Absolute

There is neither universal mind nor matter – there is only process best conceptualized as energy, i.e., dynamic interactive patterned/non-patterned - ordered/chaotic – energies. Energies with no motive, no intent – will-less.
From within these interactions mind emerges as a method of reacting, i.e., coping, dealing with these interactions which both make life possible and also threaten it; will emerges as a coping mechanism.
Matter is how these interactions – only patterned – are interpreted, i.e., translated, by emerging minds. In this context "energy" simply refers to a form of matter – thingness, which differs from "matter" only in how its speed of interactivity is interpreted by a conscious mind. This should not be confused with the first use of the term "energy" referring to interactivity independent – pre-existing – the emergence of mind, i.e., life.
The Greek term “Ενέργεια” will serve to differentiate and distinguish what is conventionally understood as patterned interactivity that differs from matter in rate of interactivity.
I've used the Greek term “Εγώ” (ego) to construct a similar differentiation between the unconscious self and the conscious part of self; a method of clarification.
Types of matter/energy can further be differentiated in sequences, rhythms, strength of interactivity, interpreted as different kinds of energy/matter.
Ενέργεια includes our conventional understanding – physis – but adds to it an additional component – metaphysics – in the form of an antithetical concept to order, chaos, i.e., random Ενέργεια that interacts but cannot be perceived directly; it can only be perceived indirectly, via how it affects patterned energies - experienced as unforeseeable alterations.
I've justified this claim as the product of chaos, viz., random Ενέργεια cannot, by definition, form stable unities which can then reach the level an organic mind can perceive and process; its very chaotic essence negating all harmonious, balanced, synthesis. It remains on the infinitesimal level, a part of the smallest interaction – constantly reducing in size due to expanding space/time and dimensional fragmentation. It is what necessitates organic free-will as an advancement from plant-like intentionality – following paths-of-least-resistance towards an objective, gradually developing higher organic forms which can follow paths-of-more-resistance or that can entirely contradict genetic programming – experienced as impulse, need/desire etc.
Lower life-forms differ from lifeless unities in that they will – move intentionally; higher life-forms differ from lower life-forms in that they can move intentionally within a deeper space/time context – they can foresee, i.e., predict interactions before they occur via the perception of patterns within the perceived matter/energy patterns; the highest known life-forms, e.g., man, can go a step further and reject, or contradict its own genetically established impulses/instincts and actually act with no precedent – directed/guided by no perceived pattern – contrary to its own impulses, i.e., self-abnegate. Nihilism is a by-product of this evolved ability.
Because organisms reduce interactivity to a level it can process the only way man can conceptualize Ενέργεια is as a "thing," but only if it is patterned – whereas it cannot conceptualize it if it is chaotic.
Ενέργεια is not a “thing” – not matter/energy, not qualia, not word – but it is dynamic interactivity itself; interactivity that is ordered and increasingly becoming chaotic as the cosmos – according to linear time – is moving from a state of near-absolute order, i.e., incomplete singularity, towards a state of near-absolute chaos, which can only be named but not conceptualized as infinity, viz., from near-certainty towards near-uncertainty, through varying levels of both.
Space/Time expanding includes dimensional fragmentation; from near perfect probability, i.e., certainty alluding to a theoretical singularity, towards uniform possibilities, i.e., total confusion alluding to infinite undifferentiated possibilities.
Hume's dialectic refers to this interactivity but without consciousness, as this would imply an intent. Intentionality arises from within it as a method of increasing, or preserving, or creating, probabilities in an expanding space/time field of possibilities. To put it within Abrahamic context, man is god arising – becoming – not complete being but becoming; never to be completed.
The concept of “wholeness,” “oneness,” is man's idealization of his own objective; mistaking his projected goal as pre-existing his emergence; independent from his motive/movement.

Absent Absolute.

Those of feeble mind and/or body will claim that power/strength is an illusion on the grounds that there is no omnipotence; those with a feeble will, unable to control their impulses, desiring to remain innocent of the repercussions, will claim there is no free-will on the ground that it is not absolutely independent from causality.

