Words

Subjectivity = map - its accuracy established in relation to the geography it approximates and represents (translates into lines, colours, names, numbers - codifies)
Objectivity = geography - indifferent to any map of it.
Semiotics = how the map (noumenon), related to the geography (phenomenon); how accurate, precise, it is.
Semiotics (language/mathematics) is the translation of the geography to a map's dimensions and scales.  

It doesn't matter what words/symbols you use, if they are defined in a way the corresponds to a geographical reality, i.e., distance, elevation, terrain (liquidity, solidity in relation to the traveller).
A map is tested by using it to travel to a specific destination in the geography. the destination and the difficulty - distance, terrain etc.) establishes its value in relation to the traveller - the subject.
The destination may be over-estimated or under-estimated therefore its attainment, in relation to the subjective travellers expectations, is what constitutes the dissonance between ideal/real.
This adjust its value, which was theoretical, before the rip was taken, and became real, once the destination was reached and the traveller compared what he expected and what he found.
The ideal is always in the traveller's mind (subjective); the real is always outside the traveller's mind (objective).
Whether the traveller accurately and honestly assesses his idealistic expectation with his realistic attainment does not change reality; it simply prevents the traveller from adjusting his judgements, so he will repeat the same trip, towards similar idealized destinations and then suffer the same disappointment which he may not even admit to himself. He will simply waste his time and energy pursuing goals that will never satisfy him - the dissonance between ideal/real, even if not admitted, will be experienced as a perpetual dissatisfaction.

We can imagine a fantasy destination, existing in some theoretical geography, that only exists as a map, condemning the traveller to eternal dissatisfaction....because the destination can never be attained.
It does not exist in reality, but only on a map - it is not a phenomenon but a noumenon with no reference to anything real.
This can be sued by the traveller as an excuse for never going anywhere or for failing to attain anything. The destination is always somewhere other than here. And because it is unreal it can never disappoint....nor be attained.
The realism of the map, its utility, is never questioned by such insane pseudo-travellers.  It is never doubted...when a geographical obstacle is encountered, preventing advancement the traveller blames the geography, for preventing him from reaching his fantasy destination.
His failure to reach the destination, finds something to accuse, other than the map in his own head....transferred on paper as map. In fact the traveller never rally wants to reach his destination....because he secretly fears it does not exist, so he enjoys travelling towards its hypothetical position because it gives him something to do, a purpose, and it helps him evade being disappointed and disillusioned by the reality of his goal.
The destination is an excuse to not give himself another destination; he uses it as an ambition that can never be fulfilled; always moving, travelling, never attaining....and then finding new destinations to attain.

Without the traveller the destination has no intrinsic value nor is it an intrinsic goal, an end. It is in the subjective traveller's mind where the goal and the end is created; but the end is really a new beginning, and the destination never lives up to the traveller's fantasies (projections, estimations) of it.  
Furthermore the geography is never static - not an absolute point in space/time...but it is dynamic....even if the map is static, with boundaries....because it is representational.
If the map is made by resistant materials it is possible for it to be obsolete...because the geography in constant movement. Therefore, new maps have to be drawn every so often - maps may be eternal, in theory, but the geography is not.

Meaning = how the points on the map inter-relate, representing geographical relationships. Matrices of distanced, terrain, etc. give the map's representation its meaning.
Truth = how accurate the map is in relation to the geography it approximates, and interprets in by reducing the geography to scale.

Nihilism = the inversion of the relationship between map and geography.
corrupting language the nihilists attempts to claim that the map is superior, or the standard, by which the geography ought to be evaluated. So, it is geography that must adjust to the map.
Over time, the map is so detached from reality that it represents a fantasy geography that exists only in the mind of those that have been indoctrinated and comforted by its representation.
The nihilist lies, if he wishes to travel to destinations in reality - he must come up with excuses and pretences to explain why he does not follow his own map.
In modern systems the traveller is sheltered from the consequences of living in accordance to his own private map....by accommodating his delusion - renaming and reinventing geography to agree with his fantasy map.
This is why concepts must remain vague, obscure, and occult - flexible to any desirable excuse and justification.
The hypocritical coward nihilist can define 'mountain', or 'river', for example using prose and artistic gibberish....so as to escape why his fantasy world does not correspond to an actual world. his definition and description obscure and mystical to imply; never being precise and clear.
The use of absolutes, the super-natural, the surreal, can redefine geography in mystical ways. Geography acquires a occult meaning. Nothing is as it seems, and what is not seen - experienced - is more real than what is seen and experienced.
A post-truth era.

