Words

Rational argument refers to a factual relationship that can be observed and tested = validated.
Logical argument refers to a conclusion that is in agreement with a starting premise.
For instance 1+1=2, within the premises of 1/0, taken for granted.

For logic to agree with facts we must harmonize the abstraction-based noetic logic (mental map), with the externally experienced factual relationships between phenomena (geography).
Laws of Logic were meant to discipline the mind to natural order, reduced to patterns we call Natural Laws, because the mind can synthesize any absurdity it desires, including the simultaneous use of self-contradicting concepts...and of course the mind can cherry-pick words introducing, from the back door, concepts that do not harmonize with a concept, or that insinuate a concept into where it is unnecessary.
I used the example of how Christianity substituted the pagan word 'eros' with 'agape' , to both retain the connection to its roots in Hellenism, and to insinuate into the concepts its own anthropic principle; a subtle but decisive reinterpretation, building on-top of pagan anthropomorphizing.
A nuance that made all the difference. We also witness it in the Christian reinterpretation of polytheism through its Saints, and how it replaced Hellenic heroes and mythologies, with revelatory tales concerning pious men.
An example of linguistic corruption that exploited the already constructed anthropomorphizing, sold to the masses as narratives they believed in literally, and not as representational allegorical storylines, that could easily be memorized.

The base through-out the ages, and across tribal lines, were always exploited by their inability to think representationally.
Socrates was put to death judged by his inartistic, illiterate peers - a victim of Democracy that placed in positions of power individuals with sub-standard minds.

Fluid existence is translated (interpreted) into an abstraction, represented by a word/symbol: the relationship of phenomenon-noumenon-semiotics corresponding to the physical (body), the psychological/intellectual (mind), and the neurological (dynamic, interpretation).
Language (semiotics) connecting/binding/relating.

The temptation to use a word-symbol that implies more than can be proven, is sometimes irresistible.
Using a word to anthropomorphize, or allude to human mental processes, is a way of translating the unknown, and alien, into something intimate.

Christians used 'Love', Schopenhauer used 'Will', but any word implying human cognitive processes, or traits, replace the blatant anthropomorphizing of the past, with allusion to the human.
Each word chosen for its particular insinuating linguistic nuances, and emotional appeal.
Intent has to be alluded to, without clarity necessitating justification.

Psychology is a factor.
Phenomenon = ordered existence (pattern)
Noumenon = abstraction (abstraction)
The process of converting the perceived into a form that can be processed, occurs in the nervous system where phenomena are given names - attached to symbols.
This is the point where corruption can occur; organic needs/desires directing semiotics.

The discovery of 'self' through negation - 'I am what I am not' - can take the last step, negating 'self' altogether, if one is dissatisfied with what is being revealed.
The power of the 'nil', is an esoteric noetic 'power' of powerlessness.
'Positive' and 'Pure' Nihilism are built upon it.
The power of the 'word', is also part of Christian dogma.
The 'negative', as an empty noetic multidimensional space, ready to build whatever delusion the needy mind desires - part of 'positive Nihilism'; and the all negating power of the 'nil' - alluding to the absence of an absolute - justifying itself, by selectively or entirely negating all.
In the former - 'positive' Nihilism - the 'one' is the word - but any symbol will suffice; an esoteric universe built on abstractions, represented by semiotics. In the latter the 'nil is the absolute - negating all positive variations of itself; the symbol is the nil, erasing all meaning, purpose, substance or whatever the psychotic individual desires to erase from existence.

Realism and Paganism, is 'outside' this bipolar psychosis. It does not participate in the Nihilistic bipolar paradigm with its multifarious abstractions - art-forms.
Nihilism's self-deceit, mistakes its own detachments from a restricting natural order - allowing it to produce multitudes of theories - for its 'truth'.  

There is, of course, no 'nil', just as there is no 'one'. These are mental constructs, and nothing more.
Both are part of the binary method, based on systolic/diastolic rhythms = on/off.
Binary Logic is linguistically expressed as dualisms: absolute order/chaos, absolute one/nil.
A primitive mind mistook its own internal voice, its emerging self-consciousness, for an alien conciousness, a spirit, a god;modern secular simpletons mistake their own abstractions, their own noumena, for external phenomena.
Progress from infancy to adolescence.

We have a long way to go.

Satyr wrote:

"I'm a language genius [references some unknown authority figure to give it credence]"
"Oh gawd, those definition-nazis..."
"There is no such thing as Hinduism."
"There is no such thing as [insert word that my detractors just used]."
...
*recites a few words in a foreign language*
...

Ahhh, that explains it. I had my doubts but now that you hastily mumbled a few words in this foreign language which almost nobody speaks, now I am convinced.

Hmmm...
I've heard that one before.
"There is no such thing as...White people."

Arrogance and pretentiousness masks insecurity and duplicity.

Not only what you say but how you say it transmits a message.

A text, a subtext, and sometimes even more is communicated....a third layer.
What words we use, selected from how they've been defined conventionally and placed, for reference, in books called dictionaries.
But definitions have subtleties that communicate more than what is defined.
It's selection, its place in the sentence, the tones used when speaking words, and so on....

All communicating ideas, and intents, and the communicator's own beliefs, but also carrying with them the speakers psychological state, his relationship to the topic.


To best clear words of all this baggage is to start from the 'bottom-up....from its connection to something observable outside the brain; something not arbitrarily selected, nor controlled, by the speaker; something he is also accountable to...as it is outside, separate from speaker and listener.

Accuracy can be evaluated by application, and the study of causality - costs/benefits.
All value judgements, all consciousness, is a juxtaposition: thinker to thought, subject to object, speaker to listener, etc.
Objective judgement are a triangulation.
Speaker to listener, in relation to a subject, an ideal, a goal, an external standard, an objective...etc.

Objective thinkers tend to place the standard for evaluating judgements outside from minds....so speaker and listener can both evaluate the subject in relation to a shared reality.

