A War Like No Other

The miserly spirit covets what it does not possess; it covets what it cannot find in itself.
Then it turns outwards to gratify its needs, and it amasses, it appropriates, it steals and lies and takes, to fill the gap in itself.

The Jew, finding nothing in self (sum of all nurturing = nature), sought to fill in this void with otherness; with things, and individuals, and ideas, expressed with words that had no connection to the real.

Where no earthly king would value them, they sought their King of kings in the beyond; when nothing in their past made them feel proud, they sought self-esteem in the immediate, the hedonistic and materialistic, or in the future, the immanent, the coming messiah, the coming 'day of reckoning', the coming "better world"; when no power could be found within them, amongst them, they sought it in the divine Other, and placed themselves at His feet as his preferred kind; when honesty was too painful and the world too indifferent, they sought salvation in duplicity and in faked altruism, selling one thing and buying another; when they were hated for it, they made hate their defining emotion: they the eternal, innocent, victims of human depravity; and when their lies took hold amongst the multitudes who had been allowed to live, without earning it, then they sought a way out of the paradox in words.

Psychology as a determining factor:

We inherit that internal organ hierarchy, we call spontaneous or innate, which determines our (re)actions to the external, indifferent to us, hierarchies, we call reality and/or world,, which determine our (inter)actions.
This represents our genetic predisposition.

Coming into contact with ideas/ideals, presented to us as theories, probable methods for guiding our (re)actions and (inter)actions, projected, for us, as objects/objectives, we focus our aggregate energies, those inherited internal organ hierarchies upon them, and we nurture, train, educate, ourselves accordingly.

Given the appeal of the path-of-least-resistance this internal hierarchy (psychology) will infect our interpretations (subjective) of the external (inter)activity (objective).
Therein starts the conflict between ideal and real; between the noumenon and the phenomenon.

In nature the conflict is resolved by the noumenon either perishing, due to its own inferiority, or adapting, under the demands of the indifferent phenomenon.
In human environments this is not, always, the case.
When the inferior is necessary to establish an internal harmony, within a SuperOrganism (State, Institution, Nation, Ideology, some other human artifice), then it is protected from death and from the need to adapt self to the world.
Instead it offers the illusion that the world is adapting to the self, where "self" becomes the shared identifier - the bigger Self - and the individual self becomes shamed, repressed, sublimated, into hiding.
Once this inversion is achieved and the identifier is externalized, abstracted, idealized, made into a noetic human artifice, then the organ hierarchies, that produce the organism's psyche - its geentic essence - are dominated by, and integrated within the organization hierarchies that produce the SuperOrganism's Ideology - its memetic essence.

To begin to construct one must deconstruct what is already present. This either prepares the environment for a solid foundation to be laid down, and/or it destroys that constructs that have already been built and would not support what will be built in their place.
Because Modernity, and its underlying nihilism, is founded on noetic construct, and the words symbolizing them, to lay down the groundwork before building is to proceed, one must undo what has been done. In this case the words being used must be reattached to the phenomena they were supposed to refer to when they were detached.

This reattachment of words, and the concepts they represent, to the empirical, the phenomenon, is the beginning of reconstruction, which will be, for those raised in a world where the words remained detached and purified in their comforting disconnect, a destructive process.

So be it.

In the course of tearing down the Modern edifice a man had been living in, he may discover that an ancient structure is already present deep in the ground; buried, and forgotten, for years, beneath his previous gaudy construct.
Something sturdy and old - still standing underneath the dirt; something beautiful.

The deeper he digs to lay down his foundation the more likely he is to find that one has already been built for him; awaiting for him to rediscover it.

Whatever form the absent absolute takes, and whatever word is used to symbolize it, it, nevertheless, always remains an unattainable end, sometimes full of the dread of negative energy, and at other times full of the seductive power of the positive promise.

It can take on any form because it is absent, and forever in the beyond, or in the immanent future.
If it becomes detached from its source, its original utility, it can become a vehicle of escape, of surrender, of self-negating delusion. It is a noetic device (noumenon) and as such it is flexible, and free, when it no longer refers to a phenomenon, and it has lost its primary utility.
It can be called an idea(l) to encompass its multiplicities, or an object/objective, to insinuate its evasive projections, but it remains always absent, and this absence man can feel inside of himself as longing (when it is intellectual and spiritual - memetic), or as need (when it is visceral and organic - genetic).

And when this absent absolute is imagined as the opposite of what is perceived; when the phenomenon is inverted to accommodate the desirable abstraction, then it can be a positive kind of self-negation, and hatred of life and of self, as its representation.
And when the absent absolute is understood in linguistic terms, reflecting mental models that correspond to nothing actual, nothing experienced, then it becomes a source of paradox, and a stimulation to ridicule.

