Words

The process of simplification/generalization (abstracting) becomes more evident when dealing with concepts such as "absolute" and/or "infinity" which have no external referent.

With "infinity" the description alludes to what cannot be perceived. Infinite inter activities, possibilities, cannot be processed by the mind, so it reduces them to an abstraction that alludes to what it cannot visualize nor conceptualized but only described and defined.
The "infinite" is reduced to a finite, so as to process the abstraction, where the incomprehensible is converted to a vague insinuation.
The multiplicity - the infinite endless multiplicity - is converted to a finite thing, alluding to what it can only define but not perceive.

But even with simpler concepts, such as cats, the reference is to the mind's simplification/generalization of an dynamic organism with a multiplicity of constant interactions - reducing them to a finite amount by separating the image from the dynamic process - the continuum of the organism.
the organism, as phenomenon, is then compared to the idea of feline...and if the observed and the idea match, then one identifies it as "cat". Particularities - pattern differences - identify it as a specific cat.
The entire continuum of the specific cat cannot be perceived....though past is manifesting as presence - but can only be deduced from the specific cat's presence - its interpretation as appearance.
The cat is "reduced" to a finite thing - eliminating all data that cannot be perceived or processed.
The continuum of the energies participating in the presence of a specific cat can be traced back infinitely and indefinitely - no beginning is presumed.
The organism is part of a continuum called cosmos; a particular aggregate of energies, patterns, with specific interactions.
So, the specific cat, named pussy, is a finite definite representation of an infinite indefinite process.
Even in its perception the mind has eliminated all data it cannot process nor perceive, perceiving the organism as a finite being.

Meaning is a juxtaposition of a mind's mental map with the external geography. The external geography may be other world/symbols - representations of noumena - or phenomena - presence translated as appearance.
Meaning is a series of matrices internally connecting external phenomena. Their complexity indicating the sophistication of the mind; accuracy indicated by its ability to accurately represent the inter-relationships of what is external.

The emphasis of each phenomenon participating within the same meaning relationships indicates the degree of importance ascribed to it by the mind, supported or contradicted by external relationships.
This emphasis determines the relationship between the mind's self-evaluation (know thyself) with its evaluation of world (judgement), resulting in a course of action, or inaction.

We can say that the emphasis a mind gives to a phenomenon/noumenon, or to a symbol/word alluding to a phenomenon or a noumenon, indicates a psychological reaction to its implications....just as an artist's painting of a tree contains with it his own reactions, or how it relates to what he is representing.

Art is the externalization of the mind's abstraction of the real, so even if the mind is motivated to remain true to the mind's abstraction of the phenomenon it cannot help but be affected by its own reactions to it, carried into the art itself.
Art has a dual purpose:
As externalizing the representation of the mind's abstraction (interpretation) of a phenomenon, but also as the externalization of its own reaction to it.

Semiotics - words/symbols - are the noetic points of detachment from the real.
Symbols is where noumenon detaches from phenomenon, becoming the point of inversion - Nihilism.
The point is found within the nervous system - including the brain, where the symbol/word inverts the stimuli it is receiving from external sources.
Nihilism survives only by spreading from mind to mind, finding in other minds, or in the products of minds - i.e., art, text technologies - each mind a member of a hyper-reality, an inter-subjective matrix, excluding the real, the phenomenon from intervening to break what becomes a "spell".
Minds referring and deferring to others minds, as evidence of their rationality. Other minds, or text, used as proxy, alluding to the real which is never approached.
Abstractions referring and deferring to other abstractions - logos as its won reference.

The world, the phenomena, are ignored, or selectively sampled, so that the communal spell is never shattered.
Noumena no longer refer to phenomena, the experienced, but only via proxies.
The meaning of words are warped. They refer to texts....no longer connecting mind to reality; the internal map to an external geography.
The external, is completely negated.....it no longer exists, for such minds - ergo there is no objectivity, only variances of subjectivity.

It's only when detachment has reached a certain level - only possible within sheltering systems - when the meme-parasite enters the scene as a symbiont, evolved to exploit this expanding condition, having synthesized it into its own being as a new survival strategy.

Contradictions are at the root of existence, reflected in our binary thinking, because between Being and Nothing there is both and neither; a movement from and towards.
Existence is dynamic, i.e., momentum, movement. Always moving, becoming and unbecoming; never settling, never fully being.

Heisman, Mitchell wrote:

Tolerance is as a last gasp of liberal belief that lives on the cusp of nihilism. Tolerance is resolving differences by failing to resolve differences. It is a pragmatic peace for and by the diversity of incompatibilities. It promotes the demotion of the value of thinking through learning to not rationally question blatant contradictions.

