Modes of Thinking: DOWN<>TOP

There are, in my view, two general methods of engaging reality:
1 - Bottom-Up 2- Top-Down...and the combinations thereof.

The 1st I consider more natural, more primal...because an organism begins to be conscious of the immediate, and has no concept of anything above, beyond, it...nor does it care.
We may consider this organic thinking.
It begins with the sensually perceived, and attempts to extrapolate, the unknown, from the known....the not perceived from the perceived; it involves a projection, using imagination, and it evolves to find an advantage by finding patterns in the sensually perceived to predict the yet to come; offering the organism the advantage of efficiency and preparedness.
The quality of the projection, the imagined, is naturally selected...gradually resulting in heightened awareness.

The 2nd, I consider idealistic, and tends towards the extremes of naive Romanticism and Nihilism.
It begins with a conclusion and works backwards trying to integrate the perceived into the already established goal; the already “known”, yet never experienced.

In this case, the immediately perceived is overcome, bypassed, and rejected, because of the problem it poses, and the adaptation it demands. The mind is seduced by a hypothetical, which, most often, has little reference to the sensually perceived. This intellectual leap (a leap of faith) offers a solution to the immediate, by totally ignoring it, or by totally contradicting it. The power of imagination is used to annihilate the perceived.
This kind of thinking can only sustain itself, for long periods of time, within sheltering environments, where natural selection is overturned, or curbed in effectiveness, due to some willful intervention by some powerful protective entity.
This detached, detaching, projection, begins in primitive minds, as a way of explaining what is terrifying and mysterious; it offers an easy explanation to an immediate stress, by distancing self from its possibilities.
At first it has a minimal effect, as praying to the thunder gods, to protect one's self from the overwhelming, and dangerous, phenomenon of lightning, has only a small influence on an organism's behavior, when faced with this danger. The organisms will (re)act in the genetic ways, natural selection has programmed into it: fight/flight.

It is no more than an additional measure, along with the normal fight/flight (re)actions, offering the mind a comfort which increases the effectiveness of its instinctive (re)actions.
The supposition that thunder and lightning are caused by some hypothetical Will, is a supposition that begins with a conclusion and then finds justifications, in the environment, to support it.

At this stage the Top<>Down thinking still remains attached to sensual input, and it uses the non-experienced as a way of explaining the experienced. Its focus is on preparation.  

Then it gradually becomes a hypothesis that finds comfort in the interjection of a mediating familiar: a vision, a shaman, a leader, a priest...a mystical figure, which bridges the distance between the not-experienced and the experienced.
Now, control factors in, as the intermediate Will offers its services at a cost; the authority makes demands upon the individual.
The unknown turns to the known, ambiguously, through the holy-figure; (s)he/it is the one that connects the projected known to the sensually known.

The imagined, but not experienced takes on a familiar form, turning it into something which can be experienced and dealt with on a level the mind is comfortable with.
By doing so, this intermediating figure, most often a masculine energy, becomes necessary, and those who are willing to pay the price for being comforted, must surrender to his authority; he is the expert, the authority, who, for a price, makes the projected hypothetical more pragmatic; he is the one who takes the
presumed conclusion and justifies it to the ones who cannot, in a way which offers them peace and guidance.

As human knowledge increases, turning the once mysterious into phenomena we become accustomed to, the unknown increases proportionally.
Knowledge creates complexities of (inter)active parameters. The more we know, the more complicated our world-view becomes, increasing our anxieties....because now the possible, inflates in relation to the known.
The shaman, the priest, is still needed. He continues to provide the comfort that the unknown is known, or that it can be known...at least, in a greater
part, by him...and he offers his insights, as reassuring gifts, to those that depend on him, for a price.

Increased anxiety demands an increase in the measure of detachment from the known, required to maintain the simple mind comfortable in its environment; an environment still mysterious to it.  
The more indifferent the world is exposed as being, all the more the presumed, projected, conclusion, must reject and contradict it.
Nihilism emerges as a necessary psychological (re)action to increasing awareness.
The more complex the world becomes, all the more it must be simplified.
Because the immediate, the sensually perceived, cannot be denied, without surrendering to insanity or solipsism, the solution must be placed in the conclusion…in the hypothetical beyond and/or immanent.

The conclusion, the goal, becomes the "beyond", the "future" (Paradise/Hell - Utopia/Dystopia).
Hell and Dystopia become fantastic representations of the alternative, if the more desirable goal is rejected; a
desirable goal no less fantastic (Paradise,  placed in the beyond; Utopia, placed in the immanent).
The more undesirable the perceived is, for the mind, the more intolerable it is to the mind, all the more fantastic this projected final, conclusive, desirable, goal must be – sheltering from the immediate decreases the level of tolerance for the real, making the fantastic increasingly popular and viable.
The Modern Day shaman, the professional expert, the priest, is now the one offering justifications for the fantastic.
The presumed particle is sought ("God particle"), though no such thing has ever been found: the presumed beginning is sought (Creation, Singularity), though no such thing has ever been experienced; natural divisions, of sex and genes, are rejected, though no such rejection is applied to any other species except for man; “rights” are defended, rationally, though no such right has ever been found anywhere outside human artifices, exposing the underlying emotion corrupting reason; all types of mutations are explained, in the most forgiving way, and defended, if they do not disrupt the shared agreement, though no such practice has ever been observed anywhere in nature, except in manmade environments.

--------------------------------------------------------

Bottom<>Up thinking begins with the sensually perceived and works upwards, towards the Divine. It Wills itself upwards, when the world tumbles in the opposite
direction.
It begins with experience – the sum of one's known past – and then adds to it the ongoing perception of the world, to formulate abstractions which have references to the sensually perceived world.
These abstractions can then be projected forth, using the imagination, as hypothetical, theoretical, overcomnigs of the immediate.
Nothing is presumed which does not offer reference points to the sensually perceived immediate, and so no nurturing is accepted which does not have a basis on previous nurturing, or the sum of all past nurturing, we call nature.
This kind of thinking is more pragmatic and natural. Its need is to become as lucid as possible, since awareness evolves to offer the organism a survival advantage.

Top<>Down thinking, begins with the presumed known, yet not experienced, and then works to integrate the experienced into the not-experienced.

It begins by taking something for granted and considering it “self-evident”.  
Because this is easier and more comforting, the many are seduced by it.

This, in turn, necessitates a fantastic presupposition, one which directly contradicts the
sensually perceived, so as to offer comfort and guidance and hope to as many minds as possible; minds, now sheltered from the immediate to such an extent and for such a lengthy period of time, as to make the experienced, the past, intolerable.
The more dependent the many become, upon this annulling projection of a presumed known, supported by "experts" who feed into this, all the
more vehemently they defend its "reasoning", and its "logic".

These shamans, experts, build careers upon this role…or face ridicule and severe social consequences.
This kind of thinking is idealistic and nihilistic. Its need is to preserve the final, the already decided, which is always heartening and accessible to all those willing to pay the price to the right authorities.

