Words

Those who understood already know that language is how nihilism appropriate and inverts a mind's relationship with existence....world, reality.
Even the concept of nihilism is part of nihilism's paradigm, and helps expose the process of inversion:

How is nihilism conventionally understood?
As a description of existence lacking universal morals, absolute truth, meaning, purpose...

Quote :

ni·hil·ism
[ˈnīəˌlizəm, ˈnēəˌlizəm]
NOUN
the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless.
synonyms:
negativity · cynicism · pessimism · rejection · repudiation · renunciation · denial · abnegation · disbelief · nonbelief · unbelief · skepticism · lack of conviction · absence of moral values · agnosticism · atheism · nontheism
philosophy
extreme skepticism maintaining that nothing in the world has a real existence.
historical
the doctrine of an extreme Russian revolutionary party c. 1900 which found nothing to approve of in the established social order.

...setting aside the intentional misunderstanding concerning the concepts of 'god' and 'meaning' we realize that any description of existence as lacking absolutes is described as a 'negative' when, in fact, this lack is what makes existence 'positive' - not only because it makes life and free-will possible, but also because it allows the organism to create, within natural boundaries and limitations, its own purposes.
Imagine if this were not the case....what an authoritarian, totalitarian existence we would be forced to endure?

Chaos makes freedom possible...at a cost.

Nihilism is psychosomatic, i.e., spiritual, fatigue.
Existential morose.
Usually emerging as a popular trend during periods of civilizational stress, such as empire decline, experienced as an 'end of a world'.

Abstraction = translation of sensual stimuli - interactivity - into a form the organism can react to locally or transmit to the brain, if one is present - where the translation is processed - via evolved a priori methods - into sensation, imagery.
A loss of data is always the sacrifice of this process.

Reduction of data is a reduction of probabilities, since data is always ordered (patterned) and chaotic energies are incorporated into them in the form of novelty, mystification, or unpredictable incomprehensible change.

Abstraction reduces dimensional possibilities, into probabilities, making sensual input of data more manageable.
The product is continuously juxtaposed with continuous input - stream of thought - and stored as neurological representational algorithms (memory).
Memory is where mind can synthesize abstractions into forms that refer to nothing external - like unicorns, or that may even contradict the external, like the one-god of Abraham promoting an absolute singularity that contradicts the fluctuating multiplicity of experienced existence.
Absolutes can only exist in the mind as idea/ideal - maintained there as vague neurological patterns representing complete wholes that have no external referents and would negate existence if they were to become more than representational.
Ironically, their storage is in dynamic form - since all that exists, including ideas, thoughts - representing static absolute complete wholes.
The confusion between the represented and the representation is the foundation of nihilism, which inverts the relationship where the representation becomes the represented.

An explanatory allegory...
A painter paints a dynamic natural scene, using techniques to substitute movement with static symbols representing nature's dynamism.
His 3 dimensional painting of a forest represents his 4 dimensional experiences of a forest.
What is sacrifices are the scents, the sounds as well as the dimension of time, movement.
The painting is a rendition of the existent, not the existent itself....yet the canvas and paints also exist.
So the paints and aisle, and brushes all exist, and they participate in reducing the existent forest into a form that can be encompassed within the dimensions of a canvas - painter translates the forest into a form that can be represented on canvas, by eliminating a lot of the data and one or more dimensions.
Dimensions, being spatial, indicate possibilities, so the painter reduces possibilities to represent a piece of space/time that is no longer accurate the moment it is finished...so he would need to paint a new painting of the forest...as the mind does, to update his experience of the forest.
He abstracts the forest, using an existent medium, translating it from existent to representation.


-----
A nihilist painter feeling threatened by the forest or being motivated by a desire to dismiss some other piece of reality, using his painting to dismiss the existence of the forest altogether, or to imply that he can change existence as easily as he can change his painting, using different colours, shapes, or inventing new kinds of trees.
Having adopted this defensive method he will eventually declare the forest as existing entirely in his mind, rendered on his canvas....from nowhere and nothing, or from a social source, since he no longer believes anything exists outside brains.
The world is a canvas....and men create it anew, only adopting social conventions because they've been indoctrinated or pressured by powerful men, or trained form youth to do so.