Read the thread here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Fixed Cross/Jakob wrote:

 Nietzsche's will to power theory is foremost a theory of theory (Willing to Power is Interpreting); and naturally without first theorizing theory, one cant very well make philosophic propositions. They would just be arbitrary edifices on a swamp of arbitrary assumptions.

Operating on the theory of theory, honing it, and probing its potential, I birthed the most coveted thing any thinker has ever birthed. No thinker probably even had the ambition of finding something as powerful as what I produced. Very few people here understand the ramifications.

To explain anything using this logic takes a rare mind. I can explain peoples lives to them, give them their happiness on a platter, I can solve chaos theoretical mathematical problems, I can solve cosmogenetic paradoxes, but that is not the point. The point is that I have terminated metaphysics as such and brought philosophy into the realm of reality, where it now truly rules mathematics (as in being capable of birthing it from nothing), physics, and all the sciences. As for technology, you could quite conveniently use VO to create life, for example, and even more easily to create 'living' code.

But that, again, is not the reason I produced it. Obviously I wasn't out the produce anything, I was just honing my thinking, as Ive always been doing, when I figured it out. The only reason one could find for this is that this final truth of truth found through me a mind deep and experienced enough to take root.

Since I am a philosopher and not a scientist or otherwise career hunting person, Ive not published anything except online and allowed the logic to find its own path. It is my child, but also the capstone of the whole of western thinking. Whoever values this logic the most has the most rights to it, as I see it. Naturally this meant that no civilians were lining up and only parties with something to gain and lose took interest in it. Which is as it would be, thus as it should be.

So you might say the logic has found its own way to create a society, and indeed, one marked very much by its own (apparent) absence. I disclosed the most natural part of the mind, that part in which it is equal to Being, its root and ground - and nature likes to hide. In plain sight, preferably. Well that is really the only place it has to hide.

I may publish a book, at one point. But the most important work was seeding the logic throughout the internet, so that it takes on a life of its own, much like an AI - producing a new species of thinkers, of men, without any central organization - just a method.

I am the whole world - that is the outset. That is why one becomes, or discovers that one is, a philosopher in the first place.

The distinctive feature of the modern mind is its need for a finality rooted in the smallness of its ego, its underdeveloped consciousness. If you show a weak mind truth, it will become obsessed with it, deifying it into absurdity, attributing to it a self-imposed divinity. There is a reason why they are obsessed with "prophecy" and why they compete for who can be more 'clairvoyant' and see into the future more accurately than the other. It speaks to a need for an insurmountable self, an absolute self, and not in Fichte's idea of it as a form of being, but as an absolute authority that can never be challenged or surpassed. The need to stop the process of time and change and suffering by using philosophy as a way to 'solve' existence. Philosophy is only used now as a way to aggrandize oneself and ideas; a way to save themselves from how intimidated they are by the unknown and how insecure they feel in contrast to it.

Such hubris. It makes me nauseous. Like an open wound full of puss and maggots.
A pulsating ego, full of so much need for validation - equal to the absurdity of the claim.
He worships and so needs to be worshipped to compensate for an emasculated spirit.

Essentially he's replaced "love" with another term - one he found plastered all over Nietzsche's texts - urging him to reinvent Abrahamism for a new age, with him as its prophet....the Jesus of a new age - a synthesizing bridge between incompatible world-views; reinvented Abrahamism recovering from his master's devastating critique.
Another insane one among so many on ILP. The place is full of over the top psychotics.
Another postmodern by-product desperately trying to crawl out of his mentor's shadow. The only way he can do so is if he can create a comparable impact on future generations - he covets, and this makes him weak, and absurd.
He reeks of circumcised Messianism.

But it's fun to watch.

Satyr wrote:

Such hubris. It makes me nauseous. Like an open wound full of puss and maggots.
A pulsating ego, full of so much need for validation - equal to the absurdity of the claim.
He worships and so needs to be worshipped to compensate for an emasculated spirit.

Essentially he's replaced "love" with another term - one he found plastered all over Nietzsche's texts - urging him to reinvent Abrahamism for a new age, with him as its prophet....the Jesus of a new age - a synthesizing bridge between incompatible world-views; reinvented Abrahamism recovering from his master's devastating critique.
Another insane one among so many on ILP. The place is full of over the top psychotics.
Another postmodern by-product desperately trying to crawl out of his mentor's shadow. The only way he can do so is if he can create a comparable impact on future generations - he covets, and this makes him weak, and absurd.
He reeks of circumcised Messianism.