“Tolerance” of contradictions for the sake of “survival”. A self-imposed compartmentalization, or Orwellian newspeak.
Language is kept vague enough to insinuate but never state.
The art of deceit.

Language encompassed within texts - on the one dictionaries permitting the communication of the lie; on the other some reference expressing abstractions existing only in the mind of the author, or referring to a community of minds holding onto the same lie for dear life.
The real is never involved unless it is required to sample as a way of implying legitimacy.
Concepts enclosed within noetic echo chambers, constructing complete wholes of semiotically founded theory.

"Chaos", defined as "complexity" cannot be the antithesis to order, because it simply means a hidden, more intricate, conspicuous, form of order. There is no tension, no antithesis - but only uniformity appearing to be in tension, but not really.
The only way to define chaos so that it represents an antithesis to order, is as randomness - which is also the only way to allow the will some degree of freedom, explaining why it evolved in the first place.
Only in this way can choice have any degree of severity.
Otherwise, existence is described, indirectly at least, as a merry-go-round upon which innocent, helpless, children play, for an eternity. A joke.

Randomness would be the only utility of developing higher cognition; a method of dealing, in real time, with the unforeseeable.
Without free-will there is no responsibility - no survival of the fittest - because all is indirectly described as part of a cosmic plan - therefore everything being "selected" naturally, has already been selected....and we are only witnessing the formalities, and going through the motions, like puppets.
What meaning does Darwinian natural selection have in an absolutely determined universe? Nothing is really being selected, at all, according to these morons. Everything has already been selected.  

Nothing anyone, at any time, will be of his own volition. Again, existence is defined as a joke.
Something or someone else is responsible - even if it is not alive - it "compels" us agaisnt our will...our will being a mere reflection of this other's compulsion.
Epstein had no choice in the matter. He simply surrendered to his compulsions.
Was Hitler responsible for his? why do we even accuse him if he had no choice at all?
Are we accusing the universe of this....or is the universe using us to accuse itself of wrongdoing, since it seems to both allow it to happen and to them punish it, when it does....like the Biblical one-god of Abraham. He is both "omnipotent and omniscient" and yet, punishes his won creations for being exactly was he knew they would be and he made them to be.
They rescued that delusion by inventing the myth with Adam & Eve, and how, like children given responsibilities they could not handle, God had to punish them for exercising a freedom he gave them - in effect making the gift a curse; a non-gift.
Here's a gift...but you can never open it. I'll place it here, right in front of you, to tempt you...and make you suffer, wondering what wondrousness is hidden within it...because I love you - remember Carlin's joke.
Pandora's box?
Ha! These people are the joke.
The secularists believes the universe allows the evolution of enough conciousness so as to become aware of how it is not in control of its own consciousness.
The universe is about increasing suffering, not hedonism, as these buffoons describe things. Think about it...in the process of reducing need/suffering the mind evolves to a level where it adds psychological suffering because it becomes aware of how enslaved and helpless and unable to do anything about it truly is. Conciousness is indirectly, described as a tool to multiply suffering, by adding a new dimension. Animals do not suffer this knowledge, but man does.
man physically suffers, but also mentally suffers knowing that he can do nothing to alleviate his suffering, unless the universe decrees it.
he is not only enslaved but he knows it....unlike animals who are oblivious to it. His enslavement is physical and mental. A victim in body and mind. An absolute victim.
Sounds Jewish to me.

This mindset produces cynics and socio-paths, seeking relief in all sorts of degenerate pastimes, as a way of adding severity to their suffering, which according to them, is a product of a farce.
It is the leeway permitted by randomness - this flaw in order  which reduced it from universal absolute totalitarianism to something less final - that makes the past somewhat correctable - nurturing a way of gradually compensating for the sum of all past nurturing, i.e.,nature.
Without this, the "will to power" to "will to life," is meaningless, because it's all preordained and inevitable, so who cares?
But that's the point, for desperate degenerates.
Laughter is how they can deal with the tragedy of their nature, and also a way of avoiding the uncertainty and effort of acting, of doing something about it.
They would rather laugh at their own existence, at everyone's existence, than weep alone, in their private tragedy.

Accountability for everything you do and/or fail to do, is difficult to swallow.
It is preferred to describe one's self - indirectly, and covertly, if not openly - as a victim, a helpless, innocent, victim of circumstances.
If not a "victim" of God, then of a faceless absolute Order. An authoritarianism with no conciousness.
If not tested by God, then why would not the universe test your resolve, and your ability to surrender to its absolute power?

