I think its imposssible to define things in relation to the infinite. I think this because the infinite has no characteristics that can be contrasted with things of a finite nature. Things are defined in relation to other finite things, either directly or indirectly including the self. We might define something in relation to 999 zillion billion million other things, but it never qualifies as the infinite.Kelly Jones wrote:You related things to the self, rather than to the Infinite, ultimately. Subtle but infinite difference.
The only way what you are saying is relevant you think we ought to start every definition for every thing with, "The part of the Totality". Ex: Dog - The part of the Totality that walks on four legs and barks. Or, Tree - The part of the Totality that produces oxygen. As you can see it's not neccessary nor is it efficient to include that in every definition. It does nothing to help us describe that thing's properties in relation to us.