The way we define words also exposes our motives.
If we do not want to discover what we refer to with words/symbols, we define them in supernatural, surreal, so that we can postpone judgement, or evade it, or dismiss it indefinitely.
The use of words can also produce dependence - words defined in such ways as to produce shame, or vulnerability.

Logos does not control the world....it only controls organisms that can learn and apply language, or semiotics.
Their range of effect is equal to the quantity of minds that can react or respond to the words...as either raw sound or subtle meaning.

Truth = a healthy, courageous man of integrity, builds convictions, like he would build a home - brick by brick, and concept by concept.
Each idea is evaluated in relation to environment, and the goal, the type of structure he wants to build.
The triangulation is stone or brick, relative to intent, the structure, in relation to world, the environment, the slope of the earth, the vegetation, the climate, the type of soil, etc.

Man builds 'truth' bit-by-bit....each idea not an absolute truth, but a most probable one.
One brick on the soil, then the next one on top of the first....if the probability holds, the bricks hold.
The higher one builds the more the bricks, the ideas, below it, supporting it, are put to the test.
The house builder, like the idea builder, becomes more confident in his ideas the higher he builds, and when he tests them in real-time environments.

A fantasy house, can be constructed using fantasy stones.....it can be built floating in the sky, or in space, or on the bottom of a sea....The mind knows no limits that apply to the body.....ideology is not limited by reality.
But neither is environment absolute...it is shifting, changing, moving.....so the structure has a life-span, and requires constant upkeep.
In fantasy the kind of material does not matter. One can build just as easily using smoke, water, sand, as he would using stone, glass, metal.
Theories can also be built by using any word...even made-up words...because it is not obliged to adhere to real world conditions.
Theories can even deny basic environmental fact.....like gravity, like time.
If the theory need not be applied, what does it matter is the solidity of stones is nullified...and one claims that marshmallows would be just as good?

Which words we use, how we anchor them to the ground, in reality, what sequence we use to place them....their shape, their texture....all contributes to the end result.
We cannot use words arbitrarily and allow our creativity to go wild...not if we want to build something useful in real world conditions. If we simply want to fantasize, or escape in imagination, or play with ideas, then words can be fun...and fun can be healing.

Astrology is an example of a nihilistic, word-based - semiotics - superstition.
It does not claim its metaphors, symbols can affect the stars, or that the 'insights' it offers can, in any way be used to control and/or manipulate the stars, or planetary objects....but its only claim is that the stars influence man, or life on earth - though they can never show evidence other than anecdotal concerning human, and only human, experiences.
So, its subject matter are not the stars but 'influence'....and not any kind a linguistic kind - therefore no organism, other than man, can be influenced by the stars.
Why is this so?
Because no other creature, on this planet can be influenced using symbols, language....or, to be more precise, the degree that an organism can be trained/educated to react to symbols (semiotics) determines the degree of 'influence' the stars can have over it.
Language is the key to influence, and influence is the subject of astrology...not the stars.

The 'astrologer' presents himself as a mediator, between 'victim', potential subject of influence, and the power of the stars.
The subject is entirely passive. He can do nothing about the power of the stars over him, he can only know it and accept it as what it is.
The 'power' is one-directional.
The astrologer becomes the facilitator of influence.
He, essentially, influences the subject by presenting himself as the unwilling proxy between power and the powerless.
He gains influence by preaching about influence.
The subject may be influenced, not by the stars, but by the mediator speaking about influence.

Astrology only has a possibility of being relevant in minds that can be influenced by symbols and language, and is totally and completely impotent outside minds.
It has a vested interest believing that world is 'mind', because that's the only way it can overcome this impotence.
But it can show no influence over minds that cannot learn to react to symbols, nor to inanimate objects....such as the stars themselves.
Astrology says nothing that can give us insight on how to influence stars.

Same thing for alchemy.
The precursor to modern sciences, such as chemistry, mineralogy, geology etc.
It cannot convert stone to gold, but it can convince minds that it can do so.
the only 'gold' it can manufacture is a theoretical, mental esoteric 'gold', for the same reasons given about astrology.
it is entirely impotent when it comes to actual minerals....but can only convert stone to gold, or gold to stone, in the minds of believers....fools gold, for fools.

Simple examples of how nihilism works....how it applies semiotics and manipulates words.
It's 'power' is always 'esoteric'....meaning psychological, in the minds of those that can be affected by symbols.
It's why I've said that for nihilists the word 'world' really means 'humanity'....or 'life'. World and humanity are tautologies...even if most nihilists will deny this.
This is what I mean when I say nihilism is solipsistic, or its theories are always self-consistent, and yet totally meaningless outside minds.
Their motive is to make all words like that....make them all theoretical, abstract....detached from everything outside, or beyond the mind.
Nihilism is philosophy in as much as psychology is also part of philosophy. It is politics, in as much as psychology is the underlying science.

Nihilism converts all to semiotics so as to then manipulate and exploit using their psychological effects.
It's most viral strain has reduced all to the language of mathematics - binary 1/0 - and more specifically to monetary values - economics.
To fight against such an enemy one must adopt its methods, or reduce yourself to his level to face him on his field of effect.

If you noticed all Moderns now employ the language of economics - numbers - reducing qualities to quantities.
This places the argument within the human, seeking validation and justification in the amount of minds it can seduce, convince, manipulate.
An easy task when one keeps in mind that the majority use language - particularly numbers - as a means of escaping reality, or compensating for inherited flaws.
Money is a case in point.
It is the Jewish Messiah, promising 'heaven on earth', projecting 'paradise' on an earthly immanent 'future' that never comes.
Salvation can only come through monetary values. With money man 'corrects' his genetic failings, purchases pleasure, makes his genetic past insignificant. With money man builds artificial environments, pushing reality to the periphery, reinterpreting history, redefining symbols, fabricating his own private enclosure within which he can be anything and anyone; within which his 'errors in judgement' are expunged.

Languages emerges from the nervous system.
It represents the historical, and evolutionary, relationship of a population with the specific environment it interacted within.
The form of language, which part of the throat, pharynx, nasal cavity, is used, all display this relationship - developed over centuries.
This relationship establishes the 'dictionary definitions' - the meme.