Let's approach it from a different angle to show how utterly fucked-up this mind-set truly is.
The universe evolves, as part of its repeating pattern, the awareness of its own repeating pattern, which it can never alter.
It becomes aware, through living agencies, of how mundane and dull it truly is. It just does the same shit over and over....and how did Einstein describe insanity - presumably echoing a programmed universal self-diagnosis:
.
But, then, the universe does not expect a different outcome, does it?
But we do, and through us it does.
Now that's doubly insane.

Nihilism & Idealism
In the manipulation of words both the idealist and the nihilist find common ground - one to use words to justify what lacks evidence (absolute positive), the other to justify its rejection of all (absolute negative).
Through their attitude towards language both psychological tendencies show their common ground in their shared rejection of reality - one as it being "not enough," to completely and absolutely gratify; the other as it being "too much" for it to tolerate and endure.
Just as Narcissism is the flip side of Self-Abnegation, so too is Idealism the other side of Nihilism.
Whether it be through the absolute "one" or the absolute "nil" the real is nullified.

Psychologically the process is from the naive idealism of youth, towards the cynical nihilism of maturity.

Order = a repeating, sequence. Predictable. Pattern.
An absolutely ordered universe would imply a sequence of events that is entirely predictable, and repeating.
Ergo, all choices made, actions performed, are entirely part of the absolute sequence of events...and can be nothing other than what they are.
God is the anthropomorphic, Abrahamic symbol for this exact same concept.
In such a universe, choice is an illusion - free-will is impossible.
All acts of will are part of the universal sequence, and cannot divert from it, nor contradict it.
God's will cannot be challenged by Adam & Eve...unless. God either knows they will challenge his will, and eat from the forbidden fruit, or he is not omniscient.
Unless there's a flaw in god's absolute power, his absolute order, there is no possibility for Adam & Eve's free-will; if there isn't and god still goes though the process of punishment and banishment, then his absolute benevolence, his goodness, is contradicted.
If he is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and absolutely good, then he not only knows what Adam & Eve will do, but he also knows how he will punish them, as if he did not know - so he is now a hypocrite, as well as a sadist.
Things are simpler in secular formalities. All is absolutely ordered and determined, so choice is illusory, will is but a reflection of universal order - god's will - and everything and everyone is innocent....because all can be blamed on the universe and its totalitarian order.
This constitutes an existence that is a joke, only there's nobody there to laugh at it...even cynics are determined. Are they how the universe laughs at its own absurdity?
in this scenario contradicting absolute omnipotence is impossible. at least in the Biblical narrative free-will is introduced to absolve god of his sadistic responsibilities, and to cast blame of those who are then punished, or on the Devil - god's flaw....also his creation.
Things become openly absurd from there on.
The idea that we repeat the same lives, in the exact same way, forever...is itself a form of madness.
Even a god would suffer from ennui.
The idea that all is determined, including our reactions to them, if followed to its own "logical ends" is a form of solipsist circularity invented by minds who desperately want to preserve eternal life.....no matter what is sacrificed.
Imagine paradise where the participants suffer from a condition that wipes their memories clean - Alzheimers in the penitentiary. The prisoners waking up every morning with no recollection of the previous day - reborn within the prison walls. Relearning the prison rules and the regimentation of the lifestyle, before they go to bed, awakening to repeat the process.

Even Buddhists had a plan to leave the madhouse - and to never be born into the process, again.
Hindus did not really believe in eternal return, as many interpret the Nietzschean concept, because they believed in karma - memories passed on from reincarnation to reincarnation, determining an advancement towards an exit, or a decline into the mud, starting the process from the ground up.
Even they believed in free-will, and the responsibility of the individuals, accepted through every choice it makes.

But moderns will not tolerate any degree of culpability - no matter how small.
Either free will is absolutely free, or all is absolutely determined, preserving universal innocence, i.e., salvation.
Any degree of culpability, expressed through choice, must be negated - either/or. Man is either a sinner, contradicting gods absolute order, or he is absolutely innocent, merely following god's order, affirming it with every action and every choice - a minion, a slave, a willing and happy slave.

Minds talk across each other when words are not anchored on a common grounding, i.e., reality, world.

What's the value of order, with no chaos?
What does love matter, if there is no hate?
Why would we strive to attain power, if there were no weakness?
If there were no death, why would we care about life?
With no weakness, what meaning does strength have?
If not for truth, would not lies be sufficient?
Why do we appreciate health, if there is no sickness?
If there was no ugliness would we be attracted to beauty?

Hoffer, Eric wrote:

A doctrine insulates the devout not only against the realities around them but also against their own selves. The fanatical believer is not conscious of his envy, malice, pettiness and dishonesty. There is a wall of words between his consciousness and his real self.

Words used not to connect but to disconnect - not to engage, but to disengage and push away.
Words, emerging from the nervous system, separating mind form body; distancing the ego from the self.