The inclusion of all is part of the power of its peer pressurizing suggestibility.

It seeks a distinction from the past, as it is this past which troubles it and restricts its imagination.

An unfettered imagination is called fantasy and/or delusion.

These minds call it “freedom”, for now they can identify with anything their minds come up with, if this does not contradict with the shared agreement. They rejoice in the easiness of finding an escape from a past that they consider harsh and restricting.

But, there is a third type.
This type walks a tightrope between the previously mentioned two, and it can be called Modern.
It refuses the determinations of the past, but it also rejects the projections of a coming perfect future.
This type is what we call, these days, the "individual".

Its definition of individuality is contained by the presumed points in space/time which it calls its beginning and its end – its birth and death. In the intervening space/time it is totally dependent on the modern experts, the current experts; it remains constantly up-to-date, in tis affiliations.  

It feels no connection, and no gratitude, for, and towards, the past, because it is essentially unhappy with the outcome; but it can neither accept the fantasy of a coming future which will save it from existence.
It wishes to live in the "now”...the undefinable present...the contemporary.

Detached from both past and future, it feels no allegiance to anything: not to its ancestors nor to its decedents.
Such a mind is enclosed within the boundaries of a stunted ego.
An ego so pressured into temporal boxes that it needs to inflate itself to such proportions, as to compensate for this loss. It values hedonism, materialism, spontaneity, living in the moment and for the moment; it surrenders, in other words, to its basic animal nature, wanting to find nothing more valuable than its ephemeral existence.
It is most vital in its early stages of untapped youth...and this is why it values adolescence, and childhood, so much. As it grows older it tries to hold onto this puberty, because its creeping mortality makes it feel increasingly empty of all meaning.
It may, for this reason, give itself over to self-numbing, as it approaches its own death; when the pleasures subside and the materials it may have amassed,
fail to offer it comforting, it turns to religion, or some other form of nihilistic spirituality, popular in the age it is imprisoned within.
Nihilism has attained its apex.

Not only is the past rejected, creating the illusion of self-creation, and the choice of identification, but the future has also been rejected, as being a childish projection of fantastic possibilities, because such a mind can now only be soothed by such extravagances.
What remains is a jaded, cynical, husk of animalism; totally dependent on professionals, and completely identifying with the things it owns and the job it does – with its own profession.
Even its family, if it dares to contradict itself by having one, will be no more than an accessory to its castrated, meaningless, life.
Distraction from this contained world, it has placed itself in, or has allowed others to place it in, will be its highest priority.

All hail the rise of the Modern Man.

Here is what the imbecile, above, missed:
Courage.
When evaluating the immediate one must exhibit the honesty only courage can provide, in assessing the environment and one's place within it.
One does not begin by assuming one is strong and powerful and FREE...but that one is weak, and ignorant, and dependent...and that one must climb upwards, and advance and be superior.
A Jew-Christian, like Sartre, being a secular version of the same shit, presupposes freedom....as if one is born independent, and must come to terms with it.
In fact, one is born dependent, and take on the risks, the costs, and the loneliness becoming independent demands.

But not only courage, for this is necessary in a world where sheltering prevents culling from taking its toll.
The other factor is culling itself; natural selection.
From the Bottom<>Up it is the success of your evaluations, at the bottom, that helps you proceed upwards.
At the bottom you presume only your inferiority, and must build upon it.
You must prove yourself, to advance.
You do not demand your "rights" to live and to reproduce...you EARN it!!!!, and you pay the price for it.
For one of the degenerates in ILP, this is frightening, unfair.....cruel.

The Top<>Down thinker begins with a self-flattering premise, though it may hide behind humility, like:
'I am God's chosen one'...or, 'I am a sinner who can find salvation'...or, 'I am human, just like everybody else'.
The humility is a front, for an implied, hypothetical, distinction. Such as: 'I am a small part of greatness'..or 'I am a part of a special species'...or, 'I am a member of a great nation'.
This is feminine thinking...the effete psyche expressing its desire to BELONG to power, rather than attaining power.
Membership has its privileges.

Okay...
Let's deal with this bullshit, for one more fuckin' time.
Let's get into this Modernistic perspectivsim, these imbeciles use to equate all, and level all down to relativity.
And, I'm not talking about perspective the way Nietzsche used it: the honest admittance that all minds exist within the boundaries and interpretations of their limitations; that our perceptions of the world, our interpretations, dictate our choices and our, subsequent, successes or failures (natural selection); that our interpretations are part of what is naturally selected.

No...what we are talking about here is what this moron, Mo, tried to introduce with his crap about running around a building, facing uphills and downhills.
This is a typical way in which moderns try to level all perceptions down to a shared failing, a shared limitation.
We are all, you see, bound by our perceptions, in equal measure, and so all interpretations of the world are equally subjective; sensual awareness is reduced down to an error, a perspective.
We cannot see the world from above...some point outside space/time, and so all sensual interpretations are equally valid.
The world is, as it is...and it is only we who sense disparity, change, inequality in it.
The senses are reduced to a farce....and whether you perceive an uphill or a downhill is inconsequential, because there are neither.
So, dark and light...is the same thing.
Life and death is the same...a matter of perception...of subjectivity.
It's all relative.
Whether you are a Negro or a Caucasian...the same; woman or man...same.
Beethoven and Beyonce....the same.
Zulu or Rome...same.
It's all matter of perspective....and perspective has nothing to do with the world itself.
It is coincidental, accidental, a matter of chance.

It' is all relative....and because it is all relative, whether you begin your thinking with a given or you begin with nothing given, is one and the same.
Thinking that there is no beginning and no end, because one cannot perceive one, is the same as thinking there is a beginning and an end, despite not being able to perceive one.
Belief in God is exactly like the dibeleif in one...simply a matter of changing perspectives.

Shit is the same as Pork chops; piss the same as wine.
All a matter of taste...and taste has nothing to do with the world, it is accidental.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...a fat, ugly, cow is beautiful, for somebody. There is no reason to appreciate beauty.
A mutant, is healthy, for some another. Health is a matter of attitude.

Life does not evolve to appreciate order, beauty, symmetry (beauty and intelligence being symmetry) because it is a product of it, but it is all coincidental...a simple matter of perception...dumb luck.
All are equalized by this nil...this void.

Intelligence and stupidity?
Same thing.

Chance becomes another way of saying randomness...which is chaos.
Nothing has intrinsic value, because it is all accidental, a matter of taste; taste detached from the world...totally random.
Nothing is determined, or a product of the past. All is happenstance...perspective void of determinism.
Why do we interpret land as upwards slanting or downwards slanting? Chance.
A simple matter of altering your perspective can do away with the interpretation.
Consciousness does not evolve to aid in an organism's survival but is governed by blind circumstances...it can interpret reality in anyway it pleases, with no consequences; it does not matter.
Change your attitude and the uphill suddenly becomes an easy stroll down....light becomes dark, and darkness light....life turns into death, and death into life.
The desirable goal here is that no perception really matters, because the mind determines reality. It does not interpret it, and this interpretation determines its fate...but it changes reality simply by changing attitudes.