The environment, natural order, is the reference point, the phenomenon the noetic abstractions are connected to, via the nervous system, with the application of semiotics - language.
The environment limits how and when and where words apply....it is not subjective.

The wilful, intentional dismissal of the environment only serves to expose a motive other than connecting mind with world.
For example, a misuse of language, or the intentional replacement of a word with another, indicates a motive other than clarity, or relating to reality.
The alternate word used hints at what the motive is.
Since natural order no longer imposes a restriction then the reason ought to be found in the one using, or misusing the word.

This is true of all art.
In painting, for example, if the painter does not try to represents the shared world as accurately as possible, employing his talent to depict in three dimensions what has more dimensions, or to represent movement using static imagery, then he substitutes the experienced form colour, with esoteric projections....or he displays his reaction to the real, not the real itself.
His painting will be a representation of his internal reactions to the external world. since nobody can know his internal reactions his art can never be judged using the world as a standard, but can only be judged by using one's own reactions as a standard. A comparison of psychological processes.
No talent is required, since it is truly subjective.

This I call fArt.

The same applies in the art-form of language and the discipline of philosophy which is about interpreting the world, and man's place in it.
We are entering an age of surrealism....verbal-vomit.
Philosophy is now preoccupied with psychological reactions to reality, rather than in reality itself.
The criteria change.

Instead of a shared world we must compare a 'theory' with how it makes us feel, what emotions it triggers, how much hope, how 'positive' an idea/ideal is.
This is not philosophy but psychology in the service of politics, or seduction, popularity, acceptance, profit.

The fact that there are no absolutes, including omniscience and the possibility of absolute certainty, means that man is forced to construct approximate conceptions of reality.
This means that a theory, a hypothesis, is judged on the merits of its arguments, in relation to a shared world, to reach the most probable answers.
Therefore, one cannot simply dismiss a theory on the grounds that it is imperfect, or incomplete, without offering a better alternative.

The application of words, their definitions, are crucial in this regard.
Words defined not using 'esoteric' or emotional or mental criteria, but external, empirical, observable, testable criteria.

We have two pillars that are connected with semiotics, with language.
On the on side, we have the dictionary, representing convention - precedent, historical foundations tried and tested over centuries; a symbolic representation of a genetically specific population's relationship with a specific environment, externalized as culture, traditions, rituals, and most importantly language/symbols or memes.
On the other side we have appearance, the past made present, as presence.
Language connects this inherited precedent (past) with the ongoing present...or it is meaningless nonsense; language in the service of a motive other than clarity, and uncovering reality.

So, language, via conventions - written in dictionaries - relates to presence (appearance) via the organism's nervous system - its senses.

A theory is evaluated on those two pillars.
Dismissing a theory using its imperfection and incompleteness as a motive, without offering a more complete and more perfect alternative is not only pseudo-intellectualism, using scepticism as a cover, its cowardice, and hypocrisy, afraid of accepting a probability because it contradicts personal interests, personal sanity, welfare, and prejudices.
It isn't thinking it's tactics of evasion.

The idea is: I will ask the same questions, no matter what answers I receive, unable to offer better noes, until I get the one I like or the one I've already decided is acceptable.

This is hypocrisy and cowardice in the raw.
In a cosmos with no absolute this is self-deceiving procrastination. The indefinite postponement of judgement because one is afraid of the answers.

Th other side of this rusted coin, is found among narcissistic/schizophrenics.
They not only declare the existence of absolutes - which is implied by the knowledge that they exist without being able to show one, other than one based no linguistics - but sometimes this psychosis attains a pinnacle of duplicity, claiming and being absolutely convinced - so they say - of having knowledge and understanding of this absolute - the foundation of Abrahamic spirituality.

A theory is not validated by "I say so", or "The evidence is in my mind - my heart - or in all our minds" where it cannot be perceived, nor tested.
A theory cannot be validated by destroying another theory, or by remaining unconvinced. A theory is not dependent no human belief, or human judgement. Reality does not cease because someone refuses to believe it is so.
A theory is not validates with prose, pretty sentences, implying flattering and empowering concepts, insinuating great power, eternity, or whatever the human heart desires. The world existed before there were humans using words to name it, or describe it, or relate to it.
A theory is not discredited by simply finding flaws in it, but never offering a superior theory.

The world is not affected by human convictions; human convictions are shaped by the world....unless they are protected from their own errors in judgement, or because they are never applied in world, but only remain 'perfect' in theory.
Self-deceit does no deceive the world. It simply guarantees that the same errors will repeat.

The desperate attempts of obscurantism to mystify so as to hide its simple motives, is of course what is being alluded to in this quote.
But we can say that the opposite is also the case, or that the opposite logically follows.
To clarify is to make  the deep pool seem shallow - more shallow than it actually is.
Clear water gives the impression of shallowness, the eye tricked by translucency.
This exposes a fact about the nature of genius, as opposed to the pretence of it.
Genius is the mental talent capable of explaining complexity in a simple manner; in a way that a simpler, average mind, can appreciate, even if not completely understand.
Genius simplifies the complex. The pretence of genius complicates the simple.
This alludes to the concept of 'truth' or 'alethiea' as the Greeks defined the concept: un-forgetting, recalling.
The real, when exposed, makes the simple mind believe that it had always known it, even when it could not express it - that it had simply forgotten, unable to clarify, unable to put the obvious into words.
When something 'true' is revealed, the ones experiencing it as a revelation, feel like they suddenly perceived what was always in front of their eyes but they failed to clarify - as if a cloud, mist, had been pulled away, or the 'muddy' water was suddenly purified, allowing light to enter its depths, making it seem shallow.

