Modes of Thinking: DOWN<>TOP

What I'm describing is the type of thinking which begins with the perceived and builds with experience/knowledge, theories of probability.

Top<>Down thinking begins with the conclusion, the desirable given, which is always unseen (beyond space/time, or in the future) and then works backwards trying to justify it.

Take the idea of sameness, or equality as a starting proposition.

Nihilism, being a reversal of the perceived, to justify a nullification of the past/nature, can only be a Top<>Down form of thinking.
It begins with the negating absolute, which can have a positive (One, Order, God, Singularity, Whole, Same, Being) or a negative (Nil, Zero, Chaos, Void, Different, Becoming) characteristic.
The real, which is neither positive or negative in any absolute sense, is ignored.

Life, as we know it, being that it is an ordering, can only emerge towards increasing entropy.

Satyr wrote:

Life, as we know it, being that it is an ordering, can only emerge towards increasing entropy.

And that is what is absurd for why is life not found in the extremes where activity truly is? Why is there no being? And why must life be an equilibrium?

The closer you go towards absolute order, without attaining it, life becomes unnecessary.
The closer you go towards the absolute random, chaos, like becomes improbable.

The absolute is absent and never attained, and so the cyclical model sounds more probable.
The absolute is another way of describing an end...the end.
existence is (inter)activity. No activity no existence.
The absolute is the very definition of non-existence.

An example of Top<>Down vs Bottom<>Up thinking...


Dialogue, dialectics, pushed to their own logical conclusions when language is taken as literal rather than figurative.
In the dialogue above words that are meaningless, because they do not refer to anything sensed, are used to establish a premise that language presupposes to begin to reason.

How do you even begin to reason with a retard who already decided what he wants to know as true?
You can't.

The arrogance of assuming the conclusion before you acknowledge your ignorance, which would place the burden upon you to build a foundation of what is more or less probable, is dogmatic.
Notice the either/or methodology....the absolute true/false, of linguistic generalizations.

The retard, in this case, functions under the absolute poles of absolute yes and absolute no....certainty that no or certainty that yes.
The gradations do not factor in...and the secular humanist cannot argue against this because he is also burdened by a version of this nihilistic bullshit.
Both would agree, I suppose, that the world begins and ends.

Notice the usage of the word something, anything.
To know is to know absolutely.
The concept of "truth"  is presupposed.

The conversation here is using words to refer to order/disorder....or ordering/entropy.
God = Order
Satan/Void = Chaos

Both are taken as absolutes not as processes.

In relation to objective/subjective, Top<>Down, Bottom<>Up thinking begins from a different perspective.

Objectivity - begins from the bottom, as what is, before it proceeds towards the top, of what ought to be.
From the real towards the Ideal.

Nihilism, Modernity (subjectivity, postmodernity) - begins from the Top, the what ought to be, the ideal, the moral, and then proceeds backwards to incorporate what is, by redefining, or making excuses.
From the Ideal towards the Real.

When discussing anything with a Modern he is assuming you are presenting a description of your preferences, because he is doing so.
He associates your descriptions as your subjective ideals, threatening his own. you, become, for him, the voice of a world he cannot process or tolerate - a representation of what is most threatening, to him, about an indifferent, unknown, cosmos.
He would rather define you, in his subjective method of coping, as another opinion, no different than his own, reducing the standard of evaluating which perspective is superior and which is inferior to a mater of emotion, seduction, feelings, where his own needs always dominate as shared by a majority.

What costs accrue, in relation to the benefits, are excused away, by accusing others, or by seeking protection in the group.
The possibility of error is denied if this protection is available and easily attained.
Nihilism is always dependent on others to remain viable, or to exist at all.
Lies and hypocrisy and word-games are part of tis defensiveness.

Empiricism is practiced on an organic level.
All organisms use a binary method of on/off, based no stimulation and tried and proven reactions (naturally selected).
Organism interacts with world, at first directly (physical contract, electromagnetism) - primitive.
Then at a distance using a medium such as atmosphere or light (smell, sight, sound) - advanced.
The organism interprets these stimulation in its own naturally evolved way, and then acts, reacts, in a way established over many centuries of trial and error - naturally selected.
Its interpretation of stimulation and its reaction to them determines the costs/effects, which then determines which organism will pass on its genes.