Words formed into fantastical caricatures, that resemble nothing in experienced reality; words of cynical ridicule distancing self from what exposes it to itself; words used to expunge stress through mockery and laughter - convulsing it away.
Is not humour a way of coping with a threatening other? Retaining defensive plausible deniabiltiy, it deals with the unreasonableness of another, or with the self's inability to relate to the other's reasons/reasoning; a psychological capitulation to otherness, i.e., either the other's unyielding simplicity, immune to all reasoning, or the other's unrelenting reasoning, threatening the simplicity of self.

Any idea/ideal, concept, opinion, that requires a proxy to be validated - such as script, a priest, an icon/idol, a guru, a leader - is questionable.
The most valuable ideas are validated by the individual independent from all human interventions - the good teacher, father, is the one who teaches his children in a way that makes him unnecessary - so as to prepare them for when he is no longer present.

An idea that cannot be independently validated, or that requires a proxy to remain relevant and true - not only an icon/idol, but a mass of humans - is a political movement, using psychology, via semiotics, to manipulate and control.
It's the old adage...


To successfully fish, a man must know and understand nature, and the essence of his prey, the fish in this case.
Both are not dependent no human contrivances.
The man who has not understood fish, water, nature, objectively, will never catch a fish - unless it's by accident.
Nihilistic ideologies want men to remain dependent on fish mongers - who becomes their proxy, their middle-man, their icon/idol, because - in keeping with the allegory - what is being purchased is not a real "fish" - it is paper with the word "fish" written on it, or with the image of a fish on it.
Such men become used to consuming paper, and calling it "magical fish," or "divine fish," or "metaphysical fish," or whatever sounds like it is superior to an actual fish.

Infinity = a singular symbol/word referring to a vague/obscure abstraction, trying to conceptualize fluidity.
Paradoxes emerge when said abstraction is divided or multiplied, using the binary code - 1/0 - symbolizing complete/wholes, i.e., absolutes.
If the code remains theoretical, then there is no issue, because the obscurity is incorporated into the symbolization, but if it is attempted to be applied in real/time, using real world scenarios - which is indifferent to human symbols and the human abstractions they represent - then the obscurity is exposed through paradox, expressing dissonance.
The Dissonance between ideal/real, metaphysical/physical - mind/body - must always seek correction on the side of the physical, ergo the metaphysical must adjust to the necessitates of the experienced physical.
But the physical, being fluid (flux) can only be interpreted as symbols that represent the metaphysical, so the mind succumbs to the temptation of immersing itself in it, and detaching it from the limitations imposed upon it by the physical; metaphysics tends to enter the absurd and the nonsensical, refusing to comply with the restrictions of the experienced real.

Psychosomatically, the mind tends towards a rejection of forgetting, of the body's presence, as appearance, immersing itself in ideologies and theories that cannot be applied, are impotent and useless, outside minds, producing paradoxes and conundrums if it is even attempted to do so.
It settles for replacing the external experienced world with other minds that can share the same abstractions, converting them to an external validation.
Ergo, humanity becomes a concept that replaces the concept of world, and world is replaced by humanity.
The first stage is found in Abrahamism of spiritual nihilism, that proposes a anthropomorphic representation of the concept "human", but this quickly becomes too restricting and infantile and is replaced by a more abstract concept of humanity, stripped of all natural identifiers - sanctified and converted into a metaphysical concept.
A spiritual concept, where 'spirit" is independent from the "incarceration" of the body - ergo spirit, mind, is immortal, while body is mortal.
How does the mind become immortal?
Via symbols/words.
Written language survives the author's death. He is immortalized, via semiotics.
Humanity becomes the vehicle through which the individual can become immortal - the one-god is replaced by one-humanity.

To a surfer, focused on staying on his board as he constantly adjusts his mass, seeking balance, the wave the sea will appear to go on infinitely, with no solid ground in-sight.
Slightly behind the wave crest, he will see nothing beyond it, for there is nothing. His acceleration keeping pace with the wave, never quite reaching the crest where the turmoil is greatest...he sees it, from a distance, as a frothing chaotic whiteness, as if it were a boundary that never approaches nor recedes but moves on continuously, feeling himself falling back and away, as he moves onward.

Reinhard, May wrote:

Finally, Petzet draws our attention to two other informative remarks of Heidegger’s. First, in conversation with a Buddhist monk from Bangkok in September 1964, Heidegger said that ‘he himself would often hold to Laozi—but that he knew him only through the German intermediaries, such as Richard
Wilhelm’.9 Second, Petzet reports that on hearing the Buddhist monk say that ‘nothingness is not “nothing”, but rather the completely other: fullness. No one can name it. But it—nothing and everything—is fulfillment’, Heidegger responded with the words, ‘That is what I have been saying, my whole life long’ (P 180/190). Heidegger apparently said something similar in connection with one of D.T.Suzuki’s books.

