Actually _both_ time and eternity are human categories, historically
defined, and neither names any emprical reality. (Without going into
detail, in the medieval period there were only two days of the year in
which the hour corresponded to our 60 minute hour -- the spring and fall
solstice. During winter the hour grew longer at night so there would
still be 12 hours at night. Time did not measure evnts; events measured
time.) Newton invented our modern space and time because for his 
physics he needed and abstract time and and abstract space. If you read
Dante you ought to feel very crowded: his space was not abstarc and
inf8inite was Newton's (and ours for the most part). The concept of the
interglactic gulf would havd been utterly inconceivable to medieval
Europeans. Space was chock full of things, and those things measured it
rather than were measured by it.

Eliot's still point of the turning world would 'feel' vastly different
to a medieval reader than it does to any of us, since we necessarily try
to grasp it within the context of our infinite space and time. (MOdern
physics oesn't recognize infinte space & time either, but our dailyuu
imaginations are still Newtonian.)

"Absolute" and "relative" are both quite meaningless when discussed (as
they are in this thread) in abstraction from particular contexts. I mean
it's easy for someone to sit and babble absolute absolute absolute or
relative relative relative, but they aren't saying anything to anyone
else but merely caressing thier own brain cells in privacy. It feels
good I guess to those who do it, but it's pretty dull as a topic of

We don't experience time, since it is a category of abstract thought. It
seems to me that a major impulse in Eliot's Quartets is his wrestle with
how to feel time  concretely. Whether he pulls it off or not I do not