That probably explains this:

Fixed Cross/Jakob wrote:

The philosopher doesnt redeem, he represses the bad, he gives it its place where it is happy, with the other bad. But man is for a great deal altogether happy to possess the bad as its guardian spirit, and this is then perhaps merely an honesty before such beings' perceived self-worth.

"The Bad", being one's weaknesses and limitations. So to overcome what exposes us to suffering should be made into a delusion, a rosy aberration of self that denies reality, and he imagines this as "Nietzschean overcoming". The fact that he thinks in terms of "being happy' reveals alot about his simplicity. I have to wonder if this weirdo read Nietzsche while he was stoned or something.

In a no-god universe man is expected to become god.
Drugs are a big part of the "trip".
Parodites - an ex- van-clan member - is another example of a wounded spirit trying to redeem itself - the ego's vulnerability reflecting the size of the ego displays. In these cases god-like hubris concealing a god-like insecurities.
You've read how Parodites describes himself. Almost as extraordinarily gifted as his buddy. A clan of demi-gods hanging around ILP....where all kinds of insanity gathers.
Iambiguous...Ecmandu....to name the most prominent.

Extraordinary ambitions - in this case reaching the levels of the supernatural, or the surreal - indicating extraordinary need/desire, i.e., weakness.
Such egos could not tolerate each other's presence...it was inevitable that such a cult would never succeed.
I was waiting for it to fall apart....beginning with Ollie, the soft-spoken humble one of the group.

After reading his last couple of responses, i don't see much difference between his psychosis and Parodites', other than that he doesn't regurgitate academic citations. That's about it. He seems more intimately in touch with his delusions. This is what it must be like for a psychiatrist listening to a schizophrenic coolly and calmly articulating his hallucinations and delusions....kind of creepy actually.  

Fixed Cross Jakob wrote:

Everything always was so easy for me that it was nauseating - not all techniques in the world, but all great models and theorems. I could always see through them without much effort, if any - most philosophic and scientific theorems are things I had gone through before I reached puberty. The first problematic thing I encountered was simply the fact of representative thinking, the fact that it can never attain truth without usurping it and thereby upending it, making it a triviality, a snowflake in the storms of chaos. Things may adhere to it but it may not command reality. It is this problem which I resolved; I deleted the dichotomy of pure metaphysics vs direct empirical reality; both empirical reality and metaphysics had before that moment been insufficient to the truth which my spirit demands. Because they were separater from one another while evidently being the same thing, if they existed at all. The separateness of theory and practice is not real. Either the practice is chaotic or it is method, and either theory is real or false. That is to say, ultimately chaos must be the true method, and method must be at the heart of chaos. "Heart of chaos" is of course a contradiction, and yet it is where the thought of thought resides, as does the being of being, the essence of essence, the spirit of spirit, the strength of strength, the integrity of integrity; the structure of structure first births chaos, then by chaos the possibility and thence 'need' of order are produced, as chaos is the negation of the pure infinite, places the infinite within time - chaos here in the modern, mathematical sense, not in the 'gaping chasm' of the Greeks and Vikings; not as a phenomenological picture of what comes before order, but as the active antithesis of order, that which doesn't allow order to be derived from it by order - that which will impose on orders its pure vitality and disrupts them, Dionysos essentially. Chaos as pure vitality. At the core of this is the logic that orders; chaos is what orders, or rather it is the means of the ordering heart. Ordering is not its purpose, it is merely the result of its positive existence. Any order that exists is a negation of this chaos, thereby its proof. In as far as it is exulted as proof, it corresponds to the principle that lies at the heart of chaos in the modern sense, whereas it springs forth from chaos in the Greek sense; namely, from nonbeing. It is thus (this principle) being nor non being - thus being which isn't negated by nonbeing but necessitated by it. All this comes down to our human nature, as it comes down to any nature; it imposes itself on our nature as our nature, but we aren't this nature but a product of this nature, and we 'have' this nature but we do not command it, unless we undertake something quite remarkable and rare, it has been called philosophy. The closer you get to real existence the closer you get to nothingness, and on the brink there is an anvil. I placed it there.