Because between the objective world of fluctuating, dynamic, processes, and the subjective brain, foraging for order, the pattern is frozen in space/time, and turned into a thing, an abstraction, that can be manipulated, and codified and simplified and incorporated into a world-view.
And after the interpreting is done the mind forgets that it has constructed this model to understand and to cope with the phenomenon that remains forever mysterious and uncertain, and indifferent to human projections.

And that is when God becomes a word, and the word becomes God.

What is “lack” if not the sensation of longing and need, the mind feels in its innermost becoming, as the absence of its own being?
What is lack but the feeling of uncertainty, of fluctuating changes the organism must deal with if it is to continue becoming; if it is to remain a continuity?
What is lack but the call to action; the sensation of agon that may lead to destruction or construction; to disorganization, or to a superior form of organization?
What is lack but the absence of what man craves, desires, needs, but has not?
What is lack but that which forces the mind to project what is missing, as an object/objective, calling it “power”, “life”, “value”, “God”, “being”, “one”, “whole”, and in the striving towards it to find purpose and meaning, and in taking it literally as an end, to find relief in surrender and immersion and escape though an idealized otherness?

What is lack but the spaces of possibility, opening up to human creativity, tuning them to probability?
What is lack but the nihilistic spark, desperately wanting to implode space/time into a restricting singularity, an absolute, or the death wish wanting to dilute itself in its absence?

For the pagan, lack is the crest of the wave he balances upon.

Implosive/Explosive

Cult of Victims: those chosen to suffer, and find identity in being chosen by an Other, giving this inevitability a meaning and a value, implodes, under the pressures of its own, all-encompassing, temporal mass, into the singularity of self (Modern individuality) where suffering finds salvation in endless self-gratification; a black hole pulling everything into itself, allowing very little, but the radiating energies of its consuming, to escape.

In both cases the implosion is a falling into, or towards a coming state of certainty and perfection.
The alternative to this, is a past, pushing, spilling forth, exploding towards an unknown, and uncertain, ‘yet to be’.

The objective is to the subjective as the phenomenon is to the noumenon.
One is dynamic and continuously altering, being a term describing (inter)activity, which is never ending.
The other is a static representation, continuously being updated and connected in a linear fashion, but remaining a generalization/simplification.
To the subjective mind the objective world is continuously falling away (infinite), and can only be comprehended by enclosing it within a noetic construct (finite).
The subjective mind is continuously constructing the idea(l) (abstraction) to deal with the real (dynamic).
Nihilism emerges as the idea(l) which contradicts the perceived real – it is an idea(l) which rather than attempting to cover the distance between noumenon and phenomenon, and be a mechanism for adapting, becomes a noetic projection either hoping for an end to the entire process, or constructing abstractions that oppose the real, or invert it so as to create the concept of a hidden, more real reality.
The facility with which the mind can take its own noetic devices literally, and imagine an inversion of a real world, that cannot be dealt with so easily, makes this practice seductive, and those who can offer it to those with a lesser talent for it become saviors, or priests representing salvation.
The phenomenon, being the sum of all patterns perceived and encompassed in a simplified/generalized thingness, may be so problematic to the noumenon that it can only escape its implications by being reduced to an illusion, or by being converted to its opposite. The conversion occurs during the process of simplification/generalization, and afterwards when it is selectively incorporated into an idea(l) which is then projected into the “beyond” or the future as the absolute negation of all that is perceived or as the fulfillment of all which is absent in the experienced.

The “positive” nihilistic idea(l) gathers in numbers what it cannot produce in qualities. It is dependent on fate, and belief, because outside the mind it has no reference point.
Language is its only foundation, and words the metaphorical bricks it uses to build its sheltering temples, gathering within its own constructs the numbers required to remain viable.

The agon converts from hot to cold, from masculine to feminine, from aggressive to passive aggressive, from a phenomenon expression, to a noetic expression - from swords to pens, and from physical to mental...a war of words.
And along with it the territories where this agon takes place, and the goals alter accordingly.

Morality is placing man, as a representative of life, at the center of the universe, and then concluding that what benefits man, in regards to a specific idea(l) (object/objective), must be a cosmic “good”, and what threatens man must be a cosmic “evil”.
Once this leap of faith is achieved – based on narcissistic arrogance making it all the more easily acceptable – then the idea(l) that man’s interests, pleasures, and organic needs are part of a universal mystical rule can also be embraced without a second thought.
Use the term “world” and most often the other will assume you mean the human world of morals, ideals and hopes.
Use the word “objective” and automatically it is converted to human subjectivity without any existence outside the human brain.
Any attempt to bridge the existential distance between objective and subjective is either considered too impossible to be attempted, or too worthless to matter.
Every human dialogue becomes a debate over which subjectivity is most “positive” to theoretical human beings in the past, present and/or future, and conveniently avoids any discussion of reality beyond human desire.
Not even the attempt to approach objectivity is tolerated for long. If you cannot provide an absolute objectivity then the group would rather settle for a community of shared subjective equality, because in almost every case it satisfies some personal interest.

