Not a problem responding. The mind just churns along.

I certainly won't argue the current social conception of "relativism" isn't flawed. Basically it arose as as a straw man, in defense of monotheistic absolutism. Which is also critically flawed. Given absolutes are not ideals, so a spiritual absolute would be that raw essence of sentience, from which life rises, not an ideal of wisdom and judgement, from which it fell. Life grows up and out, but we only define it in terms of our own cresting wave of conscious perception.

So, between the absolute and the infinite, it is all relational. Which doesn't mean anything other people doesn't matter, but that everything is related and therefore dependent on everything else. As the people developing the idea of relativity put it, "spooky action at a distance."

Even the most completely amoral have an absolute, which is their own desires and obsessions.

The truly crazy are not the ones arguing with themselves, but the ones that never argue with themselves.

It is that tension between the anarchies of desire and the tyrannies of judgement and we all have to chart our own course, on a daily basis.

Galaxies are energy radiating out, as form coalesces in. We are neither at the absolute center, where all is one, nor radiated out across infinity, where everything has flatlined.

Synchronization is centripetal, while harmonization is centrifugal. Nodes and networks, organisms and ecosystems. This sentient interface between body and world fluctuates in the middle.