*'Meaning' is about our abstractions agreeing with a standard.
If we are realists then the standard is the indifferent world.
If we are ideological then the alignment the agreement is with a theory, described and defined in text.
For something to have meaning is to have a relationship with an external standard.
I use the triangulation of subject/object and objective, or idea.
A statement has meaning when the subject linguistically connects his own goals within the world which is independent from them.
A idealist does not sue world as his standard for finding meaning. He uses text, or connects his won language with that of another language, in relation to his goals.  
This is why I describe such minds as children of the Book, by the Book, for the Book. None of it connects with sensually perceived reality...it is entirely enclosed in semiotics.
The indifferent world is replaced by a text. this is common among Abrahamics that have a sacred Script which replaced reality, i.e., the Old and New Testaments - and if these are discredited they simply replace that text with other, usually some famous idol or icon, such as Nietzsche.
Their reverence is transferred to his text, representing his perspective which may or may not be in reference to world.
The meaning of words adjust: no longer connecting the abstraction (noumenon) with an external appearance, presence (phenomenon), but noumena are reconnected to other noumena....words referring to more words. This is inter-subjectivity. A subjective mind using another subjective mind as a standard for evaluating meaning in relation to his goal....replacing an indifferent fluctuating, mostly unknown world, with another mind, which is more or less subjective but always has an intent. This is Abrahamic. Their one-god is the ultimate external conciousness with an intent.
So, when Nietzsche discredited Abrahamism, through his critique of Christianity, this was a seminal and traumatic event for those minds born and raised to be devout believers in Scripts.....so they attached themselves to his script, replacing the discredited text with his.
God's presumed absolute authority had to be substituted with another absolute authority...so many turned to Marxism, or to monism, both replacing a anthropomorphic authority with a vague, idealogical one - an abstraction.  
The need for an external authority is so strong that the mind must replace what is lost with something new, and perhaps superior.    
This external authority acts as a repository for the individual's negativity, his uncertainty, his fears, his responsibility....the individual remains in a state of infancy; innocent, irresponsible for its own fate, able to reject the negative repercussions of its own actions, while enjoying and accepting full credit for the positive ones.
Like God....he is an ambiguity, an idea, through which goodness and evil can be explained....and in Abrahamism god is good, so man enjoys goodness, and blames evil on god's generosity, his goodness that allows evil as a way of appreciating goodness.
Is it not the Devil who is responsible for man's evil? He is innocent because he is ignorant of the devil's trickery. It is implied that existence is innocent and good, and only because of an error is evil introduced into it - an error allowed by god's goodness.  
we see this in a secular form when the universe is the absolute authority and man is described as void of free-will. Here evil can be blame don man's ignorance of universal order; all negativity is a product of this ignorance, which is, a form of innocence.

*Free-Will is not 'outside of causality'.
It participates as a intentional agency within causality.
We are not 'free from' causality, the past, but we are 'free to' make choices within the constraints of causality.
Language is trapped within absolutism - the binary either/or, 1/0 codes....which is based on cellular diastolic/systolic sequences. For a mind to think outside of these biological predispositions requires artistry; but artistry is dangerous because it can manufacture abstractions the mind finds preferable to the real, engrossing it in its own delusions. Man invents Laws of logic so as to discipline his own mind to the same limitation he perceives in the World and which he describes in his Laws of Nature, or Physics. This is what he calls determinism. The set of laws, describing interactivity (causality) and how these must limit its cognitive freedom from creating imaginary alternatives.
In this the proper definition of words is decisive. Even the meaning of the word 'definition' is to be defined in ways that adhere it to a perceived reality. The problem in this, is that man can then become trapped in his own self-restraints...for example assuming that the cosmos is absolutely ordered and governed by repeating, consistent, patterns - trapping itself in itself.
Man's subjectivity is trapped in order, because as an organism it can only perceive and evaluate patterns - and man's sciences are disciplines that assume this as being a universal truth - that everything (absolute) is ordered and can be understood and known.
In human spirituality we see this attempt to convert the mysterious to something understood, by suing nonsensical language mirroring the mysterious with mysticism. This mirroring implies that the mirror understands what it is imitating linguistically.    

Freedom is not an absolute detachment from causality, it is a participatory agency which evaluates options and then chooses in relation to an intent. The intent is where the individual is held responsible for his choices - here is shame and pride in relation to the consequences of these choices, which are not entirely - absolutely - known.
The causal chains converge in an individual - presenting themselves as options - where the individual's choice directs them towards other options; so the individual's will, participates in the deterioration of the next set of options - it is an intentional agency in the causal chain. It can choose other than what it chose in the past; it may even contradict its own impulses and choose in antithesis to them.

Freedom, as a concept requiring a definition, must begin, like all concepts, from the Bottom<>Up, i.e, from the active, the interactive, the observable.
So, we can only define 'freedom' accurately as the act of choice, without having to give it a absolute final, complete and final definition. Like reality we must keep out language open-ended; just as space/time is expanding our definitions, reflecting our knowing & understanding must be open to revisions....starting from a foundation. The foundation, for 'freedom' is the action of choice - an action we can observe, test, and falsify.  
We can now add 'will' to this by defining it using similar methods. Will, as I define it, is the focus of an organism's aggregate energies - both what it can perceive and has control over, and what it cannot control, and does not even know are there.
Will describes this focus of self, and not only ego, as the lucid part of self. I've given a definition of 'self' using the same method, i.e., as the continuum of memories (first and second hand; conscious and unconscious; DNA & Experienced), upon an objective.
The self is not a 'thing' but a process, and our awareness of self is but the tip of this process....for many a tiny one. Know thyself is about expanding this tip to become larger and so to gain more control over its own aggregate energies, or control over the continuum so as to direct it more responsively, more wilfully.

