The term “absolute” doesn’t get a lot of clarification, beyond being pure, un-individuated, universal, etc.

Pope John Paul 2 described God as the all-knowing absolute. Though knowledge is very much a function of distinction, delineation and contrast, so it would seem to be an oxymoron, to put knowledge together with absolute.

I would make the argument that absolute is the zero, between positive and negative. The flatline between the ups and downs. A state of equilibrium.

For example, if we were to remove all physical properties from space, it would have the non-physical qualities of infinity and equilibrium. Infinity as there would be nothing to bound it and equilibrium is implicit in General Relativity, as the frame with the fastest clock and longest ruler would be closest to the equilibrium of this vacuum, through which light travels at C. In contrast to a frame moving at the speed of light, in the vacuum, where the clock/time is stopped and the ruler is reduced to a dimensionless point.

So this equilibrium is essentially the void itself, with a temperature of absolute zero. It should be noted certain physicists have been arguing for nothing as the basis of reality.

Now what fills space is energy and the forms it manifests. Energy radiates towards infinity, until it fades out. While form coalesces towards equilibrium, or until all energy is shed and the form is canceled. 1+-1=0. Hence galaxies as the primary universal process, of energy radiating out, as form coalesces in.

Spirit, on the other hand, is whatever manifests as consciousness. Be it beings, ghosts, or panpsychism. Not that I’m arguing for the latter two, but that if we were to propose a source, would it be logical to assume it is some top down, father figure lawgiver, or is it some elemental essence of sentience, bubbling up through life and animating it?

As Nietzsche put it, the “abyss staring back.” It certainly explains both the transcendent, as well as the darker elements of being and life, better than this hopefully benevolent father figure ideal of wisdom and judgement.

Now some obviously prefer to assume consciousness is only an interesting side effect of processing information and that when computers are complex enough, they will effectively become conscious, though I think that puts the cart before the horse. That the ability to process information is an evolved talent of conscious organisms, one of many, and that those who process information for a living are being egocentric about their own abilities.

Certainly reductionism has been attacked, but “It from bit” still seems the technogical and information age talisman.

As for Goff’s position, panpsychism is some approximation of this elemental source, though ascribing it to a broader material basis, than just the organic, which might be a step too far. Or maybe not.