Perspcetivism is turned into world creation.
Man does not interpet the world, but he changes it, simply by thinking it in this or that way.
Perception is not supposed to aid the organism to adapt to the world, but it changes the word forcing it to adapt to the organism.
Like I said...this stupidity can only survive when culling is prevented from cleansing such stupidity from the gene pool.

For the Top<>Down thinker the presupposition is that the world, humans being a manifestation of it, has no quality or a divergence which is superior or inferior, in relation to consciousness; when consciousness is a product of live...ordering.
The desired conclusion is that all perceptions are equally valid.

Good...let's start anew.


What is the topic?
Knowledge, and how we attain it; knowledge and our approach.

What are we, ignorant or full of gnosis?
We are weak, and so we are also ignorant.
What knowledge we have, we inherit, in the form of code, genes, which determine our potentials and how we direct ourselves towards gnosis.

The approach:

-One presumes omniscience, knowledge of the absolute,.
For him it exists, is possible, and is desirable.
There IS an all-knowing mind, or one should become an all-knowing mind....a God...in essence putting an end to knowing, becoming....and attaining the absolute, Being.
He already knows the truth, and only has to justify knowing it.

-The other does not presume anything. He begins as an ignorant mind and builds knowledge, on top of the genetic ones he inherits and which determine how much and in what way he can know.
For him there is no end to seeking knowledge, nor should there be, as there is no evidence for this absolute the first presupposes.

-The third, the Modern, is in the middle.
He is ignorant and does not believe in omniscience.
For him knowing is a personal thing; it begins and ends in him, and has no meaning beyond him.
As such, knowing for him has only a personal application.
What is personal and does not go beyond the self, as it is defined? Hedonism...Materialism....
His knowledge is contained and is only useful within the short-lifespan he experiences...and nothing is passed-on, or applies if it is passed-on.
His child, if he has one as an accessory, will inherit nothing of gnosis form him, but must start anew...except for the genes...and even those this Modern can deny importance to.

Mo, you can post here as much as you like, and whatever you like.
Or rules are lax and few: stay on-topic, and if you cannot, start a new topic.
Insult, but also include substance along with it.
You will never be banned. You may or may not be restricted, as you are now.
Being a member of Perioci means you are restricted from one part of the forum you cannot see.
Varvaroi are more restricted.
Homoioi the least restricted.

If I cut-and-paste, I say it.
That piece you linked to is all mine.
Does that surprise you?

We are NOT, like ILP. We do not care about popularity, numbers, or civility, or political-correctness, or for mass inclusion....and we try not to be hypocrites.

Moderns make themselves vulnerable to current...they are current.
Defining themselves as that which begins at birth and ends at death, they make themselves small and needy of an identity.
The first identifying markers are gathered from the prevailing culture.
This is why you see in the U.S., and Americanism, this Globalization, an identification with production/consuming, work, acquisitions, and meaningless pleasure....sex with no purpose, no outcome, no spirit.

The future, if imagined at all, is placed in some fantastic plane of existence...some Star Trek (Transhumanism) other-wordly realm where humans do not quite behave as humans.
But the future is mostly ignored, if it is not ridiculed by making it childish.
the Modern wants his and he wants it now!!!
Damn the coming generations or a polluted earth.
It is about the immediate...what sells is good, what does not is bad.
There is no other consideration. And because what sells must be popular, populist, rooted in base instincts, then that is the only thing that matters.
See music and what themes it obsessively recycles.

To determine "what works better" one would have to, first, provide a goal, a motive.
How else would one decide what is "better"?
Better/worse are value judgments based on a comparison.

If the goal, the ideal, the purpose, is to find happiness, which then must be defined and explained as to how it is possible or if it is possible, then inebriation is "better" than lucidity.
If the goal, the motive, is to comfort yourself, then what is "better" is hiding from anything which disrupts this comfort.

My motive is to see...to be as lucid as possible....to witness all that I can before I die.
What is yours?

Long walks are important. One should do it every day. No matter what other activities one does. It's like traveling. It's about "owning" the physical universe. (This is an L.Ron Hubbard term.)

For the more immediate future, the time quality of "Aries" (from Ares/Mars, the roman/greek God of War), I wish to revive the political topic of Left versus Right. In my topics on this subject.

I find the Right depressive in their conservativism. It can lead to a "status quo" rigidness, that restricts lucid thinking. The Left of course have their own problems.

I found some valuable things in the writings of Lyssa, Apaosha and Recidivist. I would like to see more self-written posts. This should also be more effective to impregnate other minds. One also grows more self-aware. Hiding behind links and quotes arrests ones development.

Why, is the most important human question...it cuts to the very root of the Know Thyself dogma.
To answer it you must be honest, brave...
Here is where you display how you are neither.

Mo wrote:

Why be excellent? ––That’s a nonsensical question. Excellence is it’s own justification.
Why want to know things? –The answer is, “I just do”.
Why do you want to experience things? –Nonsensical again.
Why do you like pleasure? –Nonsensical, also.

No, this circular argument of saying "it is its own justification" fails to answer the question honestly.
Admiration...sexual potential....power...excellence has more than its own justification working for it.

"I just do" also exposes this reluctance to answer a question that may expose you, to yourself.
Why do we want to know?
Because we are ignorant, right?
And what of this ignorance?
It makes us vulnerable...it causes anxiety...it makes us weak.

Why know?
Because you are empowered by knowledge.
Why evolve curiosity...because without it the organism would perish due to its own apathy...or be enslaved by the one who does want to know and does know.

Like the Moderns.

As for pleasure...well we must get into metaphysics for that one.
Sexual pleasure is easier.

Why was the uphill/downhill metaphor not effective?
Because it designates a relationship between a mind and a geography, a planet with gravity.

My up<>down and down<>up thinking is based no ignorance and gnosis....and a mind's approach and attitude towards its original ignorance.
Now, unless you want to argue that in some cases a baby is born with knowledge, then your example fails.

It is also a relationship between life, an ordering, and the world, a disordering...increasing entropy...

Power is the excess of energies once the organism has taken care of self - self-maintenance.
These excesses in energies can be directed towards growth or procreation, it being a type of growth.

The accumulation of energies is not for energy's sake...but because the emergent unity, the life, is faced with constant attrition...The goal is to maintain itself in time, in the (inter)active Flux.
It is not for its own sake.

All value judgments, including power, is a comparison, a relationship.
An organism feels powerful in relation to another, or in relation to an environment, which is nothing more than otherness.
No, dear child, you do not act simply because you feel like it....because then why do you feel like it?
You do not want to know...you just want to enjoy.
Typically Modern...animalistic, simplistic.
No desire to discover the root of what makes you do what you do.
You just want to stop it at"Just because", like a toddler.

Sexual pleasure is a form of pleasure...related but not the same as pelasure in eating...or pleasure in drinking water.
One can live an entire life without sex.