*Part of the data processing occurs outside the brain.
This data is transferred to the brain, via the nervous system, to produce mind.
This gives the mind the impression that another is intruding upon its will, when it is its own body.
Like a plant, the body is a processing sum of organs, interacting with environment. it is judging, without the aid of the brain.
This is why I say the body is more honest than the mind, which can lie. The body reacts to cold or heat, for example, before the brain interests this data as a temperature differentiation, in relation to the body's median temperature.
The fact that most of the data processing occurs prior to perception by the brain, gives the individual the impression that there's an external will involved.....when it is its own automated processes responsible for interpreting and reacting to external stimuli...before these are transferred to the brain.

*Self-Deception increases as intelligence rises - awareness rises exposing the individual to more probabilities/possibilities, increasing the sense of vulnerability; enabling it to compare self with other, increasing insecurity.
Nihilism becomes a defensive reaction protecting the concious part of self - ego - from this insecurity/vulnerability. The more the mind is aware of the consequences of its own choices and actions, the more it is likely to seek refuge in denying free-will, as a defensiveness. The easiest way to do this is linguistically - by defining concepts, such as 'free-will', or 'god', or 'sex' etc. in ways that make them negative or that projects them outside existence where they can remain theoretical, ideological (abstract) and easily dismissed, or equalized with other ideologies and theories.

The conventional utility of words has become so convoluted that a statement of fact, and an expression of personal conviction and of certainty, is mistaken for an absolute.
Nobody can show an absolute but all can speak of it, and think it, and feel it - noumenon/phenomenon relationship.

The same occurs with many other words, like 'truth'.
Spinoza claims that the term 'god', as it was used in the Old and New Testaments, has a similar source in human conventional use mistaken for an absolute fact.He claims that the term 'god' was used among the Semites, to indicate great, or extraordinary...just as 'mother' or 'father' may be used to indicate source or size 'mother of all battles' the Arabs - a Semitic tribe - call any battle that will be great. If taken literally, as it may be after centuries of sue, it may be mistaken to indicate a parenthood, as the original battle of all battles.

'Truth' is a reference to a perspective, and is often mistaken for a universal truth, because it refers to an unquestionable fact - an ephemeral relationship - or it projects the immediate as a universal rule.
It is often used to replace 'absolute', as the unquestionable, indivisible, immutable, eternal, singular perspective - an allusion to god. A truth that will endure time and space, referring to a relationship between indivisible, immutable, eternal phenomena.
A snapshot of reality, is declared to be an eternal truth, when a moment later the same relationship no longer is true, and a new truth has replaced it, because 'truth' always refers to a perspective - a subjective, interpretation of a perceived relationship between two, or more, phenomena.

Here the misuse, the conventional use, or words acts as a hindrance to clarity, because conventional use is only interested in the momentary utility of a perspective, and does not concern itself with what will be a moment from a 'now', or 'here', or a week from it, or a year form it or a century from it. It only cares about an arbitrary part of space/time, enclosed within vague space/time boundaries of utility, or what is immediate.

This is how a nihilist can intentionally cloud a concept by switching form the metaphysical to the physical, from the eternal to the ephemeral; back and forth, up and down, from physics to metaphysics.....I've called it see-sawing.
If cornered in the physics area it switches to convoluted prose about the metaphysics...and if the coast is clear and it feels safe, no threat in sight, it returns to the physics, claiming that its prose apply to it.
If cornered it will claim that it never meant it in the way, and that it was misunderstood - the advantage of using prose and poetics when expressing 'truths'.
It's also why not defining the words you use is preferable to pseudo-intellectual twits who are only interested in their ego and what an impact it will make among simpletons.

It's why years ago I posted all the words i would be using and my definition of them.
Definitions that were rooted in experienced reality, and that could be challenged and an alternative offered as superior.
The most common justification for the misuse, and abuse of words, and the absence of definitions, is nihilism. There is on absolute, becomes a reason why all is plausible; all definitions good enough.

The deciding factor is motive.
If engaging reality is the motive, then clarity and proper use of terminology, is essential, but if the motive is political, or egotistical, then clarity is undesirable in the pursuit of seducing, manipulating and exploiting stupidity. The opposite, in fact is best.
Obscurity, vagueness, best serves the purposes of political and psychological manipulation. Clarity would be detrimental to its aims.

1+1=2, suffers from the same as the statement 'all bachelors are unmarried'.
The former being more abstract and so more difficult to discern what it already presumes, and what the source of this presumption is.
A similar source as in 'there are absolutely no absolutes', and 'truth is there are no truths'.

All simpletons always use one of these examples to support their belief in absolutes.  A secret yearning for the one-god, supposedly declared dead by Nietzsche, most of who, ironically, have become devout followers of.
This is exactly what transpired in Fight Club - the movie.
The liberated surrendered their will to the one that freed them from social convections.  
It's the root of the Messianic Complex.

If Sartre said anything that was of any value then it can only be found when he spoke about 'freedom'.  



