Nihilism

Nihilism = absence of absolutes - including Abrahamic god - universal ethics, a cosmic purpose to justify need/suffering, considered a 'negative' rather than a 'positive,' giving space and credence to man's agency - his free-will.

Nihilism = a reaction to man's merging self-cosnciuosness - As man begins to know himself he experiences a second source of need/suffering, in addition to the physical, he experiences mental despair, psychological insecurity brought about by objectivity, intruding upon his animalistic subjectivity - blissful ignorance; the innocence of beasts where ignorance is equated with innocence - loss of innocence as described in biblical narratives as the 'loss of paradise,' i.e., Eden.
Religious nihilism, i.e., Abrahamism, Buddhism, progresses towards ideological nihilism - spiritual to secular - i.e., Marxism, Postmodernism.
Nihilism is the mental disease parasitically exploited by Abrahamism, selling abstract nullifications of existence in the form of a 'corrective alternative,' a 'healing of the world.'

Positive nihilism offers cosmic corrections that nullify existence, whereas pure negative nihilism embraces the nil, and worships it as the world's correction through its destruction.
Binary = 1/0 - one/nil - two sides of the same absolutist nihilistic coin, offering redemption.
Coin = a representational code of exchange sanctioned by the collective through a human authority, abstracted into a divine being.
Being correcting becoming.

Nihilism is seductive to the vulnerable, the lost, the desperate - and all men experience this at some point in their lives, most becoming trapped there for a lifetime.
Despair finds comfort in degeneracy - hedonism for its own sake.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Lack of trust both in other people and in oneself increases the need for nihilism - the foundation of Abrahamic religions.

Nihilism evolves.....and due to its method it can evolve into a multiplicity of forms.
Its only restriction is human imagination and its appeal to a multiplicity - it must construct alternatives that will seduce, coerce, bribe, as many desperate degenerates as possible, because it needs to construct and maintain an alternate reality within a world it rejects and wishes to "correct" or "escape" linguistically.
The range of its power is determined by the range of its linguistic appeal - popularity.

This is a difficult task to start anew, so most variants are adjustments of pre-existing, established, tried and tested nihilistic dogmas/ideologies: Abrahamism is not replaced but adapted, replacing its tropes - the words/symbols associated with them - with new updated ones.
The words/symbols change - are upgraded - but their references remain the same, offering the same relief to the same types of psychologies dealing with the same kind of insecurities/anxieties.

Abraham's 'god concept' did not die, it changed names and garments; its messiah concept did not perish, nor did its eternal life, and innocence....they simply changed monikers; evil/good were not transcended they were baptized and reborn using updated imagery, e.g., Nazis, left/right...

Political Nihilism

Man, as with a wolf pack, has a social Hierarchy that is represented by Politics. The 'average' male becomes subordinated to the pack's morality and social behaviors. Most males cannot survive alone, so need the pack to survive. A small minority of males, more resilient/cunning/stronger can survive alone, and this lends to attitudes of Indifference and Choice. A small subsection of males are 'free' (to leave), while most are not. Most are Dependent.

Political-Left = State-worship, Statism
Political-Right = Church-worship, Religion

The political-Right's subversion and display of loyalty (to the Church) is much more obvious than the Left. The Abrahamic/Christian must prostrate and submit himself to God, and then, his "freedom" is granted back to him. This is the "Deterministic" ideology of humanity; a submission and admitted inferiority to "God".

The political-Left's subversion is more cunning, manipulated by "Secular" tactics, which offers "freedom" through a proposed Individuality/Independence, which is actually fueled by Commercialism and Manufactured Consent (Bernays). The Left are lulled and lured into a false-freedom, the sense that they are "in control" while they actually have no real power, politically, socially, culturally, or practically. This is why America, the "Freest" country in human history supposedly, has almost none of its inhabitants supporting "Free-Will" when confronted intellectually. They don't actually believe in Free-Will....because they are Not free. This immediately bleeds into the notion of victim-mentality, who can be the biggest victims, and therefore 'win' the State's rewards, monetary, culturally, welfare. The Left is sold its own Slavery; and there is never a shortage of demand for it (false security).