In time a more sophisticated form of reactivity evolves. One suing a medium, at a distance.
The organism now interprets, and judges, evaluates, the stimulation, to determine the source - discrimination.
It then acts upon this judgment, and, again, faces the costs and the benefits, which determine its survival and its ability to pass on its genes - fitness.

In time an even more sophisticated form of reactivity evolves, using memory, precedent, to project theoretical, hypothetical stimulation, and their potential sources, before they happen - as a preemptive reaction, utilizing efficiency, and focus,to compensate for physical weakness.
Again, depending no the quality of the interpretation and projection the costs and benefits will follow.

All this if there is no mitigating protective agency adjusting, at will, the cost and the benefits, so as to exploit and manipulate the organism.

This is Bottom<>Up thinking.

Top<>Down thinking is a byproduct of sheltering, or of a mitigating protective agency adjusting costs/benefits, to bring about a desirable behavior, or outcome.
This kind of "thinking" starts with the more convenient, pleasing idea(l), and selects what parts of reality to accept, and which to deny, reject; validating, excusing, explaining all experiences in relation to the already given 'truth', objective.
this method cannot survive in reality, unless it is protected from it.
This is why it develops as a outcrop of human meddling, and sheltering - domestication.
Over time those born and raised within such systems become entirely dependent upon them, because not only would they not be alive, if not for their mitigating agency, but they cannot survive if it suddenly disappeared.

What applies for physical organic life, also applies for ideas.
Ideas that are detached from reality, cannot survive outside human brains.
Principles, concepts, associated with them are entirely noetic, and only have a range of effect equal to the among of minds sharing in their symbols and linguistic heritage.
Beyond this they are nonsensical and impotent.

Another way to contextualize Top<>Down thinking is as abstractions entirely dependent on brains to exist - for instance a UNICORN.
This concept may have an image, meaning, inside the mind, but it has nil references outside of it.
The mind mixes sensual input and constructs a monstrosity that has no real existence...it is a exclusively noetic construct, shared by those taught to associate it with particular feelings, sensations, forms, and abstractions.
The concept 'unicorn' can only exist when there are minds fertilized with the meme - the moral, semiotic, cultural noetic framework.

The mind works backwards starting with the noetic construct of unicorn to then justify it, by either mystifying it, making it ambiguous; using it literally, and then metaphorically, if the delusion is threatened to expose a motive.
Another such construct is 'God' in the Abrahamic tradition.

Moderns have a variety of them, including concepts once associated with real phenomena, such as 'human', or sex, or male/female.
Human is inverted from a symbols of an observable species - organism with patterned determining behavior, appearance, traits and their potentials - a reproductive type - into a divine, mystical, idea(l).
Now it can mean anything and it can mean nothing.
Each mind can inject into its broad dictionary definitions, its own desires, needs - subjectivity.
It has been detached from a limiting reality (natural order), and made into a malleable, versatile, flexible noetic concept.
It has become noumenon, with no phenomenal reference.
It is all how it makes the individual feel, what imagery sensations, it evokes, or triggers - all cultural, fashion based.

At the very Top, of Top<>Down inverted "thinking/emoting" is post-modern social constructivism.

The noetic construct, the idea(l), the goal, is placed at the top of the psychology pyramid, as a already given: such as God, or any Nihilistic ideology will do...and then they easily slide down to the gutter of degeneracy.
They begin with the social, the conclusion of millions of years of evolution, and then justify their desired idea(l), that everything having to do with humanity, is of his doing, and therefore ti can be denied, and replaced by another human construct.

To accomplish these fantasy feats, they must ignore Evolution Theory altogether, selectively skim through empiricism, and completely contradict themselves in every other context:
for instance, when it comes to humans, appearances are superficial, but not so in every other context.
Justification?
If not some mystical contrivance, triggering feelings and exploiting vanity, then a casual validation in complexity, also flattering the mind with insinuated sophistication, and an enticing hopeful promise of liberation from a determining past/nature, exposing a dissatisfaction with the outcome.