Heidegger's Hidden Sources

What can be more alien, more of an otherness to an organism, than chaos, defined as randomness.
Order = patter of repeating consistency.
Random = non-pattern inconsistency.

Both represent forms of Energy - Greek for εν = in, in the midst of, in the process of..... εργο = work, creation, Proto-Indo-European *wérǵom, state of agitation, turmoil, i.e. flux, experiences as need/suffering - agon.

Quote :

Corresponding noun of Ancient Greek ἀγείρω (ageírō, “to gather”), with later senses from ἄγω (ágō, “to lead”). Confer Sanskrit गण (gaṇa, “troop, gang, flock, tribe, assembly, company”); Ancient Greek ᾰ̓γορᾱ́ (agorā́, “assembly”), Sanskrit ग्राम (grāma, “multitude, troop, assembly, collective”); Sanskrit आजि (ājí, “race, competition, battle”).

γυρο -

Quote :

Etymology 1
From Koine Greek γῦρος (gûros, “rounding, circle”), substantivized from Ancient Greek γῡρός (gūrós, “round”)[1], from Proto-Hellenic *gūrós[2], possibly from Proto-Indo-European *guH-ró-s, from *geHu- (“to bend, curve”) +‎ *-rós.[3][4] Possible cognate with Sanskrit गोल (gola, “circle”).

To be in the midst, in the process of an encircling agitation, turmoil, a constructing, creating.

Χαος =

Quote :

Etymology. Greek χάος means "emptiness, vast void, chasm, abyss", from the verb χαίνω, "gape, be wide open, etc.", from Proto-Indo-European *ǵheh2n-, cognate to Old English geanian, "to gape", whence English yawn. ... 6th century BC) interprets chaos as water, like something formless which can be differentiated.

.
The nothing that is not nothingness - but the strange other. Other than order.
Not complexity, because in this linguistic (mathematical model) chaos is but a higher or lower order. Not "other than" but "same as" but hidden...not yet discovered, not yet revealed - revelatory, immanent revelation.

To an organism dependent on consistent, predictable processes, i.e., ordering, chaos is the terrifying, strange incomprehensible otherness.
Often incorporated into metaphysics as a monstrous strangeness, and in spirituality as the evil, or the mystifying, occult - ion monotheism it is implied that it is of order - complex, mystifying - but still order, part of the one-god representing absolute order - often called "good", because of the aforementioned.
Occultists often present themselves as 'knowers' of the mystifying, to the many, complex - the root of superstition is this farce, using language to imply a complexity via nonsense.
The initiate is mystified by words of order expressing nonsense, using triggering imagery to seduce reason and to help it suppress scepticism - often easy because the psyche needs to believe in a hidden order, an absolute reason for its need/suffering. The charlatans uses a desire/need already present in the initiate, to help him or her overcome the last remnants of doubt.
His presence as an other which is offering a gift - salvation, deeper truth etc. - adds to the seduction. By surrendering its will to this presence, as other, the initiate feels it is coming to terms with the mysterious and terrifying.
The charlatan becomes the proxy through which the individual surrenders or comes to an understanding - strikes a deal - with the chaotic.
reciprocity.
This is why morality is always an underlying factor.
Through the proxy the initiate establishes a relationship of reciprocity - he/she believes.
Cults are born in this way, and then develop into what we call religions.
Hinduism Buddhism, are not religions.
There are three actual religions, presently, in the world - or three that dominate.
Zoroastrianism is the source, but it is not practices by enough followers to be called a religion - it is a ex-religion that has returned to the status of cult.

Reinhard, May wrote:

In the following passages Heidegger puts ‘presencing’ [Anwesen] in place of ‘Being’ [Sein] and ‘unconcealedness’ [Unverborgenheit] in place of ‘Nothing’ [Nichts] (and vice versa), thereby elucidating the new ‘sense’ of the old ‘housing’:
The enigma is…‘Being’. For that reason ‘Being’ remains simply the provisional word. Let us see to it that our thinking does not simply follow it blindly. Let us first ponder the fact that ‘Being’ is originally called ‘presencing’, and ‘presencing’ means: to come to and endure in unconcealedness’.63y

