Comments on: A simple way to talk about the absolute and relative http://www.absentofi.org/2007/08/another-way-to-talk-about-the-absolute-and-relative/ An exploration into the mystery of existence Thu, 28 Aug 2008 20:46:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Tom http://www.absentofi.org/2007/08/another-way-to-talk-about-the-absolute-and-relative/#comment-431 Tom Thu, 16 Aug 2007 05:53:41 +0000 http://www.absentofi.org/2007/08/another-way-to-talk-about-the-absolute-and-relative/#comment-431 Here's a koan to meditate on: If the absolute is truly prior to distinction, then it can not be distinguished from anything - including the realm of the relative. Here’s a koan to meditate on: If the absolute is truly prior to distinction, then it can not be distinguished from anything - including the realm of the relative.

]]> By: moe http://www.absentofi.org/2007/08/another-way-to-talk-about-the-absolute-and-relative/#comment-430 moe Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:38:43 +0000 http://www.absentofi.org/2007/08/another-way-to-talk-about-the-absolute-and-relative/#comment-430 Hi Don, and thanks! Yes, you are right. What was in the parenthesis was a little closer (although still within the relative of course, since it is put in words...!) I am going to rewrite it to be more accurate... although that nice transition from "seeing a thought as thought" and "using the content of that thought" will be lost :( Your comment helped me see that what I wanted to write about wasn't really the absolute and relative, so I'll put what I initially wanted to write about in a new post. Nice photos, btw. I like your sense of aesthetics. Is/was it really your cell? Hi Don, and thanks! Yes, you are right. What was in the parenthesis was a little closer (although still within the relative of course, since it is put in words…!) I am going to rewrite it to be more accurate… although that nice transition from “seeing a thought as thought” and “using the content of that thought” will be lost :(

Your comment helped me see that what I wanted to write about wasn’t really the absolute and relative, so I’ll put what I initially wanted to write about in a new post.

Nice photos, btw. I like your sense of aesthetics. Is/was it really your cell?

]]> By: Don Pardo http://www.absentofi.org/2007/08/another-way-to-talk-about-the-absolute-and-relative/#comment-428 Don Pardo Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:40:57 +0000 http://www.absentofi.org/2007/08/another-way-to-talk-about-the-absolute-and-relative/#comment-428 No, I'm sorry, that's not accurate. The absolute must be prior to distinction, prior to mind, prior to thought, prior to language. And the relative is what comes into play simultaneously with the first distinction, which is "on," or "am." "On" or "am" is by default -relative- to "not-on" and "not-am," of course. But the absolute is prior to "on" and "not-on," and prior to the absence of "on" and "not-on." So naturally, "seeing a thought as a thought" is already well within the realm of the relative . It presupposes a seer, a thinker, thinking, and a thought, all of which are relative to each other and have nothing to do with the absolute. No, I’m sorry, that’s not accurate. The absolute must be prior to distinction, prior to mind, prior to thought, prior to language. And the relative is what comes into play simultaneously with the first distinction, which is “on,” or “am.”

“On” or “am” is by default -relative- to “not-on” and “not-am,” of course. But the absolute is prior to “on” and “not-on,” and prior to the absence of “on” and “not-on.”

So naturally, “seeing a thought as a thought” is already well within the realm of the relative . It presupposes a seer, a thinker, thinking, and a thought, all of which are relative to each other and have nothing to do with the absolute.

]]>