This would include what he fails to do.
The other's choices do not absolve the individual of his own responsibility - accountability to his own ancestors - in rare cases of nobility - but primarily to himself.




This would include choices made by you and those made for you, which you've accepted and adopted as if you were the one who chose.
To will is to choose. It does not mean to simply declare and to passionately believe, with absolute conviction - this is Abrahamic faith.
'Will to Power' is a continuous sequence of choices that empower you, i.e., multiply the choices you can make. Not a final and complete state of being, but a continuous struggle - agon.



A hopeless slave, who seeks relief in degeneracy to numb his desperation, is the one who has entirely dismissed freedom an illusory - self-comforting, self-deceit.
If anything accurately defines "herd psychology" then it is this duplicitous denial of any degree of freedom; of the very idea of it.
To be 'chosen' as a salve would be at the market; and to find some pride in this decrepitude.

How does a nihilist find an escape in linguistics?
He defines concepts, such as 'freedom', and 'will', in ways that places them 'outside,' or 'beyond,' or 'underneath,' the experienced - he defines them out of existence, using word-games to find relief from his own condition, i.e., from himself, and his own poor judgements and choices - his own inferiority of mind and spirit.
By defining concepts in supernatural ways, he excuses himself from their attainment.
This can be done with any word, as words refer to concepts in the mind.
The definition is either entirely avoided, or it is retained in a perpetual state of obscurity, vagueness, poetics, so as to mean anything, to anyone, at any time - evading detection; or it is entirely fantastic, its attainment remaining impossible for all, finding relief in the parity of inevitable failure.
Nihilism is the greatest of all equalizers.
It fabricates universals.

Existence = dynamic interactivity.
Energy/Ενεργεια is the proper term. Including patterned (order) and non-patterned (chaos) interactivity. It implies a multiplicity which can only be conceptualized as a singularity and named - given a symbol to represent it as a singular idea.
All is process - at work - I the process of becoming - moving towards/away (momentum).
It is this objective world of dynamic interactivity which is interpreted by the subjective mind as kinds of matter/energy.

Proper terminology prevents the corruption of concepts by introducing into them the unjustifiable.
Proper use of words clarifies - distinguishes, separates into distinct categories so as to facilitate. understanding.  
Improper use of language does the opposite - it convolutes and hides, and so a subjective motive must be sought in the actor that chooses this misapplication of language.

For the nihilist it's easy, because it is easier to deny and reject and destroy than it is to affirm, and accept, and create.
To negate a word/symbol, and the concept it represents, the modern must simply define it out of existence, suing the top<>down method.
Don't even both with the concept, just focus on the word, and define it in a way which makes it idealistic, or supernatural, or entirely nonsensical.
Refuse to define a word using observable actions - interactions- and behaviours....just keep it theoretical, abstract, noetic and entirely disconnected from the observable experienced world.
Ironically this method also serves the 'positive nihilist', in the construction of absurdities, only he must reconnect them to positive emotions - like love - or sensations - like pleasure - or be flattering to the ego.
Refer and defer to conventional use, knowing that the mediocre will always adopt the easiest and most superficial definition available....and the most positive.

World's first sperm bank for HIV-positive donors launches in New Zealand aimed at fighting stigma surrounding the illness [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— BBC News (World) (@BBCWorld) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

When the very idea of 'health' has been corrupted, and denied meaning, and all mutations have been declared equally 'fit'.....then every disease is worth propagating.
This is how insane the west has become - zombified.

Words are words and deeds are deeds.

If you want to gauge the other's quality of mind, don't just listen to his words and how he uses them, but keep them in mind as you study his actions and the consequences they produce.
Then compare the two.

Language is art.
Words are representations of mental abstractions, i.e., ideals sensations, concepts, feelings etc.
representation of esoteric processes.
These abstractions are the product of a reaction to external stimuli, coupled with internal stimuli, synthesized into singularities and then, as was said, represented by sounds, or shapes, with specific patterns, we call language.

Some of them are entirely products of esoteric stimuli, some are dominated by esoteric stimuli but incorporate stimuli from external sources; then there are those with an opposite essence, dominated by exoteric stimuli but invigorating esoteric ones, and those entirely based no exoteric stimuli. The last we call empirical, or objective.
The first being a description of solipsism or detachment from reality.

This quadrant of possible admixtures is what participates in semiotics.
how then to evaluate and to discriminant which is which and to what degree?
Best way is application of a judgement, measured against expectations. But this is risky and always costly - trial and error is the lowest form of consciousness.
Te second is to study their application by others...suing test subjects, specimens, proxies. Science uses this routinely.
The third is to juxtapose the abstraction with reality, over a span of time, and by multiple subjects. This is the root of philosophy.
It can sample across space/time, and juxtapose multiple subjective evaluations with one another, in relation to a shared reality.

When language is rendered nonsensical, and the masses are convinced something profound is hidden in the gibberish, they will be enslaved to 'authorities' that must intervene to decipher the void of meaning lingo.
Language was originally how a mind engaged reality, and shared it....but when all words are mystified and converted to obscurantist triggers the masses are entirely dependent no 'authorities" to perceive the world they exist within....having been told that the perceived world is an illusion and that a deeper, more meaningful world exist "underneath" - if not 'beyond and "above" - requiring a mediating guide.
The very notion of homoioi is eradicated.
It becomes a society of priest and messianic manipulation.