In each case Heidegger substitutes one for the other, ‘Nothing’ for ‘Being’ (and, for ‘Being’, ‘presence’) and vice versa, and thereby effects permanent translations: for ‘Nothing’ now also ‘unconcealedness’, the ‘Open’, and the ‘clearing’. Another term that belongs to this sequence of correspondences is ‘truth’ in the sense of ‘Being’, ‘Nothing’, and ‘unconcealedness’. In Being and Time Heidegger writes, ‘Being and truth “are” equiprimordial’ (SZ 230); while he later also takes ‘Nothing’ and ‘Being’ to be equiprimordial in the formulation:
‘to think that Nothing that is equiprimordially the Same as Being’.65
These kinds of obvious correspondences, which are easily to be found throughout Heidegger’s work and represent essential factors in its design, always concern his major thought, namely ‘Nothing’, which constitutes unmistakably (as we have seen already in the case of Being and Time) the ‘meaning of Being’.
Thus Heidegger makes a clear distinction between this idea and what he calls ‘empty nothing’66 or also nugatory nothing [das nichtige Nichts]. By contrast:
‘This [true] Nothing…is nothing nugatory [nichts Nichtiges]. It belongs to presencing [Being]. Being and Nothing are not given beside one another. Each uses itself on behalf of the other in a relationship whose essential richness we have hardly begun to ponder’ (QB 97/Wm 247).
These interpretations of ‘Nothing’ have, for Heidegger, nothing to do with nihilism as it has been understood so far (since Nietzsche); their aim is rather the overcoming of nihilism.

Reinhard, May wrote:

Being and Nothing are not given beside one another. Each uses itself on behalf of the other…(QB 97/Wm 247).d
Second:
Being is none other than nothing,/Nothing is none other than being.80
Nothing as ‘Being’ (Heidegger, ‘WM?’ [GA 9] 106, note b).
Nothing and Being the Same (‘WM?’ [GA 9] 115, note c).
Being: Nothing: Same (‘SLT’ 101).

No-ting is literally what Being is.
No thing.
Heidegger differentiates nothing from nothingness, which is what Nihilism worships.

Reinhard, May wrote:

Heidegger nevertheless attempts with his elucidation a new beginning from an unaccustomed perspective, one that can find an appropriate starting-point only outside Western philosophical thinking. ‘The question of the thing comes from its origin into motion [Bewegung] again’ (WT? 48/36). His (non-Western)
answer corresponds almost verbatim to the following expression:
What gives things their thingness is not itself a thing (Zhuangzi, 22).87
And according to Heidegger:
[The] thingness of the thing…cannot itself be a thing again (WT? 9/7, cf.
36).
Compare with the well-known formulation in Being and Time:
The Being of beings ‘is’ not itself a being (SZ 6).g

Dasein is the being there, in time - being and time merging.

Being = probability - spatial.
Time = possibility extended as spatial dimensions, or perceived possibilities of interaction = change or movement.

Being is the subjective finding its way within the space/time possibilities/probabilities of space/time.
Its present is being, its temporality is a becoming, i.e., movement/momentum through an expanding filed of possibilities/probabilities, i..e., space/time.
Being is presence, imploded as here/now - or past/PRESENT/future, as presence - Dasein.
Appearance is the interpretation of its determined past (causality) manifesting as presence.
Being is a participant in the determination of its own future; present in its own determination.
Being is time appearing to itself as extension - physical - as body.
The physical dimensions incorporating and appropriating possibilities - denying them to others.
Body is a fluctuating/fluid boundary establishing a vague appropriation of possibilities, attempting to convert them to desired probabilities.
This is what interaction implies = attraction/repulsion.
It is experienced as change, which is measured as time, in time, and projected as dimensions, in space.

Order, appearing as matter/energy, is the interpretation of fluctuating probabilities for interaction - within an expanding field of possibilities. The specific sequence and its speed, in relation to the observer, determines the type/kind, interpreted as appearance.
Chaos is presence with a fluctuating random sequence for interaction - within an expanding field of possibilities. Its inconsistent, randomness cannot be projected as probability, therefore an organism - being - interprets it as darkness/void, calling it nothing which is not nothingness, i.e., void of perceptible probabilities, empty of the potential for use.

The processing/interpreting mind, can only process interactivity after-the-fact, therefore it can only perceive effect and use this to hypothesize causality, i.e., the sum total of interactions that manifested as presence, and it interpreted as appearance.
The effect is used to deduce causal relationships, or interactions of attraction/repulsion, after-the-fact; the affect used to determine the causal chain of events, i.e., to deduce past from presence.
A simpler method would be to use experimentation, and prediction - falsification. The organism decides a course of action - chooses - and then studies the consequences in the future.
If by the study of past it can predict future, in the present, it concludes that its knowledge and understanding of the past is sufficient.
Another way to see it as a use of an objective standard to determine the validity of a subjective interpretation.The outcome is evaluated against a desired or predicted consequence.