Catholic childhood, boy?
Keep trying.
You mean not being ignorant is Catholic?
Perspectivism....nice shelter for young boys.
I just feel like it....It is MY view....case closed.
What a RETARD!!!
Ha!!!!

Good luck with the rest.
After all, simplicity, is its own reward.

You know what's funny about me being an "old geezer", other than how 47 is that, for you?
That this will be funnier, to me, in the future.

Mo wrote:

But not before saying that any goal like “uniting left and right politics”, as you said,... is bullshit.

I didn't say that. I said: bring together. A bridge. See what happens. War? No. I think each side would grow more self aware.

Mo wrote:

The moment I know that I’m better than everyone here, I'll leave.

And what exactly makes you unsure of this? (That you are better than everyone here)

Laconian wrote:

I consider myself white and my race mix 1/4 asian as a trait within this being white.

Just 1/8 asian (japanese). I learnt today.

Laconian wrote:

Mo wrote:

But not before saying that any goal like “uniting left and right politics”, as you said,... is bullshit.

I didn't say that. I said: bring together. A bridge. See what happens. War? No. I think each side would grow more self aware.

Watson, is that you again? I repeated to you exactly what you said to me... because "uniting" is the same thing as "bringing together". What you said is the definition of what I said, competent Sir. We are on the same page, young Jedi.

Suppose someone came along who said that 'lucidity' was their one and only goal. They only wanted to know themself, and had no other ends than that. I would want to ask such a person the following question: Do you think you ought to know much about what isn't worth knowing about? Or, do you think that you have to be worth looking into, to look into? And depending how you answer, then "knowing yourself" and lucidity and whatever you want to call it is something to be done along side other values, whatever those might be. The same holds if they only want to know about the world around them.

Here is my suggestion to you, Watson. Grab yourself an introductory philosophy book at the library. Something light, something easy to read, something easy to navigate through. You can just survey the land, the surface, superficially. Afterwards you can choose a whence and a wherefore for digging deeper.

You want to look for a method---a way of philosophizing, and not an answer. That's an insight that I think can be highlighted from Satyr's own first post in the thread. The method will take you to the answers and questions that you need. But starting with the right question will lead you nowhere if you haven't the right method. And the right answer will be worthless to you if you haven't found it for yourself. And now, I have a parting song for you....

"Congratulations! Today is your day.
You're off to great places! You're off and away!
You have brains in your head, and feet in your shoes.
You can steer yourself, any directon you choose."





Yes, I just quoted Dr. Seuss, to him. Do any of you other sluts want to get snarky, with me, about that?

Mo wrote:

Some values simply do not need further justification, because they are their own justification. That’s not circular, that’s foundational. If I were to justify some value by some other, and then justify that other value by the one I first tried to justify---that would be circular.

Something has value in relation to an other...

Mo wrote:

When you hear, “pleasure is good”… you’ve heard something tautological.

No, pleasure feels good...it is not good intrinsically...as there is no good/bad outside human interpretations, human (re)actions and relationships.
If I feel pelasure when mutilating myself, is this good?
What if I am addicted to the pleasure of morphine?

Pleasure is a negative sensation.
It is the alleviation of a need; a need is a lack directed towards an object/objective.
The object/objective alleviates the sensation of need, momentarily...it negates the sensation of existing.
The object/objective alleviates need because the mind is seeking permanent satiation, satisfaction, and the object/objective never offers it, because the object/objective is also lacking.
The mind seeks the absolute, because it is lacking; it values what is rare, and what is rare is what approaches the absolute, but never attains it.

I value life, because it is rare....if it were ubiquitous, it would be worthless. I also value life because it offers me the opportunity to evaluate, to value, to disriminate, to explore, to sense. Life is an ordering....collecting, accumulating, patterns - ordering.
I value honesty, both because it negates a threat, servicing a need of mine, and because it is rare.
I value beauty both because it is rare, and because it is a higher form of symmetry, and an indication of health promising me a satisfaction to a need.

Mo wrote:

---It’s true just by conceptual analysis of the term, ‘pleasure’. If some masochist thinks that pain is good, I will tell him that he is confused about what pain is---and that he really gets a psychological pleasure greater than whatever bodily pain he feels. And so, it simply is not an intelligible question to ask for a justification of pleasure.

No more than it is an intelligible question to ask why a “bachelor” is an unmarried male. I would say, “good grief man, that’s just what a ‘bachelor’ is!”

Ah...I recall that PhilosophyNow ditty. You are that turd from PN, aren't you...the turd with the "I have a dog, what kind is it?"
Fuck, boy...keep to your own kind. Are you stalking me?

Dear, turd...you should rethink your example.
Bachelor and married are human constructs.Like language, numbers, they have no meaning, they make no sense, outside the human mind.

Pleasure is not.
Human constructs, such as mathematics, language, are based on binary codes....implied absolutes...which take something for granted.
For instance, "The truth is there are no truths" or "There is absolutely no absolute" is nonsensical because
the concept that there is a truth is already presupposed, it is already accepted....1+1=2 is logical because the one is already taken for granted.
Therefore, to negate what is presupposed in the question, forces you to accept what is being negated, as a starting proposition.

The correct attitude is to dismiss any hypothesis that implies a truth, an absolute, outside the human brain, as being nonsensical.
The word "true" can only be used as an assessment of a person's abstractions, in relation to another person's. True is a perspective that asserts its superiority, by claiming an absolute position.

Marriage and bachelorhood only make sense within human constructs.
They are human social conventions, indicating a relationship which may, or may not, live up to its ideal.
In the case of marriage it implies monogamy...or a sexual relationship of exclusivity....but it does not prove it.
Bachelor is a male who has not entered into such a social construct and contract.
A bachelor must be male, turd.....married does not reveal the sex of the one who is involved in it.
Pleasure/pain are not based on human constructs.

But, moron, have we not gotten into this before?
Every category has sub-categories, and is itself a sub-category of another category.
Bachelor simply makes the category of unmarried more precise.....like dog makes the category of canine more precise....and hound makes the category of dog, which makes the category of canine more precise.
You can say "All bachelors are unmarried" nonsensical, because you are reversing the order.
If you say, "the unmarried are bachelors", in reference to a group, then this is not nonsensical, because it clarifies the sex of the ones who happen to be not married.

Saying "That polar bear is a bear" is tautological....saying "that bear is a polar bear" is not...you imbecile.
You are playing with words, like a female.

Mo wrote:

Excellence. I no more need a justification of ‘excellence’ than I need a justification of what I am.

No, you need to define it.
Who asked you to justify anything?
I asked you to define it.
Defining it as "Pleasure just is" or "Pleasure is what feels good" is not a definition.
Power just is, is not a definition or an explanation.

I said that "excellence" can apply to anything...what do YOU mean by it.
All value judgments are comparisons,. so compared to what, in what context, do you seek excellence?
Do you seek excellence in being a fool?
Do you want to be an excellent fag?
Do you want to excel in sucking cock?