Having placed this anvil there I could only begin to forge myself. Destroy, and forge from the raw materials. That is what I have been doing in the alliance, society, - that this also broke apart is no surprise, in fact a necessity, but my protests against it are as much as necessity; to hide valuation is the cardinal falsity, on which much of our world relies. Game theory is the ultimate consequence of hiding valuation; VO is the cosmic response to the short-circuited reptile brain, allowing the pure frenzy of sub-animal being into a cool universal rule, through which a spontaneous architecture commences to define itself. Nothing is imposed on anything - rather the removal of imposition imposes the individual nature on itself, and this results in a world destroying violence in the soul and a sleek ordering instinct in the world, so that the soul in its proper infinity can begin to rebirth itself as a phenomenon. This bringing into the world of being qua humanity is a task that lies beyond metaphysics, that is to say beyond western philosophy proper, the history from Parmenides, Heraclitus onward, the project of thinking consistency. Nietzsche refers to the Artist Tyrant and Philosopher of Power as the successors to this tradition; workmen essentially, sculptors and architects and butchers and salesmen but mostly, animals. Animals of cosmic might, rather than super-apes ravaging a planet by knowing how to consistently follow through on brutal falsities which come to rule as truth-holders. In which only very slavish truths can endure, be endured. That is the separation of world and logic, slavishness. And the hardest task of philosophy isn't more complicated than trying to come up with a form of logic that doesn't create a division between it and the world.

An anvil at the brink, cloaked in cold vapors from the abyss, this is where I stand and I am surprised when people as I call out to "bring your hammer and lets get to work" dont come running. I best be sending out some sparks. See what they do to the mist.

It's a romantic idealistic play, and they are role playing.
Notice the language.
All allusions and heroic imagery.
This is what happens when masculinity fails to find a role-model, and settles for the dead, or the imaginary; the dead become fantasies in the minds of the living.
A dead father is imagined by his orphaned son as a fantasy figure - brave, good, noble, strong, smart - they become purified, into an intoxicating brew.
The dead lose their vices, along with their corporeality - they become, like Jesus emerging from his cave-grave, purified idea/ideal.

One feeds off the other's performance - is validated by it - it is reciprocal. The bubble is not broken so that they can continue living in it as these romantic figures destined for greatness - that will one day live in infamy.
Nietzsche is their iconic role-model - they covet his affect on them. They want to become for others - for the ages - what he was in their boyish hearts - a flame that ignited their emasculated, underdeveloped spirit, inflaming their imaginations with his magical prose. See them imitating his style?
They covet....his impact.

Yes, the 'Zarathustra' stylization. Orating in the marketplace of the herd, proselytizing, and enchanting simple minds with mellifluous visions. But unlike Nietzsche's Hero, the rejection or derision by the sheeple of their ideas, will not prompt them into the solitude of self-discovery, but only make them more resentful against the world, and reinforce the illusion that their 'effect' is the fault of those who fail to grasp, rather than themselves.

The consequences are almost inevitable.
But madness never suffers from an awakening - it goes to the grave immersed in its insanity.

The world has become a performance where they write the script - ad libbing, stretching their creative juices.....
They imagine the entire world watching in rapture.
For instance this exchange will be a flattering validation of their ground-breaking importance.

All they need are words.
No mater what happens or fails to happen, the words are the center piece - the magic conjuring.
Nietzsche's prose were inspiring. their impact on them was so great that it felt like falling under a spell.
This is what they emulate.
It doesn't matter if their words have any real world utility, it can affect other minds, as Nietzsche's did theirs...and this affect is enough - it is as real as it gets.

Kvasir wrote:

Yes, the 'Zarathustra' stylization. Orating in the marketplace of the herd, proselytizing, and enchanting simple minds with mellifluous visions. But unlike Nietzsche's Hero, the rejection or derision by the sheeple of their ideas, will not prompt them into the solitude of self-discovery, but only make them more resentful against the world, and reinforce the illusion that their 'effect' is the fault of those who fail to grasp, rather than themselves.