When you begin with the idea already determined - the conclusion from which you will proceed to validate experience, existence, this is Nihilism - Top<>Down emoting.
Then any word will do, as long as it is a positive reinforcement of you, and your self-gratifying delusions.

God, value, love, self, positive, whatever the chosen word is, it must be emotionally triggering.
Unlike Bottom<>Up Pagan, thinking, the world offers no limitations, no guidance....it is a "problem" to be "solved", or ignored.

This is not philosophy, this is self-comforting Abrahamic inverted nonsense, meant to appeal to as many degenerates as possible, demanding a "special' kind of logic, word usage, a specialize language and mathematics, reasoning...all ways of hiding the fact that it is emotionally driven and backwards thinking pretending to be progressive, and new.
If you can substitute God with another word, without losing any of the self-referential consistency, then you are not inventing something new, you are repackaging an old degenerate methodology.

In Bottom<>Up Thinking, words cannot be substituted by others, without a loss of consistency, and meaning, because honest, courageous, masculine thinking measures itself against other, or world....not some feminine contrived idea that can be anything that feel "good".
The WORLD, reality, imposes upon such a mind a challenge, a limit.
Words cannot be placed in any sequence, because causality imposes a particular sequence.
words cannot be substituted to pretend to be innovating, or in order to use a more emotionally gratifying one, because words represent abstractions, noumena, and noumena are not pulled out of nothingness, but refer to experienced phenomena, what appears.

Each specific word, has a specific definition, facilitating the sharing of ideas....but it also has a reference to the world outside the mind, facilitating understanding of self and existence, and the orientation and focusing of self in reality, pragmatically, whether this is emotionally gratifying or not.

Bottom<>Up thinking implies a very obvious and yet fundamental aspect of philosophy and the usage of language, which can go unnoticed.
Bottom<>Up Thinking is founded on physics, in reality, which means that one begins by proving one's acumen by presenting insights the common man can relate to.Because the common man is closest to the animal, and the animal is closest to the plant, and the plant is closest to the foundations of life, and the foundations of life are closest to non-living processes.
Like the artist who must prove his talent, to the laymen, before he proceeds to create abstract art the average mind cannot relate to, the philosopher begins with the real, not only he and those on his level can comprehend, but that all humans can comprehend.
It is easy to begin with the Idea(l), the "top" and then use fancy words, specialized terminology to impress, and imply something above and beyond common sensical, when all you are providing is nonsense, that can only impress illiterates and simpletons.
To the un-talented all art is magical, impressive, incomprehensibly brilliant.

It is only upon a firm appreciation of the immediate, the physical, the real, that all subsequent insights can base themselves upon;
Metaphysics <> Physics <>Ideals...Past<>Present<>Future.
Words simply connect the mind to the Real, before proceeding upward, towards the Idea(l), and downward, towards the Metaphysical.
Without this foundations words are left in limbo, floating in the mind with no gravitas, no basis, but only emotion, ego, desire: all aspects of the mind and its relation to world.

Without this foundation to restrict and discipline the mind to an external order, it can fly off into linguistic hypothetical, fantasy, on the tides of its own passions.
It is not obvious that this is what enables the most gifted men to delude themselves with their own vanity, to be engulfed by their own ego?
More so in out age where even lesser men can enjoy the privilege of a protective system that can offer them the illusion of their indestructibility and personal power.
We see the outcome of such sheltering when the rabble rise up to declare their private preferences and fantasies as worthy of respect.

Life emerges out of existence, within the dynamic processes of (inter)activity.
Existence precedes life.
Life preceded consciousness.
Consciousness precedes self-consciousness.

Genes precede Memes.

Causality points to a process, a sequence, we experience as linear time.

What distinguishes life from the non-living is its rarity, the particular circumstances necessary for its emergence.
Same goes for consciousness, and self-consciousness, and...love.
Same goes for memes. Making race a very important aspect of the conditions.
Making sexual roles, gender identities, fundamental, and a standard to evaluate, to judge, all subsequent mutations, aberrations.

