Out of all of the contrives we must unlearn in order to have pure philosophical understanding, discretion is the most critical. It is at the root of all other contrivance.
What does discretion look like? Pretend the universe is the dot below.
Of course, the dot is not a good representation of the universe's size. The universe is infinite, but in order to demonstrate I must involve the contrive of size. This is because conceptualization requires an ability to select, to pretend differentiation.
Interact with the symbol of the universe below to perceive it discretely.
Our minds look for individual objects and patterns in the continuity of the universe. This is possible because the universe exhibits difference. In noticing difference, we frequently define boundaries in order to construct models of understanding (and only later end up finding the inevitable holes in our models). This happens because difference is really always a gradual change, never an actual separation between perceived objects, and by approximating in that way we introduce error; things are never truly separate, they are always indiscrete. For example, temperature changes. Its difference is measured in degrees. But the temperature never jumps from one discrete degree to the next; only our measurements do. Reality is actually continuous. That we often have to use decimals to precisely enough measure temperature and other phenomena, and that we occasionally find unending decimal byproducts when calculating such important values as pi, is testament to the fact that the universe does not follow a discrete model, so to be more precise we have to keep using more and more decimals. But ofcourse, we will never have enough decimals to perfectly approximate any phenomenon. In the fallacious context of discretion, such an infinitude is an impossibility. Furthermore, there is no perfect (unapproximating) way to describe a phenomenon; the closest you can get is to not approximate it at all, but rather just experience it. That is, to not even describe it.
The very word 'universe' describes unity. Unity\continuity is the opposite concept of discretion\division. The universe is inherently indiscrete.
As Alan Watts explains, the ceramic vision of the universe is myth and we're all just wiggles in the continuity... so much so, that we really are the universe! We often confuse our divisive labels for reality, accidentally lending the assumption that reality itself is a set of structured pieces. But there is no separation past that which our mind pretends. After all, how else could everything we recognize interact, if truly it were seperate?
Everything is continuous. There is no such thing as a closed system, other than in the imagination of the mind. Apples grow out of trees, they are not somehow spawned attached to them, as separate entities. All is connected; nothing is separate. Without human selection there is only unity. Furthermore, the universe is a continuous fractal wave, the binary crests and troughs of which are likely why we can easily find a binary, discrete complexification of the universe's patterns.
Discretion is useful, don't get me wrong. Math is a powerful tool for discrete approximation, even if it must also then have holes. Discretion is inherently an approximation because the universe is inherently indiscrete – in order to describe that which is indiscrete by mathematics, you would need infinite (inherently discrete) equations, which isn't discretely possible! This is symbolized by the value relationship whereby infinity divided by anything can still be understood as infinity. We can never have enough, all we can do is approximate, and count our successes within degrees of significance. Engineering, most arguably the direct practice of mathematics, illustrates this in that it always deals in approximation, in getting things just right enough.
Note also that relativity is still philosophically fair – crucial, infact. Relativity is the essence of experience/existence\consciousness; difference/consciousness depends on it. Relativity is not the same thing as discretion. As for value, though, it is contrived. Relativity, along with discretion, are the two assumptions of value, so because of the contrivance of discretion, value is just as contrived as discretion.