Absolute

The absent absolute implies uncertainty.
What is missing is a method of evaluating what is more and what is less probable?

Absolute = indivisible, immutable, whole, complete, one.
Singularity refers to this absolute.

Those who propose the existence of such concepts in the world are burdened with the responsibility of offering absolute evidence, or irrefutable arguments that will produce certainty, i.e. absolute truth.

I begin with the given. The experienced, and with myself.
I need, I desire, I want, I am mortal, I am imperfect.
I see a world that is like me, to one degree or another.

I realize the concept, the ideal doers not necessarily refer to the real.
I can conceptualize what is not in existence or that contradicts existence.
I realize that my mind is dependent on complete, wholes, and so it fabricates them - converting fluidity to static abstractions represented by symbols/words.
I realize my minds simplifies/generalizes - abstracts - fluid space/time, reducing ti to a mangeable form the nervous system can process. This reduction I call interpreting, i.e., translation. We all know something is always lost in translation.
What is lost in this case?
Dimensions.
Space = possibility.
Matter/Energy = probabilities.
So the mind cuts away possibilities/probabilities it cannot process.
Furthermore, the mind as an ordering organ can only perceive order, i.e., patterned energies, and only those that fall within a spectrum it can perceive and process.
So complex and chaotic energies cannot be processed nor perceived, other than indirectly, via that which can be perceived and processed.
Here complexity and chaos are tautologized, for self-serving motives and matters of convenience - mostly because the mind must simplify and reduce the unknown to the level of knowability.
Those who claim to possess occult knowledge and understanding claim to know what is unknowable, or what is too complex for other minds to perceive and understand.
They, then, justify their claim by using mystification and obscurantism, daring anyone to challenge what is incomprehensible and meaningless.
Those governed by anxiety concerning the unknown will become willing followers of such charlatans.

I claim no such knowledge or understanding.
In fact what I do claim I can repeat using a variety of metaphors, words/symbols, and I can simplify so that even those having trouble can grasp on some level.
I claim no impotence, nor omniscience. Those who do claim it ought to provide evidence - absolute evidence.
Those unable to provide such indubitable evidence but only word-games, feeding on human insecurity and a need to belong, I expose as what they are, and what word-games they use to exploit and manipulate human weakness.

The concept of a singularity - oneness - implies completion, absoluteness.
Using this mental construct to apply to the entire universe implies absoluteness and omniscience.
I cannot display such arrogance.
It also implies finality, finiteness. An end to knowledge.

The method:
The mind projects itself outside space/time, outside the multiplicity of fluctuating fluidity, and conceptualizes the theoretical whole of existence as if it were a thing - a singular thing, a oneness.
It can only do so from this theoretical, imaginary, position, because from within there is no such evidence of anything being complete, whole, or a absolute singularity.
Singularity can also be described as space/time reduces to a singular point - lacking dimensions - all dimensions imploded into a singular point. A thing or a no-thing.

This is what the mind does. It can't help but do so.
Even the concept of Energy implies a singular concept; even Heraclitus and the pre-Socratics used it....calling it fire or water.....later it was named god.
The metaphor implied fluidity....watch a fire, but it was reduced to a singular concept. The brain cannot think if it does not reduce existence to these concepts.

A grain of sand, on a single mound of sand, on a single beach, on a single continent, on a single planet, in a single solar system, in a single galaxy in a single universe.
This reductionism is essential to thinking. The brain cannot exist without reducing fluidity to these simplified/generalized thoughts, abstractions, just as a painter must reduce 4 dimensional tree to a two dimensional representation of a tree.
The term tree is the further abstraction of the phenomenon to a linguistic sequence...like the term one, ro singularity can reduce anything to a linguistic sequence that can refer to anything and everything...even to all.
One tree, one, forest, one planet, one galaxy, one existence...or downward, one branch on a tree, one twig, one particle, one atom, one...one what? one vibration.
But, within existence, as existing, we only experience multiplicity.
This contradiction is the by-product of this mental and then later linguistic technique.
Language - semiotics - represents mental processes... techniques, that can be transmitted from mind to mind.

