There is a key truth to the notion of the absolute as (absolutely) free of constructs. Also, this purity that we sense, along with the value or space I feel the distinction holds, is a key function of the univocity framework in SZ. Maintaining this purity in polarity and distinction, is its primary function.
And of course it is also true that for a distinction to be *real* (Spinoza and dependent arising) it cannot be absolute, and must, in some sense, be inter-expressive. There is one voice, and it can only express difference … without limit … because a limit itself is difference. Deep infinity is expressing itself through the relation(s) of I AM. This is really what nondual means, in my view…and the deeper we can *feel* into that, and out from that, by whatever (and all) catalyst(s), the more alive we are.
So, nonduality is convergent with univocity, meaning a polarity and triunity between the relative and absolute, and “Substance turns on its modes” (Deleuze). We get a *feel* into the triunity and interface that we are, with the univocity framework, the cycle of unity, and with Spinoza’s triune infinite, etc. But they are still not it, in the sense that they can’t contain an infinite surface, let alone its depths. They are just ways of peering into its embodied and real form.
That being said, in the exploration of this infinite “boundary” between the absolute and relative which is the nondual itself, how indeed can we make sure not to lose the distinction itself between the absolute and relative? How can we retain the truth in the implicit and emergent or natural meaning of ‘absolute’? What is the truth of the purity that we sense in the word?
In another word, I think it is ‘boundlessness’, or freedom. It’s just a finger pointing at what cannot be contained within our boundary … but it’s always already infinitely full. As well, the finite and infinite are not simply a polarity. They explode into a rich living depth of conscious intelligence and order. And from where they meet, we expand in whatever art or form which resonates with where we are.
So then what is the essence or purity of the absolute which must be guarded… and indeed how can we guard against the guard itself? 😉 Firstly, we note that the absolute is the identical opposite of the relative. And we note that it is relation in the first place which *forms* the absolute (concept) in an orientation on its fundamental limits in infinity. We could say that the absolute is the self-consciousness of the field of relation… in a sense. And insofar as self-consciousness hiders the flow of the self, our own ‘non-action’, then this distinction needs to be resolved, tuned and triuned into a seemless flow and integration of the univocal form.
We have an implicit connection to the infinite and absolute, and absolutely no separation from it. We *are* it. And we can’t help but feel it. This is closure and involution for the field of relation. It’s self-defining other, in identical opposition and return to integration.
So what can be the opposition to relation itself? The absence of it, certainly, as there is nothing other than relation at this level of generality of the term to oppose. So then, what the absolute cannot do is relate (and of course it must…shhhhh!!!). It cannot be used in the field of relation itself, but only in opposition to relation, to give it its embodied form in infinite difference.
But then again, with the inter-expression of univocity, the absolute and relative are one: the absolute-relation, and the ONE-ALL. This then is our only view of what the absolute can be, dealing at such a degree of abstraction. But it is an omni-non. It is everything, and so it disappears. Nothing we can say about it (including herein) can exclude the very opposite of what we can say about it, because it contains all REAL opposites…and if we are using unreal ones, well then that speaks for itself.
So dealing with the absolute we speak its language and invoke its forms. They emerge naturally from our own absolutely real form. Wholeness. One way to see into wholeness, which has the advantage of mirroring our self-similar form, is through the metaphor of embryogenesis, first through polarity and then on into multiplicity or the ten thousand things. So that’s where SZ hangs out. What scars of our own embryogenesis are left in our embodied intuitions about the core issues of multiplicity, differentiation, and integration as they show up in mathematics? And what can that teach us about embodied conceptuality and ontology, either its limits or capacities?