A weakling uses imitation and appropriation as an indication of his empowerment; claiming what doe not belong to him, by hiding it behind his personal modifications.
But this is exactly what gives him away, like a plagiarizer's brush strokes or his replacement of colours, meant to mask the plagiarism, rather acts to expose it for what it is and the perpetrator.

A choice exposes the culprit, even if it is a choice to imitate and copy another.

Starting with this...

Quote :

To begin, let us sample the meaning of the term, in the Greek, bringing us back to a shared tradition which Anglo-Saxon English fails to fully connect with.
The equivalent of meaning, in Greek, would be {Νόημα}, comprised of two words: νοώ, or νους, and νήμα = thread. Rooted in the word νέομαι = to turn, re-turn, as when you weave thread together. Therefore, meaning means to turn, weave, in the mind, or to return thought/thinking to the world; to place in mind and then return to world; to weave, in mind, the world.
Adopting the ‘thread’ metaphor we can describe “meaning” as a series of matrices interconnecting observable (apparent) and unobservable (noetic, ideological) phenomena. This mental mapping – webbing – and the degrees ascribed to each phenomenon (relationship), within this noetic map, is what we call “meaning”.
The validity of meaning is a product of how this mental-map agrees with an external geography.

And this...

Quote :

Meaning refers to the relationship of observed patterns (phenomena), as these are interpreted by a mind (noumenon).
What we mean by “meaning,” is our own understanding of how the different phenomena we experience relate to one another, as we’ve interpreted their relationships in our mind. To say something is “meaningless” is to accuse it of lacking all cohesive relationship to the observable world, and/or that it lacks cohesion. These relationships may refer to external phenomena and/or may be entirely in our head, because in our head relationships are more easily established, whereas in reality they may refuse to abide by the observing mind’s will.

We can understand meaning as a fluctuating field of inter-relationships.
Geography = reality
Map = abstraction.
Meaning refers to the shifting relationships and their degrees, especially when the environment is as malleable and quick to change as are manmade environments, i.e., artificial versus natural.

Ergo, the work of philosophy is never completed - there is no telos. No absolute - in this sense no absolute knowledge (omniscience), nor understanding.
If we place the words 'knowledge & understanding' within this paradigm then 'knowledge' refers to the abstracted points on the cognitive map of a geographical reality, and 'understanding' refers to the matrices of relationships the subjective mind has drawn, representing its evaluation (judgement) of their inter-relationships, and their degrees.
This is constantly adjusting to fluid circumstances.
So, knowledge is represented on the mental-map of the external geography by colour, representing type of landscape and its dimensions, whereas understanding represents the distances between them.

Maps can be purchased, adopted and adjusted to ones own needs, as the work of others, or they can be drawn through personal experiences...just as explorers once did in the past.
Philosophy is a kind of mapping of unexplored lands, or a remapping of lands that are gradually shifting - like tectonic plates.
Maps are good for hundreds of thousands of years....therefore language is good for hundreds of thousands of years.
If we remain true to this allegory, then memes are like cities and manmade infrastructures built upon the geography, i.e., nature, and so maps....and those require updating on a quicker time-scale.

The way I think of meaning...to recap.
Gene
Map = abstraction, mapping out geographical relationships.
Geography = shifting, at slow time-scales, of environmental conditions, perceived as elevation, landscape, distances.
Meme
An added layer of mapped variables representing manmade cities, infrastructure, etc.

Everything is in flux - fluctuating. the latter at a much faster pace than the former, ergo meaning is constantly adjusting to this gene/meme fluidity and how they inter-relate.
Meaning refers to the cognitive matrices, on the mental-map, representing these geographical relationship, i.e., noumena relative to phenomena.

So when we ask "what does it mean?" we are asking for directions, or how to reach a desired destination, by navigating a geography, using a mental-map. we are essentially asking for a map and coordinates.
words - semiotics - are points on mental maps....Nihilism in this context, is a map that refers to no geography that has ever been experienced, or the complete negation of the geography using a map to alter it....which never works.
You can't cover a geography with a map, and pretend this is more real than what you've covered up. If you dare use this technique you will suffer the consequences.
Imagine walking over a cliff, because you've placed a flat surface there on your mental map....insisting that your map usurps the real geography of the terrain.
This is why nihilists are children who never apply their imaginary alternative reality.....not unless others support them when they fall off the cliff.
Most prefer to play with their imaginary map, in their imaginary reality....subjectivity, demanding others pretend that its true, because there is no geography, i.e., no objective reality. They demand to to be supported in their desire to remain infants....until they die.