Evidence of how we've been brainwashed, manipulated to invert our thinking over thousands of years, exploiting existential anxieties, is how we approach arguments.

The TopUp difference.
one is the inversion of the other.

Genes to Memes, becomes Memes to Genes.

The difference is displayed on how we use language.
how we apply words.
How we formulate questions.

The Nihilist asks:
How do we prove god? Beginning with an absurdity: the word god defines in an unrealistic, entirely noetic way.
Then he advances to a total inversion;
How do we disprove the existence of god?
Implying the Abrahamic definition.
Now the burden of proof is placed on the negation of what does not exist, or what contradicts the experienced existing.
From building probabilities of the validity of a theory, we invert the process and ask for disproof of what is taken for granted, or asks for proof of a negative.

The typical modern moron cannot grasp what 'objectivity' really means.
He/she/it approaches it from the top<>down direction, placing his idealized 'all is subjective' at the top.

He cannot grasp how something could be objective, and still be fluctuating - because he's infected by Abrahamism, or is too idiotic to have ever escaped its seductive pull.
He cannot grasp how two minds could reach the exact same conclusions, because in his defective mind all must be subjective, therefore the only way two minds could agree - when they can invent any reality thy wish, so why invent the same one? - is because some coercion, some force, is at play.

The only way they can grasp 'right' is via 'might'.
They find it incomprehensible how being right can become might...or they do not want to even think about it, because of what it implies about them, and every mistake, and error in judgment they suffered the consequences of.
They need something and someone to blame.
With no one-god...no Abrahamic Deity....then who?
Who can save them from themselves? who can rescue them form their own cowardice, feebleness.....their own inherited inferiority?

The basic premises of Top<>Down emoting versus Bottom<>Up reasoning, is that nothing is presumed other than what can be demonstrated as being present - manifestation of past.

The Top<>Down emoter begins with the absolute, either as an absolute singularity - one - or an absolute nil.
It cannot think outside absolutes, making it a a perfect follower of Abrahamism or any ideology/dogma that offers an absolute as a starting presumption.
It then proceeds to compare all judgements agaisnt this presumed absolute - finding them all wanting - or it proceeds to imitate the establishment of an absolute by declaring it and seeking approval from a majority.

This applies to all concepts, including free-will.
The approach is an either/or - absolute free-will or absolutely no free-will.
The observable is integrated into thee binary opposites - ideas/ideals, presented as a starting pre-supposed idea, agaisnt which all will be compared.
All positions are now judged in comparison to one or the other absolute.

The emoter does not begin from the observable, working itself upwards, building a thesis which can be judged as more or less probable, in comparison to another thesis....but it begins with an absolute positive and/or negative certainty, and works backwards, comparing reality in relation to it.

In this case the unknown becomes a reason to validate the absolutely positive, or to negate everything, retaining the absolutely negative.
Such minds usually proceed from Abrahamic spiritual nihilism, towards secular forms, such as Marxism, and Transhumanism.

The one/nil binary method traps the mind in simplicity - fearing to go beyond it towards complexity and chaos.
The mind is retarded in development, due to genetic or mental deficiencies and/or trauma.
It cannot understand anything if it does not meet the absolute standards, using negation to dismiss anything on the ground that it fails to be absolutely proven, or absolutely certain.
Unable to compete in the real world it uses the absolute to exit it, or to negate its relevance.
Unable to offer an alternate superior hypothesis it is satisfied by tearing down anything that reminds it of its own inadequacy, fleeing towards external authorities to validate its tactics.

Such minds either fall for the most absurd proposition or become cynical followers of established theories.
Gullible and naive or cynical and negating.
Having lost confidence in their own ability to judge, or lost trust in their own senses, they engage in destructive annihilation - pulling everything down - or in childish escapism, building fantasy realms for them and their friends to play in.

Top<>Down reasoning does not deny the importance of spirituality, and abstractions, expressing metaphysical ideals, it simply puts them in perspective by ascribing to concepts a level of importance rooted in pragmatism: on observable, testable, falsifiable, phenomena.
It begins from the "bottom" - Dawkins called it the 'middle world - which means from the physical, physis, phenomena.
Then it moves downward, into metaphysics, without detaching itself from the physical - much like one builds a home, from a subterranean foundation, that must be in alignment with the structure above ground.
Then it moves upward towards the stars, the heavens, the ideals , formulating ideologies in alignment with physics and metaphysics, with physics being the primary standard.