This is the nature of genius, as I understand it: the mind able to make the complex simple enough for the average mind to gain some level of understanding.
To know is not the same as to understand.
Knowledge is data memorization and processing. Understanding is the appreciation of patterns in the data, allowing the mind to explain the same information using multiple sets of data, but never detaching form their source.
It's like the gifted explorer that can reach the same oasis from multiple directions, contrasted with the tourist who can only visit the destination from the usual, prescribed, often travelled paths, unable to veer off of them without getting lost.

The opposite, in fact, to obfuscating and obscurantism, that uses language to complicate the simple, so as to imply its own 'genius', or to mystify concepts to the point where the average mind, feeling insecure about its own abilities, will presume a depth that it can never appreciate but must seek help from the ones who can...or those you pretend that they can.

I am reminded of a Schopenhauer insights....

Schopenhauer, Aurthur wrote:

The works of really capable minds differ from the rest in their character of decisiveness and definiteness, together with the distinctness and clearness springing there from, since they at all times clearly and definitely knew what they wanted to express; it may have been in prose, verse, or tones. The rest lack this decisiveness and clearness; and in this respect they can be at once recognized.
The characteristic sign of all first-rate minds is the directness of all their judgements and opinions. All that they express and assert is the result of their own original thinking and everywhere proclaims itself as such even by the style of delivery....Therefore every genuine and original thinker is to this extent like a monarch; he is immediate and perceives no one who is his superior. Like the decrees of a monarch, his judgements spring from his own supreme power and come directly from himself.

The man who understands what he is talking about is the man who can explain it in multiple ways, so as to allow every other type of mind the possibility of understanding, even if incompletely.
The mind that has no clue of what it is speaking about, because it adopted beliefs, cannot depart from the way it was taught to him. It remains true to the original explanation, and has no way of following a different path to the same destination; or what it is describing is entirely non-existent and ideological, or the product of ulterior motives that are to be hidden so as to make the concepts acceptable, tolerable; it obscures, complicates, warps language so as to pretend deep insights, where only nonsense or base, covetous animal motives lie in hiding.
The method of obscurantism is usually practices by those who are motivated by fame & fortune, and are only interested in reality, in the truth, only as it pertains to attaining both. Convolution, corrupting language, manipulating words, are ways of alluding to what is untrue, or what is theoretical, a comforting fantasy.
using human gullibility, the need to be appreciated, to be included in a 'restricted group', to belong to a group, underlies the methodology.
It's core 'need', is covetousness. Men lie to gain what they covet. They lie for sex, for money, for attention. They lie because they are uncertain of their ability to attain using their natural gifts. They lie to compensate and to hyper-inflate.
The foundation of politics and marketing: the use of language not to make clear, but to make un-clear, allowing each potential follower, buyer, the possibility of projecting his own needs into the vague rhetoric.
Clarity makes obvious, inhibiting any misunderstanding, and is undesirable if popularity, or being liked by as many as possible, is the goal.
Clarity reduces the potential for misunderstanding, and misinterpretation.
It reveals and does not conceal. It states the obvious or makes itself obvious.
This is why it is a dangerous practice. When you are direct and clear you do not allow the psychotic a way out; he is confronted by a 'truth' he cannot respond to, linguistically, resorting to physical means to silence it. The feeble mind needs lies to cope, and clarity takes this away.
The response is one of resentment, anger, and hate towards the source of its discomfort. Like a cornered animal, it is driven to attack, because clarity has taken away all other options.

The last quote implies that depth of thought reveals, recalls to mind, what is disturbing, unflattering, 'negative'; where the average mind does not dare swim, into the abyss.
The real is not positively inclined towards human needs and desires, though most prefer to only speak of what is positive, making the 'negative real' an attack upon their well-being. Most people prefer muddy waters, afraid of what they might see lurking in the depths.

This is a recurring problem with language.
Words can have double, and sometimes triple meanings....one or more being metaphorical.
This is why I insist on defining the terms we use, and in anchoring hem in reality....bringing the words down to earth, so to speak.

This is the issue Modern use to confuse, and take advantage of obscurantism, to lay waste to all human thinking.

Absolute can be used as an expression of conviction, high, near absolute certainty...in phrase like "That is absolutely so", but it can also be used, as i use it when I describe my metaphysical positions, to refer to an absence: What else would the idea of an immutable, indivisible, whole, thing, a singularity be, if not absent?
A noumenon, an idea, an ideal, with no reference anywhere but inside human minds, or in the minds of organism's able to use language.

One is a metaphor for certainty...the other refers to an idea that many insist exist outside human minds but consistently fail to show evidence of it.

Recently another such confusion arose in regards to free-will, and the word 'responsible'.
It can mean causality, as in "The water is responsible for the flooding"...but it can also mean intent, wilful choice....accountability.
If we think of the two as synonyms then someone can make the case that all is intentional wilful, a product of a conscious decision or judgment.
In such as case God, as the Abrahamics define the term, is the idea eradicating all personal culpability - all are innocent victims of gods will, all are salves - or all are gods, including storms, stones etc....all have intent, all judge, all will, all choose.
This is two sides of the same coin.

If we distinguish between non-wilful, unintentional, unconscious causality, and willed causality, intentional, concious causality then responsibility changes meaning depending no context.
I may even divide concious wilfulness into ignorant and aware, to further accentuate and clarify - bring to light, distinguish.

So, I can say the 'cause' of my broken foot is a bolder rolling over it is the cause, is responsible, without accusing it of a wilful intent; I can say a dog unintentionally caused the bolder to role over my foot, ascribing wilful non-intent; or I can say the dog intentionally pushed the boulder, causing it to role over my foot, in which case I connect the dog's choice with its judgment fo a possible desirable, by it, outcome.

Now I, personally, do not absolve responsibility due to ignorance....I decrease the severity due to an absence fo maliciousness; I do not despise the boulder for rolling down the hill, due to some other factor, like a storm, or an earthquake, ascribing no intent, no judgment;....but I do ascribe severe responsibility to a wilful act, with a specific intent.