Ideologies and spiritual dogmas based on abstractions with no references to reality, sell codependency as par of their meme's self-maintenance and reproductive strategy.
The world is placed outside 'existence, in a noetic sphere, only accessible mentally with a proper guide who knows the 'specialized lingo' and how to define the terminology.
Individuals are made to not trust their own senses, or their own judgements, because what they see is not reality, or a veil hiding the more 'real' reality, or is but a small insignificant part of reality.
If they are convinced they become complete dependent on texts that describe the occult reality, or on socialists that can describe it for them.
Concepts cannot be independently corroborated or falsified, because everything real must be engaged via an authority - priestly - who is, theoretically, unmotivated by anything but the pursuit of truth and knowledge, and he is not, himself, not mentally and psychologically corrupted or insane.

Whoever buys into this, is himself corrupted and insane.

I always said that whatever insight is of any value can be validated independently bu those it has affected, and afterwards it liberates the minds form the individual who was the source of the insight.

The world is full of meaning, and it does not require a god to be objective; nor is meaning arbitrary and subjective, but its evaluating and perception is.
But if the word - any word - is intentionally defined out of existence then it will be a meaningless term for minds that are desperate for meaning.
Just like 'god', and 'man', and 'value', and 'truth', and 'morality', and 'free-will' have been defined to make them nonsensical abstractions no mind can ever find in reality.
The nihilists wants the world to be a nil if its previously presumed oneness has excluded him/her, or has disappointed him/her in some way. His self-hatred and resentment urges him to seek vengeance in words trying to negate a reality that has failed to live up to his naive idealistic expectations.  

The world is full of meaning, because meaning simply indicates relationships - inter-connections of quantity & quality - and how the apparent inter-relates, and the degree to which they do so - because meaning is present, and fluctuating....never static, never an absolute, a given.
But that's not the kind of meaning the Modern seeks, craves, demands....and if he cannot have it then he'll declare himself the source of meaning, so as to dismiss and escape the matrices that surround and bind him - to his peril. The consequences of which he'll project upon another,or he will demand the other share in enduring their burden.

It isn't the world that is meaningless but the word. The word has been rendered meaningless.
Nihilists are trapped in their own linguistics.

Similarly, the word 'morality' does not require a absolute authority a god, to have meaning, and in the absence of a absolute authority morality is not a arbitrary subjective preference.
If the word is defined properly it refers to an objective fact; a perceptible, behaviour, that crosses species, indicating a functionality that explains why it evolved.
Morality means a behaviour that facilitates cooperative strategies, such as heterosexual reproduction, but also social behaviour, and this is why we observe this morality only among social species.

If man added to this his own socially derived rules - ethics - is part of the gene/meme continuum.
Confusing one for the other, or flipping them so as to imply that morality comes to us from a divine source, is idiocy, if it is not part of an intentional hypocrisy rooted in cowardice.

Man drifts further and further away from nature, by immersing himself with externalizations of his own mind- i.e., technologies.
Eventually he becomes convinced the world has always been like he made it, his externalized noetic representations engulfing him in artificiality.
Philosophy reflected this with the accumulation of terms that were entirely noetic, abstract, representing mental abstractions and nothing else besides.

As a result philosophy has become less and less pragmatic and rational, and more and more psychological and political.
Its descriptions increasingly not about existence and reality, but only about human existence and human realities.
Philosophy has become esoteric, no longer connected with the external; describing and formulating ways of conceptualizing concepts, idealizing ideas, and abstracting abstractions.
This is reflected externally through art - or fArt, as I call it. It is no longer about reality and man's relation with it, but about man's projections of his reactions of reality, and how it relates with those of another.

The gradual disassociation of philosophy from its subject - i.e., world, reality and man's place within it - is also reflected in the current dissociation of minds from their own biological forms, their own bodies.
Like identity, philosophy has become a description of the theoretical, the noetic, the idealistic, and less about reality and man's place in it, and his relationship with it.
Language has become increasingly incomprehensible because it is no longer grounded in a shared reality, but it requires specialized knowledge requiring specialized lingo to describe an alternative reality existing only within the minds of the initiated and the faithful.

Urbanization has created man-made environments, populated by man-made caricatures existing within man-made circumstances, and philosophy has been reshaped by this artificiality, requiring new linguistic forms to describe a man-made environment and the circumstances that cannot exist outside man-made structures.

Evolution of language.

It’s curious how names of Greek philosophic schools have survived in our modern language(s) with meanings that seem to have no connection with the originals.

Sophistry. Sceptical. Cynical. Epicurean. Stoical.

Probably more examples?

— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

“ The first realism in politics is to get to know the demons hidden behind words.” Bonnard was a great French writer w/good insight into pathology of Liberalism. Stripped off by the Allies (De Gaulle) in 1945 of all his academic titles. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Tom Sunic (@Tom_Sunic) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Allegory of the Trojan Horse

α-λογο = horse - that which is without logos, or that which negates logos.
The Greeks gave a gift - playing on Trojan vanity. The occult always presents itself as a flattering gift.
The horse conceals humans - a motive. That which cannot reveal motive or lacks it, conceals, in its belly, a multitude of motives, which are contrary to the insinuations of a gift.
The horse is artificial - a bloated representation of the real. A hyperbole - exceptional supernatural gifts hiding occult meanings and motives.
It delivers the opposite of what it implies - the motive hidden in its belly, is revealed in the dark of night, when the revealing sun is set.

A metaphor for the hyperbolic positive rational, that cannot speak it's own name, hiding an ulterior motive that reveals itself under cover of darkness.

Meta-Narrative
A symbols - such as a word, representing the rational, albeit in extraordinary proportions, may conceal the irrational.
A ruse to overcome the city's defences - its scepticism - using vanity, its weakness.
The irrational gains legitimacy by the inflated rational and it is concealed by it. If it is discovered it will use the extraordinary rational, to conceal the irrationality at its core, manipulating human weakness to overcome doubt.

In a similar way the oculist meme - nihilistic - may present itself as a gift, of extraordinary proportions, hiding an irrational core, and a motive. The irrational is concealed in the rational, using it as justification when it is exposed.
The horse - unable to reveal motive - is a synthesis of rational and irrational which become integrated - the latter gaining what it lacks in evidence and arguments from the former.
This is how superstitions are built. A supernatural, extraordinary representation of the rational - a living organism which cannot reveal a motive - concealing in its belly, its core, a human motive in the form of the irrational which cannot be rationalized, proven, experienced but only concealed as a hidden gift which is the opposite of what it pretends to be.
Another word can be used to replace the word 'horse'.

I've written extensively what my positions are on how language can be used and abused, to repeat and to repackage the same ideas, presented as if they were new an improved.
Why would such a method even work?

It's simple.....the human being does not evolve as fast as a technology evolves - a meme is faster than a gene.
The same psychological factors that seduced the individual and made him curb his scepticism and reasoning to accept superstitions and ideologies that we now consider overcome have not disappeared.
humans still need the same convenient and comforting lies. They need final and flattering answers.
They need metaphysical certainty, to deal with their uncertain private lives.
So the same concepts will work, if they are spruced up and updated to incorporate more complex knowledge.

Humans need to believe in a plausible lie, in order to convince themselves that they are doing so for rational and not emotional reasons.

There are no innately right or wrong behaviours.
All value judgements are triangulations between objective, subjective and ideal, where ideal is the goal, the motive.
The word 'value' only has meaning within this context.
All behaviours based on this triangulation are to be judged in relation to the goal, but the goal must be judged in relation to the world.
Not all goals are realistic, but can be idealistic, and not possible within this world.

Behaviours can be judged on two levels - in relation to its own states motive, and the motive in relation to the hared world.
Christians, for example, can be judged in relation to their own beliefs, their won ideals, their own stated goals, and how they fail or succeed to realize them. they can then also be judged in relation to a shared world, and how this goal relates to it. Is it even possible, or is the goal an ideal, that can never be realized; the goal never reached?  
Then we must discover why such ideals come to be, and what is the motive beneath their motives.

An objective evaluation of the other's subjective judgement can begin with his evaluation in relation to his own objectives, his own goals, and then the evaluation of those goals in relation to reality to determine how probable they are and what consequences their attainment will produce - mostly the negative because the positive are already part of the subjective judgement otherwise it would not be held as a desirable objective.

It all comes down to how we conceptualize order, or name it 'nature', to replace the term 'god'.
As a version of god, an absolute law giver, or as a process which is not entirely ordered?

Laws, in any context, only describe a human relationship with an external order - an other.
Chaos cannot be given laws, for that would contradict its chaotic nature.

When we speak of 'laws of nature' we are describing God's laws.
We are referring to man's understanding, governed by an underlying pattern - a rule. We are describing man's interpretations and relationship with reality; with what is other than himself. Unavoidably self is used as a standard. The continuum of self is projected as space/time continuum.
Man recognizes what he knows of himself, in what is other than himself.
Man is order, and so he perceives order in relation to his own.

Chaos is entirely incomprehensible to man. He calls it 'chance' to describe what he cannot predict because it is inconsistent, implying that it hides a pattern, a consistency, which he cannot, yet, perceive.
Man presupposes order, even where he cannot perceive it, because his survival depends on it.
When he says 'all is subjective' he is admitting that he is incapable of conceiving the objective world - the objective world can only be imagined as an absolute state of order so complex that he finds comfort in the fact that nobody can conceive it.
In this limit he finds comfort. Parity in ignorance.  
Unable to perceive and conceive absolute order - because it is absent - he settles for the easier to achieve submission to absolute ignorance of absolute order - his faith that it exists and that all are equally subordinated to it; all are equally ignorant of its presence.

Omnipotence is not simply a degree of measuring weakness, it is an ideal that does not exist outside the human mind; projecting a goal to relieve the awareness of self as lacking.