Yes...its like magic....
The words but also the order they are placed in, creates the psychological affect - the "magic". Creating specific imagery that seduces the wanton man-child.
Spell casting...affecting psychology verbally - like religious chants. There's a rhythm to them...always evoking the same kind of imagery, from a bygone era.
The style attracts particular kinds of psychologies. Usually males - females are too pragmatic, and too aware of the power of words and their method of manipulation - young males who never outgrow their adolescent desires....mostly Europeans - whites - or those born and raised there; males with missing or poor biological father figures, looking for an exceptional replacement, or how they've imagined a father ought to be; the socially disillusioned; the lost and desperate; the addictive/obsessive personality type....

I've been watching them for years - off and on - and I'm glad I found someone who can appreciate what is occurring - Lyssa was my only companion in this for the longest time.
But you'll need a strong stomach.
Taking a break from their nonsense is advised, otherwise you'll vomit your guts out.
They are like alcohol...a bit feels nice, intoxicating, a lot and you are looking for a toilet and a bed. 
In the morning you've got a hang-over and feel ashamed of yourself for overindulging and making a fool of yourself.
Like watching midgets wrestle. At some point you are embarrassed...but you can't look away.

Satyr wrote:

I've been watching them for years - off and on - and I'm glad I found someone who can appreciate what is occurring - Lyssa was my only companion in this for the longest time.
But you'll need a strong stomach...
Taking a break from their nonsense  is advised, otherwise you'll vomit your guts out.
They are like alcohol...a bit feels nice, intoxicating, a lot and you are looking for a toilet and a bed.  
In the morning you've got a hang-over and feel ashamed of yourself for overindulging and making a fool of yourself.
Like watching midgets wrestle. at some point you are embarrassed...but you can't look away.

I'm currently focusing my studies in certain areas of philosophy that have to do with the self. And I've been taking a deeper interest in its disastrous manifestations in the modern mind, and so I've been paying more attention to that forum and seeing how far-reaching these ramifications go.

The main pattern I've deciphered is, the use of the philosophical method for the exact purposes of these facades and mind-games. There is no impartial and objective creation of it anywhere anymore, because there is so much personal inferiority in those who use it, not to actually create but only exploit it.

They're a case to study...

Nietzsche is the main figure - their shared idol.
Some fancy themselves his prophets....pothers are more pompous and self-agradizing and they consider Nietzsche their prophet, and themselves a Jesus-like figure, who will become the start of a new religion - Christianity 2.0.
Only this time Abrahamism that has absorbed Nietzsche's critique to become stronger - Abrahamism for the next millennia.
Like Abrahamism - and all forms of nihilism - they are entirely semiotic - building their ideology linguistically; imitating Nietzsche's prose style, repeating his core imagery.
Their "magic" is limited by the number of minds they can proselityze....it has no effect outside minds - logocentric.

Just to complete this....
I suspect that the falling out - between the van clan members - began with Ollie and Iakob.
Ollie is a feminine type. Stuck within Nietzsche's shadow for decades - classic follower.
I suspect Iakob's messianism, and his ego, wanting to replace Nietzsche in the admiration of his followers/friends, was too much for Ollie's psyche to dandle. Furthermore, Iakob is alive, so he disillusions any attempts to present himself as a god-like essence; Nietzsche has no such issues....he exists in pure infamy as a wonderous spirit in the hearts and minds of his followers....like Jesus.
Iakob - a mixed breed himself - only inverted - wanted to be the next Jesus, and his van-clan were supposed to be his apostles. But his ego was too needy and his reality too contrary to the image he was cultivating - I remind you that Jesus had to die so as to be "reborn" as the pure spirit he became in the hearts and minds of his followers - those who fell under his linguistic spell.
Parodites was a different matter. His narcissism clashed with that of Iakob - two egotistical, deranged, narcissists cannot coexist for long. they tried to separate their fields of dominance but such inflated balloons egos can burst with the smallest prick....
Just reading Parodite's describing himself speaks volumes of his cultivated defensive hyperbolic measures - overkill.
Only one women - he keeps repeating - even attempted to break him out of his semiotic solipsism - hunting down obscure intellectuals to validate his worthiness, his uniqueness, his "exceptionality"; gathering rare knowledge so as to imply his own value...which fit in with Iakob's value-onmtology - a self-refernetial self-validation they associated with Nietzsche's transvaluation of values - in their mind declaring themselves to be brilliant, powerful, wonderful, exceptional, superior, was what is empowering.
"I am what I say I am"....subjectivity requiring validation form without, not from the world, but from humanity, as usurper of the world.
Like I've said before...in the nihilist psyche humanity = world; world = humanity. This fits into the Christian narrative of god is logos; logos is god.