By comparison, the Statist approach is more sophisticated and nuanced, yet perhaps more extensive in its Deprivations. Because believing you are free, when you're not, is the most dangerous proposition, by comparison to the Right where their subservience is an act of Admittance, and even Pride. The Right are proud to be Slaves to God. The Left is never proud, not even when they gain majority control of their society's political control.


In both cases, Nihilism is stoked by a deprivation of Meaning and Purpose in life. The Right admit this by being 'assigned' their purpose from God. They admit, if there were no God, then their lives would be purposeless. So this Nihilism is more obvious. But the Left, believe that their service to the State, is the essence of their lives. To be...a policeman, a soldier, a doctor, an engineer, to have a "job" is where the brunt of the meaning of their lives is. So think this through...if a society is healthy, then the doctor grows bored. If a society is lawful, then the policeman grows bored. If a society is peaceful, then a soldier grows bored. The traditional 'purpose' and meaning of a Statist's life is measured by the demand of their Job within it. So a more successful society, fulfilled, Abundant, becomes nihilistic, and then decadent/hedonistic. Its previous 'purpose' in life, its previous jobs, previous meaning, all are dependent on the demands by the State. Without this demand, there is no Meaning, no Purpose.

This is the political Left's spiritual antagonism and aggravation, which cannot be sated.

Just as they are not Free, so too do they have no "real" meaning nor purpose in life.

The Left, as with the Right, are dependent upon a "higher power" to grant them such, hence their name: Proles.

Whatever diverts or directly contradicts the collective narrative - the core principles of Americanism and nihilism - is dismissed as a expression of hatred or fear - a phobia.
This is how they project the motived underlying their acquiescence and parroting of shared, comforting, lies.
Reality itself is now approached with great anxiety, so that when someone exposes it, they are accused of being afraid of the myths constructed to protect the collective from it.
Reality is reduced to a moral issues - meaning a collective agreement, a shared myth, only haters and those fearful of the collective would expose as a shared lie.
For the collective everything must become a lie, or a social construct, so as to conceal their own convictions and their underlying motives.

Ironically – irony being a linguistically based paradox – the source of modern/postmodern nihilism, in the so-called western world, is the spiritual child of Abrahamism, against which the Renaissance rebelled and eventually supplanted, replacing tis terminologies and eliminating its unnecessarily divisive god concept. What they resisted and replaced was the last barrier to uniform universality, substituting the concept with the biologically founded concept of humanity, i.e., humanism. The measure of all things would be human, rather than the cultural idealization of human, i.e., god. Yet, humanity may have been more inclusive but it no longer sufficed – following the logic of its own dogma – because it maintained a speciation exclusivity founded no logos: man had a soul because only man could speak; whereas other species were excluded simply because they could not use nor appreciate logos. This final distinction had to be eliminated to achieve perfect uniform universality; perfect equality and equity. To dismiss this would be a contradiction of the values and principles inherent in Abrahamism and all forms of nihilism; secular or spiritual.
Today the one-god (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) has been replaced by humanity (Marxism, Socialism, and Trashumanism), and this has progressed to replacing humanity with a pure abstraction: oneness, wholeness, universe/universal, order etc. All concepts abstract enough to imply anything, and still maintain the idea of inclusivity, uniformity, universality – rejecting all concepts that imply some kind of distinction, and divisiveness, resulting in conflict and superior-inferior conclusion. At the same time what is excluded is chaos as its ‘evil’ antagonist – properly defined (evil excluded by its goodness) because all identities require an-other to define and to distinguish them as other-than.

12,000 years from now, someone will claim to have found the remains of the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.