Also the possibility he will confuse the painting, the representation, for the reality that it depicts. This would be the Platonic idealism that suggests the painting was some ideal that he found in the platonic realm, which the reality is merely a shadow of. An example I posted before would be Orwoll saying mathematics (a representational language) is actually the fundamental workings of reality. A system that human minds invented to describe reality in a certain way becomes confused for reality itself. Or, a sort of deeper, more real, more divine level of reality. Magical, for which you need special individuals (priests) to act as intermediaries...
Also that guy Cunningham complaining about 'nihilists' whose mechanical descriptions of the human condition leave him without the romance of a soul. And so forth...
Knowledge demystifies, but some only find value in the mystery. Knowledge has a price, the Abrahamic idea that the paradise of Eden is lost when eating from the tree of knowledge and then are cast adrift in the desert of the real exposes the underlying anxiety: the truth is often unpleasant. And so enforcement of blind faith becomes necessary, offering salvation from the real in the beyond. Up there, or down there, or out there.
It may be that they know exactly what the truth is but they are just willfully turning away from it, which would explain why the response is often anger, or fear.
If this psychology is the environment... adapt or die, like you said.

apaosha wrote:

Also the possibility he will confuse the painting, the representation, for the reality that it depicts. This would be the Platonic idealism that suggests the painting was some ideal that he found in the platonic realm, which the reality is merely a shadow of. An example I posted before would be Orwoll saying mathematics (a representational language) is actually the fundamental workings of reality. A system that human minds invented to describe reality in a certain way becomes confused for reality itself. Or, a sort of deeper, more real, more divine level of reality. Magical, for which you need special individuals (priests) to act as intermediaries...

Yes, this is what nihilism does....confusing - intentionally or not - the representation with the represented.
Mathematics, being the most abstract language of all - intimately connected with music and its roots in primal vocalizations, as the first form of communication to evolve - becomes mystified.... connected with the mind, or a universal mind, detacing from the tangible.
Entirely idealized.
The human construct becomes a reflection of cosmic divinity, communicating its will to humans.
But one/nil exists nowhere but in the human mind.

apaosha wrote:

Also that guy Cunningham complaining about 'nihilists' whose mechanical descriptions of the human condition leave him without the romance of a soul. And so forth...
Knowledge demystifies, but some only find value in the mystery. Knowledge has a price, the Abrahamic idea that the paradise of Eden is lost when eating from the tree of knowledge and then are cast adrift in the desert of the real exposes the underlying anxiety: the truth is often unpleasant. And so enforcement of blind faith becomes necessary, offering salvation from the real in the beyond. Up there, or down there, or out there.

And the more it demystifies the more the mind is exposed to an indifferent cosmos.....desiring to return to its previous state of "innocence", i.e., ignorance.

apaosha wrote:

It may be that they know exactly what the truth is but they are just willfully turning away from it, which would explain why the response is often anger, or fear.
If this psychology is the environment... adapt or die, like you said.

Some intuitively know and react angrily towards anyone that reminds them of what they know....the majority are ignorantly blissful, and can never know anything beyond their manimal needs/desires.
All else is nonsense, or useless, to them....

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Corrupting language re-sequences time/space relationships. Instead of being limited by physical reality, metaphysics limits our relationship with physical reality.
The sequence physis → language → metaphysis, becomes metaphysics → words → physics. An inversion identifying a nihilistic motive.
Language becomes entirely esoteric, because it no longer refers nor requires the external world but can survive in the mind, as ideology, as spirituality, transmitted semiotically from mind to mind; validated intersubjectively, emotionally.
Nothing of nature is being exchanged, only of sociology, and group dynamics. Philosophy is feminized, and can no longer be called philosophy, but anti-philosophy. Participants share triggering words/symbols that only refer to other minds, stored as code in books, in texts, alphanumerically arranged in libraries where anyone can validate them from the original source.
Mankind is entering its final phase, abandoning itself to technologies and learned techniques.
Language will be – as in the movie Matrix – the code of tis incarceration – its new womb – where each individual will live out its life in dream, supporting the machinations with his acquiescence, and his REM sleep movements. Every individual will live in their own private reality, without needing to know there is anything outside his sarcophagus.
Grammar is where the inversion occurs - the spin - that never settles but continuously rotates, so as to not give away its objective.