If so, whom do you use as your standard.

In many ways even pleasure is a comparison.
When we feel this relief, we call pleasure, or a sense of contentment, we are comparing our state to another.

I feel hungry. Need pulls at me...I begin to suffer because of it.
Then I eat...I feel relief, I sense this as pleasing.

Mo wrote:

To be excellent is just to be what you are, to its full potential.

No...you are presupposing a telos....an absolute end.
There is no full anything...and you can never attain any fullness.
You do have potential...and it is in comparison to another's.
To excel means to be more than what you were before, a comparison between two states of self, or to be more in comparison to an other, or an average otherness.

Mo wrote:

That is it’s own justification. I hold it true simply because I am what I am---not because I feel like it.

In other words, I think you may have mistaken me.

"I am what I am" is saying exactly that, you moron.
It just says.... I am like that, just because.
"I yam what I yam" is what a dufus like Popeye would stutter.

See, here you presuppose "I"..and then using Descarte's technique you just say "am."
I = presupposed static...think = active....therefore....I = presupposed static again, the singularity...am = static being.

Think and I are the same...there is no thinker who just happens to be thinking...but language is forced to use absolutes.

So, pleasure is not other than I....in relation to an earlier state, a previous condition in the Becoming.
In relation to this previous condition, I interpret this condition as being a relief. A relief of what?
Of need.
What is need?
The sensation of I, within the world.
Need is the sensation of existing...and what does it signify?
A lack...an absence.
I, this Becoming, sense my existence, as part of reality, as a lacking.
I am not complete, perfect, absolute, static...I am not Being.
I am not absolutely aware, omnipotent, omniscient.
All these terms are my projections of what I may possibly lack....they are words trying to describe what is absent.


Using the same word to define the word you want to define, is circular.

Black is blackness...is not a definition.

Mo wrote:

I mean that when you tell everyone that they are weak, and unequally so, it sounds like you situating yourself to be their Pope.

We are all weak, ignorant, dependent, contingent...lacking...but not equally so.
No sin.
Who said anything about a sin.
This lack makes me possible...and so I do not denounce it or feel ashamed of it.
It is the very sensation of my existence...my Becoming.
I accept both the need in me and its ephemeral alleviations, which I feel as pelasure.
I do not deny my need, I try to control it...just as I don to deny the feminine part of me, I try to control it.

Satyr wrote:

Mo wrote:

Some values simply do not need further justification, because they are their own justification. That’s not circular, that’s foundational.

Something has value in relation to an other...

No, not quite. Something has more or less value only in relation to another, but if something has value, it is simply because the world and your physiology is a certain way, rather than not. That vitamin C is valuable to you, has nothing the fuck to do with whether other people exist. But whether you need more or less vitamin C will be determined by some relation to your past. The same holds for everything else that is valuable to you. If courage is valuable, it's simply valuable given the kind of creature that you are, and the world you are faced with... but whether you are more or less courageous than someone else, is relational.

Satyr wrote:

If I feel pelasure when mutilating myself, is this good?

I believe I answered this already. Here’s a question for you, Great And Knowing Master: “Do you think that bad actions are bad simply because they cause you pleasure? Or do you think that when you get pleasure from something bad it is because of something other than its causing you pleasure?” I submit this question to your great and generous benevolence, Great And Knowing Master.

A simple, humble request… It would be good for the Great and Knowing Master, when he reads my post, to read a full paragraph at a time, lest he quote one line and respond to it, only to quote the next and find the answer to his query within the very next line. I am referring to the excellence discussion, but of course you know that.

No, I am not from PhilosophyNow. When I tell you that pleasure is good, and that this is tautological, you might more accurately think that I am from the 18th century. Or else earlier. Perhaps I am Callicles or Gorgias or one of those interlocutors, revived and in the flesh.

Oh, I am a turd…? I am weak…? I am a child…?
A knife in my back, my friend. Mercy!
What penetrating insight... what precision... what care... what humor...

Satyr wrote:

I said that "excellence" can apply to anything...what do YOU mean by it.
All value judgments are comparisons,. so compared to what, in what context, do you seek excellence?
Do you seek excellence in being a fool?

If so, whom do you use as your standard.

Martin Heidegger is a fool. He's the standard bearer of stupidity, in my mind. But no, I do not want to be a fool... I believe I've already said this...

That’s right. "I don’t want to be excellent at describing fly shit", right? That was how I led your Watson, or whatever he is to you, back to the beginning of that garden path I took him down.

I’ll paint you a picture of excellence, in general strokes, but I do not know how to color in the lines---and hence I’m exploring. Excellence, I think, has something to do with maximizing and realizing the potentialities that you have. Yes, Great and Knowing Master, I can indeed maximize my potential to be a fly shit connoisseur---and clearly that would not be excellent. However, that might only be because to do that, I would have to at the same time trample all kinds of other potential that I have. Obviously, opportunity cost decisions are everywhere---but there are better and worse decisions. Anyways, I do not have settled convictions on the particulars.

Satyr wrote:

Think and I are the same...there is no thinker who just happens to be thinking...but language is forced to use absolutes.

GOOD HEAVENS!! Fritz, is that you?? Wait, you mean it’s not lighting that flashes?! Allliiiiivvvvveee.

But yes, I get this, and agree.

Satyr wrote:

We are all weak, ignorant, dependent, contingent...lacking...but not equally so.

Oh for godssakes man, lighten up. It makes just as much sense to say that we are all pretty strong, knowing some things, independent, somehow necessary….but not equally so. What’s with the darker cast? You couldn’t become who you are if you weren’t already who you are.

Well, anyways, my friend---It's about time for me pass on my way... to go back to the weak and degenerate filth from whence I came. I won't say I enjoyed reading your blog, but it was worth it for more worthy reasons than enjoyment.

Live lightly. ...Oh wait, shit, is that taken already?! Damnnn.



I am a river.

Mo wrote:

No, not quite. Something has more or less value only in relation to another, but if something has value, it is simply because the world and your physiology is a certain way, rather than not.

Yes, and your physiology is so because of how it (inter)acts with otherness....the world being another term for otherness.
Nobody is independent....all is contingent.

You are not what you are, 'just because.'

Mo wrote:

That vitamin C is valuable to you, has nothing the fuck to do with whether other people exist.

See, this is where retards just become fatiguing.
Who said "people" were the only other?
Are you so simple as to equate the world with the human world?
Vitamin C is valuable because it is rare, you idiot.
We enjoy fats and sugars because we evolved in austere environments, natural ones, where these are rare.
It is human intervention that alters this.

Mo wrote:

I believe I answered this already. Here’s a question for you, Great And Knowing Master: “Do you think that bad actions are bad simply because they cause you pleasure?

I do not believe in bad/good...this is your paradigm.
I believes in actions which happen to be constructive or destructive in relation to an observer.
Actions are not intrinsically anything...but actions. How YOU (re)act to them is part of how YOU relate to them.

