as we can make it – or at the very least, learn of its flaws. Just as one would require their eyes to be tested before they could assume their vision is indeed “correct”.

First it must be stated that if we are to attempt this analysis of self, we cannot apply a strict set of rules or systems upon ourselves. This is so, because each of us is individual – our natures are unique. Indeed we are relative to each other – so clearly a system of absolutes cannot be applied in order to bring us any closer to self understanding.

What is required is for us to create a set of tools which maybe used, by the individual, in an individual manner to which that person sees fit. However before we can do that, we also need to identify some of the existing tools we use to analyse our realities. Further, a clarification must be made between the distinction of our tools and the foundations of our existence. Often the two get intermixed, and are believed to be interchangeable.

That is to say, we need to examine how we currently apply the tools of our understanding…and check to see if there are any flaws within our methods of application.

For example, it is a general belief that the tools of our society, i.e. reason, intellect, science, language etc. are the foundations of existence. This is equivalent to a Blacksmith saying; “The basic foundation of blacksmithing is to have a hammer!”

Obviously, a blacksmith requires a hammer in order to put his skills and understandings to work. However the nature of his skill is not found within his hammer.

Just so, it is the same when we analyse any component of our existence. If we were to study the nature of water for example, reason alone could not fully inform us of that nature. We can apply what we learn from reason in order to bring understanding – however we must be consciously aware that we do not attempt to shoe-horn the object of our analysis – in this case water - into the compartmentalisation of tool we are using. It would be far better to adapt the tool as we learn.

This however may require us to adapt ourselves…in order to learn new methods of application.

*Preference*

Each of us has a preference in our approach to reality. There are tools that work better for one person than they do for another person. This is to be expected, and is also perfectly fine…so long as we are very clear as to how and why this attachment exists. We must also learn of the effect our preference of choosing specific tools can have upon our approach to understanding

There are a number of aspects to how “preference” can unknowingly influence us. Preference of course doesn’t necessary apply merely to what tools of analysis we prefer to use; but goes further to reach into every aspect of our ego. Knowing the nature of our ego thus plays a vital part in any search for knowledge.

Our ego has potential to push us into attachments we do not realise we have. These attachments can then clutter our mind, as we fail to discern between the attachments of our ego, and the correct application of our knowledge. Further, as our ego can cause us to outright reject something – that rejection may shut us off further from achieving a balanced perception.

For example, if we disagree with something, or deem it of no practical value; and if we therefore reject that thing, then we automatically push ourselves into the opposite polarity. For example the “New World Order”: our preference to choose to believe whether or not the “New World Order” exists must be considered irrelevant. Rejecting a belief shuts our minds off from the lessons that belief may contain. Everything can teach us about our _self_. Only the ego assimilates or rejects beliefs – so we must constantly question our ego.

*Different tools*

There are many types of tools we can use when seeking understanding. The common tools used today are found within physicality. But we may also find and use tools found within the realms of spirituality. Although now again it becomes paramount to understand the nature of each tool, and from where its attributes originate. As well as clearly seeing how application of these tools may affect our own natures and perception.

We are aware of the nature of the tools of physicality as illustrated above, and as presented in the articles “Physicalism”:http://www.thethoughts.co.uk/thoughts/physicalism.htm and “Language”:http://www.thethoughts.co.uk/thoughts/language.htm.

The tools of spirituality are of a different nature – although they too may also by applied to assist our understanding of reality. However we must be clear in the understanding that tools of the spiritual realm are not of the same nature as the tools of the physical realms.

For example spirituality itself is often mistaken as philosophy. Such an assumption is of a physical nature, and is incorrect as the following shows:

bq. 1) Philosophy; is a tool – much like language and science. With the tool of philosophy, via the use of thought…we extend our vision of the inner and outer worlds, constantly questioning old and new aspects of our existence. Eventually philosophical thought will arrive at a form of conclusion in regards to the subject studied. This conclusion will then begin to form the basis of a new belief system. Therefore, philosophy, in and of itself cannot be a foundation of our existence.

bq. 2) Spirituality, is the _inner_ world . Such as our senses report to us the existence of the external world (which is here termed as “physicality”), the inner world comprises of our thoughts as its surface manifestation. Deeper within it posses many other layers. This inner world lacks the substance of the physical world – thus it is a realm of the non-physical.

