Is there any such thing as an absolute?

As good a reason as any. Could be. Maybe not. I agree with this, for most things, anyway. Are you trying to say that this part is absolute as well?
I think this is a valid "life-goal" or "personal priority" or whatever you'd like to call it.
But to call it an absolute truth? I think that might be pushing it. The hint is in the word "better." If you say something is "better"... what are you judging it against?It may very well be an absolute truth/goal for you and your life.
But there are many people where knowing certain experiences is not better than not knowing them.An easy example would be people who are victimized... I'm sure there are people who suffer from PTSD who would rather not know some of the experiences that they know.Or... let's say you have the opportunity to know what all insects around the world are thinking at all times. Would you want such a gift?
What if you accepted and the information overload was so much it put you into a comatose state attempting to process it?
(I'm just making stuff up here... attempting to play devil's advocate)To me, it seems obvious that this is a subjective decision you're making. Which is fine. Personally, I think subjective decisions are more meaningful than absolute or objective decisions.For example:
Let's say God comes down from heaven and tells all people "I am your God, and I created you to love one another. That is your absolute purpose. Now go and do so, already!!"What is more meaningful? The person who loves other people because it is an absolute mandate (God said so)? Or the person who loves other people because they personally decide to do so?So, although I agree that the "search for truth" is a noble effort. I don't think it's absolute.
But, I still think it's better to choose to follow this goal than to do so because you think it's absolute in some way.

Could very well be. Or not.
That's the thing... we seem to be at a disadvantage to ever know for sure.If we can't know for sure... then it would seem that we cannot determine whether or not it actually is absolute.

Here's an example:Your house needs to be painted.
Who would you rather have paint it?

1. Someone who paints houses because they love to paint houses.
2. Someone who paints houses because their father is forcing them into the family business.

I take it you can see the difference?
I always think that a personal decision is more meaningful than following an order. Regardless of whether or not the way is absolute (whatever that would mean).

Right, and then I agree.If we're going to attempt to make absolute statements... the scope they encompass needs to be clarified."It is always better to know than not to know" is too broad and subjective (what's "better"?) to be an absolute statement."It is better to know about truths we can arrive at and comprehend rather than to be ignorant of them in the context of understanding our freedom."
...is a statement that's getting much closer to being something I'd be comfortable with calling "absolute."I'm not saying your idea is wrong, I'm just saying that qualification/clarification is important if we're going to be saying a certain statement is "absolute."

Makes sense to me.But why would anyone want either of those?
Both ideas as you describe them seem equally unpalatable to me.I do not want to lose myself into a community that becomes one. Where would my individuality go?
I do not want to be autonomous. Who would I talk to?Maybe that makes me a bad person. I don't think so, though. I just think it makes me different from certain other people who do want one or the other. It seems, to me, that "paradise" would be a certain balance that included both aspects. Neither of which would be a focal point in any way.I don't see why either one would be likely to actually happen, either. In that context... I'm not really all that worried about it.

I suppose that would depend on your definition of "Free will."I think most people would agree that we don't have free will in the sense that we cannot choose to instantly transport ourselves to any point on the planet at will.The term is more generally thought to indicate that we are able to choose between the options that are available to us at will. ...not create whatever options we want.I would certainly agree, though... that your implication of being able to choose anything at all would be absolute free will.

I see.Then... because you say "free will is a farce (illiusion)"... are you then saying that all our choices are between good options and bad options?

Maybe they are.
I'm not saying I know that they're not.
I'm saying I don't know. And, I'm also saying... that I don't think you know either Yes, our lives are full of information and experiences.
How does that, specifically, negate having a choice? I don't know... I'm not saying it definitely is. But you seem to be saying it definitely isn't... by implying that it isn't? That isn't enough for me to agree. A lot of sense. Because of the varying differences. There are averages and majorities and such for predicting human behaviour. But even the best predictions are still never accurate enough to say we are not making a choice.For your Coke and Pepsi example... in general most people do not always choose Coke or Pepsi. They may have a slight preference but still pick differently, sometimes even under the same circumstances.Is that because the stimuli are somehow changing and people are forced to pick differently?
Or is that because people are making fickle decisions about a fickle product but still making independent choices each time?I don't know.
But... so far you haven't shown that it's even likely to be "an illusion."
You've only shown that it could be an illusion.Well... I agree. It could be. Also... it might not be. I do agree with this, and it is nicely poetic, too.
But reality doesn't care if things are poetic to us, or if we are happy with the conclusions.
What if free will isn't made of sterner stuff? What if it's pretty loose and shitty? Does that mean it's not free will anymore just because it's not nicely poetic?I'm not ready to give up on it just because you say so.

Right. I can see that.But... if "good" and "bad" are subjective and relative, and we are actually the ones who decide what is "good for us" and what is "bad for us"...Doesn't this make things a bit more complicated than you seem to be implying?If we aren't the ones deciding what's good and bad... who (or what) is?