Nietzsche wrote:

Finally: woman! One-half of mankind is weak, typically sick, changeable, inconstant... she needs a religion of weakness that glorifies being weak, loving, and being humble as divine: or better, she makes the strong weak – she rules when she succeeds in overcoming the strong...
Woman has always conspired with the types of decadence, the priests, against the "powerful,” the "strong,” the men.

and she finds them among the priestly tribes of Abraham; those gifted manipulators of gestures and signs.

In her they find the weakest point to exploit and infiltrate the target host.

This, then, became Americanism.

Nietzsche wrote:

All women are subtle in exaggerating their weaknesses; they are inventive when it comes to weaknesses in order to appear as utterly fragile ornaments who are hurt even by a speck of dust. Their existence is supposed to make men feel clumsy, and guilty on that score. Thus they defend themselves against the strong and "the law of the jungle."

Among the matrilineal tribes they found in woman the spirit of their survival strategy.
Pretend to be an innocent victim - helpless, guileless - a irresponsible child, triggering parental impulses.

'Friend' used to mean "loving one",
while a 'fiend' was a "hating one".

'Friend' is the fossilised present participle of the ancestor of 'to free', which meant "to love; to like; to free".

The modern verb corresponding to 'fiend' would have been *to fee if it had survived. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Yoïn van Spijk (@yvanspijk) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Let's try a different approach that may bridge our confusion.

There ae conventional definitions and understanding of concepts which refer to nothing but abstractions that do not exist.
They've been "defined out of existence" as I often describe it.
This is nihilism.
Words like 'god', 'morality', 'gender', 'race', 'value', 'free-will'...as they are conventionally defined and understood refer to texts and nothing else.
So, the concepts they represent do not exist.

Examples:
How the concept of 'god' is conventionally defined and understood is non-existent - so in regard to this Biblical definition I am an atheist....but I am not an atheist if the term 'god' (ΩΕΟΣ) is returned to tis origins.
Beginning from the act, the experienced 'theos' refers to natural states, natural forces....gods - plural - are real, anthropomorphized states of nature.

Same for morality.
The convectional understanding and definition I deny - I am an amoralist, only in relation to this convectional definition...not to morality referring to actions, such as reciprocity, compassion, sympathy, tolerance, kindness, generosity etc.
I perceive moral behaviour in other species, so I can reconnect the term 'morality' to actions that are observable, experienced and cross cultural and species boundaries.

Same for gender.
No longer a social construct - from nothing and nowhere - but a cultural application of a sexual specialized reproductive role.

Same for race.
No longer referring to violence, slavery, pigmentation - alone - but toi a genealogical divergence determining range of inherited psychosomatic potentials, expressed through behaviour, performance.

Same for value - which was attempted, by a moron on ILP, to be mystified out of existence.
No longer a ambiguous concept but the act of triangulation of subject (willful agency, interpreter)/Object/Objective (goal, ideal, interpreted etc.) and Effort/Work necessary to bridge the distance between subject/object.

Same for love.
No longer a romantic idealism describing unconditionality, but a evolved necessity facilitating cooperative survival and reproductive strategies.

Same for free-will
If we begin from the act of choosing, free-will is rehabilitated from tis modern/postmodern, and Abrahamic corruptions.
As it is currently defined and understood there is no free-will....free-will does not exist, as it is defined....just as god does not exist, as it is defined.
But if we begin from the act, choice, then freee-will acquires substance and meaning.
It no longer refers to a theoretical abstraction, describing some absolute freedom - absolute independence - or divine will, but it refers to choice and qualifies it - freedom referring to will and will expressed through the act of choice.

The problem is motive..which goes back to choice.
Choice expresses the will's motive - movement towards an objective.
Nihilism's motive - no matter the varient - is to detach and shelter the ego from existence.
It uses words not to connect and relate but to detach and distance ego from reality, fabricating a noetic - semiotic - wall behind which it conceals itself, hoping reality will not affect it.