So, just as I cannot believe, beyond a reasonable doubt - that immortality is probable, because I experience no such condition, I cannot believe in what only exists as a human thought, in human minds...even if collectively believed.
I cannot believe in what can be spoken, written, abstracted but not shown, especially when it contradicts everything I can be shown.
I can start to explore how these beliefs come about and how they spread and become collective convictions.
I can know and understand how the magic trick works without submitting to the illusion that it is indeed contradicting the laws of nature, or how I've experienced natural order.

For example:
I am given an explanation on how three building can collapse in their footprint...but if this explanation contradicts my understanding of how buildings collapse, gravity works, and the odds against this occurring 3 times, in exactly the same way, then I doubt the narrative i am given, not my senses - especially since I know and understand human nature and how state power works.

A need/desire to transcend existence linguistically points to the fact of our indoctrination, for over two-thousand years, in Abrahamic paradigms.
The mind is no longer the source of mind, but mind is divine, an external magical agency.
How else can the mind not be bound by the laws of nature, nor of logic?

Consider how these infested minds approach concepts like free-will, or sex, or race, or soul, or spirit, or god.
They start with the abstraction, referring and deferring to text - words/symbol - or to authorities - minds, collectives.
They are trapped in the linguistic haven/womb of nihilism.
Paganism, or Realism, confronts them with concepts, represented by words that connect them - referring and deferring to observable, falsifiable, verifiable, experienced actions (interactions).
This scares the shit out of them.
It's an "unsafe zone" - they've never considered exiting their own convictions - questioning their own foundational principles.

Example
Presumptions, convictions, ideology:
-Race is a social construct.
-Nurturing corrects all racial differences, other than the "superficially apparent," because appearance is meaningless, body is not identity but a shell housing the human spirit, essence.
-All inequality and performance differences are the product of indoctrination and training - socioeconomic power (Marxism).
-Human intervention can correct these injustices because they are not natural but social, i.e., manmade. What man can make he can unmake.
-When this fails the flaw is not in the previous presumptions but there must be another insidious factor, e.g., systemic racism.
-Solution: burn it all down and start over.
-Prediction: it will solve nothing and those who thought it would will continue believing some evil agency is at work until nothing is left.

Despite critiques I remain true to my own theory.
The absence of absolutes.
I define the concept as I use it.
Absolute: immutable, indivisible.
Those are the only characteristics I use.

I reject immutability because all is in motion, changing.
I reject indivisibility since this is how the mind- fabricating abstractions - must use division to remain disciplined to fluidity. Division is how the mind adjusts its method of fabricating noetic absolutes, i.e., things, to a world where they are absent.
Fluidity cannot be conceptualized other than via artistry, just as a painter can only use his artistry to represent four dimensional space/time on a two dimensional canvas.
A philosopher must be an artist and a scientist...but above all he must become a monster to mankind.

I do not use eternity to describe the absolute since this is a temporal term referring to how man experiences change, and linear time as increasing chaos and decreasing order.
All is interactive, dynamic - Existent - therefore all changes, yet nothing is eternal, including the laws we associate with these changes.
Change is not a thing, it is a state, and this state is continual, because static is a description of non-existent.
A "singularity" would be a one-diemsional point - of infinite mass. The antithesis of dynamic multi-dimensional experienced existence.
A singularity would be an a absolute certainty - unmoving.
Oneness is not a singularity....one is a term the mind uses to apply to unities it cuts away from the background in order to fabricate its things, its noetic absolutes; man uses it to refer to every-thing, and any-thing, including existence.

This rejection of an absolute implies that order cannot be absolute, complete, perfect, and neither can chaos.
An absolute would be the end of existence - both an absolute one - singularity - or an absolute none - nil.
Ergo chaos is how order has value, and meaning, but more than this chaos is an attempt to explain why life has choice or why it evolves judgement, or a will; why it, life, evolved intentionality.
If all were determined then what would be the point of choice or judgement?
A cosmic joke?
Furthermore, if all is determined then what exactly is naturally selected in the Theory of Evolution?
There is no selection if all is following an absolute totalitarian order. Choice, selection, is an unnecessary illusion, emerging for what reason?
To trick life, convincing it that it is not like a stone or a drop of water, or a grain of sand?
Why would this be necessary? Wouldn't it all be part of a process that simply repeats automatically?