So, let's take the concept of free-will and anchor both parts of the synthesis upon the earth - free = choice.
Will = focus of organic aggregate energies - both conscious and subconscious - upon an objective.

Nothing about these definitions is overly abstract, vague, theoretical, ideological.
Both are observable, testable, falsifiable ...empirical.

Now to pretend some other factor is participating, without any evidence, is to dismiss the empirical for a supernatural explanation.
If I see a stone rolling down a hill, I can explain into using my understanding of the world, as I've perceived it.....or I can claim some supernatural force at work, which I cannot experience, not provide evidence for, nor test, nor falsify.

In regards to my own free-will I can say "what if some external will were making me do the things I do  without me being aware of it?" - this is 'emoting using the 'negative - ignorance, the 'what if?', as a pseudo-argument.
This is not how rational minds think....this is how schizophrenics and psychotics emote, expunging their inner terrors and confusions, through these hyperbolic nonsensical displays of insanity.

One can do the same with any "self-evident" concept - or what was once considered logical before insanity infested the western psyche.
A cat meows and approach at the sight of food....it seems logical to connect the behaviour with what I know of organism - since I know myself to some degree - connecting the cat's behaviour with some basic organic needs...but the Desperate Degenerate afraid of the implications may defensively reject this connection.
"What if the cat approaches because it has been compelled by a satanic spirit? Nobody can prove for sure that this is not so, so why is your assumption better than mine?"

This is the argument from the "absolute negative" perspective....insanity - cowardice, idiocy, hypocrisy, using the absolute nil as a defensive tool.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" the modern moron will say.
Therefore, all is possible until proven impossible - prove a negative, in other words.
This begins with a presumption that everything that can be thought to be possible is possible, until absolutely proven otherwise.

Another kind of moron will declare the insane as absolutely true, then dismissing language, experience, precedence, sensual awareness, as being "insufficient" to appreciate the absoluteness of the idea/ideal....and that some future time, at some other place, will vindicate them.  
Utopianism.
Paradise is taken down a notch, projected into the forever immanent future - no longer a beyond space/time but a future that is forever not present, nor past, but always future - idealogical naivete, exposing a deep dissatisfaction not only with the present - one's presence - but with one's own inherited determining and immutable past.  
Existence = dynamic, interactive presence - interpreted as appearance.
What does not exist cannot be changed - but only in the mind, i.e., reinterpreted, forgotten, dismissed, rejected, ignored etc.

Science doesn't work that way....because that's insanity.

Dark Ages are times of insanity, superstition, and human turmoil - plagues of the mental and physical variety spread and flourish.
Degeneracy, decadence, disease, desperation, become normal - divine.

Top<>Down emoting only uses "reasoning" to introduce an agency he or she has no way of justifying.
Since there is an absolute, in his degenerate confused mind, and he is not privy to it, then any creative introduction of nonsense is validated to reach the "absoltue telos".

We see this clearly in the concept of "Free-Will" where an external agency is used to justify the absence of individual agency - the experienced is usurped by the introduction of an external factor - the tangible usurped by the theoretical.
To eliminate individual intent, an external intent must be introduced to compel it.
If not god then....absolute order.
The ideal outcome being the levelling down of everything to a theoretical state of parity: all are equally "sinners" beneath the Abrahamic one-God, and all are equally puppets of circumstance within absolute order.

The individual is "cleansed" of responsibility - something Christians had to "correct" - understanding the implications - by half-heartedly and hypocritically introducing "Free-Will" to absolve their "god" of the implications.

