- gafr wrote:
-
- Quote :
- The absolute has already been taken for granted, with no evidence....
What would count as evidence for it?
The experience of something immutable, indivisible, complete, whole...and not simply stating, naming, because that only refers to a mental construct.
Noumenon = absoltue
Phenomena = fluctuating interactions
In short...
one would have to show an absolute, not declare it, state it, speak of it.One would have to show an immutable, indivisible, complete, perfect, whole...a one, a singularity.
To show all, so as to allow all to see it for themselves, to test it, challenge it, verify it, validate its presence.
That which exists free from linguistics, but is referred to linguistically, and is experienced sensually.
Show us a ONE, for starters; the most abstract concept of an absolute. The human demands that his noetic construct be real outside his mind, and when he realizes they are not he becomes nihilistic: either
pure authentic nihilist, declaring all meaningless, and all words equally void of reference....or
'positive' hypocritical nihilistic, projecting his noetic constructs as underlying, beyond, immanent - the forever not yet present, not presence - replacing the observable, the empirical - taking his own abstractions literally, his own metaphors and myths literally, his own noumena (abstractions) as more real than the phenomena, his own reactions to world, his own interpretations of world as absolute truths.
Nihilism shares a negation of the apparent...the phenomenon....pure,
authentic feminine nihilists, apply this negation selectively or completely, dismissing segments of the sensually experienced, or all of the sensually experienced, as equally nil. The
hypocritical, masculine, 'positive' nihilists attempts to empower himself and seduce the feminine in others, by proposing a noetic fabrication to fulfill the needs of the desperate and lost with a literal presentation of his own, or an adopted abstraction.
Negation of sensual experience = dismissal of phenomenon as either too much to handle or too little to satisfy.
Nihilist looks at himself in the mirror and asks: "
Is that all I am?"...or "
That's not good enough, there must be more to me".
Past manifesting as presence is dismissed as superficial and illusory, as too much to cope with, or too little to accept to gratify.
Abstractions being a fabrication, based on interpretations, is non-existent outside his mind, so he attempts to increase its effect by indoctrinating, seducing, infecting the feeble with it - viral infection or parasitism.
It pretends to be fertilization, but the fact that it leads to no pragmatic outcome; it remains a noetic theory, infecting the minds of those who have been infected by it.
The best example is Abrahamism (Judaism - Christianity, Islam), and Christianity, in particular, as the most popular example.
Here we have an example of
'positive' Nihilism, masculine nihilism, seducing billions of
feminine psychologies, with constructs promising other-worldly, super-natural, contrary to experience, fabrications.
The experience is reduced to superficial, illusory, or completely void of substance, and replaced with an occult perceptive only the few, the initiated can partake in.
Only the 'true believer' will be saved. The real is
converted to linguistic narratives - metaphors, allegories that are then taken literally because they offer a convenient comforting solution to existential need/suffering and angst.
Superstition is always the way the mediocre masses, the psychologically feeble, assimilate the insights of wisdom and genius, which require more than just intelligence.
- gafr wrote:
-
- Quote :
- Nihilists do this with all their concepts. They consider this absence a 'negative'....because they need it psychologically......when it is a positive.
Why is it a positive?
Reality, that which exists, is 'positive' and that which does not exist is negative.
A cosmos with no universal morality, no God, no universal meaning, purpose, telos, is what made life possible....and it exists.
What the human brain fabricates, and mistakes or demands to be real, is his reaction or his interpretation of the real, projected as a replacement of it; more real than the experienced.
Moderns conveniently either dismiss all, selectively, as meaningless, as being social constructs, so as to escape the past (nature), and the pain, suffering and compensation, coping this requires, or they demand that their constructs, that have no external reference, be taken as a better alternatives to the experienced, justifying it using mysticism, romantic idealism, manipulating their own emotions and those of the needy, the desperate, the lost, using pretty words, and
incredible, fantastic, fabrications.
What exists, though it is lacking what you, or I, want, or need to cope with it, or expect (judge), is still the positive, because it makes our need, our awareness of existence, possible.
A cosmos with no absolute is what we emerge within, but to then demand that it also contain what we've constructed in our heads, and need to cope with it, is nihilistic.
That which exists is positive...that which does not, but only exists as an abstraction in our head, is not always so - idealism.
Ideas/ideals are either closer or further from the
Real.
Three ways to determine this, in a cosmos where the real is dynamic, and not static....
#1- Application (first hand) - Experienced Cost/Benefit in relation to intent, motive, idea(l).
#2- Observation of Application (second hand) - Judged Cost/Benefit in relation to intent, motive, idea(l).
#3- The philosophical method (Theory) - Continuous juxtaposition of
noumenon (interpretation) with
phenomenon (interpreted).