In Determinism all the are one...singularity....just as, for them, god, stone, water, are all conscious...singularity.
What is singularity?
Absolute. ONE.
Oneness can be given many names, described in many ways, worshipped in many ways...but it is always the same one.
It only exists in the mid of animals that can abstract and can become self-aware, and can use symbols to represent their ideas and ideals. It is the source of Nihilism.
Why?
Because existence is multiplicity, not a singularity.
The parts cannot contradict the whole.
This paradox is produced by the ideal/real dissonance, where the ideal is mistakenly considered more real than the real, or anything other than a representation, an art-form.
It can only exist in the brain as a vague, obscure, indeterminate, undefinable, abstraction - the shadows are perfect for covering contradictions = obscurantism...occultism....Abrahamism.
In the light all contradictions are exposed as what they are.
Lies cannot survive the light. Clarity is the enemy of pretentious liars and cowards.
This is why Nihilists, or Moderns, refuse to define the words they use.
They despise clarity, they hate the light....they want obscurity, vagueness, insinuations, shadows to hide in.

I've explained how universe, as a whole, is manufactured in the brain.
The Greeks used Cosmos, the Romans corrupted the concept.

The "problem" is not language - although it does have its limitations - but people and how they use language.
It's an issue with all art.

Some art is representative of reality.
Some is representative of an individual's reaction to reality - one of which is coping.
These are the two general divisions.

It's about intent, again.
Is the intent to clarify and see?
Is the intent to confuse and hide?

Variations - degrees - still apply.

I wonder what will happen if I replace 'power' with the word 'love'...

Will to ....LOVE


What if I replace 'God' with 'Order'?
Nothing but the image changes.

What if I replace the word 'fate' with the word 'faith'?
What if I invert it all and replace the word 'determined' with the word 'immanent'?
What if I replace the word 'cat' with the word 'pussy'?
Okay now possibilities are really 'opening up' wide.

Nothing to stop me from playing with myself.

If I really go crazy, with no regard for nothing but my creative juices flowing, I can really discover something profound.
Wait a minute....who replaced my water with vodka?

Don't you be a hater...it's all good....

What's in a name, indeed?
"Blood & Soil".
Life and Earth, for us terrestrial life-forms.

Memory, to be abstract, or poetic about it, and/or patterns interacting: matter/energy - Εν-Εργεια.
Words connected to observable, experienced phenomena, or recalled causal chains.
Words/Names matter....words connected to matter, the corporeal, physics.

World limits the use of language, if the world is your object/objective....but if escaping world is your objective - no matter what bullshit you tell yourself to hide from this fact - then words/names do not matter, cannot matter, they can be interchangeable, arbitrary, replaceable in many ways, each offering an innovative, often creative escape.
Words, and how you apply them expose your true relationship with your own existence, with the world itself...little noetic tendrils a nobody, like me, can use to trace the path back to the internal wound they cover like a spider's web.
*sniff *sniff
Am I crying?
Words can be so incredible. Morsels of the mind to taste or....sniff.

Typical Modern degeneracy...suing words as forms of escape rather than as tools to engage reality.

Words defined in ways that the concepts they refer to can never be experienced, never perceived....remaining forever unblemished ideas, that can become 'perfect' ideologies.

Words like...'race'.....'sex'....'human'....but more so 'self'....'freedom'....'morality'.
They don't want these words to be anything more than abstractions - political constructs, social fabrications.
They use the absence of absolutes to discredit them all, representing them in their 'theoretical absoluteness' as 'superior'.
It's all a mind-game practising self-deception to live out a life in comfortable ignorance.

The way you define words exposes your intent and your attitude in relation to an uncertain, unknown, threatening reality.
A proper definition exposes a desire to perceive reality, as it is - from the bottom-up, from the base towards the divine, from the noumenon towards the phenomenon.

By 'proper' I do not mean 'whatever I will' - that would be subjectivity: 'all is whatever I desire it to be and nothing and no one can judge me'.
It's not a surrender to a collective will - that would be ideology and adherence to collective beliefs, the will of the many: coercion, collectivism.

On one end there's the Dictionary definitions, representing precedent, via conventional application, facilitating sharing knowledge, communication, cooperation etc.
HUMAN ORDER
On the other end there's the experienced world, outside human systems - but also including them - or what we call empirical, the aesthetic, the perceived world.
NATURAL ORDER

Language connects the first with the second.
It's not arbitrary.
If the second is contradicted by the first, then the first must be adapted to the second, not the reverse - Nihilism practices the inverse method, attempting to adapt NATURAL ORDER to HUMAN ORDER,but it is unable to do so, therefore it replaces NATURAL ORDER with HUMAN ORDER, hiding the solipsist ruse by altering the symbols/words used in different contexts of HUMAN ORDER.
The word/symbol becomes the neurological point of inversion, looping back into human minds.
The illusion of exploring reality is supported by the fact that the individual mind refers to a mind outside itself - an external mind, or a collective of minds. This convinces it that it is engaging the world, when it remains within human constructs.
It dares not exit and face reality directly.
It's language is dedicated to supporting its self-deceit.

^^^^^^
When a modern wants to discredit strength, or use the term to manipulate others, he defines it in ways that imply an either/or duality.
Strength defined in absolutes means that if you are not absolutely strong, you must be absolutely weak - the nil acts as an insinuation of its own absolute presence.
Since there are no absolutes, outside human minds, the absolute is always absent, therefore equality is found in absolute negation.
Since I am not omnipotent, therefore all are equally and absolutely impotent.
Since I do not know and understand everything, I am not omniscient, therefore all are equally ignorant.
Since I am not absolutely free, therefore all are equally un-free.

Either/Or absolutism, seeking absolute certainty - the safety of a final answer, even if negative.
The great equalizer in Abrahamism - all are sinners - and in Marxism - all are workers.
In Christianity this takes the form of the Church - collective of feeble, guilty sinners. Sharing the burden of their guilt to make it bearable - evenly distributing culpability. The 'evil' multiplying the guilt is Satan, exploiting their need to find absolution.
In Marxism it becomes the proletariat - a collective of impoverished and desperate. Sharing the burden of their poverty - evenly distributing the wealth they have. The 'evil multiplying their suffering are the Capitalists, exploiting their work towards wealth.
Marxism/Capitalism are two sides of the same coin - measuring all using monetary value. Identity reduced to code, representing work. The individual's earthly works and his relationship/utility to the collective identifies him as good/bad, as good/evil, as valuable or worthless.