We live in an age where all that it takes is one person being hurt by a comment, a description of reality, a perspective, no matter how accurate and lucid it is, to make this description evil and intolerable.
If you do not hide it in pretend humour then it must be buried in pretend humility.
The ones secretly, or not, agreeing with it have to distance themselves, in case they are also associated with the source.
It’s not intentional, it’s intuitive; an expected automatic (re)action.
The wrath of the herd will hang like a blade over you, if you dare to cross that communal line; each member, being hurt, adding to the weight stressing the proverbial cord preventing it from slashing into your head.
This is herd morality.
This is “objective morality”, as it is called by the obtuse.
A manmade line in the existential sand; an emotion placed on a pedestal determining towards which direction the balance of what is considered appropriate and true will fall, or determining what is to be called good and bad.

Censorship is inevitable, though never overt.
It’s this silent decree decided by the majority, or any institution representing it in a, so called, “Democracy”.

Lowest-common-denominator is but the beginning of what occurs as a consequence: a slow, increasingly lowering, deterioration into mundane babbling, and repeating what is considered, at any given time period, appropriate and acceptable; a continuous repetition of words immune to this control because the source is dead and infamous.

To the subjective, emotional, mind, anything exceeding its capacity to process, and/or to endure, will be understood as a product of “negativity,” reflecting the indifference and coldness of the world towards life.
To deal with it, it will fall back on what is most familiar to it, and explain the possibility away by deconstructing the source rather than the idea(l), to lower it to a level it can process.
Its ability to understand is limited by its psychology, giving it an advantage on a very pragmatic, immediate, level.
Anything, or anyone, reflecting the complexity, indifference, and unpredictability of the world will be dismissed as “ill” so as to then dismiss the reflection which causes such stress, and suffering.
The source, instead of being the conduit of a world unconcerned with human needs, will become the focus of its wrath.
(S)He will be the anthropic, demonic, face representing a reality he, or she, cannot escape. He, or she, will despise the voice, rather than the message which cannot be denied.
His hatred towards the world will find a face, a focus, a name, and he will unleash his resentment upon it.
At the point he, or she, will expose the fullness of his/her nature, and there will be nothing left to expose but minor details and trivial excuses.
No, posturing, no words, no names, no images, will suffice to undo what has been done.
His/Her hatred for life and for self will be as clear as daylight.

Morality is a way of coping with reality, and so it often comes into conflict with the processes, and patterns (laws), that govern the world.
This is particularly so if the morals are nihilistic in that they attempt to completely contradict reality, so as to establish an idea(l).
This social strategy may develop into an ethical system, along with the socioeconomic and spiritual dogmas to support it.

A man always holds himself accountable to his ethical principles, because these keep him in-line with the idea(l) he wishes to live-up to, or to approach.
If the idea(l) is nihilistic, by being disconnected and contrary to what is real, then the ethical system will also have to be detached from any morality in the past/nature, and be totally preoccupied with the future, coming, idea(l): the progressive aspect of nihilism = to strive and hope for what has never been, and may never be.
The set-up is meant to produce guilt, and sinfulness.

The need to disconnect from reality, to contradict it and dismiss it as inconsequential, expresses itself in the moral and value systems which always place an emotional component to compensate for the loss of attachment to reality, and the desire to approach an objective understanding of self and the world that makes it possible.
The subjective mind will always revert all to the comfortably subjective paradigm, by using human artifices, such as values, morals and idea(l)s which have no meaning outside human brains, because they are human artifices.
The subjective, being a human construct, must be integrated in multifariousness where all becomes too ambiguous to be considered superior/inferior, or to exhibit any variants in subjectivity as it relates to objectivity.
The objective world, though dynamic, is not so fluctuating as to be completely inapproachable. It fluctuates but still retains, in relation to human lifespans, a predictable consistency.
The subjective mind must ignore this so as to return to its desirable relativity where no perspective is ever to be considered superior to another, beyond any point in space/time.
The objective world must be rejected as too mysterious to be taken into account, so as to return the discussion to that of pure subjectivity, where emotion becomes a deciding factor. The indifference to human needs world is taken out of the process, leaving human subjectivity to battle it out over which offers the most comforting and love and compassion.  
Once this is established the dialogue becomes one of subjective emotional preferences, where some agreement can be achieved, simply because of a past/nature which is conveniently, and ironically, ignored, to make the outcome seem rational, or a result of pure, cold, logic.