Nihilist's expose their hidden motive through their choice of words.
They call existence "creation", or use "logic" while they contradict their own:
If all requires a creator then....does that exclude the creator? Why is the logic cast away then?
If all is absolutely ordered then why do they accuse or blame, or complain?
To whom are they crying? Who are they accusing if all have no free-will or were created to behave in exactly the way they behave, choosing what and judging what they cannot not choose or judge differently?
They ought not feel ashamed for errors made...but neither should they feel pride for anything they succeed in accomplishing.
If they already know the absolute why do they bother with philosophy?
Should they not enjoy their absolute knowledge, secretly laughing at those that do not possess it?

I claim no absolute knowledge, only a superior understanding.
I admit that existence is partially, and increasingly, incomprehensible, and I only hold as superior my understanding of what remains ordered, particularly life and human nature.

That I can think of is non-existent, contradicting existence altogether with my ideas; hat I can hope to transcend my inheritance, and become more; that I can will, and be conscious of willing, is owed to the incompleteness of order.
Chaos is both my benefactor, in this regard, and my greatest adversary.

Overcoming this paradox is what the overman is all about.
Time - both my greatest wealth and source of my deepest poverty.

Therefore ideas/ideals can exist as abstractions with no external referents. In fact they may even contradict the sensually experienced world.
Examples: absolutes, singularity, one-god, absolute free-will or un-free-will, immortality, soul/spirit in the Abrahamic sense, superheroes supervillains - as depicted in Marvel or DC comics, mythologies etc.
In the mind almost anything is possible, limited only by the creative imagination of the thinker.
But the physical, the body, is bound by the existent.
These abstractions are often sued as allegorical tools, metaphors...but the simple indeed, the desperate, the degenerate must literalize them.  so as to overcome their private anxieties and deepest fears.
It's an easy way to theoretically, ideologically, transcend reality and one's own limitations.    

This is where the dissonance of mind/body always favours the mind over the body.

Magi tool of exploiting and manipulating.
The fabled absent absolute which always emerges as a symbol/word referring to a human abstraction, i.e., an idea/ideal.
The confusion of the represented and the representation is how the simple mind is tricked by this mind-game.

From the Manufacturing and sale of St. Einstein...

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

Watch how this weaves into a denial of free-will...

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

Hard-Determinism, the lollipop of infantile minds, takes the dimension of time as an absolute, where past/present/future exist simultaneously - fatalism.
A metaphysical proposition that has no place in physics.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]...
we identify the absent-absolute, i.e., indivisible, immutable, singularity, thing, god, universe, as a by-product of organic methods of converting existential interactivity into a static, abstract, i.e., simplified/generalized, form - a form the organism can process and use to multiply its survivability - including tis reproductive potentials.
Confusion between the represented and the representation deals with man's natural anxiety towards the unknown and the unknowable.
Occultism is another method of coping, naming the unknowable so as to make it seem known.

This organic impulse is hard to overcome because it is how a organism- awakening to existence - protects itself.
A confusion that is not clarified sensing that it would destroy the individual.
Obscurantism is preferable.
Concealment of the prey in the forests of ambiguity, fearing that an unknowns predator lurks.

Subjectivity is how the organism hopes to escape a mostly unknown existence.
Objectivity is not recommended for such spirits....nor anything philosophical.
These spirits are anti-philosophy, claiming to be interested in seeing the real world, but secretly fearing what this may expose to them....what this will expose them to.
Self-deception conceals itself within the world, by concealing the world from them - the fabled ostrich head in the sand strategy.
The idea that if one lies about the world, pretending it's not there, then the world will leave them alone.