Strength in fact is a word referring to a relationship, not to an absolute idea.
I am 'strong' in relation to another, or I am strong in relation to a mass.
Actually it's a triangulation.
How strong I am is the relationship of myself, to a mass, and the earht's gravity.
Within social contexts my strength refers how I relate to other, and both of us in relation to the collective, the State.

But if the mind is motivated to escape reality then he will define the words he uses accordingly.
If he wants to avoid perceiving 'self' for example, he will define the cocnept in supernatural, surreal, terms...from the Top<>Down, guaranteeing that he will never have to face himself.
If he wants to justify absolute equality, he will define power, knowledge, awareness, in ways that renders it nonsense, or implies a shared, a collective ignorance, feebleness.

Such minds refuse to define the words they use, or define them in reference to another mind, deferring to it - acting as authority - but never in reference to the world he is in.
Such minds will use the absolute to negate the concepts they wish to evade: rendering them absurd, laughable, so as to never having to face the implications while they live.

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

Examples of how language (semiotics) can be used to imply an absurdity, and then validate it with more absurdities.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] the use of deference, and vague references to insinuate something 'deep' and 'profound'.
People who do not understand or are unsure of the beliefs they've adopted usually use deference as a means of compensating for this insecurity - usually with the addition of overly technical jargon, and unnecessarily sophisticated wording.
A typical example is any 'theory' that places itself in some 'beyond', space/time, or 'esoteric', subjective, noetic realm, attempting to avoid having to justify and explain the contradictions inherent in their own beliefs, or to justify the absence of verifiable, testable examples.

In philosophy theories that refer or defer to some icon/idol, or back upon itself, to validate itself, is to be approached with scepticism.
Any philosophy that does not refer and defer to a shared reality - empiricism - but refers and defers to more text, or to icons that wrote or speak words, are to be considered 'guilty' of some degree of obscurantism.
Any position that ridicules or seeds doubt about the validity of the sensually perceived, or of the language used to refer to the perceived, uses obscurantism to imply a 'negation' of everything; usually to promote some alternate method of validating judgements and perspectives, such as emotion, ego etc.

To simplify the process we can describe it as Top<>Down emoting....or a mind that places the noetic, the noumenon, the idea/ideal, the objective, before and above the perceptible, the experienced, the apparent, the phenomenon.
This is the inversion of Nihilism: Idea(l) before Real.
This psychosis begins with the desired solution, conclusion, and then works backward to validate it, by selectively sampling and reinterpreting reality to accommodate its desired outcome. Obscurity can take the form of prose or metaphorical insinuations attempting to tie the mind up in noetic Gordian knots.
After-the-fact it declares its own judgements in accordance with a conviction. The conviction takes the form of a vague, obscure, absolute, remaining 'perfect' and flawless' and indisputable, in the mind where the real cannot challenge it. When and if it has been applied it fails. The naive eventually become convinced that their noetic constructs are, indeed, perfect, so they have the same confidence a child has, or an ignoramus experiences, daring to test their absurdity.
The theory inevitably fails because it has no relation to the real - it is in disharmony with the experience. If the naive do not discard it they must lie to themselves, accusing others of their failure. Unable to question the 'perfection' of their convictions, because of ego, they must find the causes of their failure outside of self, in other.This leads to an internalized noumenon/phenomenon dissonance where the naive mind the fragile ego, must deceive itself to remain viable within a reality that cares not for its internal theories, while at the same time preserving the theory as 'perfect', so as to not hurt the ego.

The Bottom<>Up approach gradually builds probability, not certainty, as an approximation based on precedent.

The above creates a vicious circle - a perpetuating circularity.
The misuse and abuse of language, increases destruct and insecurity with its use, which promotes misuse and abuse of language to compensate.

Similarly, we are being 'socially trained' to mistrust our senses. What we perceived, we are told, is 'superficial' and but an 'illusion'; what appears different is really absolutely the same - sameness is hiding in some obscure underlying realm of superficial illusory divergence.
We do not self-deceive but it is the world that is deceptive; it is not we who produce linguistic paradoxes and conundrums and hoaxes, but the universe is a big hoax.

Paradoxes are the by-product of noumenon conflicting with the phenomenon: noumenon represented and externalized via semiotics, and phenomenon interpreted a priori as appearance.
The dissonance is approached by the realist from the direction of experience, and sensual interpretation. The nihilists approaches it from the direction of ideology - dogma, politics, theory - represented by symbol/word.

The Pagan approaches the divine from the earth; the nihilist inverts the direction, beginning with the divine as an absolute, a given.
The nihilist must obscure, hide, lie, convolute semiotics, corrupt philosophy to validate what he declares as already in his possession. The pure nihilist, competes with his fellow, more 'positive' nihilist, for who knows the 'absolute', one as one and the other as nil. He approaches all language as a linguistic paradox, desiring to degrade and slander semiotics, having known the methods of his 'positive brother.
Usually a pure nihilist is a recovering 'positive' nihilist who outgrew his earlier infantile play and has become sober in his maturity, laughing, cynically, at any linguistic claim.

The nihilistic binary bipolar paradigm encompasses both in a perpetual dance of negativity and negation; one laughing one crying; sometimes one sometimes the other - either/or, as all bipolarity is wont to do. From absolute misery to absolute joy, in a continuous imbalanced psychosis.
Tragic/Comedy.

Another example of how words are corrupted and their meaning connected with particular ideologies.

This time the word is 'Socialism'.

Bolton, Kerry wrote:

What this 'socialism' was had been cogently explained by Hitler to Viereck in 1923.
It is an indication also of what Yockey meant by 'ethical socialism': "Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?" "Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not socialism. Marxism is not socialism. the Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. they cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, dos not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike  Marxism, it is patriotic."

