For me books aren’t a way of finding out about absolute truth. I don’t think there is one. I think it comes from the human urge to summarize things.
We conceive of the absolute truth like a final sentence. A sentence to take the place of all other sentences. A sentence from which all other sentences derive.
The thing is such a thing does not exist. Language is useful because it allows an almost infinite amount to be said. Grammatically “The tasty cellar ate the dark, empty radish” makes sense yet it is about nothing that could exist in experience. Sentences such as “A square circle” and “a colorless color” are other examples.
That language is so plastic is the essence of its usefulness but it’s also the reason why you can’t derive statements from one another. I mean you can by mixing them up and such; but the reason you can’t get the statements concerning what I’m doing now from what you were doing 20 minutes ago is that plasticity. Well you could but you wouldn’t know as there would be an almost infinite number of possible statements concerning what I’m doing now and a smaller infinity would contain the set of true statements and so on. So you would never know which ones corresponded to the truth of your particular progression through various reality configurations.
It is that many statements can possibly preceed or proceed any statement or set of statements; just as any word or conceivably letter could go before or after any other that you can’t just reduce statements to one another if they are about something in particular; like a road-trip or relativity.
This mirrors the plasticity of reality. Reality contains many distinct and often mutually exclusive things. Their pairing being numerous enough to stink of infinity means that reality contains the possibility of any possible pairing and cannot be reduced to any specific configuration. Thus no absolute reality because every definition inevitably misses part of reality and would be an appearance amongst appearances (Oh such a sweet statement! I think that sums up the dominant way I perceive things: “An appearance amongst appearances”).
You may say that all sentences can be derived from one sentence. Have a sentence, have access to the alphabet and use the laws of sentence formation to construct new sentence repeat ad infinitum. This fails in the sense that quantum explanations for free-will fail. The entire force of free-will in Christianity and social control generally is that it serves as the necessary prerequisite for metaphysical guilt.
You deserve what you get because you chose this.
Anyway using quantum weirdness or any natural phenomena to explain free-will gives this free-will to everything thus free-will loses its relevance.
The same is true here in that the absolute is meant to be singular, uniquely perfect but you can derive any sentence from any sentence; and that’s supposed to be the unique power of the absolute. So the absolute at best becomes a first amongst many at worst a false echo from a powerful link in an infinite chain.
Whatever the ontological status of the absolute is. What I have said is all about how we think not about reality in-it-self so to speak. There could well be a reality which inspired the first numinous finger-point. But whatever it is or was to most people who espouse it it is nothing but a nothing. Something beyond and above experience that cannot be experienced. It’s the ultimate fallacy of ignorance.
Funny thing is that both sides of the debate are arguing from ignorance. The for and against the ontological status of real being given to the absolute.
So yeah I don’t use books to search for what ain’t there. I like knowing stuff in such a way that I can produce my own facts within its domain. Get the essence of it so I can riff it to myself at work.