The moralizer cannot think outside if his own cage – particularly if he is of the nihilistic variant which is obsessed with escaping or ignoring objectivity because it is too indifferent, too harsh or too evasive and uncertain.
Everything he comes across has a moral value, or else it is worthless.
He demands, from the other, to compete with him on moral grounds… in other words on purely subjective, emotional, grounds.
All the while, he isn’t really interested in morality and how it evolved, or what purpose it evolved to serve, but is really an ethicist, with an appetite for “thou shalt nots” and “thuo shalts” based on no more than subjective criteria… in other words on pure emotional, self-gratifying, criteria, and words written on stone.

The desire to return a subject to its moral angle is really a way of saying that the subject should be made emotional or more subjective in nature.
There is no interest in objective reality, and how human concepts relate to it, but a need to return to the safe haven of human commonality and adhered anxieties/fears, interests, and interests.
Don’t bother to attempt an approach towards, honesty, and clarity, outside human emotional (re)actions, because the road leads straight through a passionate hell of ostracizing and assault.
Best you remain within the common subjective, and perspectivism, where to “agree to disagree” and to share with no effect, is all that remains of what is called “philosophy”, or of thinking in general.

For all else, turn to the experts who will tell you what is truth, what to think, and how to behave.
If you’ve got an ethical backbone – fuck morality outside of this context – and if you’ve been raised “proper,” then you’ll know what is expected of you.
Lets’ bring up an emotional dilemma to drive-in the point.

The Modern will accept the flexibility of morality, and the ideals they are supporting, but will not be able to stomach the idea of amorality, because despite his “tolerance” for the multiplicity of perspectives he still desperately holds onto the idea of a common thread running through them, binding them all in a shared humanity.
No matter what you tell him, the moral angle will be dominant in his psyche.
He will not deny a common moral foundation, but only how this is expressed and the equality of all of these expressions.
The possibility that morality is a survival tool, with no relevance outside social structures and human brains, will never register.
All morals, like all idea(l)s will be, for him, equally valid… or equally selfish and subjective.
This is his ethical foundation.
He is incapable of connecting ethics to past/nature, the moral instincts that emerge from there, and how they then relate to noetic, mental projections and idea(l)s.

Most associate culling with killing, when in fact it only relates to reproduction – just as fitness does.
A gymnast is unfit, in evolutionary terms, if (s)he cannot reproduce, and so culling is simply the prevention of reproduction.
Death, in nature, is the most common form of culling and the clearest indication of fitness, but in human environments there are many other ways to cull an individual and/or a herd.

The entirety of the Catholic clergy is culled mentally, even if most of them are unfit anyway.

The worse thing you can do to the dimwitted is to allow them to remain as they please.

Human principles, values, morals, ideals, are ways of coping with the world.
The world is indifferent to them.

This is particularly so if these principles, values, morals, and ideals are contrary to the world's processes - they are nihilistic.
This represents a disharmony between the idea(l) and the real which is more prominent in Nihilistic intellectual systems and the evaluations they produce.

The human psyche being immersed in its own subjectivity cannot begin to attempt to approach the objective, nor does it want to.
For such a mind the world of man, or of life, and all the values and interests and principles it depends upon, are THE world; not a part of it, a (re)action to it, but THE world entirely.

Narcissism of detachment.
This disharmony between the subjective and objective is the schism of schizophrenia.

Obsession is linked to a primal, infantile, base part of the psyche.
A void seeking fulfillment in otherness - emotional vampyrism.

Imprinting is one of its manifestations.
The erotic component is evident.

Food is often used as its object/objective.
You can make an animal do, almost, anything by manipulating this most central need.
With enough feedings the brain associates the satisfaction of its need, and the pleasure it gave it, with the source.
The association can become imprinted permanently, as a bond.

Libidinal need, having a reverse direction (discharging rather than accumulating energies), will become obsessed with an object/objective that promises gratification as a conduit for this discharge of accumulated energies.
Accompanying it there might be a emotional component being satisfied by the same source, creating a double connection.
The mind will find in the source energies it lacks in itself, and after feeding on them it will want to discharge this energy towards the easiest, most immediate, accessible, direction...which will be the source itself.

The connection is infantile in its nature, following the path-of-least-resistance.
A desperation exposing a vulnerability that has to be gratified, and the only way to do so is to return to the only source it has ever experienced as being gratifying.
That it can only do so from one source exposes its insecurity, and its weakness.
Its dependence will be singular, having no internal sources of gratification, and not many alternative options concerning an external source.
This limitation is what establishes and maintains the obsession.

