Steven,

There are two underlaying issues;

First the tendency to conflate the ideal with the absolute. An ideal would be a state of perfection, from which we fell, while an absolute would be that essence, from which we rise.

The second is to assume that essence is unitary, rather than binary. Even matter is more a polarity of positive and negative, than any actual, singular substance. When we assume it to be singular, then it devolves into the absolute. The flatline between the ups and the downs. The zero at the center of the number line. The black hole at the center of the galaxy, where all those positives and negatives sum out.

The ideal, on the other hand, is a form of reductionism, in trying to distill away all the noise, to find pure signal. Unfortunately our goal oriented humanity has to exist in a cyclical, reciprocal reality. Reductionism is balanced by contextualization. The node is a function of the network, more than the network is dependent on any particular node, as Victoria’s comment alludes.

The opposite of the absolute is the infinite. We fluctuate somewhere between everything canceling out and everything fading out.

We are driven by desire and directed by judgement, the head and the heart. Energy and form. Even galaxies are energy radiating out, as form coalesces in.

We are constantly desiring some ideal form, but then immediately seek to transcend it. We want our cake and eat it too.

So when we try to view this dynamic monolithically, we invariably end up running in circles.

Consciousness moves towards the future, as thoughts recede into the past. It’s the tension and friction that makes reality real.

Here is an essay where I try tying this into the current sociological chaos;

https://medium.com/the-philosophers-stone/peeling-paradigms-a47adde669d7