Difference between knowing and understanding = understanding is the perception of patterns within the knowledge of data, or patterns...and then its juxtaposition with external relationships (meaning). Internal map, juxtaposed with
external space/time, geography.
Degree of reliability from most to least, starting with
#1....
Pragmatism superior to philosophy because philosophy can lack all pragmatic reference and effect, and remain forever perfect as theory, and forever validated by experience when costs/benefits are intervened upon.
Positive/Negative are human categories.
Cosmos, existence, is neither, and only is in relation to an observing, consciousness - life.
A way of interpreting, using what is known of self, as a standard - point
0 or point
1.
Top<>Down Thinking begins with the one as its starting point.
Bottom<>Up Thinking begins with the nil.
This has been mistaken as a worshipping, or a preference, mostly because for the
Top<>Down Thinkers, the one is such a absolute concept, with subjective definitions.
Bottom<>Up begins with ignorance and builds gnosis...it begins with the observable, the phenomenon, and constructs noumena, abstractions, theories.
It begins with power being a measure of powerlessness, strength being a measure of weakness....it makes of power an idea(l) one accumulates, or loses, over time.
In the case of 'positive' in the context I used it, it means that which exists independently from all interpretations of it - world independent from life.
The phenomenon independent form the noumenon. I realize that for something to appear there has to be a mind for which it is apparent....but I've also defined what phenomenon is: patterned and non-patterned Energies (inter)acting, and as interacting becoming apparent if and when consciousness emerges.
Interactivity is independent form life, from consciousness, and makes life and consciousness possible.
Phenomenon is the interaction in a world where consciousness emerges, and can be converted to noumenon, in more sophisticated brains.
So phenomenon/noumenon are in reference to life and consciousness, and positive/negative acquire their subjective definitions form there.
But interactions are neither positive/ or negative, independent from life. They just are.
They are what makes life possible, at least in this configuration of existence.
I am a proponent of the theory that recurrence is the reconfiguration of cosmos, but not always in the balance that would make life, as we know it, possible.
There may very well have existence a 'reality' where there was no life.
This is why I define existence this way:
Existence - that which is dynamic - (inter)active.
Of what?
Of patterned, or non-patterned
Energies, which is another way of saying 'of ordering', or 'randomizing' .
Energies differing from
mater/energy, in that it refers to vibrations/oscillations that may, or may not be ordered, or patterned, whereas matter/energy properly understood, are referring to a ordered rates of vibration/oscillation relative to the observing mind = faster/slower vibrations interpreted and categorized as matter/energy.
What is vibrating/osculating?
Possibility, when possibility is properly understood as
space, and probability as matter/energy and its degrees of fluidity.
Space = possibility.
Time = rate of oscillating possibilities, relative to the observer - measure of change produced by (inter)activity.
Others have give this other names to make them more digestible, more comprehensible...Schopenhauer called it 'will', from where Nietzsche took it and gave it a motive...the circular '
will to life' became opened, liberated to the ambiguity of '
will to power'; liberating it from its self-reference, stoicism, that would make life unlivable, or the need/suffering life experience existence as, as too intolerable.
'Power' vague enough to mean anything.
It becomes subjectively determined.
Power is another way of saying - dynamic....vibration/oscillation...so
will to power would be a living desire to accumulate, to appropriate, energies....or to appropriate possibilities and convert them to probabilities.
For many this vagueness permitted the reassertion of God, as that which wills, because the word 'will' is meaningless without consciousness....but it also implies a lack, as something willed which is not present, in this case the vagueness of 'power', which can be defined as omnipotence/omniscience.
Lack is properly understood as a
need/desire only present in a living organism with motives.
I would like to believe that Nietzsche was not so vain as to attack Christianity so as to replace its concepts with his own.
It's why I try to be as direct and obvious as possible, not permitting feebleness to adopt my words to accommodate their needs.
I ascribe
will to life, and only life.
Will = focus of aggregate energies. Therefore, focus is only possible for an organism with particular motives.
Power would then refer to such a motive, relative to others.
Others have called this 'pathos', substituting the English passion with the more exotic, for most, Greek term.
Eros is associates with pathos, and it also means a kind of suffering, a type of need/desire.
Others have called it 'god', for their own motives.
Others have called it 'love', or 'value', or 'affectance'....and so on and so on.
A game of semantics (linguistics) founded on psychological particularities, all adding their own nuance and exposing a private desire - need/suffering.
Any word can be given to it because as 'possibility' it is open to any.
What comes to mind is the double-slit experiment.....and how a particle is created when there is a measuring, observing consciousness freezing the 'wave' the vibration/oscillation into a point in space/time.....ergo it is consciousness, life that converts possibility, into a probability.