Uniformity wears a multiplicity mask, after it has admitted that it considers appearances shallow and illusionary.
It promotes superficial genetic variety, to the point of contradicting the essence of the apparent, so as to construct pretence over the underlying increasing memetic uniformity.
Nihilism is the all uniting, but never stated nor explored, common idea(l), expressing itself in a variety of ways; each in accordance to the level of distaste, and/or fear, the individual feels towards nature and all that has determined him, as well as towards all that remains indifferent to his needs.

The liberating detachment being provided by Nihilism can be marketed in any which way possible, because of its contradiction to the real.
It is bound by no world, and only limited by the quality of the human imagination.

Morality only has meaning in relation to an idea(l).
An idea(l), projected as object/objective, which motivates.

Meaning is either an interpretation of a continuity that includes past/nature, the present (interactive) and the future, as a projected possibility, or desirable object/objective, or it is compartmentalized (segmented :schizophrenic).

When it only takes into account the past/nature it offers no direction, no purpose, no utility.
When it only takes into account the immediate, or the shallow, it is forever a victim of itself.
When it only takes into account the future, detached from the past/nature, and the present, it is delusional, idealistic, and lost.

The last two, when found in unison, tend to become nihilistic, as the detachment frees any restrictions to prevent the emotional, sensational, (re)actions from projecting an idea(l) in total contradiction to the past, which is denied, forgotten, or ignored.

The modernistic conflict between perspectivism, as the equalization of subjectivity, in conflict with an indifferent objective, dynamic, world, is a conflict between noetic (re)actions to the phenomenon, with no precedence to draw inspiration, and guidance from.
Objectivity becomes a synonym for past/nature, and rejected as non-applicable to the sensationalist, emotive, mind of pure (re)activity, now projecting a possibility, a potential future, freed from such "negative" constraints.

It is best to find communion in subjectivity than to lose control to an objective world with no emotions and no cares.
To study the past/nature is to study an immutable, indifferent, world.

The usage of words, of course, is the usage of tools.
There is no one way to use a tool, although the tool imposes a limit on how it can be used.

A painter might have used a brush in a certain way, or a color that defined his style, but this usage is not one that must be adhered to...unless one is simply wanting to imitate, and recreate a forgery.

With words the definition is such a limit.

But with Moderns the limit goes further still.
Their dependence upon the interpretations of others makes them unable to use words, as words.

For example, when suing the word "ego", the modern cannot help but to desperate want to remain true to the Freudian usage, because he is not really thinking on his own, but only trying to associate himself with talent to hide the absence of it in himself.
And when one uses the word autopoiesis he must refer back to Mutarana, or else take a great risk.

And when power is used in a sentence then, of course, the usual name pops up automatically.

Because the reference point is not reality, but back to a mind. If not his own, the Modern must refer it back to a famous, popular, established mind, and there find his own courage to speak.

Human:
Looking to the past/nature the term refers to a reproductive possibility.
To deny male/female as subcategories, specialized roles, in reference to this past/nature, is to deny its essence.

Moderns detach the concept "human" at this point, so as to sanctify it; turning it into a pure idea(l): ambiguous, abstract, self-referential, and with no connection to anything perceived...no phenomenological reference points.
Detached from the past/nature it is something immediate, and potentially always future.
Detached from the past/nature also makes it potentially anything. there is no reference point, no past/nature, to restrict what can be projected as a immanent, coming human possibility: a child's game.
It is superficial.
Therefore, the Modern considers appearances superficial because they refer to nothing besides immediate utility, within the contexts of Modern artifices, which contradict (annul), and/or redirect this past/nature (social eugenics, social selection - political correctness, equality, work as an identifier, ownership, fame, fortune etc.)
Man can change jobs, change names, change sex, ergo man is free form the past/nature...but only within human artifices where pretense is upheld as a necessary social behavior.

Human attached to its past/nature remains a procreative category.
A species being a population of organisms evolved to facilitate this cooperative reproduction (heterosexuality), which may also evolve social cooperative unities.
Without this specialized cooperation brain size is limited by organic limits mass and energy impose upon life.
A contradiction, rejection, denial, of this is a noetic annulment of the past/nature in the mind of the organism.
To not Know Thyself is an open ended projection of possibilities, unhinged from reality - it is the opposite of self-knowledge: self-forgetting, self-denying, self-hating.
If it is taught, and/or shared by a group, then it becomes part of a memetic nihilistic attitude towards existence, and the past/nature.