Though they define words in a multitude of subjective ways, they always act in uniform patterns, and often in antithesis to their own definitions.
Then they make excuses to explain their self-contritions.
Mind/Body dissonance.
The act always takes precedence...let them use words to deceive themselves.
As such....always look at what someone does, not what they say.

The act comes first....then words are invented to refer to them, each with its own motive.
Nobody invents an action....or a relationship.....one invents words/symbols to represent them.

In all things human triangulation is central:
It is the very standard of finding value.
Past<>Present<>Future
Platonic psyche: Reason<>Will<>Pathos
Mind<>Spirit<>Body

Subjective (need, desire) - movement - Objective (goal, ideal, satisfaction/gratification etc.).
In linguistics definition is also a triangulation:
Dictionary definition reference (conventional use)<>Word/Symbol<>Worldly Reference (action, phenomenon/ appearance, experience).

The worldly reference establishes a limit to convectional use.
Nihilism erase this reference to "liberate" conventional use permitting an escape from the worldly, the experienced (tangible, apparent); an escape the majority find pleasing....given that the experience of existence is need/suffering, and always uncertain to a degree - if we include chaos (random energies) then the existent is mostly unknown and unknowable, making uncertainty a fact of life.
This is why all value judgements are always approximations, estimations, probability ranges - ironically this is where the nil finds its power: absent absolutes means, for the degenerate mind, anything is equally possible, even if not equally probable. They find in the concept of infinite possibilities - simultaneously being possible, describing a state of chaos - to be a pleasing idea even if it means no life can emerge - expressing a subconscious resentment towards existence and its temporality; its need/suffering.
More importantly, subjectivity - perspectivism, pushed to its emotive limits - is best served when there are no limits to what is or can be possible.
Precedence is despised - nature being the sum of all preceding nurturing - because it also reveals a pattern (a probability range) that implies a limit to possibilities.
For them the absence of absolute, e.g., god of Abraham, absolute order, are unwanted limitations to their freedom.

Why reject free-will?
Because it also implies a limit to the chaos they crave.
To them salvation is replaced by universal chaos - freedom from all order: metaphysical freedom.
They are not free-willed, but expressions of universal - divine - freedom of will.
All that comes not existence is in accordance with this divine will's Will.
God is remade as a universal movement towards nothing - within which anything is possible - an escape from precedent and all worldly authorities.
A-Moral Laws of Nature replace Mosaic Commandments (ethics).
Nothing is impossible, and simultaneously possible.

There is no beauty, no health, no reason, no superiority....no value judgements.
Anti-philosophy philosophy.
All is meaningless.

So what is there to agree on, other than how all disagreements are equally true and, simultaneously, un-true?
Nihilism is the alpha & omega - the only acceptable paradigm.
All conversations, forms of intercourse, dialogues - exchanges - must occur within this nonsensical binary paradigm.
Ugly is the new standard for beauty....because all is subjective; all opinions make sense, because all is nonsense; sense is subjective.
All they must do is find a flaw, a hole in the evidence, a weakness in the reasoning, to justify the nil.
Destruction is easier than Construction.
And, to rebel and deny all authority is easier than establishing order and authority.
The very absence of absolutes becomes, for degenerates, a validation of their subconscious worship of the nil.
Cynicism is the final outcome of this psychosis; hedonism the only acceptable certainty in all the uncertainty - pleasure/pain becomes the new standard for evaluating falsehood, because pleasure is ephemeral and never complete, final, whole...always imperfect.
Therefore, pleasure can only be prolonged with continuous intercourse, dialogue, exchange - intercourse with no utility, no conclusion, no objective; pleasure for pleasure's sake.
We've seen this circular emoting: will wills willing; value values valuing; love loves loving.
A symptom of recovering Abrahamism.
A motive is given to comic movement - Abrahamic god is reborn - father<>holy spirit<>son....only now he is blind and dumb....or the Platonic triad is inverted in this new version of Abrahamic divinity: Pathos<>Will<>Reason.
Need/Desire for power, for will, for value, for love...is the driving force, using will to harness/subjugate reason.
Cynical laughter of the madman, living ni his own private world where he is god.

A dictionary binds a word to the necessities of communication.
The act binds the word to necessity itself - to the demands of a shared world.