Conventional 'western thinking' believes dynamic multiplicity conceals an immutable, indivisible, singularity – given many names, e.g., god, universe, nature, one, will, value, love, etc. Any positive term will suffice to inspire the wanton psyche of the average man.
A consequence of an emerging self-consciousness, seeking some kind of solution, shelter, escape – a mind addicted to order and certainty, finality; a solution found in nihilism, and in any of its variants, e.g., Abrahamism, monism, Marxism, Transhumanism, Liberalism; even modern science offers its own version of a hopeful search for a final answer, a beginning, a unified theory of all.
Abrahamism, in particular, has infected western man's mind – exploiting his existential anxieties and survival needs for a complete resolution; salvation.
Recovering Abrahamics must replace Biblical tropes with secular, pseudo-intellectual, alternatives; alternatives that overcome pre-existing infantile, superstition, proposing a one-god – seductive to feminine spirits and children – but that does not completely reject the implied positives implications of such a concept.
My position is the reverse of this existential inversion; nullification of nihilism: a return to rightfulness.
Multiplicity is always unsuccessfully concealed by a fabricated noetic singularity (abstraction) – Schopenhauer's ‘groundlessness of the will,’ or the groundlessness of Biblical one-god, is found to be inconspicuously grounded in the mind's own needs/desires, i.e., its lack – and the, oftentimes, implied and, sometimes, rejected motive (telos), attempting to explain the multiplicity of its manifestations; a motive/reason found in the same needy/desiring mind that fabricated this singularity – then given a positive name – to make sense of a fluctuating, uncertain, unknown, and mostly unknowable, existence; to remake a threatening strangeness more intimate; more familiar.
But the mind defensively recoils from such probabilities, and all its implications.
The will is made groundless – as is Abraham's one-god, as is every variant of the same absent absolute – because it is entirely an unsubstantiated abstraction, and nothing else; abstraction/idea with no reference; it is the mind's projected objective; its own creation, imagined to be a product of divine consciousness, because the mind idealizes itself as a creative divinity, and then strives to attain its supernatural ideal (essentially alienating itself from itself) – condemned to eternal failure and feelings of shame & guilt, which must be amended by rejecting free-will.
Will replaces Abraham's one-god; free-will is rejected when it contradicts god's will, and then given a new moniker, e.g., universal order, or natural order, or Mosaic commandments amending natural laws.
What is taken for granted is that all is knowable because all is in accordance with a universal will, renamed a law – natural law imagined to be god's rules, minus god – Spinozean to the core. If there is no external omnipotent agency – named god – then man will become god in its stead; mankind will collectivize godliness, just as a concealed singularity manifests multiplicity.
Nietzsche's perspectivism – becoming subjectivity – implying an absolute, i.e., god; an absolute that can never be known by one individual, but must be pieced together by a multiplicity of its distinct subjective manifestations – a collective/collection project.
You see, we are all manifestation of the exact same absolute singularity – Abraham's 'god,' Schopenhauer's – then Nietzsche's – 'Will,' and Spinoza's ‘Deus.’
The mind needs absolutes to make sense of existence; when it does not find them it will manufacture them, as an idea/ideal that remains unfathomable because it is entirely a mental construct.
An experienced multiplicity must be founded on an unfathomable singularity – 'groundless' meaning counter-intuitive – forever unjustifiable. This unfathomable singularity must be given a motive to explain multiplicity – explain it away as nothing more than a façade, an illusion, concealing a unified, singular, immutable, consciousness.
This was most clear in Nietzsche and how he went to great lengths to reject Abraham's god, but preserved eternal life – as eternal return – and the ideal pious, godly, man – as a future overman. He may have overcome Schopenhauer's 'pessimism' but he lived a life not so different than his mentor's – through choices, actions, affirming his mentor's insights while he linguistically critiqued and rejected them.
'God' can be killed/erased – because it is an abstraction that can easily destroyed as easily as it was created but nihilism, but the source of its creation – its underlying motive – is not so easily overcome.

Absolute beginnings and ends are a nihilistic trope – expressed by Abrahamism.
In reality all goes through cycles – from near-absolute order towards near-absolute chaos, and then back... every cycle a 'universe,' a different cosmos.
If we wish to preserve Hindu cosmogony then every reiteration is affected by the previous one and, in turn affects the next one, but it never repeats exactly.