Past, of course, being how the organism experiences reality, as a 'looking back'.
The further back it looks, the more it seeks self, or knowledge of self.
Animals have very little knowledge of self, beyond the immediate sensations of pain/pleasure, or stimuli.
They cannot recognize themselves because there is a very little they can draw from to find pattern of repetitive consistency they can then associate with their own willfulness.
For animals things just happen.  
Shallow thinking is a shallow perceptual-event-horizon, or a shallow 'looking back'.

Rejection of the past leads to delusion, and schizophrenic attitudes: saying one thing, believing one thing, and acting in contradiction to it, baffled by one's own behavior; the world explained supernaturally because the past/nature has been taken out of consideration.

Looking back is another way of saying looking towards the past, or referencing nature.
What is called present, or now, or immediate, is how this past/nature manifests as the apparent, the appearance, the phenomenon.
The past/nature is immutable in that it cannot be changed, and it is determining, as it is the present made apparent - therefore it is a way of saying "God", in the pagan sense of the term.

The individual, a manifestation of this past/nature, can become a conduit directing this past/nature towards a projected object/objective.
If this projection contradicts this past/nature it is nihilistic...if it redirects it it is idealistic, and can veer towards nihilism to a degree...it is adds to this past/nature then it is idealistic but in a realistic way.
It is in-line, in tune, with the past, projecting an idea(l), object/objective, which is attainable, not fantastic, not nihilistic.

But to define what human is, besides a reproductive type, we must do what we do when we define all species.
We must analyze and distinguish what traits distinguish this species, this population, from another, to find what trait(s) differentiate one species from another, and also, which traits within the population define one of its members as superior or inferior, more or less fit, or more or less an ideal manifestation of the particular species.
Specialization also factors in.
What specialized traits evolved within a population group to enhance its survivability within an environment?
Sexual roles are only part of the specializing process we call evolution; a more recent one because it evolved once needs had already resulted in other specialized roles.
Primary needs forces evolution towards one direction of specialization, when heterosexual reproduction emerged as a secondary need.
Primary needs assimilate, appropriate...
Secondary needs evolved in relation to the primary ones. The sexual impulse being a case in point.    
This question must be asked when thinking about the human species.
What trait(s) is the defining trait of this particular species?
         
But I've said all this before.

Now, the question is what projected idea(l), object/objective, is in-line, or more so, and in-tune, with this past/nature?
How far ahead we project determines how risky our projection becomes; increasing its improbability in inverse proportion to the amount of past/nature we've managed to know, understand, accept, and, then, assimilate into a cohesive mental-model (abstraction).

Once again, primary need, to assimilate results in this need to project an object/objective, so as to direct the organism within the (inter)activity we call Flux.
Just like with feeding, the quality of the assimilated, appropriated, energies determines the quality and the force of the projected excesses this may result in.
To assimilate the organism breaks the otherness down to its simplest, easiest for it to digest, form.
It can only assimilate what is beneath it, inferior to it.    

If our projection, idea(l) is ambitious then we must also provide intermediate stages of more attainable steps, towards it.
These will indicate that we are moving towards it, and that it is realizable, even if it is in degree.

A realist, who loves life, would not wish to attain his idea(l) for this would be a nihilistic conclusion, and an end - I've described it as the masculine form of nihilism - he would find pride, joy, and identity in striving towards it: Hellenic, pagan love of life.
The fluctuation of existence, of course, would make the attainment of the idea(l), as an absolute, impossible - increasing in impossibility, due to the requirement in energy (self-maintain, and then, using excess energies increase, grow, proceed further, as one approaches it).  
The final step would require infinite energies, or, at least, the totality of energies available in existence, as (inter)activity; they would be assimilated into a Becoming, which attains Being, an absolute order.

So, how does one determine who is more or less human?
It depends what reference point you are using.
In relation to the procreative identifier all are human who have the potential to replicate themselves using another of the same species. This is the base, primal, genetic, identifier.
Fitness relating to this procreative potential.
If you are using a coming, desirable, idea(l), a memetic identifier, then you must determine if it is nihilistic, realistic, attainable, or impossible, noble, or base.

Taking what I've said thus far one must include in the definition the procreative identifiers, as well as the entirety of the past/nature that determined the species, and then must determine if the projected idea(l), object/objective, is in line with this past, adding or subtracting from it.
Is the desirable projected outcome something enhancing or degrading?
Does it add to the defining traits that differentiate man from other species, from other primates, or does it diminish these traits, clouding, and/or erasing, the difference between man and other species, and other primates?

Because the projected idea(l) is a projection, which is more or less in reference to the past/nature, the projection can be symbolized using any word imaginable.
This is particularly so for nihilistic projections that are not restricted by a past/nature.