Implications of a single word.
Nazi - a secular adaptation of the Abrahamics concept of 'evil' or Satan.
The term distinguishes between the Abraham Judaized "innocent victims" and the evil, inhuman, victimizers.
Used in the same way Abrahamics used the term devil, Satan, evil...
It's meant to identify who belongs to the self-mutilated degenerate "good side" and who represents the indifferent, injustices of nature.
Humanity = god; god = humanity - using the Abrahamic definition of the term 'god'.
As such he who is with god - good, humanity - can do no wrong, for his choices are of god, for god, in accordance with god's will, i.e., determined (absolute order, absolute good); those who represents nature - including chaos - are on the side of Satan, given the scarlet lettering to identify him/her as an other.

Sam Smith says he loves fishing and identifies as a FisherTHEM not a Fishermen but a Fisherthem ‍� [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Oli London (@OliLondonTV) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Art is a civilization's canary....
Art exposes the sickness way before a midwits even notices.....and a dimwit never notices until he's taking it up the arse and is screaming "Rape!....white nazis are tearing me a new arshole".
Doesn't matter what colour the cock is. They don't see colour, they only feel the pain.

Language is to Civilizations - memes - what DNA is to organisms - genes.
A mutation first appears here.
First as a subtle quirkiness....then compounding until a frek-show is the final outcome.
An organism dies due to multiple unfit mutations - if left unprotected from reality....and the same happens to a civilization.

For Americanized minds symbols and words are so magical that they can be used to save themselves from reality, erase the past, reinvent themselves...and destroy their enemies.



Calling someone a Nazi, or a fascist, or a commie, or a homophobe, transphobe, a bigot, suffices to destroy the enemy....
So affected they are by words that they assume that they have the same effect on everyone.

The word is like a scarlet letter, uttered in public to identify the enemy to the mob; it points to the one who is not infected to help the zombies fall upon him.
Among zombies there are only words that identify the infected from the healthy, from the immune.

Incredible how obtuse the modern Americanized brain has become.
Centuries of Abrahamic superstitions and then decades of American dumbing0down has crated these brain-dead zombies, incapable of any degree of objectivity - trapped in their hedonistic, ego centered, subjectivity, obsessed with popularity since it is the only external factor that validates their delusional convictions.

the simplest concepts confuse them, or triggers their ideological/dogmatic automatic rejection systems.

Words like 'gender' become baffling - now the term 'woman' will becomes incomprehensible to the advanced in mental seepage.
Terms like 'rage' rigger a confused emotional reaction they cannot justify, nor offer an alternative to....they merely feel the wrong..  

How can we advance, with such retarder psyches' to more complex tems like 'morality' or 'free-will' or 'values.'
They need mystification to cope with their retardation - it is all mystical, mysterious, incomprehensible...

That 'value' refer to an objective, is too much for them to absorb.
Something has value relative to an objective - its distance, its accessibility, its possible attainment...
Effort multiplies value....I mean the genitally mutilated one Marx got it.
He simply rejected the idea that exploitation is part of natural selection.

Anyway....'objective' is another way of saying purpose.
Life has no purpose, other than propagating itself indefinitely, as long as possible - this is programmed into it - life's purpose is life....ironically it necessitates the destruction of life.
Charlatans have built entire philosophies on this - will wills willing; love loves loving...

Life propagates life is a fundamental characteristic of life - that and memory accumulation and storage is what differentiates life form non-life.
Existence has no purpose...only life has. Existence wills nothing....will is only what describes life - as the ability to control and focus its aggregate energies towards an objective - purpose, intent.
But this objective need not be the final or primary one.
Now we come to what differentiate higher form lower life.
Lower life only strives to propagate itself.
Higher life gives itself a objective - a purpose.
This makes nihilism possible as the objective of self-annihilation - or life giving itself an objective that is self-destructive or that is forever unattainable, because the objective only exists in the mind of the life-form...as idea.
This leads to entrapment in the subjective as a means of sheltering itself form an indifferent, uncertain, existence; from the experience of existing which is need/suffering.
Nihilism is a political tool for those who wish to exploit this human weakness, so it is promoted among the dimwit midwit masses who only want pleasure as a escape form existential need/suffering and the anxiety/stress of its indifferent uncertainties. Pleasure becomes the tool of mass manipulation.