Objectivity can be understood in a similar manner, as the ideal, measuring subjectivity, and what is lacking.
In the context of objectivity we only include what can be known, based on what is known, so we presuppose that omniscience is possible, implying that all is ordered and can be reduced to a set of laws.

Individualism, as we intuitively grasp its meaning, is any life form that can think and use language.

Logos, the ability to use language or some level of semiotics, is for Americanism, the lowest-common-denominator. It is what separates man from beast and what unifies mankind as a singular unity.
“First came the word…”, and the word is the last. Alpha & Omega.
For the Modern secular Abrahamic, the Old Testament still holds true. It is the foundation of his being, the root of his identity.

McGilchrist, Iain wrote:

Jung said that ‘all cognition is akin to recognition’.7 By this he meant that we come to know in the sense of ‘cognise’ (wissen) something only by recognising (erkennen) something we already knew (kennen). In the process it becomes clear, familiar, where before it was latent, intuitive. This is, I believe, an expression of the same process that Goldberg and Costa describe at the neurological level; the new becomes old. In fact Nietzsche goes further and seizes the nub of the matter, when he expresses a similar idea: ‘it is through “knowing” [erkennen, re-cognition] that we come to have the feeling that we already know [wissen] something; thus it means combating a feeling of newness and transforming the apparently new into something old.

Knowing is a re-cognition in the sense that it is he continuous juxtaposition of what is perceived, sensually, with what is stored in memory.
This continuous process differentiates based no similarities which are then sued to create understanding, and to make the necessary connections to produce meaning.

McGilchrist, Iain wrote:

Here I take Joseph Koerner's recent magisterial treatment of Reformation theology, politics and philosophy through their relationship with the visual image, with symbolism, and with the written word, as a major source (there is no comparable work that so intelligently links these different aspects of Reformation culture). The problem of the Reformation was, according to Koerner, one of ‘either/or’, a ‘hatred based on the absolute distinction between truth and falsehood’. Because of the inability to accept the ambiguous or metaphorical, and because of a fear of the power of the imagination, images were objects of terror. Statues had to be reduced to ‘mere wood’. In fact the supposed ‘idolaters’ never had believed they were worshipping statues – that self-serving fiction existed only in the minds of the iconoclasts, who could not understand that divinity could find its place between one ‘thing’ (the statue) and another (the beholder), rather than having to reside, fixed, in the ‘thing’ itself. Luther himself said as much: ‘I believe that there is no person, or certainly very few, who does not understand that the crucifix that stands over there is not my God – for my God is in Heaven – but rather only a sign.’

[The Master and His Emissary - The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World]

McGilchrist, Iain wrote:

What Koerner's book demonstrates at length and in detail is the way in which the Reformation replaces presentation with re-presentation (in the terms of this book, replaces the right-hemisphere realm with the left-hemisphere realm). What is experienced by the observer (itself a telling concept) is transposed to the meta-level. One well-known work approved by the Reformers, and emanating from their spirit, appears to deny the possibility that the work of art could be something greater than its transposition into verbal meaning: ‘its surfaces support words while its depths are filled only with what words refer to’. In such a canvas, ‘the choirboys sing from a hymnal displaying neither the text nor the music of their song, but the biblical command requiring them to sing. Words bathe in the grey light of what seems a useless significance.’

[The Master and His Emissary - The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World]

The connection with nihilism is most evident.

McGilchrist, Iain wrote:

This is the era of the triumph of the written word, and words actually acquire the status of things. (I am reminded of Sam Johnson's wise admonition that ‘words are the daughters of earth’, whereas ‘things are the sons of heaven’.) ‘In Protestant culture’, writes Koerner, ‘words acquired the status of things by their aggressive material inscription.’ A compendium of consoling sayings consists mostly of ‘sayings about sayings’. It is fascinating that the way to get the meaning across is apparently to repeat the words endlessly, drumming it further and further into the realm of the over-familiar, again the domain of the left hemisphere. For example, the words verbum Domini manet in aeternum (‘the word of the Lord shall endure for ever’ – yet a further element of self-referentiality) became so familiar that it was reduced to the acronym VDMIE. (Note that these acronyms start with Roman bureaucracy (e.g. SPQR) and are, I would say, a hallmark of the bureaucratic mind – look at modern officialdom.) The letters VDMIE were embroidered and reproduced endlessly, ultimately becoming, despite the Reformers, a totemic, apotropaic device, a talisman with the status of an idol, as the reified words in their abbreviated form become the only available ‘thing’ for the sacred to attach to.
As Koerner puts it, ‘materialised for display, words become objects of ritual action'; a point also made by Kriss-Rettenbeck: ‘the word freezes into an idol’. I would say that the abbreviations, like the impatient reduction to ‘etc.’ (‘the lamb of God, etc.’), betray the boredom and ultimate emptiness that attaches to signifiers that refer only to themselves, that have departed into the realm of the inauthentic through over-familiarity.
Pictures were defaced, often replaced by boards with written texts, and sometimes actually written over: a concrete expression of the triumph of language. To detached observation the rituals of Catholicism, lacking speech, cultivating rather what has to remain imprecise, implicit, but richly metaphorical, became ‘senseless and indecipherable’. ‘Image-breakers ceaselessly say that images cannot speak’: their failing is their silence. They do not use words.
These different ways of looking at the world – ‘proclamation’ of the word versus ‘manifestation’ of the divine – are aligned with hemisphere differences. As Ricoeur demonstrated, the ‘emergence of the word from the numinous is … the primordial trait’ that differentiates proclamation from manifestation. For ‘emergence of the word from the numinous’ read the triumph of the left hemisphere over the right.
At this time, according to Koerner, pictures become ‘art’, moved out of their living context in worship, to an artificial context where they can become allowable and safe, with frames round them (often pictures had literally to be reframed because of the exigencies of smuggling them away from the iconoclasts to safety).