Pezer is another matter, altogether. Here we have a orphan, of mixed genes, seeking for a way to integrate his native with his European heritage - I think a fahter-less boy, who has imagined his father as a exceptional human and found in Iakob's self-agrandizing rhetoric a comparable personification of his missing fahter-figure - promising him of fame and fortune, implying feminine attentions....which is a powerful motivator for a young male.
Disillusionment was all but certain. The ideal was contradicted by the real. The god-like mentor proved to be a farce....but there is reluctance to accept it because this must follow self-criticism. The ego has to admit tis gullibility, and this is a difficult thing to do when you are young - spoiling your self-image.
Under different circumstances a cult leader would have an easier time maintaining control over his flock, but this wannabe cult leader has high expectations, targeting above average, in IQ, males so as to validate his own "genius" - a commitment that cannot withstand the test of time. It necessitates some kind of isolationism.

The only singular positive aspect i drew from the Jakob dude, when i first read his writings, is that he at least took the traditional approach in philosophical investigation to begin his inquiry with what the nature of Being is. That is where any serious philosophy should begin, and so he started off well enough. He just couldn't sustain it into a mode of objective inquiry and exploration, because he was too absolutist and subjective, turning it into a method of 'solving' all the machinations of existence by attributing a 'selfhood' to all of nature when the very nature of 'self' is of an inner conscious awareness rooted in abstract reason, a human valuation. A rock has no 'self' because it has no conscious awareness of its existence; thus a rock cannot "self-value", because valuation in relation to self hood is an abstracting activity that animals and matter lack. He also failed to take into account the nature of how the self coalesces into an 'identity', adding nothing to this disparity in his epistemological radicalism. He takes the idea of 'Will' and 'self' into absurdity, in other words, creating some odd program of, seemingly, postmodern individualism, that he is crazy enough to believe reaches down all the way to quantum mechanics. Ergo, I think there is also a reason why they love to believe that they understand and have 'solved' physics and quantum theory as well because they believe their ideas are so powerful that they influence the very nature of the unseen world as well. Very narcissistic and crazy shit.

He got that from Nietzsche, as well, and his "Will to Power", implying that everything, all of existence, living and non-living, will power.
This self-valuing - "willing will" or "valuing value" - loving love - is a solipsistic attempt to rescue the Abrahamic one-god from death.

I've already posted how unities - like stones - can remain cohesive, for whatever period of space/time, without any intentionality - through the basic mechanism of interactivity, e.g., attraction/repulsion, going back to the ancient Greek idea of harmony.
Harmony implies less friction, less repulsion.
We may integrate two, or more, patterns into cohesive wholes with the inclusion of a third pattern, stabilizing disharmonious patterns by reducing repulsive forces.
No will, no intent, necessary.

When these terms are applied to non-living interactivities - unintentional - then they are used to warp and corrupt meaning - a way of justifying the unjustifiable.
Will only applies to life, and to the living....value only applies to life that can evaluate - judge, measure - by triangulating and in relation to an objective.
Non-life has no objective - no telos - and cannot judge, measure or evaluate.
These word games hide ulterior motives.

In this case intentionality, e.g., willing, valuing, loving, hating, are projected into the inanimate patterns by the observer, who then tries to justify his projections by using obscurantism and mysticism.
It is the charlatans motive which is projected into the stone, or the stars, or to any unity that is non-living. It sees itself everywhere because he is putting it there, as a way to pretend he understands - this is how reduction of anxiety is produced.
The unknown, the indifferent, is made known and deferring...selling it to gullible, needy, desperate souls as a salve.
Panpsychism, is just another way of saying one-god, omnipotence, omniscience, universal morality, universal consciousness.
The priestly projects into the indifferent world his own consciousness, seducing those who are terrified by an uncertain, uncaring, world. They sell empowerment to the powerless.
This is typical of Abrahamism.