Concepts like good/evil or good/bad are about this objective and its collective appreciation, adopted as the identifying objective of a particular collective.
Whatever promotes group cohesion, group power, a group's approach to their shared objective is called 'good', or 'moral'....whatever demotes is called 'evil', 'bad'; whatever offer a group advantage is 'good' and moral'; whatever is a disadvantage is called 'evil' or 'bad' or 'immoral'.
These terms re not arbitrary since advantage and disadvantage are determined within an environment.
Manmade environments cannot replace natural environments - at least not yet.
Man intervenes and adjusts nature to his preferences, guided by a goal, an objective, an intent. The objective may be absurd, and this will have consequences on all those who strive to attain it.

Words/Symbols anchor a mind to reality.
A word's definition refers to a shared world.
The world, i.e., natural order, a phenomenon, is what limits and affirms a word/symbol which is a representation of an idea, a concept, an ideal, a noumenon.

Existence is another term for world, referring to natural order and what is perceptible - excluding chaos which can only be perceived through order.
Existence is dynamic and interactive, ergo world is all that is and can be perceived because it is dynamic, interactive and ordered, i.e., patterned
Another term for dynamic and interactive is active, an act.
So a word refers to an act or a combination of actions in the past, present or projected future.

This is true for concepts such as morality, valuing, willing, choosing...

Past refers to all actions that have participated in the determination of a presence - a dynamic interactive present.
Present refers to what is dynamic and interactive, determined by the past and determining the future - appearance, phenomenon, is how consciousness interprets presence, determined by the range of its awareness.
Future is a term referring to what has yet to be determined, ro is being determined presently - usually to what a willful agency wants to be determined - its objective.
This past (immutable, determined), present (mutable determining, subjective willing, intentionality, interpreting, existing/world), future (yet to be determined, objective, projected, idealized) is where the confusion begins and ends - intentionally or not.
Past and future do not exist....past did exist, manifesting in the present which is existence/world - world is always an interpretation of existence, and since only patterned energies, order, can be perceived and interpreted (processed, memorized, abstracted, conceptualized), it refers only to this, alluding to chaos as physis alludes to metaphysis as the unknown/unknowable, the underlying, the imperceptible, the incomprehensible.
Physis restricts what can be implied through metaphysis, just as natural order restricts how a word, representing a concept, can be conceptualized and defined - metaphysis is immanent in physis, and physis (nature) is metaphysical grounding, limit, validation.
It ought to also restrict how the mind projects or pursues, wills, moves towards its expected or desired, i.e., idealized, objectives in an imminent future.

Past<>PRESENT<>Future
Determined - DETERMINING - Willed
Immutable - MUTABLE - Projected

Triangulation is the foundation of objectivity and of evaluating - value judgements - contributing to choice.
Choice implodes the triad into a point which becomes another triad.
Choice occurs unconsciously, but is consciously experienced after the fact. This is why conscious training, cultivation, is essential in making choices - learning, adapting, adjusting, is a training of the unconscious mind, by the conscious mind, to correct past choices.
Know Thyself

Words representing concepts, act as anchors for a mind, resisting its impulses to fly off into flights of fancy, by arbitrarily defining them according to the individuals objectives.

In regards to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] the act of choice is the anchoring of the concept to the world - to existence.

We need not understand it completely, just as men did not need to understand what the sun is to know that it is.
So, free-will is, even if man does not fully comprehend it, just as life is even if man does not completely, as of yet, understand how it emerges.


Instead of assuming that the sun is a god, or some spirit, as men of the past did, there, is an objective way to determine what it might be even if one does not completely understand.
Similarly, instead of assuming that choice is not, or that some external agency, will, is at work, we can begin with the act itself and explore what is most probable, without being certain.
What is most probable excludes what is fanciful and absurd and intentionally dismissive.

We know that man judges and chooses, like all organisms....and if we define terms as qualifiers of this act of judging and choosing, all other possibilities fall away leaving a probability.

Satyr wrote:

Words representing concepts, act as anchors for a mind, resisting its impulses to fly off into flights of fancy, by arbitrarily defining them according to the individuals objectives.

