What is it when we call truth to be 'absolute'? The thing is about absoluteness.. What does it mean when we call something to be absolute?

The term 'absolute' may have 2 different interpretations : its 'correctness', and its 'span'. Something that is absolute in its 'correctness', we can picture as 1 + 1 = 2, not 3, 4, not any other integers. Hence, absoluteness in terms of correctness means that there is one and only one that is true, and the other is false. Whilst absoluteness in terms of span gives us an idea it encompasses everything. As an analogy is the absolute power of a king. If a king has absolute power, then he has authority upon everything! He can rule everything, just like a dictator. Nothing is out of reach of truth if it is absolute, interpreted in that manner.

What I wanted to discuss now is the former case, regarding the 'absolute correctness' of truth. What does it mean when we say something is correct? It means that it is 'true', that it is pleasant in its relation to the truth, unified and in coherence with the truth. And maybe we can ask further, is this absoluteness, exactly what is represented by the addition of integers? If this is so, then the absolute truth is exact. It just exist in one singular point! There's no flexibility or tolerance upon any deviations from the point itself! But this is not so.. perhaps I myself had been misled by the former analogy of addition of integers.

Truth, as it exists in its absoluteness, still maintain some flexibility! It is within a boundary that the absolute exists! If truth was interpreted as a point, think what would happen :

First, let's observe the arts. The implication of this in the world of art, is that, there would be a 'one and absolute music', in which no music can be composed that is more beautiful than that music. There would be a 'one and absolute painting', 'one and absolute film', etc. This would be the end of art!

Second, let's think about hermeneutics, the correct interpretation of the Bible. Do we really think that there is a 'one and absolute interpretation'? If so, then if someone have already grasped that 100% correct interpretation, and he wrote it in a book, that would be the end of Bible interpretation! Then what about the concept of richness of Bible? It has been overcomed! Hence, this leads to the conclusion that there must be some flexibility of interpretation. Of course, there is still a boundary, that is Bible interpretation must be responsible and in coherence with other parts of the Bible.

Next, let's go to mathematics. Maybe an intersection of two lines that gives just one solution might struck you, and perhaps you say that it does not give any flexibility for the solution is just only one point. But remember that in mathematics, there is really no lines at all! I mean, lines are made as an idealization, that its width is infinitely thin! Then of course, if two infinitely thin lines are intersected, you only get one point. But as a matter of fact, all lines would still have intervals from x to x+dx, no matter how small dx is. Hence, it still exist some flexibility in there, which if of course still have a certain boundary.

To sum up, truth in its correctness still retains some flexibility. Thinking this way, everything then seems suits together. Anyway, there is no point with a zero radius, nor an infinitely thin line.

Friendship.. what is it? What does it consists of? 2 or more persons of course. But persons consists of 2 things, the body and the immaterial self. The immaterial self may be called 'the mind'. Mind perceives things. And therefore what we call 'friends' are actually dependent upon the mind. Two persons are friends if they perceive each other as friends.

Well actually, as a consequence of this, friendship is not so stiff as you might think it is. It is very fragile! Sometimes we might be too dependent upon the 'existence of the body' as an assurance for the continuation of a friendship. We might think "well, he'll still be in Canada for the next two years or so", and feel relieved about it! Not so. The reality is, sometimes, though the 'container' is still the same, the mind changes! Hence my conclusion, relations, in which one persons have with one another, are much dependent upon paradigms. Well..as time changes, paradigms might change. There are many more things that could change paradigms : wrong actions, words uttered, perhaps when we're out of our minds, feel tired, etc. And if that happens, well i dunno, perhaps the situation would be like having a 'friend' but with a different soul. Your friend had indeed been wiped out from the surface of the earth, substituted by a stranger with a different paradigm. So what matters is paradigm. Even two strangers can be friends if somehow their paradigms are 'instantly' moulded in such a way that they perceive each other as friends.