Sort of like how nerds want to live in Tolkien's black/white fantasy reality, gradually becoming convinced that Middle Earth is more real than Earth......or that there is no such place as "earth" and all are just living in a fantasy land, populated by fantasy creatures, similar to Middle-Earth.
You can see how role-playing can go bonkers.....when watching LGBTQJEWFUCK+ insanity.

An example of metaphysics detaching from physics and then claiming to be superior - or inverting the relationship between physics/metaphysics to metaphysics/physics.
Top<>Down emoting.
The ideal takes precedence and selectively absorbs the real - discarding what it cannot integrate into its ideological contexts.

If we trace words back enough we will return to their original use as symbols referring to thing....in the world. Later they evolved to refer to actions - verbs.
This is where we must return, after centuries of linguistic corruption, via nihilistic memetics.
Back to the past, i.e., nature = sum of all nurturing.
Back to the roots - down to earth. Bottom<>Up.

We may compare etymology as a form of judging past using presence, i.e., appearance.
An appearance buried, over the centuries, by cultural artificial garments, just as the appearance is corrupted by modern methods of wardrobe, make-up, learned behaviours consisting in accents, gestures, tonal fluctuations etc.
Yet, beneath the technological/technical interventions hides a body that refers to a past....if one learns to read its signs.
So, past manifests as presence which is interpreted automatically as appearance - intuitively - and consciously, through the study of patterns.

There are two ways to enslave a mind through language.
The first involves the positive, the second a negative.

The first defines a concept out of existence - essentially placing it in a hyper-reality where it inspires but can never be attained, cultivating a sense of defeatist fatalism and a surrender to what cannot be surpassed.
The second negates the very concept and defines it out of existence by defining it out of existence - a mind that does not believe in a concept can never attain its meaning; it is enslaved by its own negation.

The motive reflects an infantile desire to return to the womb - herd psychology is a desire to become a child, to be taken care of, to take responsibility for its actions, protecting it from the negative repercussions, but allowing the positive to flow through.
A slave who proudly takes responsibility for the positive consequences of his choices, but denies responsibility when the consequences are negative and fill it with shame.
Such a mind becomes arrogant, as it can only accept the positivity of its actions, while denying the negativity.
A slave who rescues his pride, for having stoically accepted slavery, by declaring the 'outside' the safe enclosure as non-existent; declaring freedom as nonsensical.
How to twist - invert - shame into pride.
A herd manimal who justifies its enclosure, as being based on a rational denial of a world outside the fences.

A victim who can claim not to be victimized because its master is benevolent and kind, and there is nothing other than the social enclosure it has grown to depend upon.
Only a social organism can be part of a herd.

Herd psychology is called institutionalization, when it refers to a modern homo sapient.



A prisoner for life, because he already believes he is free, or because he believes there is nothing beyond the walls that keep him safe.
Inter-subjectivity - a collective of prisoners, dependent no their incarceration; using one another to validate and justify their unwillingness to step outside the comforting enclosure.
The Last Man.
In the institution there are no horizons, no frontiers to explore. All is enclosed - all has a beginning and an end.
All is whole and complete.
A universe in and of itself.

When the mind is enclosed and bounded, there is no need to do so to the body.

Except for the word "free", there are other words that also refer to a relationship and to a degree, e.g., strength, power, know, understand, speed, sweet, hot, cold, sour, loud, aware, height, width, length, smart, stupid, kind, cruel, I, other...etc.

We may say that all language doing in representing the relationship between the subject and the object, via a medium - triangulating a real-world relationship.
A value judgement is also a triangulation consisting of I/Other/Goal - a relationship connected by momentum/movement, towards or away - attractive/repulsive.
Real/Ideal/Motive
Geography/Map/Destination
Language, semiotics, connect the map and the destination upon it, within the real world, the geography.
On a map you will find names of areas, mountains rivers, but also numerical symbols referring to distance from ocean level, or distances between points on the map.
Nihilism desires the map to be entirely of the mind - fantasy map, referring to no objective reality, no real world geography. The fact that the names and numerical values are imprecise or different from culture to culture - different languages - is a reason for them to dismiss the entire thing as illusory. They need an absolute map that perfectly and completely relates to the geography otherwise they will dismiss it all as arbitrarily subjective.

Therefore, if there is no universal morality, there is no morality; if there is no absolute freedom, then there is no freedom; and if there is in omnipotence then there is no power, no strength...only weakness; in there in no omniscience then there is parity of ignorance and the illusion of knowledge and understanding.
Marxism applied on a cosmic scale - if wealth is not evenly and equally distributed then it should be destroyed,d denied, rejected.

In the context of Abrahamism, where Marxism comes from, ...then if there can be no absolute good-god, then all are equally sinners; if there is no supreme being, then all are fallen; if there is no paradise for all, then all are in hell.