In regards to free-will the act of choice is the anchoring of the concept to the world - to existence.

We need not understand it completely, just as men did not need to understand what the sun is to know that it is.
So, free-will is, even if man does not fully comprehend it, just as life is even if man does not completely, as of yet, understand how it emerges.


Instead of assuming that the sun is a god, or some spirit, as men of the past did, there, is an objective way to determine what it might be even if one does not completely understand.
Similarly, instead of assuming that choice is not, or that some external agency, will, is at work, we can begin with the act itself and explore what is most probable, without being certain.
What is most probable excludes what is fanciful and absurd and intentionally dismissive.

We know that man judges and chooses, like all organisms....and if we define terms as qualifiers of this act of judging and choosing, all other possibilities fall away leaving a probability.  

In regards to evaluations and value-judgements, I repeat:
All evaluations are triangulations of a judging/evaluating subject, its objectives and the world, which determines how accessible, attainable, these objectives are - if they are at all - and how much work, effort, it requires to attain them, if they are attainable.

Therefore, when we evaluate humans the ideal human would be the objective which we use to judge the real human, and this conception of an ideal human might be attainable or unattainable, if it is completely divorced from reality - we call these objective idealistic, since they remain stuck in the mind as pure idea that cannot ever become real.

This idealization of concepts is typical of moderns and nihilists,, using it to excuse themselves or to place the ideal in a metaphysical realm where it cannot be blemished, nor validated nor falsified....remaining pure and pristine, and forever unattainable.
They do so to dismiss all objectives, all ideals, as being equally unattainable so as to explain why they, personally, failed to even approach them.
Example:
Those who failed to correctly judge and made wrong choices, based on their inability to judge, are inclined to define free-will/choice in a way that makes it unattainable, or non-existent.

Satyr wrote:

Satyr wrote:

Words representing concepts, act as anchors for a mind, resisting its impulses to fly off into flights of fancy, by arbitrarily defining them according to the individuals objectives.

In regards to free-will the act of choice is the anchoring of the concept to the world - to existence.

We need not understand it completely, just as men did not need to understand what the sun is to know that it is.
So, free-will is, even if man does not fully comprehend it, just as life is even if man does not completely, as of yet, understand how it emerges.


Instead of assuming that the sun is a god, or some spirit, as men of the past did, there, is an objective way to determine what it might be even if one does not completely understand.
Similarly, instead of assuming that choice is not, or that some external agency, will, is at work, we can begin with the act itself and explore what is most probable, without being certain.
What is most probable excludes what is fanciful and absurd and intentionally dismissive.

We know that man judges and chooses, like all organisms....and if we define terms as qualifiers of this act of judging and choosing, all other possibilities fall away leaving a probability.  

In regards to evaluations and value-judgements, I repeat:
All evaluations are triangulations of a judging/evaluating subject, its objectives and the world, which determines how accessible, attainable, these objectives are - if they are at all - and how much work, effort, it requires to attain them, if they are attainable.

Therefore, when we evaluate humans the ideal human would be the objective which we use to judge the real human, and this conception of an ideal human might be attainable or unattainable, if it is completely divorced from reality - we call these objective idealistic, since they remain stuck in the mind as pure idea that cannot ever become real.

This idealization of concepts is typical of moderns and nihilists,, using it to excuse themselves or to place the ideal in a metaphysical realm where it cannot be blemished, nor validated nor falsified....remaining pure and pristine, and forever unattainable.
They do so to dismiss all objectives, all ideals, as being equally unattainable so as to explain why they, personally, failed to even approach them.
Example:
Those who failed to correctly judge and made wrong choices, based on their inability to judge, are inclined to define free-will/choice in a way that makes it unattainable, or non-existent.

This inclination to define words like free-will in ways that make them non-existent, and unattainable, can also be used to protect those who lack the judgement to make good choices....in an effort to equalize humanity, or to validate the ideology where races and genders do not exist and do not matter.
All are equalized as sinners - in Christianity - and as proletarians - in Marxism - and now as victims lacking agency - in modernism/postmodernism, i.e., Americanism.
This form of idealized parity is accomplished, in theory, when you dismiss choice, and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]as its qualifier: the act of choice, qualified by the concepts of 'freedom' and 'will', viz., a will's freedom referring to the range and perception and access to options.