Spirituality then concerns itself with self-introspection and inner knowledge. This knowledge which maybe arrived at through numerous means, informs us of additional aspects of our existence – those aspects which are non-physical. Spirituality in its purest form is clear discernment between the ego and the true-self. Thus from our understanding of spirituality we discover tools which we may use to understand reality. Spirituality itself is _not_ a tool; but rather one of the aspects that comprises our very existence.

Philosophy is fairly unique in that it is a tool found both within the realms of both physicality and spirituality.

The application of knowledge from these different aspects must also be clear. If through introspection we have gained some inner knowledge, and maybe learnt of flaws within our constructed society and constructed ego, we may enhance aspects of our life by use of this inner knowledge. This however will disassociate us with the commonality of “group comprehension”:http://www.thethoughts.co.uk/thoughts/conformity.htm, or “mass consensus”:http://www.thethoughts.co.uk/thoughts/massconsciousness.htm. This occurs because we move away from a fixed external perspective

As such our personal perspective of reality becomes different from the perspective of the majority; we may then find ourselves becoming misunderstood by that majority. If we are rooted deeply within physicality, then we may perceive this misunderstanding as a problem and seek to remedy it through careful crafting of our knowledge and use of precise language – that is to say using the tools of physicality in order to seek a means to elevate said misunderstanding. This however is in direct contradiction to inner introspection of spirituality for a number of reasons; some of which are as follows:

bq. 1) Language, however precise we may craft it, is still a _tool_. It is relative in its nature, and if crafted in to a tool of absolutism will become redundant, as it cannot then accurately communicate the relative nature of inner knowledge.

bq. 2) When we discover inner knowledge, we gain an experience unshared by those that have not been through that process. Those that have not been through this process thus do not have a common frame of reference. Therefore, without them experiencing the same; no amount of communicating – however precise - will bring understanding to the situation.

bq. An example: An individual transports back in time to the 14 th century, how would this individual then explain the nature of life in the 21 st century to those people living in the 14 th century?

bq. There would be no common frame of reference. Precise language may bring them an illusion of life in the 21 st century. However the speaker will be forever misunderstood. They exist in a different aspect of reality.

bq. 3) Not having a common frame of reference, does not make inner knowledge redundant. Understanding is relative – not absolute – therefore understanding of others is at once unnecessary and self fulfilling through inner knowledge.

Although we may discover tools to aid our understanding in both the physical and spiritual worlds. We must not then choose between physicality and spirituality in order to attempt gaining understanding of any situation. If we reject one side, then we assume the other; therefore we must embrace both.

*Relative or Absolute Application*

Often we may find ourselves attempting to understand something that constantly escapes our comprehension. In these instances we need again to look at our discernment in order to see if we are correctly balancing between relative and absolute application of our knowledge.

If we seek to understand something that is of a relative nature, it would be useless to apply absolute means. Further, we must realise that the tools we use, may not always be sufficient to bring us understanding.

For example; how can we assume to understand others merely by using the tools of physicality? Many of these tools are used in absolutism, they categorise and label.

If we seek to understand an issue or person; we cannot use tools of physicality or absolutism alone. We cannot treat the issue or person of our discernment as a subject utterly independent from ourselves. Being the observer, our ego attachments and application of knowledge affects our ability to correctly analyse.

Likewise, usage of purely spiritual or relative knowledge alone is equally as useless when applied to an issue or person.

If we too strongly use the tools of spirituality for analysis – we will fail to understand the object of our analysis just as readily as those that too strongly use the tools of physicality. Therefore; if our perspective is one of high relativism; then when presented with components of reality which posses an absolute nature – we will fail to correctly comprehend them.

True relativism can only remain relative if it is used in counter-balance with absolutism. Thus if one does not observe this balance then relativism will become its own form of absolutism.

It is therefore necessary when attempting to arrive at any form of understanding, to realise that we must bring unity between the different aspects of our existence. And that the tools of our understanding must also be clearly perceived for what they are.

Marcus - 2004