[The Master and His Emissary - The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World]

Nihilistic inversions.

McGilchrist, Iain wrote:

In essence the cardinal tenet of Christianity – the Word is made Flesh – becomes reversed, and the Flesh is made Word.

[The Master and His Emissary - The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World]

That it harmonized with Judaism to construct present day Judeo-Puritan Americanism is made clear in the above quotes. The theoretical (noetic) 'god-like' power of the nil.
Once Protestantism rejected the Aryan (pagan) elements Catholicism & Orthodoxy had integrated into their own nihilistic spirituality – by corrupting and warping them – it found harmony with Judaism which had already rejected and rebelled – refusing to even attempt to integrate what was entirely alien and antithetical to it. Liberalism emerges from this synthesis, casting aside its primal veneer to become pure abstraction – secular.

McGilchrist, Iain wrote:

Separating words from their referents in the real world, as post-modernism does, turns everything into a nothing, life itself into a game.

Once Protestantism rejected the Aryan (pagan) elements Catholicism & Orthodoxy had integrated into their own nihilistic spirituality – by corrupting and warping them – it found harmony with Judaism which had already rejected and rebelled – refusing to even attempt to integrate what was entirely alien and antithetical to it. Liberalism emerges from this synthesis, casting aside its primal veneer to become pure abstraction – secular. In effect Protestantism ‘protested’ and rebelled against what remained of Catholicism’s connections to reality, which was the foundation of its earthly authority.

An anti-Semite is someone who They don’t like.

Former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovosky explains how they use this term as a weapon.[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— E. Michael Jones (@EMichaelJones1) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

In the Anglo-sphere - a.k.a. American global influence - words are weapons and tools for manipulating public sentiments.
'Nazi' is now establishes as the 'scarlet lettering' of silencing and stoning.

Defining words 'out of existence' - i.e., redefining them to become abstract, mystical and ideological - does not only 'liberate' them from pragmatism and experienced reality, it also obscures the meaning of concepts, denying them clarity and a tangible connection to the lived world.
As I've noted, this method allows the mind to reconnect them as part of a communal project - a humanitarian goal - with their own emotions and abstractions - creating inter-subjective alternate realities.
Absurdity is clouded in clouds of vagueness, where even logical contradictions can be synthesized and merged into obscure concepts.
Reasoning is given a reason to either deny its own skepticism or to inflate it to place all in an equal footing of possibilities.
Selective reasoning can now shamelessly express its private motives denying an objective external standard and accusing all of being equally guilty of the same - equally sinful, equally weak and ignorant. Equal in nil.
The absence of 'god' corresponds with the absence of absolutes of any type - oneness, Being, omnipotence, free-will, omniscience, self....any term can be given an absolute meaning to then discredit it.
Its the either/or mind-set.
If not absolute truth then absolute non-truth - the binary of decadence and degeneracy.

Words lose meaning coming from the brains of post-modern imbeciles.
Race, sex, Nazi, truth, freedom...all words become meaningless coming from their minds.

They use them as accusation, throwing them upon others, to unburden themselves from the contradiction between their ideals and their own impulses - they project the negative in themselves as a shaming accusation of others.
They are convinced that in this way they are disarming all those who are reminding them of the world's indifference and 'cruelty' - nature's unfairness - believing that if they silence or destroy those voices the world is also changed, and that it no longer is indifferent and unfair.

Their own internal contradictions between what they think they are and what they intuitively know they are, is cleansed through this method of verbal projection.
They cannot understand others, so they use self, and what they know is contrary in themselves, to their own ideologies, as a weapon - essential they attack their own projections of their own 'negative' impulses, or the feelings thoughts, actions that continuously contradict their idealized sense of self.
Psychologically speaking, these simpletons do us a favour. They validate what we already know they hide in the depths of their pretentious, self-deceiving minds. Their attacks on us are really self-revelatory, telling us what they secretly fear they are 'guilty' of; casting upon us their own shame so as to feel proud of themselves.
They need this self-cleansing and become obsessed with unloading.
They are telling us what they secretly think of themselves, because they cannot separate sympathy/antipathy from empathy. Others are reflections of themselves, because they cannot set aside their own self-interests and emotions to perceive the other objectively - they are trapped in inter-subjectivity.
The other falls into the either/or binary of nihilism.
They are either a reflection of their own idealized self - perfect, clean, pure, beautiful, good, in every way, or the other becomes a repository of all the negatives they cannot admit about themselves.