Yockey - A Fascist Odyssey

Words are hijacked and corrupted.
Nihilism does this with all terms, starting with the word 'nihilism' itself. It associates it with a 'negative' evaluation of world, when as it describes it the world is 'positive'.
A world void of absolutes, like universal morality' God, as the Abrahamics define the cocnept, meaning, and purpose, is not a 'negative' but a 'positive' simply because it makes life possible.

The corruption and appropriation of language is the mark of Nihilism - a linguistic virus.
In a similar way the words 'shame' is corrupted, and associated with a 'negative', such as Christianity....or Nietzsche is currently being appropriated and corrupted to accommodate Modern Nihilistic principles.
Any word/symbol can be similarly corrupted by assimilating it into a emotional reaction - positive/negative, depending no the context and the motive.
'Race' and 'Sex' are currently being 'rehabilitated' by associating the concepts with a emotion - the concept is detached from its worldly moorings and attached to an emotional reaction that promotes Nihilistic attitudes.
the term 'socialism' triggers an emotional reaction, associating it with specific socially appropriate images, concepts, ideas and ideals.  
So, if you want to discredit 'socialism'; you use it in reference to Nazis, and if you want to 'cleanse' it of negativity you associate it with its Marxist application that negates all genetic identifiers.

On-line Dictionary wrote:

so·cial·ism
Dictionary result for socialism
/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun
noun: socialism

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
synonyms: leftism, Fabianism, syndicalism, consumer socialism, utopian socialism, welfarism; More
communism, Bolshevism;
radicalism, militancy;
progressivism, social democracy;
laborism;
Marxism, Leninism, Marxism–Leninism, neo-Marxism, Trotskyism, Maoism
antonyms: conservatism
policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
synonyms: leftism, Fabianism, syndicalism, consumer socialism, utopian socialism, welfarism; More
communism, Bolshevism;
radicalism, militancy;
progressivism, social democracy;
laborism;
Marxism, Leninism, Marxism–Leninism, neo-Marxism, Trotskyism, Maoism
antonyms: conservatism
(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

The cocnept is entirely appropriated by modern values.

I have one primary mission.
To make minds immune to hypocrites, cowards, and morons using linguistic acrobatics to either pretend they are what they are the opposite of, or that use language to escape what they are, but wish they were not.

It's an immunization campaign against a memetic virus infecting millions of minds, starting with the most vulnerable: the needy, the desperate, the feeble, the impressionable, the cowards, the insecure, the idiotic, the retarded.
Those I've already discounted as 'lost causes', not worth any attempt to save, even if I were arrogant enough to believe that I could break through all that sickness.
Those can face the consequences their own genes condemn them to. They can teach their friends and family members, their own children, to be exactly like they are.

I am immunizing those few who are not yet infected beyond hope.
It's an act of preparation for the Dark Age we are already in. Things are not yet bad enough for the mediocre to notice - they still have no clue and will remain clueless for decades to come - but when the darkness grows deeper and deeper, as we enter the midnight phase, many will be lost in the darkness, scrambling to find a candle to light...well, I am giving them a candle, and they'll have to provide their own spark.
My interest ends there.
During the coming long night, each and ever one of us will be alone...separated by darkness.
We may hear each other, in the distance, in between the screams and desperate calls of the degenerates, but there will be no light to shine our way, other than the small candles we each hold and spark with the energy of our own spirits.

Those desperate degenerates will come towards it...and this is where our hearts must blaze hot with the cold fire of indifference...

If the utility of language is properly understood then, as representation of nervous system, the realistic and the nihilistic application becomes clear.
In the first the symbol/world is from the direction of phenomenon towards noumenon - external towards internal; in the second it is inverted, from the direction of the noumenon towards the phenomenon - internal towards external.

The first assimilates and interprets - absorbs - the second expunges and projects - expunges.
Those two methods correspond to true art, and to abstract art, or Art versus fArt.
Th first expresses reality, through representation - judged in relation to the real - the second expressed a reaction towards reality, through free association - judged in relation to a common automated emotional reaction, defending a fragility from a brutal and indifferent world.

The difference between αυτοφωτο & ετεροφωτο - male/female.

Nihilism is the inversion of reality: the male pretending to be female, and the female pretending to be male - the ετεροφωτο pretending to be αυτοφωτο and the αυτοφωτο repressing its own innate energy to appear a passive reflective surface, or ετεροφωτο.

Absence of an absolute, outside the mind, means that all words are approximations, representations, trying to approach absoluteness...certainty.

'Freedom' and 'Will' can only be defined accordingly.
Not absolute Independence, but a degree of it - degree of dependence. Not absolute Will, i.e. God, but a degree of it - degree of self-control; degree of directing momentum.
Will = giving direction to organic energies.
Existence = dynamic activity - interactivity.
Movement, would be another words for it. All concepts have more than one word referring to it.
We can call man's awakening to existence as an awakening to a momentum with a direction, acceleration, rhythms he never chooses.
Will, therefore, would be the momentum adjusted in accordance to a objective, a goal.
This slight modification of momentum is what we call 'choice'.
Choice being an expression of freedom, if 'freedom' is defined and understood properly.
From the Bottom<>Up, and not from the Nihilistic idealism of Top<>Down emoting, starting with the noetic construct of an 'absolute' i.e. absolute independence.
Similarly, when defining 'strength; and/or 'power' properly, we begin from the tangible, the worldly, before we advance upward to the theoretical, the intangible, the abstract. Therefore, strength would be a measure of weakness, in comparison - in relation - to an otherness, whether it be living or non-living.

Order would be a pattern of consistent, repeating movement - a predictable momentum.
Chaos would be a movement with no consistent repeating pattern - an unpredictable momentum.
In both cases movement is a given, because existence = action, and inactive, is a definition of non-existence - entirely noetic, theoretical abstract idea/ideal, with no external reference.

