Absoluteness of our knowledge and decisive observance of Torah and mitzvot

Peace and blessings to Rabbi Michi
For many months now, I have enjoyed making occasional forays to the site, to sample some pure rationality and honest thought.
The following question has been bothering me for a long time – I saw that you answered it several times, and also referred to many other answers on the subject – but I was unable to find anything that really addresses my question. If you could direct me to a specific question that relates to my question precisely – I would be happy to do so.
Well, I asked this: Simply put, a believer believes that his faith is absolute. That is, he does not \' think \' that the Torah is true – but it is clear to him that the Torah is true, one hundred percent. His faith is absolute. This is what I think the majority of the believing public believes, in all religions (except, perhaps, the Mizrahi, but they do not concern themselves at all with the question of whether we are right or wrong; everyone is right).
I saw that you claim that there is no such thing as absolute knowledge – well, that is the conclusion I also come to. My question arises, because I am unable to live in a world where my beliefs are not absolute (I will explain the explanation later), and therefore I am looking for the basis to decide my assumptions (i.e. to make them absolute).
Why do I claim that there is simply no way to absolutes? All our means of attainment are partial and finite; therefore, any attainment we reach will always be doubtful. All the evidence may point in a certain direction, but it will always remain a possible assumption, and nothing more.
Even revelation, which is supposedly the optimal way to reach and achieve the Absolute – is also questionable. Even if the prophecy were as certain to a person as seeing a black wall – and not the vision itself is questionable. A faint doubt, indeed, that almost never arises in our minds; but nevertheless, by definition there is doubt here.
If there are doubts about everything, how come there are still people who have a well-organized, certain Mishnah? In my opinion, there is some 'inner spark', something internal that is found in a person, the opinion that suits his face, if we want to put it in the language of the sages, and it paves the way for him. It is what leads to the fact that the Lord will not understand the Torah like Rabbi Yishmael, the House of Hillel not like the House of Shammai. The logical and realistic claims are organized and settled, but behind them – these essential gaps remain, which there is almost no way to resolve. That is how I see things! why? I don't know. That's how I see them.
That is, a person can truly reach a certain absoluteness; when? When it is experiential for him, arising from within him. Nothing in reality has changed here, no exotic ontological evidence or brilliant logical proof has been presented. Simply – that's how he feels. And who will tell him what to do, who will tell him what to do?
And here comes my question: If there is no \'absolute truth\', but truth that is the property of the individual only, and assumptions are assumed – how come we still talk about Torah, God, etc.\' etc.\' – many things that are presented as such absolute values? And anyway, if they were just a belief in abstract entities – here is God, and Torah, go to a course on proofs of their existence, and be done with it. But they oblige us, and confine us to such a rigid framework!
Will I really listen to them, when I doubt their truth and there is an opposing, heavier weight at stake?
After all, my belief in them is based on some rational basis . If the belief is absolute, that is, it constitutes a boundary that cannot be breached, no matter what – excellent. The correctness does not depend on me, and I am completely null and void towards it. But if I am the one who determines that the belief is correct, a correctness that is conditioned on a certain rational basis – when a strong enough counter-consideration arises in me, I will no longer listen to that belief!
And I will explain further: Rationality, in my opinion, contradicts devotion. If everything is conditioned by my understanding, and the moment something seems more correct to me, I will act according to it – I will never be able to reach devotion. Devotion is my negation towards something that is higher than me. If I see only myself – I will never be able to reach something more sublime. In my opinion (this is a somewhat mystical aspect of me), only such devotion, absolute, can elevate a person to a higher spiritual level. And this makes sense, in a certain sense; because if I constantly judge faith, and I am above it, and it is always a guest in my life, and its very existence is in doubt, and I never buy it a permanent abode – we will always be strangers to each other.
You will say; Indeed, it is impossible to reach devotion – well, it would be sad for me, but I cannot accept it. I cannot live like this. Beyond the fact that there are people who have reached there (albeit few, but I do believe in the spiritual powers of people), the \' and the Torah constitute a burden that is too heavy, too serious, and too demanding – for me to do it just because \'it seems so to me\'. There are too many things in the Torah that are illogical in relation to the rational basis on which I allow myself to believe in the Torah, and as I saw that you yourself wrote, there is a great chance that if you were to encounter a case in which, morally speaking, you feel it is impossible to act in it as the Torah commands.
Does such a religious life make sense? In my humble opinion, not so much. Religion and faith are immediately associated with the cancellation and submission of my desires; my thoughts; my opinions – to that absolute truth, or at least what claims to be such.
It's a bit paradoxical: I myself claim that I have no way of reaching such an absolute truth, so what do I want? But on the other hand, I don't see much point in carrying such a heavy burden in the form of Torah and commandments, when they are nothing more than the result of my limited final decision, and not something higher than that.
If so, my questions are: Is it possible to achieve devotion, in your opinion? Apparently, according to what I saw on the site, you are far from it. And this is difficult for me to accept, because my eyes and mind do not show it that way. If I am wrong, I would be happy to be corrected in these assumptions.
And yes, if everything is contingent on me, on confirming the evidence for the truth of the Torah and its validity in all its details – in the moments of difficulty of the religious person, there would be no logic in continuing to uphold the Torah. Because then we have made the Torah platform absolute, something that overrides my logic.
One last thing, if I may (just to understand the concept): Don't you personally feel a contradiction in your soul, going to prayer and reading the books of the Shalem Institute, marking the V just because it seems necessary? Living a whole life because maybe this is the truth? If this is the truth, so be it. I submit my will to it one hundred percent. But to do things that I think are wrong, just because of some strange ancient authority – isn't that delusional? Isn't this an extremely dichotomous life?
Thank you very much, and I hope that makes sense. The later it gets, the less my writing skills are improving….
[By the way: Now I remember another point that I think should be noted: all the developments in the world were made and all the major milestones were laid, only by people who believed in their principles absolutely . Again, as I said – because only by doing so do we achieve devotion. And if we do not adhere, then we will not reach the goal… not if it is distant, unrealistic, and difficult to achieve. The state would not exist; the people of Israel would not remain as they are; people would not become great. Because if we do not believe in something absolutely, there will be a limit to how much we are willing to strive for it. And since it turns out to say that the world is not supposed to stay in place, but to progress and develop, there is room to say that a person must believe absolutely in his beliefs. Is this true? Maybe not; but then we condemn the world to the life of Neanderthal man, below all development, even the most basic.