Nervous System

The nexus between internal stimuli and external stimuli that, eventually, develops into the notion of internal/external, body/mind, good/bad...is the nervous system.
if we can imagine a dividing line separating what we call mind/body then it is the nervous system, with its central hub, the brain.
Sense organs collect externally produced stimuli, then transferred to the brain; the nervous system also collects and transmits to the brain internally produced stimuli.
There the data is processed and interpreted, either as sensation, or as abstraction.
This either/or begins the dualism of mind/body.
Usually the abstraction requires a visual component, which can be directly in reference to a phenomenon (apparent), or a product of the imagination where the experienced is combined to represent an idea with no visual component.

Organ hierarchies, (inter)acting, combine with environmental hierarchies, (inter)acting, in the brain - the nervous system's hub.
They are interpreted there using a priori, evolved through trial and error, methods.

Because the sensuality was meant to deal with the world, sense organs are outwardly focused.
Externally produced stimuli (phenomena) are dominant in the organism's awareness.
Internal stimuli are produced in relation to this environment.
Consciousness begins as a perception of other.
Later it may evolve into self-consciousness.

Sense awareness begins with sensations.
Then it may evolve, in organism's with more sophisticated nervous systems, into emotions.
Emotions = automatic (re)actions to stimuli.

I've claimed that anxiety/fear is the first emotion, the primary emotion, because of the fact that the senses are outwardly focused - towards an unknown, threatening, world.

Fight/Flight is the primary automatic (re)activity to stimuli, later to evolve into more complex
(re)actions (emotions).

Because, in the brain, internal/external stimuli merge and are translated into sensation, emotion, and abstractions, and because the senses evolved to deal with an unknown and threatening world, the dominant stimulation are external ones in more primitive organisms.
The animal lives in relation to otherness, and knows of no self, other than as sensation transmitted to its brain through the nervous system.
Self as that which is not other, is the first stage towards self-consciousness.
A negation of otherness; the partial nullification of phenomenon.
This may evolve into the human total nullification of phenomena - Nihilism - creating a noetic reality which is shared (meme = culture, then becoming a civilization).
The organism, as a self-ordering (Becoming), has a negative relationship with the world, as increasing entropy, (inter)activity (flux).
It is in conflict with it...it contradicts it, resists it - agon.
This continuous struggle, stress, is what produces need.
Whether this need rises to a level where it becomes conscious is determined by circumstances.
The brain evolved to deal with organic needs.

Ordering is the negation of chaos.

Meditation is the closing-off from external stimuli, so as to allow internal stimuli to dominate.
It can be used to rejuvenate, rest, or to escape, reality: to reject phenomena so as to make the noumenon central.
In later levels of proficiency the mind becomes pure sensation, with no noumenon, or phenomenon, disturbing its peace.

Internal hierarchies are clusters of cells feeding, oxygenating, replicating, and so on.
These processes stimulate the nervous system which transmits them to the brain for processing by simplifying them to a nervous pulse, a bio-energy code.
If the processes continue unobstructed the mind interprets this as a state of well-being, if they do not then it senses this as distress, stress (pain, suffering...).
A gradual or sudden alleviation of this stress is translated as pleasure: relief, release.
Need is continuous, as every organ, within this hierarchy of organs, we call organism, is in constant need of energies.

External hierarchies are phenomena, (inter)acting, and unknowable in an absolute sense.
The sum of such phenomena is called the objective world. The interpretation of these phenomena is what we call subjectivity.

The process towards knowing, and then towards understanding, involves perceiving patterns of behavior in this alien, indifferent, otherness.
Ergo, anxiety is the first (re)action to other.
The phenomenon is never totally known, because it is dynamic and changing as it is being perceived and simplified/generalized into an abstraction (mental model).
Consciousnesses is continuously updating its interpretation of otherness and how they (inter)act.

The internal becomes the metaphor for "good" because it is intimate to the mind interpreting its (inter)actions.
The external becomes the metaphor for "evil" because it is unknown and unpredictable...and indifferent to the mind's abstractions of it.
The process of knowing/understanding becomes a process of turning the alien, indifferent, stressful into something intimate, caring, comforting.
To impose one's will upon self and otherness is what is called power.
This requires understanding, or bringing the otherness into intimacy; assimilating it within an abstracted idea(l).

That which is known is integrated into a mental model which orders it in relation to the brains methods - it is integrated into a perceptual whole which may or may not be part of a broader, cohesive, mental world-view.

Simpler minds cannot integrate the totality of their abstractions into a single mental model, and so indulge in compartmentalization, where one set of rules apply in one context and another in another context, where the two are never harmonized (ordered).

This practice is what makes nihilism possible as a self-numbing, escapist, internally focused solipsistic method of coping.
It is only viable when a sheltering power is present to protect the organism from its ever-increasing detachment from the world of phenomena, and its immersion in its self-referential, mental abstractions of the noumenon.
A power would provide this service for the simple reason that it benefits from the other's detachment.

