I look at it like this, I agree with psychedelicist that life is cyclical, yet the relativistic I understand him explaining is as much an illusion as the absolutist approach he is incorporating.
Recap
So like how you can take the absolutist approach and fits it nicely into a larger system, a system by which one person right may be anothers wrong; I view relativism as a subsystem of the larger system of balance.
In the smallest sense of the morality we create poles, right and wrong as explained by his system. The reason this can only work for so long as he explains, is basically once you create a good, you always have bad, like any pole. The problem with this is basically, absolutes depends on these two factors, and these two factors have no reason, or foundation, hence they are realitive to the on looker
.I know you all knew that already, just need to state it.
Though, as I understand the Christians here, they are not saying this is true, because this personal relativism (which they admit exists) is not a systemic relativism and fit within a larger system of absolutism.
Ponit
I disagree only in one way; the larger system I think can not be either systemic relativism or a larger version of the absolutist approach; because both have a paradox in one another. There is simply no reason for personal absolutism if the system is relative, yet no one denies it exists(the relativists here seem to simple say it just is, yet that does not even hope to justify why); If the system is a larger form of absolutist approach realism shouldnt exist (most of the Christians here simple say it doesnt; yet I think they would even admit they cant quite explain why as it seems true at least as a construct bridge between the personal and systemic POV).
I say this is because the third level, the systemic level is balance or order, that is to say that instead of this level being in a state of chaos or more oftenly cited judged by collective census(realitive morality), there is an underlying rule, that is good moves toward balance, bad moves away.
Now, this is different then saying
Action X == absolute evil,
Action Y == absolute good
, as it simply gives a formula to how the poles interact. This is actually best described visually.
All flow to one source
Image a spectrum Good on one pole Bad on the other
This is our personal POV, which is the minds way of making nature comprehendible, an analogy could be taking the globe and making a flat map.
When the concept of relativity in the scope of balance is applied,
Simply take that spectrum, and put the poles together making a circle!
What appears then is a single absolute instead of two poles, a point I often like to call the alpha-omega point, all thing begin and end at that point, and two direction flow from it. It would matter how you come in, but the result is the same!
Now since this is your personal POV, relativism now places this in a larger circle that is the systemic POV. Now on the personal level you can move your inner circles alpha-omega point to anywhere on the systemic circle and move yoru action anywhere else, yet the systemic alpha-omega point is always in the same place, that not to say like with an absolutism system, that action X is absolutely wrong, if it were so you must remember because there is only one absolute not two poles, it would then have to be absolutely right as well!
The point, from a Absolutist prospective: The laws of God are the process by which you align your own Polar view (inner circle) with the part of God (Outer circle) which exists at the absolute state; so that you to can become truly absolute, which because it knows not evil or good in and of itself, is a single state.
From the Relativistic prospective: Good and bad are relative, absolute good and bad dont exist, but this phenomenon is not without control, balance and order!