— John Hoopes (@KUHoopes) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I can believe that comment below if we all turn into global citizens and IQ drops drastically....But I think that's very nihilistic to think that the best of mankind couldn't make a distinction between let's say Greek mythology vs Harry Potter

That's like saying 1000 years from now everyone will think hip-hop is classical music

And historical revisionism will claim Egypt was established by negroes, and some of Alexander's men were, in fact black, because they saw it in old movies.
Nihilism blurs the line between symbols/words and reality.
What is in the head - mind - is more real than what is in the world.

Why does Russia hate us so much? [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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

How to counteract every nihilistic variant, from Abrahamism to Marxism, and from Liberalism to Postmodernism:

Always begin with the act.
Even if not completely understood the act is observable, experienced, sensory.

First came the act.....language evolved later, to name the act.
The act is presence, perceived - subjectively interpreted - as appearance.
Everything apparent is significant....exposing the essence of otherness.

Appearance is not restricted to the visual, though for humans and many species, the visual is primary; but appearance includes all sensory input.

The unknown neither proves nor disproves anything.
Omniscience is not necessary for the establishment of probability, if it remains objective and not corrupted by subjective needs/desires.

If you were god, would you love everything?
Then what value would your love have?

Females are not supposed to lead; they follow and nurture what is provided to them. This makes them the perfect natural agencies; the perfect filters.
Women cannot innovate, because they cannot challenge authority - like nature; they can only contribute, make better, add, preserve, imitate.

God, as you understand the concept, does not exist; just as morality, the way you've been trained to understand the concept, does not exist; just as love, the way you've been trained to understand it, does not exist.
you've been brainwashed....or indoctrinated into a way of thinking.
Nihilism.
Abrahamic is the source of western nihilism; Marxism is its secular evolution.

A nihilist is a failed and disappointed idealist who, after wallowing in his disillusionments for a period of time has discovered a more certain telos, replacing a once positive ideal with the nil. His skepticism becomes an expression of his faith in what can never disappoint him.

Authoritarianism of the left: collectivism – truth through communal approval and decree, e.g., Catholicism, Islam, and Marxism.
Humanity is god, creator of worlds, giver of meaning and purpose.
In ancient times the ‘power of a god’ was measured by the number of people that worshipped her/him; a singular god is, therefore, an omnipotent god only if all worship it – inter-subjectivity. Collective might makes right.

Authoritarianism of the right: individualism – there is no truth, all is subjective. Every man lives in his own private reality exploiting those who do not, or cannot – dependence is a weakness that can be exploited.
Individual is god, channelling some divine power independent from all mediators, e.g., Judaism, Protestantism, Wokism, and Americanism.
An end of Abraham's totalitarian one-god implies that Humanity as god, is all that is left – to the left – therefore god's demise must be substituted with an absolute abstractions to maintain an independent connection to divine power that gives the individual his god-like powers – the individual is always right - to the right; every man a representation of the divine, creator of his own morals, truths, values. Individual might makes right.

Transcending Right/Left socioeconomic, political binaries.
Authority of Realism: synthesis, i.e., individual as extension of a collective.
Superior knowledge, understanding, applied and tested – precedent – increases authority. Authority is never absolute but limited, and contingent, requiring constant affirmation - meritocracy.
Reality, i.e., world, nature, is the final arbiter – indifferent and not entirely predictable, i.e., ordered. Right makes might.

Among the Left, their war against individuality is reflected in the "Anti-fascist" segment, Antifa, "against all Tyrants and Fascists" (who are Individuals).

While American Liberalism Ethos is steeped in the 'rugged cowboy individualist' and brave settlers, clearing the way to the West Coast, European Socialism crossed the Atlantic to New York and Washington DC...then the Marxists followed closely behind.

The 'culture war' in America is between individualism and society, how either can "determine" their future at odds with the other. Can America remain as an exaltation of Individualism, or will it collapse to these Socialist-Marxist-Communist alien forces, which desire at the root to impose their own Collectivism on top of America: Globalism?

The Globalist forces are prevailing, because there is nowhere left remaining for the American "individual" to back against a wall and fight. All spaces, and virtual spaces, are drying up.