Mo wrote:

Or do you think that when you get pleasure from something bad it is because of something other than its causing you pleasure?” I submit this question to your great and generous benevolence, Great And Knowing Master.

Thank you minion...
I shall now speak....so all gather to taste the nectar dripping from my lips.

Pleasure is the sensation of temporarily satiating a need. A need builds over time, turning from a feint longing to a pressing suffering/pain.
Satiating a need is always incomplete, and it can occur suddenly or gradually.
The amount of pelasure the mind feels, as an interpretation of this satiation, is always in proportion to the level of need/suffering that preceded it.
For instance, drinking cold water is pleasing...but not as pleasing as when I suddenly drink it after a prolonged period of going without it.
Then it becomes orgasmic.
The pleasure is a negation of the need for hydration...and it is felt in comparison to a previous state.

Mo wrote:

No, I am not from PhilosophyNow. When I tell you that pleasure is good, and that this is tautological, you might more accurately think that I am from the 18th century. Or else earlier. Perhaps I am Callicles or Gorgias or one of those interlocutors, revived and in the flesh.

So many fools, so little time.
Forgive me for presuming, but you use the same arguments as another.

Even the things that you think as pleasing can be unpleasant or result in unpleasantness if indulged in too much.
What you consider pleasing, from what I gather, is the immediate....a very animalistic position.

Mo wrote:

That’s right. "I don’t want to be excellent at describing fly shit", right? That was how I led your Watson, or whatever he is to you, back to the beginning of that garden path I took him down.

My, what a clever clown, you are...no humor though.
Your biggest concern now is saving face, protecting that ego.

Mo wrote:

I’ll paint you a picture of excellence, in general strokes, but I do not know how to color in the lines---and hence I’m exploring. Excellence, I think, has something to do with maximizing and realizing the potentialities that you have. Yes, Great and Knowing Master, I can indeed maximize my potential to be a fly shit connoisseur---and clearly that would not be excellent. However, that might only be because to do that, I would have to at the same time trample all kinds of other potential that I have. Obviously, opportunity cost decisions are everywhere---but there are better and worse decisions. Anyways, I do not have settled convictions on the particulars.

When you maximize one potential, you must minimize - "trample" - others.....it is called specialization.
A cheetah maximizes its potential for speed, but minimizes its potential for power, like the lion has.
It sacrifices to become more effective within a niche.

A female maximizes her potential in one physical/psychological direction, but minimizes it in another.

Excellence is always in regards to an idea(l)...for instance, if you want to maximize your potential for knowing, your ideal is omniscience...if it is beauty you seek, then perfect symmetry is what you aim for.
An idea(l) is what gives the Will, a direction. We all have ideals....but not all ideals are equal in that they do not all result in the same type of man.

A man compares himself to that ideal, and then judges his own excellence in relation to it.
What is YOUR ideal, boy?
Not eating shit, I presume.

There is no intrinsic value, boy....that's Christian crap, and you fly to it.
Spirit/Soul is but the past given another symbol, another word.
All value judgments are comparisons of a mind's self-perception - and here is where know thyself factors in - and otherness....the world.

Mo wrote:

Oh for godssakes man, lighten up.

I am cool.
Humor is also a defensive tool.

Mo wrote:

It makes just as much sense to say that we are all pretty strong, knowing some things, independent, somehow necessary….but not equally so. What’s with the darker cast? You couldn’t become who you are if you weren’t already who you are.

Ummm, no it doesn't...."pretty strong" is the same as pretty weak, but it implies omnipotence.
We are not all 'pretty knowing'...we are not born that way. We are born ignorant and build knowledge.
The 'glass is half full' does not work.

I think your herd likes that projection of positivity.
You enjoy their company because they sooth a fear, and satisfy a need.
But you have no testicles to try to explore what that need is.

It is classic, for sheeple, of your ilk, like Morono, to seek weakness in the idea(l) that confronts their own...but never to do so towards their own kind and towards themselves.
When I say "We are all weak and ignorant to varying degrees" I include myself...but this still implies that I know more and am stronger than you....comparisons, turd...juxtapositions....degrees.

Getting back to Satyr's first post. There must be a fourth group. That would be the bottom-up thinkers, who from their past, and their inherited sense of values and honor ect. project reasonable future goals.They neither just look in their past, nor just project into the future (Top Down), nor do they just live like other animals just for the moment.
There is of course a genetic and memetic side to this. Genes are inherited. Memes depend on the capability of the genetic make-up as well as the memetic influences and teachings (nurture) one is exposed to. (Here "Will" or even "Will to Power" plays a role.) Your surroundings form you. Who you are and who you will be in the future. It's not all nature (past nurture), there is also present nurture and you can even become a better person, by choosing better teachers, if you're lucky. Satyr is a good teacher to me. One of a few. There are others even here on KTS (who try their best and inspired me to valuable research for example on Paganism). There are none on ILP. That's why I am here. Easy as that.

Satyr wrote:

I do not believe in bad/good...this is your paradigm.

Benevolent Wisdom... Don't ask me whether "mutiliating yourself is good or bad", or something like that, and then declare that you don't believe in simple english-language distinctions, like good and bad, that you used in the question you asked.

Satyr wrote:

Pleasure is the sensation of temporarily satiating a need.

There's this old phrase that, "pleasure is the absence of pain". It's what the darker cast of person, who is heavy---a weight bearing spirit---says. Lighter more joyful people have their own way of speaking and saying the exact equivalent, as well. They say that, "pain is the absence of pleasure".

Satyr wrote:

We are not all 'pretty knowing'...we are not born that way. We are born ignorant and build knowledge.
The 'glass is half full' does not work.

No, camel, you're wrong. When you were born, you knew exactly how to be what you were. You were born encoded with all kinds of knowledge, and you have never, ever, been a blank slate. And you were pretty strong the moment you were born, because you did what many people, who don't exist, died trying to do.

Satyr wrote:

What you consider pleasing, from what I gather, is the immediate....a very animalistic position.

Did you gather that in the dark?

Satyr wrote:

There is no intrinsic value, boy....that's Christian crap, and you fly to it.

Consult with your friends, Merriam and Webster... I never said inherent, I said intrinsic.

Satyr wrote:

Vitamin C is valuable because it is rare, you idiot.

Vitamin C has value to you just because because of your physiology. Vitamin C has more or less value to you by how available it is.

I AM...intrinsically delicious.

To decide which position is more honest between "Pleasure is the absence of pain" and "Pain is the absence of pleasure", you light-in-the-head sorts, should consider this:

First let me clarify.
Pain/Suffering, is but an extreme of need.
It is need left unsatisfied, until the mind is confronted with damage being done to its emergent unity, temporal attrition.
The sensation of discomfort is essentially a signal to the brain that some activity must be done to remedy a coming disaster; it is the brain receiving bio-energy pulses informing it of deterioration in some part of its control.

An experiment.
Do not eat...see how long you deny need/suffering.
Do not drink, see how long you deny need/suffering.
Do not move, see how long you remain comfortably numb.
Do not think, see...well, in your case you already have first-hand experience.