As I've described elsewhere this detachment begins by cutting away words from their role of symbolizing an abstraction which is produced by interpreting external stimuli.
This disassociation of the noetic symbol from its phenomenon reference is the start of detachment.

In time the disconnection may produce concepts which have no meaning outside human minds...now sharing in a communal noetic, self-supporting, delusion (a meme detached from phenomena, appearances, the apparent).
Because this detachment lends itself to infinite possibilities order must be maintained by enforcing a strict, literal, linguistic discipline, to text.
Order being a reduction of possibilities, tending towards the absolute singular probable.
Chaos being an increase in possibilities, tending towards the infinite possible.

The word slowly loses its artistic potentials, only limited by phenomena, and having been freed must now be restricted by dictionary definitions, permitting very little divergence from the encoded.
To add to this, the mind is also restrained from going-off into flights of fancy by connecting concepts to established code: books of authority.
This inhibit divergence from the established usage of the word, limiting the mind's ability to think outside the established parameters.
Internal chaos is given an external order, to adhere to; internal fragmentation, compartmentalization, schizophrenia, is given an external authority to maintain its focus.

The word loses its artistry first by being reduced to a strict adherence to the dictionary definition, which is necessary in language, but by also connecting the concept, which the word symbolizes, to established understanding, with a particular way of using the word.

In nihilistic memes the understanding is always in reference to an other's mind, where the external world of phenomena, is pushed away and reduced in importance, and the abstraction in the mind of an other (authority) becomes the central reference point.
Self-referential nihilism also uses emotion to connect a concept back to a nervous (re)action - looping back to itself - and ignoring the phenomenon altogether.
The mind cannot conceptualize anything outside of these references in code. It engages the world happening around it through this code, and cannot divert from it.
This is called institutionalization.

The mind detached from phenomena, and made inartistic in its usage of language, can now be contained within a memetic framework, reaching levels of absurdity where the apparent contradicts the accepted noetic abstraction.
It's conceptions of the world are fragmented and come in conflict with its own perceptions of the phenomena.
To deal with this problem the phenomenon, the apparent, is made superficial, shallow, irrelevant, and in its place a noumenon, hidden world is implied, and connected to through emotions, or sensations with no external source.
The individual is now in a state of memetically produced schizophrenic madness.

Upon the ashes of Rome the Holy Roman and Byzantine empires emerged, offering two versions of the same Judeo-Christian Nihilistic idea(l).
The dis-ease that took advantage of Roman fatigue, and the decline of the Hellenic cultural idea(l)s, reinvented itself as a continuance of it, adopting as its own the symbols of Roman Empire while, at the same time, eliminating all pagan remnants that still lingered amongst its peoples so as to be reborn as a faith preaching humility and victimhood as it enforced its will upon the world.
This hypocritical paradox is still present today in Modernity.
 
The Cold War divisions were the natural memetic extensions of this past.
After a brief entrance into a more sophisticated, universal, all-encompassing, abstracted form, the Communist New World Order fell to the more advanced in techniques and technologies western variant.
Russia today is reverting to its pre-World War essence, adopting its past Judeo-Christian identifiers, having given up on the idea of world-wide appeal.
The New World Order and its Nihilistic methods, belong exclusively to the western branch, evolved, now, into liberal, secular, Humanism.

Money, the representation of resources, the great abstractor of idea(l)s is used as the emancipator, the corrector of what has been determined.
With it the “wronged” can purchase what nature, the past, has denied them.
The masses find in it, through it, the great liberating, sacred forgiving deity; the forgiving power of abstractions detaching from reality, saving them from its indifference.
With it they can be reborn as anything, as anyone; with it they can purchase what they have not inherited genetically, or they can inherit it mimetically, institutionally, correcting a grave personal injustice with no personal input.

Things got worse when the value of money was detached from the gold standard, essentially abstracting it further – to the point where it can now represent an idea(l) with no reference to anything real: a pure noetic representation.
And, so, money becomes God.


Money: Another tool, a technique/technology, which only has power within manmade environments when all agree on its value, and its relevance.

And when value has been diverted from the real to the abstract it loses all connection to the world.
It can be anything to anyone.
Money becomes the motive, the goal, the object/objective, the all-encompassing idea(l) – money for its own sake; money because it is impressive to others who participate in the same value standards; money as the end in itself, the pleasure giving tool.

Imagine a new reality where value is no longer connected to reality, but refers to a human construct, an abstracting noetic device.
Quality can now be reduced to quantities - cut into pieces and sold on the "free" market where all can buy it, or buy into it.