Semiotics is how the mind imprisons itself in its own 'esoteric' reality.
Language represents the extend of this self-induced incarceration.
Institutionalization, for a domesticated species, is preferable to the uncertainties and risks of the wilds.

In father-less, heterogeneous, societies the state takes over the role of father-figure, and all become disgruntled teenagers or daddy's little boy or girls.
God represented the idealization of group identity. But the cocnept was too divisive, so he morphed into a pure idea/ideal.
In Abrahmism he morphed into 'money' represented by numbers, as its sacred logos.
an idea can be inclusive because ti si so vague, obscure, subjective, that it can mean anything, to anyone, at any time.
Money = Messiah....promising salvation on earth - some immanent, future, coming time/place - always on its way, but never 'here/now'.
Faith projected as eternal hope.
Money saving the individual of all genetic failings, all inherited inferiorities, a means to find Utopia on Earth, rather than Heaven in the beyond.
Marxism and Capitalism are both money oriented. Two sides of the same narrative.
No race, no sex, no blood...it's all about service and selling - producing and consuming.
The group becomes the ambiguous rebirth of the Messiah - no longer corporeal but pure noumenon, pure 'divine' idea/ideal. The individual he is told, lives forever, through the group.
A multifarious singularity mysterious in every way.

Humanity = God - God = Humanity.
Individuation - American style - is the manifestation of the divine, through the system - represented by money.
Money makes you 'sexy, 'funny', 'smart', because prostituting yourself, being popular, is the highest ambition - an 'individuals' piety is measured by how close to the Divine it can reach.
There is no shared blood, no common genes/memes, there are only shared ambitions, ideals - fame and fortune.
To be recognized, chosen, appreciated, by the majority, is being loved by God.
.

A Modern Degenerate will routinely substitute words with foreign, more exotic terms, deferring to some authority, hoping the audience will not bother to read, or to research, but will remain thoroughly impressed.  
Latin, is usually adopted as the language to impress, as is Greek.
He hides behind the exotic and the obscure - he hopes.

Telos, for example, is denied, as a matter of principle, and logic, and yet the world is described and defined in ways that indirectly allude to a telos - which simply means end, purpose, limit.
Two possible etymological roots;
1- meaning to turn, to circle, associated with ploughing the field - a tuning about, returning.
2- meaning to weigh to lift - τελαμων - associated with paying a tax, or an owed amount.

Although the modern Nihilist and desperate degenerate, may 'say' he does not believe in an 'end' or in a universal' purpose, he nevertheless describes the mess in his tiny mind, in terms that allude to an 'end' and to a universal purpose', as in a universal intent, and most condemning he behaves as if he is, in fact, a master of his own fate, and in control of his own destiny.
Self-deceit pretending to be deceiving where it is being forthright about, and not to be deceiving about what it is lying about.
What does it matter if you claim to not believe in a one-god - the Abrahamic version - when you rename it absolute, or order, or any name will suffice, and you hide it by using some exotic language, like Deus, or Theos?
What does it matter if you claim to not believe ni universal morality when you describe your positions in ways that allude to exactly such an absurdity, and you refuse to define the word 'morality' or to refer it to a behaviour that is not only particular to the species homo sapient?

Who are you fooling, other than yourself and those like you - who are you trying to convince, what choir are you preaching to?

How much talent would it take to convince a weight watcher's group that 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder?'
You can skip the impressive jargon, and go straight to the meat. They are hungry, primed to devour with gluttony whatever you serve.
How much talk would it take to enter an insane asylum and convince the residents that you are Napoleon reincarnated, as a miser?
They already want to believe. They need to believe in anything....anything that proves that they aren't insane.

Now you know why Nihilism is a communal, and social to its core.
All desperately want to deal with their own, private, existential anxieties and genetic insecurities.
They vary only in the quality of bullshyte they are willing to swallow.
Like, how a 'lady' differs from a 'whore': in the price. They both desperately want to give themselves to another. They differ in the cost, the type they will surrender to, to save face - not be taken advantage of - feel safe and respected, as they call it.

Whether you call it 'god creator of all' or 'one determinate of all', what's the difference?
Whether you call it 'sin' or 'responsibility', the difference is cosmetic.

To be absolved of all sin, is to be made liberated from all responsibility.
A helpless child, that can only accept God's will, or Universal order, and embrace his fate/faith.
With every benefit there comes a cost; with every advantage a disadvantage; with every 'positive' a 'negative'.

The 'negative' is the advantages of self-consciousness, is insecurity, vulnerability, increased mental worries, cares - remedied, by Nihilism with self-retardation, a form of a reversion to less self-consciousness - the manimal state - blissful ignorant, and ignorance is, for them, synonymous with innocence.
To 'not know,' is to not care; to not be accountable - and to 'not know' is to forget - Lethe - falsehood, negation, concealing, obscuring, denying.

To forget the memories of your becoming - DNA. You cannot un-know them, leave them behind....you can only try to forget them - revert to the state fo an animal. Governed by the simplest mechanism = pain/pleasure, one/nil, good/bad, friend/foe.

The power of words is found in their utility.

They can be used to over-complicate a subject, so as to evade a conclusion, or they can be over to over-simplify a subject, so as to integrate contradictory concepts into a unified 'whole'.
Dumbing-Down is this manipulation of words.

Consider the word 'human', as opposed to the word 'race'.
On the one hand the word is mystified, idealized, sanctified, so as to integrate in obscurity and vagueness what can be differentiated with ease, in the second the word is reduced to an absurdity to slander and belittle it to the point of rendering it an infantile cocnept no one of any seriousness, would ever consider.
Both words are detached from their original use as mediating symbols connecting subjective with objective, or mind with body - the physical, corporeal, tangible - or noumenon with phenomenon - the apparent.

Bipolar psychotics applying binary logic, taken literally, and not artistically, figuratively, approximately, representationally - the 1/0 dualities of Nihilism.
The self dismissing other as an illusion, a ghost, hiding sameness, or self hiding behind another, as a defensive proxy, an icon/idol of magical protective shield.