Hypothesis:

Pleasure, is a temporary respite from the perception of this agon, as the Greeks called it.
They, too, were idiots, like Heidegger...and not, geniuses, like you.
Given that analogy, I think I prefer calling myself an idiot...or a Satyr.
The normal state is experienced as Need...this increasing entropy, and this absence of an absolute.

Similarly, darkness, or what man interprets, perceives, as darkness, does not require energy; cold, does not require energy; dying, or the decay of life, does not require energy.
It just happens.
Why life is only possible towards a state of increasing entropy, I will not get into here...and certainly not with you.

Well, it's a bit more complex than that, because darkness is also how the human mind interprets what it cannot find a pattern in, or cannot perceive, due to a lack of stimuli, or weak acuity.
Nevertheless, chaos is the deterioration of order, and so it would be imperceptible by a brain evolved to perceive patterns.

-----------------------

Love the way you just dropped the "bachelors are unmarried, is nonsense," coyness.
Girls, love word-games.

Now it's the "glass half full/empty" crap...and you on the "half-full" camp, I'm sure.

I gave you a basic foundation...now you play with yourself, or think about this:
All phenomena man calls "positive" depend on effort, or on will directing the emergent unity's aggregate energies towards an object/objective.
What simpletons call "bad", does not require effort.

And what is chaos?
Randomness....a reduction in ordering, a reduction in patterns.
And what is life?
Ordering.
You, constitute a dictatorship of cells; your body can be considered a totalitarian regime enforcing a strict code of rules...genetics.
What is knowledge?
Ordered experiences, translated into language (a common code of communicating abstractions). Knowledge is ordered data.
What is consciousness?
An ordering of sensual data; an ordering of experiences with phenomena, (inter)activity.

But never delve deeper, man-child...just call it intrinsic....

---------------------------------------------------------
If your motive is to simply tell me that you are happier than I am...then just say it.
Say it and be relieved. Join the Shit-Smear and gloat, to the goat.
Am I sad? Am I? Am I incapable of making friends in the "real world"?
Am I dealing with a bad childhood, a personal failing?

We'll assume that you are correct, no matter what, given that you are so obsessed with the notion of positivity, and that you can only feel superior in this way alone...and never mind the reality of it.

I'll give you another symbolic scenario to clarify things.

Two men lift weights.
One does consistently, never shying away from weight. He stresses himself deliberately or not...he may be unfortunate and be forced to exist within an environment demanding the lifting of weight.
The mother runs from weight...ridicules weight lifters, and is content to be comfortable.

The two meet. A juxtaposition.
Questions...we'll assume only mass is at play here to keep it simple:

Which one has the highest probability of beating the other to a pulp?

Which one, upon hearing of all that weight, thinks the other is in constant pain?
Keep in mind, that constant exposure makes the weight-lifter more tolerant of bigger masses.
What for the weakling is massive, for the one who stressed himself consistently over a period of time, it is nothing.

Which one has a higher probability of surviving an increase in weight?

-------------------------

I do believe I'm done with you.
If one of my friends wants to play with you, they are welcomed to your intrinsic mousiness.
It was fun...and do not worry, we will also assume you exposed me as a fool...and that you were victorious.

Ta, Ta,

Satyr wrote:

I do believe I'm done with you.
If one of my friends wants to play with you, they are welcomed to your intrinsic mousiness.
It was fun...and do not worry, we will also assume you exposed me as a fool...and that you were victorious.

Ta, Ta,

That was your last post, was it? Well then endure my own last post, since there’s a couple things worth clearing up. --And lest you think that I haven’t learned anything here---about how to conduct oneself---allow me to preface my remarks with the following,

FEE FI FO FUMMM!!

BOW BEFORE MY RELATIONAL STRENGTH, DEPENDING OF COURSE ON WHO IS POSTING!!! I AM THE KEEPER OF THE HALF-EMPTY GLASS!!!

Ahem..

I mainly only respond to ideas I don’t agree with. --That’s productive. That could be why I didn’t respond to anything to do with the bachelors and tautology stuff. I also don’t respond when I don’t understand what the person is saying AND at the same time don’t think that THEY do either. That’s a possibility, as well.

Satyr wrote:

I gave you a basic foundation...now you play with yourself, or think about this:
All phenomena man calls "positive" depend on effort, or on will directing the emergent unity's aggregate energies towards an object/objective.
What simpletons call "bad", does not require effort.

Um, maybe... I used to play baseball with this guy. The game came easy to him… but he was good. Two hundred million dollars good. Counterexample, sire? Or maybe you think that a person calls ‘good’ whatever HE requires effort to do. --But I require effort to cook a complicated meal… and my effort won’t necessarily make it good.

Satyr wrote:

If your motive is to simply tell me that you are happier than I am...then just say it.
Say it and be relieved. Join the Shit-Smear and gloat, to the goat.
Am I sad? Am I? Am I incapable of making friends in the "real world"?
Am I dealing with a bad childhood, a personal failing?

If you are trying to psychologize about something I said, you are wrong. Address my ideas. And don’t try psychologizing, until you’re ready and able to do it accurately.

The weightlifting analogy was a nice one. It’s certainly true about the world, but not the way you may think. But I think it’s pretty obvious who is going to get shit kicked in a fight----the person who has lifted weights and hasn’t put them down, first. I'd be afraid for that person if the world put on him even a straw more. --And if you think I am saying something about you, then go fuck yourself… I’m talking about the world and people in it.

Not last post...last long one.

A baseball player born with a talent inherits effort done.
The genes pass on nurturing. The work was done beforehand.

Nice huh?

Yea, how nice of Lamarck.

I'm more of a Jesus fan.
I think the holy spirit makes an athlete talented.

Why are there more black runners in every top-level hundred-yard-dash?
God...that's why Negros are so thankful to God.

Well, actually, I'm more inclined towards the current, popular, sentiment:
We are all born equal...and circumstances create diversity.

Lamarck. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. Jean-Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de Lamarck.

How long does it matter whether we're born equal or not? ---You think that new genetic information is being cultivated within a life. That's how a horse grew a long neck and raised a giraffe, isn't it?

But...but...we've always been equal, child.
All 6,000 years.
The holy text says so...we are all living in sin....in a false reality.
Jesus says so...Jesus of Nazareth...Jesus the Nazarene, son to Mary, and God the almighty...and the cuckold Joseph.

Species just happen.
God creates them out of nothing.
I'm not even here.
I am a figment of God's thinking...and so are you.
We are all of God, in God...let us prey.

I've heard that story about the sycamore tree.
That it continues to be.
When there's none about on the quad.
Because of God.

So then I beat him down like an autistic kid who can't do math, and thusly did I lift myself. I became like a bird of prey, because I am like a bird.

Some, guided by this post, no doubt, concluded that we are dealing with abductive reasoning.

Then they try to diminish the reasoning without offering an alternative, by calling it "obsessive", as if a mind can only use one form of reasoning and no other.