Aurelius Marcus wrote:

If he is a stranger in the world who does not know what there is in it, no less of a stranger is he who does not know how things go in it.

Alienation is just as much a product of human interventions – ideologically, dogmatically attempting to humanize nature – as it is a product of individual choice, seeking a way to absolve oneself from responsibility.
Strangeness, weirdness, queerness becomes a badge of pride, when shame, and guilt, is what is being evaded.
An external factor, agency, cause, must become the liable factor for all that ails an individual’s life. They would rather remain strangers to existence than to accept responsibility for their own existence.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Defensive nihilism.
Unable to change the world physically, to accord with their ideal, they change their conception of the world in their mind, and then refuse to question themselves.
The idea of adapting oneself to the world is the mark of a degenerate that has given up and is now content o live in his head - demanding only that the social collective support and protect him as he turns inward.
All must become a social construct so as to justify this desire to change the world in the mind, linguistically, one word at a time.

‍�Norwegian left-wing party leader Bjørnar Moxnes resigned on Monday after stealing a pair of luxury sunglasses from Oslo airport.

-> Why would you risk your career for such a stupid thing … just pay $150 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

No shame.
No values other than degeneracy.
No ethics.

Materialistic, hedonistic with a sense of entitlement.
They deserve, without earning.

Connor, Cunningham wrote:

To need: Nothing

The One cannot be alone (this is also the case with Avicenna’s God, Henry of Ghent’s, Duns Scotus’, William of Ockham’s, Suarez,’ Spinoza’s, Kant’s and Hegel’s). If this is true, how will Plotinus account for that which is ‘produced’ without reducing the status of the One? In other words, how can the One remain One? This ancient problematic here gives rise to certain philosophical moves which predispose the generation of the aforementioned nihilistic logic. Plotinus develops a meontological philosophy in which non-being is the highest principle. The One is beyond or otherwise than being. This will, it is hoped, protect its simplicity. The consequence of such a move is a series of negations which will give rise to a fully immanentised realm, one that may accommodate the nihilistic logic of nothing as something.
We can identify at least four prophylactic negations. The first is that of ‘tolmatic’ language, which is to say, language that implies a fall from a state of grace: to be is to be fallen. Although Plotinus sets himself against the Gnostics on just this point, he cannot, it seems, help but utilise their logic of creation as a fallen state. By so doing, he ensures that that which is becomes subordinate to that which is not, a consequence to be continually repeated. The second negation arises because in simply not being the One that which is, is not: to be is not to be. So, all that which emanates from the One is nothing, because it has being. The third negation is the ‘negation of negation’: the ineluctable return to the One. This return, as has been said, in a sense precedes every exit. The fourth negation concerns a series of repetitions of the original negation of the One itself.
At some point each hypostasis imitates the One in its contemplative nonproduction of that which is. Plotinus, contra the Gnostics, relies on contemplation to engender production. But the nature of this contemplation is, in a sense, non-production, since being consults nothing (the One) and repeats nothing in the innermost core of everything.
Thus, that which proceeds from the One returns to the One – is always already returning. This desiring return is the contemplation of each emanation’s nothingness. In this way the return precedes every departure, for every departure is but the ‘embodiment’ of a return. But this provision will be incomprehensible unless we remember Hesiod. For it was in recalling the Theogony that we learnt of Kronos giving birth to sons within himself. Now we have also learnt that it is characteristic of both the One and the Soul to produce externally. Yet I have argued that we can only understand the emanation from the One as that which, in a sense, takes place within its cavernous belly. How is this reconcilable with the idea of external generation?
The One’s differentiation from all else cannot be spatial, for that would set something over and against it. So, difference must, it seems, take place within and through the One: ‘The One does not sever itself from it [all else], although it is not identical with it.’ (Hegel argues for a similar understanding in relation to the infinite and the finite.) Plotinus is unable to posit an ontological difference: we see this to the degree that the One can produce only one effect, doing so necessarily. That is to say, the One re-produces itself in every emanation: the One is non-being and being is not. In this way the One produces nothing ontologically different from itself. For all difference, that is, being, fails to register a real distinction between itself and its cause. Why? Because any reality a being might be said to have would be its non-being, for only the One’s nonbeing is truly real (or really real). Difference between the One and what falls beneath it is noticed only by an aspectual differentiation: like the aforementioned Gestalt effect of the duck-rabbit; but it must be remembered that both aspects manifest themselves on one picture.
Plotinus does hint strongly at the notion of a ‘cavernous’ – internal – provision, as he states that the universe is in the soul and that the soul is in the intelligible. For each causes only one effect which must remain immanent to the cause as a result of causation’s merely ontic logic. What is meant by this is that the One must look to an external logic, or rubric, which dictates and explains what difference is. In this way the One does not create, for the One cannot create difference, but must, instead, be protected from it. (It is argued in Part II that this is not the case for the Trinitarian God of Christian theology, for the Trinity creates difference from divine sameness.) Furthermore, Plotinus asserts that the ‘authentic [all] is contained within the nothing.’ Bréhier comments on this idea by speaking of the reabsorption of all into ‘undifferentiated being.’ So too does Bouyer. We know that for Plotinus the One is otherwise than being, and that every addition is from non-being.
Indeed, we have only been as persons because of non-being. This does suggest that the place of being is within the cavernous belly of non-being.
Plotinus calls the world the soul’s cave, and more pertinently he suggests that ‘to depart does not consist in leaving in order to go elsewhere.’ It seems that the many which flows from the fecundity of the One does so only within the One. Indeed, as Gilson suggests, that which is provided ‘loses itself in the darkness of some supreme non-being and of some supreme unintelligibility.’
One: Audacity
Let us take a closer look at the idea of the One. We know that what is outside the One, in tolmatic terms, is by way of a certain audacity, a wish to be apart from all else: To ‘desire to exist independently. It wearies of dwelling with another and withdraws into itself.’ These are, as Torchia points out, ‘illegitimate acts of self-assertion.’ This audacity is usually interpreted from the perspective of the One. But the positioning of the One as opposed to all else below is more ambiguous. The One (like Avicenna’s God) cannot be alone. The One cannot be alone because that which proceeds from its plenitude does so necessarily. Furthermore, the One may well require that which emanates so that it can itself be the One.