Christians were forced into these paradoxes - the issue of suicide being another one - when they professed that their "Messiah" had been born, producing the paradoxes nihilism does when it is applied within reality - through the proxy of a Jesus.
The Jews never faced this problem because their Messiah remains abstract - still a mere symbol/word - i.e., money.
The ambiguity conceals the paradoxes their won faith produces if applied within reality, yet they still manifest as the Jewish Paradox" of founding power on the illusion of powerlessness; predation through the pretence of vitimhood. A pretence that produces suicidal tendencies and neurosis in those who have some intellectual integrity left.
Heisman and Weininger come to mind. A "self hating" Jew has escaped it by immersing himself within Modern Nihilism - Slomo and Atzmon, Gilad come to mind; whistle-blowers who want to hold Jews, their won tribe, accountable before their own dogma - follow its "illogic" to its self-referential "logical end", i.e., cultural suicide.

For the Modern Christian the paradox is escape with a weekly show of contrition, and a lifelong show of self-abnegation, making him/her "worthy" of eternal life by preserving the nonsense from the destructive force of clarity and integrity. This he calls evidence of his "faith".

Top<>Down emoters never learn, never advance...they spin in circles around the same final solution.
They already know the solution so the problem is how to fit the experienced world into this solution.
Word-games.

Anti-sicnectific method.
Anti-Empirical.

The idea in their head...that's the start.
Sensual input is the problem.
They don't start from nil and build upwards, increasing probability without ever attaining certainty.

They begin with certainty - absolute - and work backwards, never attaining clarity - manipulating symbols/words to fit into this final solution. The word becomes the solution. A word...any word - logos.
They fall into themselves, and only use others as validations. Reality becomes a collective project with a singular pre-existing destination.
They already know the truth...now how to justify this claim?
Psychology....feminine.

The approach has, of course, already been explored.

The postmoderns desperate degenerate begins with the word, the abstraction the all-encopassing, the absolute, having already presumed it into existence.
The pagan, uninfected by this mental disorder, begins from the bottom-up, he recollects, he takes precedent into consideration - past - he advances from possibility towards probability, without ever presuming a final certainty.

A postmodern imbecile begins with the truth, as an absolute certainty - indivisible, immutable, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, ...all, whole, complete, perfect, final, end.
From there these cowards reach the nil, as the absence of all they've presumed but continuously fail to prove, or to materialize, because whatever name they give to the absolute it is non-existent, it is the very definition of non-existence.
A healthy mind begins with the nil, ignorance, and builds gnosis, builds convictions, builds probability, holding all competing theories to the same empirical stadards.
His confidence is built over time, as a evaluation of probability in comparison to all other alternatives.

Top<>Down = left
Left begins with the desired outcome, and then works downward - backward - to make it happen and justify its objective/
Bottom<>Up = right
Right always seeks the most stable past - strongest Bottom - to begin building itself upward.

A realist rational thinker always begins from the "bottom"...the act, the observable, apparent, and then proceeds to build a probability  quotient - moving upward.
"Bottom", in this context, refers to the in-between past/future, ideal and metaphysis, up/down refers to a movement towards the idea/ideal - objective - and towards the underlying metaphysical, form the middle-ground of the physical - physis/nature.
"Bottom" refers to sensory input....with no presumptions; from a theoretical point of nil, ignorance.

OBJECTIVITY

****************
An emotional subjective mind always begins with the objective, as a projection of tis anxieties and hopes - hopes offering the possibility of negating its anxieties....with the subjective ideal, and then proceeds to selectively pick and choose sensory input to justify its already completed solution to its experienced predicament.
It uses ignorance as a justification for its nonsensical solutions to problems it has failed to identify.
It then, excuses its presumptuousness by accusing all of doing the same.

SUBJECTIVITY

i believe the future is post-media, post-jobs post-celeberitism, post-hollywood,

post-internet, in the sense that the internet will only be a platform for dow.nloading edm

houses are free, food is free
babies will be born in artificial wombs

youth, 16-29 are privileged to take clean eu.phric 6 hour party drugs in da weekdns, made by pharmalogical companies

a kind of minimalistic utopia

crime will cease to exist, as everybody will have a second mind in the cloud, a kind of intelligent ethical-parra mind always making people aware that the punishment for hard crime is torture,

only the rich will have acces to a new advanced clean kind of cocaine that lasts 6 hours
and the privillege to fast cars, and fast bikes,

and a facist uniform dress code,