In relation to deductive reasoning, one is left to wonder how a rule is asserted if it is not first built on abductive reasoning.
A rule is built on experiences of phenomena; upon observation which then can be generalized into a rule which holds true most often than not.
One does not construct a rule out of thin air, unless he is a nihilist and a coward.

I would say that my Bottom<>Up thinking is more inductive reasoning.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

In my description of Top<>Down thinking what I am asserting is that with nihilism, and world-hating, perspectives, the deduction begins from a rule which has no foundation in anything perceived and sometimes it is a contradiction of what is perceived.
In this case the is no reason, and so no reasoning, but in name only.
One begins from a premise, a rule, a law, an end, that has no basis on anything experienced and often comes into conflict with what is experienced, and then it deduces from this false starting premise errors, based on nothing more than hope, as the antidote to fear.

This brings the mind into conflict with its own perception: consciousness being contradicted by self-consciousness, which has become self-referential.
This internal conflict results in a schism.

For consciousness to evolve a division must begin to take place: an ordering within the disordering.
This detachment from the Flux, as partial as it may be, is the prerequisite for ordering to begin - this self-ordering being called life.
The organism which emerges as an imperfect, forever towards completion, self-organization develops awareness, at first a very primitive form of sensing, which aids it in this self-maintenance by offering ti the potential to choose; choice is another way of saying discriminate.
Without this closing off, this detachment using a membrane, a skin, a skull, no choice is possible.
To be conscious is to discriminate what is outside one's wilful control, by recognizing patterns.
There must be differentiation for there to be a recognition of sameness.
The perception of sameness is the same as saying that a pattern is perceived.

The organism perceives a pattern which it then recognizes in multiple instances.
It can now discern, it can discriminant, between the pattern and an other pattern, or the pattern and the absence of one.
A pattern is a simplified/generalized (inter)activity which is consistent, and predictable ...it has a rhythm and a routine.
The more aware a mind is the more discriminating the pattern it perceives.
What for a simpler mind appears uniform for a more sophisticated one is full of divisions, full of more intricate patterns.

To Know Thyself is to be aware of one's own pattern of behaving or (inter)acting, beyond the superficial or the more simplistic and general. It is to identify one's self as distinct in relation to otherness.
The more precise this self-awareness is, all the more precise its association with otherness.
The already detaching self-organization, with all the processes and aggregate energies interacting, and which we call ego/self, then perceives the patterns it identifies with in the other.
This recognition of sameness is always incomplete, as nothing is ever absolute and so never absolutely the same.

Entropy, in fact, means this perpetual differentiation, creating increasingly complex (inter)actions, veering towards randomness ...or the absence of patterns.
Divergence is the name of the game we call existence, and this is why ordering and the appreciation of order (symmetry, beauty) and the condition of sameness, is important to us as self-organizing entities within a sea of asymmetrical, disorganization - this asymmetry is first perceived as ugliness and then as the total void.

Uniformity is attractive to the Nihilist because in this condition of increasing entropy he wishes to comfort himself with the idea(l) that all this chaos hides a more sophisticated order. The nihilist wishes to help this coming "higher order" - represented in the Bible as the "end of Days" - by destroying all present ordering.
It levels all divisions into a uniformity by seeking out a speckle of sameness, a small degree of a shared pattern, to blow out of proportion, while ignoring the vast amounts of patterns that differentiate.

Terrified by the prospect of chaos, the mind flees towards a higher form of simplification to retain its comforting notion of order in the disordering.
The Nihilist, whether he be Marxist, Anarchist, or Secular Humanist Liberal, must perceive the differentiation within humanity as a simplified pattern he can recognize and belong to. Anything that fragments this generalized/simplified uniformity is condemned as evil, or as a representation of Satan, which is the coming Chaos.
God is changed into an idea(l) he renames "humanity" and change is renamed into a coming higher order, which is mysterious and unseen: the future.
Whatever further decreases complexity by finding more simpler patterns to construct the illusion of wholeness, is deified, worshipped; what points to divergence, fragments, increases perception of finer patterns which divide what is seemingly and mysterious one, is demonized and/or vilified.

Ergo, the discriminating consciousness of divergence, is to be damned and repressed, called the "master of illusions".  
It must be mocked and dismissed as ill, as fear, as hate...in other words it is the scapegoat for the expulsion of personal anxieties in relation to existence.


The need to perceive sameness and to exaggerate it to the point where it cocoons the individual in a warm embrace, a nurturing womb, is this desire to find that absolute, singularity, this absent absolute which is represented as either a distant past or projected as some coming future.

The mind needs to alleviate its anxiety in regards to otherness and entropy by immersing itself in sameness, burying himself back in the warm, all-encompassing womb; turning the alien into the familiar, by focusing on the unifying pattern at the expense of all other divergences, sacrificing consciousness to accomplish the feat.

The more anxiety the individual feels in relation to existence, to otherness to entropy (time), all the more large the group and the uniformity it requires to feel safe within; the more it is willing to discredit its own identity its own divergence its own consciousness of differences.

In that case what you are explaining is the type of reasoning which places the ideal world before the natural world.  The very fact that it is an ideal, a projected un-reality, makes error certain.  An ideal can not be a law, nor a rule but is only a guide line. This is contrasted by Bottom-Up thinking in which the natural forms the basis of the rule.  The powers of both deduction and induction come into play in a cyclic nature, the mind both ascends and descends, like "Ratatoskr" that active little squirrel, which moves from the top of Yggdrasil to the bottom, ascending to that great eagle and down low that gnawing serpent.

Order, Chaos, Entropy, Uniformity, these are not absolutes, and you are correct to say that there are no absolutes, everything is cyclic and so fluid.  

What we find is that order precedes chaos and chaos precedes order.  So that periods of chaos and entropy are followed by periods of order and uniformity.  Nature, or what you call the “sum of all nurturing” works in this manner: to paraphrase Goethe: "what is uniform nature tends to break apart, what is divided, nature tends to unite. 

We may, depending on what we hope to achieve, embrace either order or chaos as a means to an end.  There are times which the further promotion of chaos is preferable to the resistance of it just as there are reasons to enter extreme inactive states to experience extreme activity.  There are reasons why one would want to accelerate the travel between states as well, especially when they wish to experience life and not just existence. 

Using our Bottom-up thinking, we find in nature the absurdity of linear time and so the absurdity of the 2nd thermodynamic law. Everywhere we find cycles, death and decay followed by new life and vitality, cold and high pressure followed by warm and low pressure systems, the tide ebbs and flows, the sun rises and sets, the moon waxes and wanes.  There is movement in the still and stillness in the moved, ice must dissolve to water and water must evaporate to a gas.  The ice symbolizes the static state, the state of being, the state of solidity and union,  The gas, the state of ceasing, expansion and disunion and in the fluid, is seen the state of equilibrium and perpetual becoming.  No wonder that water is identified with life, and it is no wonder, that blood is the water of life.  Thus as the poets say, "Death resides in the seed, and the seed, in death".