For Plotinus the One is self-sufficient, yet this autarchical status may be achieved only by default. If there were no emanations there would be the nihilism of pure undifferentiated ‘being’ which may threaten the possibility of the One. As Plotinus says, ‘something besides unity (the One) there must be or all would be indiscernibly buried, shapeless within that unbroken whole.’ If there was only the One it might be unable to be the One, for we know for certain it must produce. But if the One requires company, that which accompanies it must be nothing because of this necessity, if simplicity is to be protected. In being nothing the One and the many are equivalent; this many is but the one that comes from the One. In this way the one that is produced is nothing. The One needs this one which is nothing. But in needing nothing it needs nothing but itself (for the One is non-being).
From this it may well be possible to consider the One as the first audacity. For the One endeavours to be apart from all else as the One. The One is this desire to be within itself and apart from all else.
Furthermore, it is the desire to be without being. The One endeavours to be apart from all else but within the presence of a necessarily produced other from which it seeks to withdraw. If this is true, then the One may curiously be the idea of finitude: a finite immanent reality. The One is its unity, the many its difference (in the same way that Spinoza’s God is the unity of Nature’s many).
If the One is the first audacious unity, then we can think of this unity as the idea of a reality, a given, about and from which nihilism can speak.
The One is, then, by way of a foundational circumscription that is definitive or absolute. As the finite leaves the One, standing apart from it, the One leaves the finite, standing apart from it. We must consider the One as the formation of the finite in an absolute sense. Finitude projects itself, becoming something it is not. What it becomes is indeed the finite, the idea of a stable place, fully present, viz., immanent to itself. This finitude must be ‘One’ if it is to sustain its self-identity and so exclude appeals to a transcendent source.
To accomplish this, the ‘finite’ must become nothing, for only in becoming nothing will it avoid transcendence. If it is nothing, about what would transcendence speak? If finitude were something it would also be ‘nothing’ (as gift). But in being nothing, being nothing in being at all, it can speak itself utterly and completely. If this is the case, then the flight from the One is also the flight of the ‘One’. The audacious standing apart of the finite from the One is the constitution of the finite as ‘One’. We must remember that the Greeks used the term ‘one’ because they did not have a figure for zero. Plotinus’ One can be beneficially considered as zero. For example, Plotinus argues that ‘the One is not one of the units which make up the number two’; Avicenna will later follow this lead in saying that ‘the smallest number is two.’ The One and the finite are both within the belly of the other, each generated by way of contemplative provision. The fall away from the One is a fall within the One. This fall is designed to recall that which is fallen before it falls. So, it is always a fall within immanence.
If all that is comes by way of the One’s non-being, then this One is possible only because of the world’s ‘non-being’ (in this way the world, like Zeus, imitates the One). The One needs company; the world needs unicity. The nothingness of the world allows the Plotinian God to be accompanied, but to be accompanied by nothing, so protecting the supremacy and simplicity of this divinity. Likewise, the non-being of the One generates the world. There is a mutual constitution (Deus sive natura).
There is, then, in Plotinus an inverted monism: what is other than the One is nothing, while the One is non-being. So, there is in effect a univocity of non-being, one which is developed by Avicenna before being passed on to others. It has been argued by a number of commentators that Plotinus is not monistic. For example, Gilson calls the accusation of monism an ‘enormous mistake.’ But this is because Gilson fails to realise that what is other than the One, because of the nature of this alterity, cannot offer any ontological difference. The world slides towards the approaching God who is unable to be alone. Furthermore, the One can only produce one. In this way Plotinus’ One remains very much within ontotheology’s being. Plotinus replaces ontotheology’s being (the something) with non-being (the nothing): different letters making the same word. This is his meontotheology, which is why we can agree with Cornelio Fabro when he asserts that the ‘Neoplatonist idea of God . . . vanishes in the swamp of pantheistic monism’. For monism is, it seems, the correct expression of pantheism. Likewise, Anton Pegis argues that ‘God and the world so penetrate one another in the philosophy of Plotinus . . . that the famous flight of the One from being is the only way in which God can find freedom from the world.’ But in fleeing so, the world must inevitably follow. Indeed, it must be there waiting. For this return is its very beginning, its inception (exitus). In this sense, the pantheistic monism we can find in Plotinus is best thought of as a pan(a)theism. The henological, in this sense, leads to the meontological. It seems we are to have a god and a world within the foundational absence of both (dreams of which Spinoza is made). The nothing as something has become everything.”