'Absolute' is a mental abstraction. What Schopenhauer referred to as the “groundless Idea” which will is an expression – convecting his philosophy with Plato's. It is “groundless,” and independent from 'sufficient reason’ (causality) because it exists in the mind, as an obscure representation of the non-existent, imagined to be underlying existence – in the same way the Abrahamic one-god ‘exists in the beyond, above.’
The ‘idea’ is the pattern underlying all perceptible patterns – perceived as matter/energy; a perceived law, rule. This perceived rule becomes Natural Law, or god when all it is is the idea of order manifesting in a multiplicity of distinct patterns; an idea applicable to all patterns, and only to patterns; an idea contradicted by non-patterned energies (chaotic); chaos implying the idea it then negates. The idea does not pre-exist, nor is it independent from patterns, but they are a manifestation of this unifying idea; a manmade idea unifying all forms of pattern into a singular category independent from any particular manifestation, universally applicable to any form of pattern.
The term 'will' is misleading, because it implies the presence of intent, projected by the mind that perceives and categorizes existence. A more accurate term would be 'energy,’ to which 'will' would be a qualifier defining a particular type of unity of energies.
Energies can be both patterned (ordered) and non-patterned (chaotic), and no intent needs to be implied.
The term 'thing-in-itself' is also misleading as 'thing' refers only to how a conscious mind perceives (interprets) patterned energies – to which the term 'nothing' properly applies. Existence is no-thing, but not nothingness, because 'thing' is how a portion of existence is interpreted: abstracted, by reducing it dimensionally to a level that can be processed and stored as memory – made useful, whereas nothingness refers to chaos, or the void from where order emerges.
Abstraction being a simplification/generalization of spatial/temporality, i.e., causality or interactivity – reduction of probabilities in a continuously expanding and fluctuating field of possibilities.

In existence everything is about probabilities, not absolutes....because order is affected by chaos.
Order is cause of a range of probable effects.
Mind interprets this range as a kind/type.

Absolution is how the evolving human mind projects "Itself" as a third-person perspective, "beyond oneself", representing a budding and growing Self-Conscioiusness.

Most of humanity has very limited Self-Consciousness. Many are not capable of it (due to its IQ and empathetic requirements). For example, you would have to gauge accurately the intentions, motives, and rationality of another mind (Predation -> Prey), and then presuppose yourself as the exterior 'receptacle' / subject. Attempt to see oneself as they see you. Again, most cannot do this, since it impedes Narcissistic tendencies which most midwits become addicted to.

Just as "chaos," as degenerates understand and define the term, always conceals an occult, higher-order - an more ordered order, an absolute roder, replacing Abraham's one-god - so, too, does the term "progress", as these same degenerates understand the term, implies a telos, some collective objective, some change that will finally produce the "better" - something conservatives try to prevent, or reverse.
Change, for degenerates, is always towards a intuitive utopian end - telos - an imagined state when the "world will be healed" of its multiplicities (conflicts, injustices etc.), and harmony will finally be returned, to what has been corrupted.

The first step towards this idealized objective - progress towards its desired end - is to eliminate all distinctions, divisions...including biological.

The end imagined an an absolute state of uniformity - none distinctions - chaos is the only state that can produce infinitely uniform possibilities, where all is simultaneously possible, and life cannot emerge to experience suffering.
A final nil state, but flipped to be imagined oneness - both, two sides of the same absolute.
End of space/time; end of multiplicity; end of life and consciousness, i.e., necessity.

All descriptions of an absolute state, i.e., immutable, indivisible, complete, whole, singular, is a deception of the non-existent, "existing" only as noumenon, in minds; as abstraction, concept, vague, obscure, enough to remain impractically viable.
An abstraction, of course, being a generalization/simplification, i.e., interpretation of a dynamic, fluctuating, fluid existence, i.e., reduction of flux to a form that can be processed, as data, and stored as memory.

Abstraction can be used as projection used to focus an organism's will, i.e., intent, but it can also be used to synthesize new non-existent forms, e.g., satyrs, centaurs, pixies, leprechauns, or to invert and nullify the existent, i.e., spiritual and secular nihilism, absoluteness, e.g., omnipotence, omniscience, one/nil, whole, immutable, indivisible...

If taken literally absolutes signify an end of existence - contradiction of the experienced; if taken representationally, abstractions are useful to orient and aid an organism in its primary objective - survival.