Rare unknown crosses my path when I reflect on what "Charles Foucold" once established as a fundamental part in the life and that would be to know how to choose between what is estimated as "absolute" and what you so simply establishing "relative" or given. If were be an object highly casual and our condition not will change... what sense has go in search of something that not is located in the area of our scope, as it is the absolute? isn't it absurd question to pursue equally ideologies that survive only in our imagination? "Get - can that it ever happen - away from relation if we know to keep our footprint, but we will always be part to as much as an intercessor between this duality, unless this fact change our status as insignificant." As mere accidental object that is, man participates which advocate, in a symbolic duel between "absolute" and "relative". "" In it first due to its condition of eternal, so only as expression of possible fitted only in his imagination and in it second, that is it "relative" and to its time perishable, as a simple element that explores constantly in the attempt of participate of it perpetual "
" Moment of contemplation in the rebirth of the Phoenix, pure symbol of the eternal".