Do you understand why Desperate Degenerates need to detach words from their referents in reality - their referents to activity, to existence?
Do you understand why they want to change the role of words/symbols as mediating connectors between noumena and phenomena; between the ideal and the real....desperate toi make it all ideological, i.e., political, social?

A theoretical exercise....
Imagine we would detach species terminology from their references to biological forms, behaviours, i.e., use symbols/words to disconnect noumena from phenomena.
We would subjectivize species.
Now species would be open to any definition, any justification, any perspective.
There would be no objective standard to limit how the terms were used.
Confusion....conflict.....debate over nonsense....

Now, the opportunist enters to save the day, i.e., charlatan, snake oil salesman, priestly class, Marxist, Abrahamic shaman....offering all-inclusive, comforting, inspiring, empowering, equalizing, alternatives....each with his own method and objective...and his own target audience.
The field is opened up to any subjective motive taking advantage of the insecurity, confusion, delusions, emotions, of those who have been detached from the world's limitations.

Now any species can mean anything, or nothing at all.
The very concept of a species - like gender and race, and morality, and free-will - would be open to endless debates.
What is a woman?
What is a dog, a cat, a cow.....what is a species?
Maybe another social construct.
All must become subjective....meaning they can be "corrected," or "erased," with no justification....in fact justification would be antithetical to the method - the "logic" of degeneracy - since it restricts any subjective reinterpretation.
Subjectivity means - not requiring justification, reasons, logic, or any shared standard - nullification of objectivity.

Ironically, there is no free-will because a definition referring to the act of choice would be too restrictive to choice - an authoritarian limit of an individual's subjective free-will to define terms as he or she wills.

A classic case of word based paradoxes - paradoxes produces when words are taken literally, or when words only refer to other words....circumventing all contact with anything real: interactive, existence, perceptible.

Nihilistic inversions are only possible when words are discreetly disconnected - liberated - from the limiting interactive referents.
Ergo, Abrahamic one-god is paradoxical, as is morality, as is gender, if the term is no longer used to connect the noumenon with the phenomenon, but to detach it, and reconnect iut to another noumenon, or an emotion...some kind of subjective, esoteric experience.
All paradoxes vanish when words are used in accordance to their original utility - as mediating connectors, representations, of a noumenon with a dynamic, experienced, perceptible phenomenon.

So, when gender is reattached to sex, and morality reattached to behaviours, not ideas, and love and value and race...and on an on are all reconnected to the perceptible, then paradoxes vanish.
A paradox is a product of a mental contusion - dissonance between the idea and its own corrupted logic.
Logic is supposed to discipline the mind to the external world, so that it does not create, in itself, concepts that refer to nothing external or that contradict the experienced external, objective world.
Taking the word/symbol literally rather than as a representation, is the beginning of this corrupted, self-referential, logic.

"Truth", for instance, does not refer to an absolute certainty - an indivisible, immutable, thing....but to a probability, in reference to perceived patterns and how these interact and interrelate - their meaning.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
All has become a simulation, and desperate degenerates prefer it that way.
Wors/Symbol referring to other words/symbols and never to actions to experienced dynamic reality.
All ought to become subjective by becoming an abstraction that only refers to abstractions with no reference outside intersubjective collectives.
Postmodernism
HyperReality, as Baudrillard called it.

Philosophy becomes psychology of the masses - sociology that focuses on the individual and not to the mases, because the individual is where the general is reduced to a specific that can never refer to anything general.
First subvert the subject's confidence in his own perspectives.....to incorporate them into mutually supportive collectives - intersubjective wholes - rejecting the perception of collectives so as to not expose itself.
Detached from the general and form the world outside the intersubjective makes the individual a perfect recipient of collective fabrications.
The individual has no way of breaking out since it cannot acknowledge anything outside its subjectivity.

In 1984... language was reshaped prevent thought crimes.
In this thread, give examples of NEWSPEAK "in the current year" in the modern Western World.
I'll start:
Urban Youth
Transwoman
Hate Speech
The Science is settled
Experts say
Kyiv

Give me your best. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Felix Rex ⳩ (@navyhato) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]