Satyr wrote:

When these terms are applied to non-living interactivities - unintentional - then they are used to warp and corrupt meaning - a way of justifying the unjustifiable.
Will only applies to life, and to the living....value only applies to life that can evaluate - judge, measure - by triangulating and in relation to an objective.
Non-life has no objective - no telos - and cannot judge, measure or evaluate.
These word games hide ulterior motives.  

Those are exactly the thoughts i had when reading his ideas. That's when i knew he wasn't all there. Then i found his videos of him worshiping the Jewish kabbalah/mysticism, and so his need to fuse the monotheistic God with the material cosmic 'infinite' made more sense in this respect.

After modern man's loss of belief in a one-god, of Abraham, he faced a second "crisis of meaning" in regards to his new absolutist convictions and trust in science and human reasoning when he reached an intellectual impasse in Quantum physics.
Newtonian physics could not be reconciled with this new awareness of existence on the hyper-micsoscopic level; here was a theory that was coiunter-intuitive and implied the participation of the observer in the creation of the existent.
No reconciliation has been found no wholistic M-Theory, to help man return to his abstract absoluteness.

A chasms, a great gulf lies ahead. One which requires a leap into the void, and an alteration in the subject, in relation to its object of interest, existence.

Self-awarness, awareness of self, is the problem and the solution.
At first it confused man, making him believe that gods and spirits were talking to him from elsewhere - from beyond his skull - and currently it is conveniently confusing men that they are the victims of external agencies.
Conscience and free-will, both relate to man's participation in causality.

There are no absolutes = no immutable, indivisible, singularities; no wholes, no ones, no complete, total, certainties, outside minds which can only conceptualize in abstracted absolutes, viz., can only simplify/generalize fluctuating existence into singular ideas/ideals, concepts, by cutting away dimensional probabilities - through the process I call interpretation - essentially reducing what is present to something more easily processed and stored in memory, e.g., appearance is such a reduction of presence.
All is interactive and can only be appreciated in degrees - all is approximated because it is dynamic and ever-chaging, and yet patterns persist over larger spans of space/time.
It is these patterns we refer to as "knowledge", i.e., data, Information; patterns within these patterns are referred to as "understanding" - foundation of intelligence; evaluating how said patterns inter-relate, intertwine, and the approximated degree they do so, is called "meaning".

So, man differs from woman in degree, not in absolute terms.
Masculine/Feminine refers to physical and mental - psychosomatic - traits that increase or decrease the probability of reproducing; each with a particular reproductive specialized role in the process.
Place homosexuality and transsexuality within this context.

Similarly, races differ in degree not in absolute terms. They differ in inherited, average, potentials, inherited genetically, establishing a range of behavioural probabilities, performances, attitudes, physical and mental trait cultivation etc.

Similarly, moral proclivities differ in degrees, relative to group interests within fluctuating environmental circumstances - yet certain behaviours are common across species and group dynamics because certain attitudes/behaviours, actions/interactions, increase and others decrease social cohesion and group synergy, in relation to cooperative and reproductive biological strategies.
Such moral/immoral behaviours - proclivities, demeanours, attitudes - are subsequently encoded linguistically and enhanced, adding to them further regulating laws, adjusting group dynamics in accordance with group ideals, i.e., motives, ambitions, objectives.

Similarly, free-will is to be considered as a degree of probability, in relation to fluctuating existence. An individual organism is never absolutely free nor absolutely in control of its own aggregate bioenergies, so not completely willful - most of its biology is impulsive, automated, requiring no willful focus, no intent.
If properly defined and anchored in reality will is defined as the focus of an organism's aggregate energies, towards an objective - intentionality; freedom refers to a degree of independence from others, from precedent, and from these impulsive, automated, biological processes - its purest expression is choice, founded no judgment.
Choice is not absolute, in that the options available and accessible are not infinite, but finite, and the individual's ability to choose them is also limited by genetic factors, by cosmic fluctuating interactivities, which can never be absolutely perceived and foreseen, and by other competing willful, intentional, agencies, refusing an option to the individual.

