Rather than answer my own question, I'd like to clarify where I'm coming from. Here goes:
1. I'll begin with the way theologians and philosophers have defined the word 'absolute' traditionally: That which is complete and perfect; that which exists by its own nature and is consequently independent of everything else; not mixed or adulterated (Thou shalt not commit adultery ;-) ); free from restriction or limitation/ not limited in any way; not comparative or relative. I see at least two contradiction here: the definitions themselves and the act of defining. These are relational, limiting, comparative activities as is that of 'knowing' such-and-such. An 'absolute' can neither be conceptualized nor an object nor can 'it' be a combination or even a 'solution of all opposites.'
2. Usage: as a qualifier, as in 'absolute truth,' 'absolute certainty,' and one of my favorite absurdities , 'absolute statement.' As a thing-in-itself: as in a 'moral absolute' (see #1). Thirdly, as a theophany: the 'mysterium tremendum.' All usages are self-contradictory with even the last a 'mystical' relationship. There have been many attempts to rescue this last sense of the word, but all of them fall short precisely because they express *experience* and *feeling.* Not that these feelings are too be short changed. I, for one, am fascinated with what many call a 'religious experience,' but I tend to think the way it's been co-opted as a *religious* experience has led falsely away from living and into a deep nihilism.
3. Nihilism: while most would define nihilism as a reaction/deep skepticism *against* metaphysics, morality, and moral-metaphysics, I see this more in a Nietzschean manner: The belief in 'absolutes,' given 1 and 2 above, can only be a belief in Nihil, in Nothingness. As such, 'absolutes' are antithetical to life in every way. 'Absolute(s) propose 'conditions' which bespeak of that which is totally un-life-like, un-worldly.This is an abbreviated account of my own take, but such is the context of this particular forum.
4. Power: 'absolutes' have always been used within the context of civilization(s) as an expropriation of our *wonder* toward the ends of the *awe*-ful. A deep primeval aspect of our relationship within, and *as* our world (which can and may be perceived and described only as relational), has always been turned against us, particularly when the high-priest became the Bawss (the oldest meaning of 'hierarchy') be HE, the Pharaoh, Lugal, what have ya. Awe, that is, fear, in a pyramid scheme of mummified abstractions/categorizations, came to dominate and does so still. This includes our own deep experiences of worldliness, which came to require a stamp of approval so as to not threaten the pyramid-scheme. As I've said before, the State isn't just a set of external power relations, but also a permitted *state* of consciousness.
Today, I can only see 'absolute' used to convey a sense of authority of one's own opinion, statements, viewpoint. This may be unwitting left-overs, or holdouts, of a long history of embedded hierarchy, including our current 'democratic' and 'secular' form of priesthood, piety and prayers. The question may be here, do we wish to continue confusing our convictions (opinions) with this underlying and often unconscious form of authority?
Edited for grammar and additional thoughts.