Absence of absolute implies that anyone who claims an absolute is full of absolute shit.
For example, anyone alluding to omnipotence, or omniscience, or perfection, or wholeness, or certainty....or oneness...is a liar, concealing a doubt equal, if not larger, to his claim.
One can only claim superiority.
All else is overcompensating posturing - a poor display of power to conceal an abundance of powerlessness.

Of course language, representing mental abstractions - ideas/ideals - expresses itself in absolute terms.
Language is representational, not literal....unless the one using them is insane, or suffering form some kind of mental disorder, or compensating for a severe case of insecurity.

Absolutist minds - psychologies - are trapped in absolutes.
The comprehend semiotics literally, and not as what they are: representations.
Since their minds are contained within binary absolutes they cannot think with nuanced understanding.
The systolic/diastolic rhythms of the biological, organic, methodology becomes 1/0, either/or, good/evil, trapping them in biological good/bad survival methods.
Unable to think about fluid space/time they confuse their won abstractions as existing outside their primitive minds.
They can only comprehend absolute states and not superior/inferior, better/worse....
Their convictions and the arguments they use to justify them reflect this absolutism.
It's a matter of survival, for them, because they cannot risk their well-being for the sake of integrity and clarity.
As such, all concepts are either absolutely perfect or absolutely imperfect....noble or ignoble, loved or hasted.
There is no middle ground. What they love - which they do not know how or why - must remain pure, perfect, lacking any blemish....beautiful, complete, whole, indivisible, the top of the top, the end of the road, the final - divine.
They do not dare, or simply cannot intellectually, perceive anything objectively, so all must be made equally, uniformly, subjective.
Their ideals cannot have any flaws, they must be perfect in every way, otherwise they are afraid they will no longer remain loyal to them.

Either/Or binaries.
Typical of Abrahamic psychologies.
What is not of my own, I do not and cannot possess, is worldless.
That which I am, is mine, I possess or may possess, is valuable.

Subjectivity.
Not for philosophy to explore but psychology and spirituality.
Philosophy is about finding understanding in knowledge, i.e., data, information, experiences etc.
Philosophy is about the attainment of objectivity.

What belongs to the study of philosophy but cannot be called philosophy is subjectivity - a study of human ego, psychology, politics, behaviour.

Masculine versus feminine interests.
Therefore, religions, superstitions, and politics all belong to the feminine.

Absolutist thinking is a kind of infantilism.
A species refusing to grow out of tis dependence on an external parental agency and to accept some responsibility of its own fate.

The basic mental - psychological - block is the idea/ideal of an absolute, projected as existing though it is nowhere to be found. It can take the form of a one-god or the more abstract form of absolute universal order.

The depth of human insecurity. That no level of superior talent or strength can ever be enough to assuage existential anxieties that have run away with thier own fears and self-doubt. Greed takes different forms. This form, of the intolerance of suffering and inadequacies the need to eliminate them.

This is the danger of AI, which Elon Musk speaks about.
Organic minds evolved the ability to integrate not only ordered energies - patterns - but to react, in real time, to unforeseen, irrational novelty - product of chaotic energies - in accordance to millions of years of trial & error experiences.
Experiences that may lie dormant until they are triggered - unconscious memories.

Machines do not have this pool of memories.
Machines can only find guidance from human memories - lucid human memories, i.e., knowledge, understanding - collective self-consciousness. Contrasting with Jung's Collective Unconscious.
It cannot deal with novelty, the irrational, the unforeseen.

Do its part contract the whole (realism) or the whole contradict its parts (nihilism)?

Can perfection be made of imperfect parts?
Can beauty be made of ugly parts?
Can order be made of disorder?
Can symmetry be made of asymmetry?
Can omnipotence be a product of impotence?
Can omniscience be a construct of ignorance?

From a distance - a detached distance - we can perceive the imperfect as perfection.
From within it, from a place of care, we feel this to not be the case.

What would the perfect change into?
Wait....let's play a mind game.
Change is part of its perfection.