[Genealogy of Nihilism]

If you dare wade into this analysis keep in mind that 'the one' refers to a mental representation of what is absent in existence.
If it were present, it would nullify existence and tis experienced dynamic multiplicities.
The ONE is a negation of existence....no less than Nil is - both are part of nihilism's paradigm, one 'positive' the other 'pure.'
How nihilism can be positive I've explained elsewhere.
A self-cotnradiction that indicates something about the mind that holds it to be true.... absolutely true, no less.

Both concepts, represented by the words/symbols ONE/NIL are negations of existence.
Existence stands in opposition to them both.
They are both mental representations, taken literally. Arbitration....defines as simplifications/generalization, theoretically imploding dynamic existence - of chaotic/ordering energies - into a singularity: an immutable, indivisible, absolute.... a 'thing' as in 'thing-in-itself, or Schopenhauer's and Nietzsche's 'Will', viz., 'Will to Life', or 'Will to Power'....or Abraham's one-God, i.e., god's will, or logos.
Binaries are essential to consciousness, consequently life must create dualities using itself as the standard, separating what it experiences into the positive and the negative, the good and the bad, the known and the unknown, the possible and the impossible, the hot and the cold, the quick and the slow, the hard and the soft.

So, when speaking philosophically keep in mind that philosophy is a study of individual reactions, perceptions, evaluations of what appears to exist - a study of the human brain and how it conceptualizes a dynamic interactive state of existence.
Existence being independent from all subjective interpretations of it.
Objectivity being a measure of subjectivity, just as strength is a measure of strength, and gnosis is a measure of ignorance.

The confusion between the representation and the represented, is at the core of Nihilism.
Nihilism deals with the problem of subjectivity by declaring it more real than the real - positive nihilism - or by declaring it null and void, non-existent...pure Nihilism.
In both cases existence is known to be this or that.
If not this then definitely that.

A proper approach deals with existence using probabilities, viz., what is more probably so, and what is less probably so.
Probabilities that fluctuate due to application - first- and/or second-hand.
It deals in superior and inferior theories.
Not in absolutes.
Not in 'things' but in dynamic interactive processes.

There is no one world, no universe....because oneness is a mental construct.
The mind projects itself into some point "outside existence' to then conceptualize it as an entirely...a wholeness, a oneness.
Predictably, this creates paradoxes....like a universe of multiplicities.
Or the some-thing no-thing dilemma.

From within existence there is only multiplicity...and no things - no indivisible, immutable particles; no fabrics.
only energy.....energy in the Greek sense.
Εν-Εργεια....ΕΝ-ΕΡΓO
State of agitation....a developing work/creation....a process....
ENERGY

Patterned (order) and Non-Patterned (chaos) Energies.
Movement, Momentum...
Will refers to the direction given to an emergent unity's movement/momentum....intentionality, movement towards an objective.
Will is what differentiate the living from an otherwise lifeless existence.

How to nullify any concept.

Life, disconnected from the apparent, is redefined as that which is immortal and absolute.
The tricky part follows as it requires the exploitation of human life-hating, life-fearing, self-destructive impulses, seeking relief from life; and it requires the exploitation of idiocy and cowardice, desperately seeking a method of nullifying their genetic inheritance.
Once it is popularized it becomes conventional.
Doesn't matter if experience contradicts it.....it's positive psychological rewards usurp integrity and reason.
Men will deny their own perceptions if it offers them relief.

Now the world's retards and cowards can use this novel conventional definition of 'life' to claim that life does not exist.
There is no life.... it's all an illusion, because nothing is immortal and absolute.

And we don't know everything about how life emerges so we cannot absolutely prove it exists.
Our lack of absoluteness (omniscience) becomes an argument supporting the negation of life.

Philosophical politics.
Use of semiotics to control the masses.

There is no state of non-existence.
There is no 'before' and 'after' existence.
All there is, is existence.

The idea that 'something' can come from 'nothing', meaning that existence comes from non-existence, is an ideal only retarded absolutist minds can be baffled by, existing in their absolutist either/or binaries.

Nothingness literally means no-thingness....which refers to the state of chaos, where conscious minds cannot perceive patterns to convert (interpret) into things.
'Things' are abstractions of perceived patterns, and patterns only exist in order, not in chaos.
Therefore, chaos is a state of no-thingness, for living organisms that depend on order, and are ordering themselves.
Chaos refers to one of the states in the cosmological cycle....a state of minimal order....no-thingness.

This idea that something emerges, magically, out of nothing, is part of creationism....and nihilists are a reaction to Abrahamic disillusionment.
A negation of its 'positive' nihilism.

So, when you come across retards claiming races/ethnicities, sexes/genders, morals/ethics are socially created they are simply positing the negative side of the same nihilistic paradigm represented, in the west, by Abrahamism, and in the east, by Buddhism.

They do not like the idea that chaos could be responsible for the emergence of life, and natural selection responsible for the emergence of morality, which is later converted to manmade ethical codes.
They need to use the absence of absolutes - in this case omniscience - to keep the questions indefinitely open-ended, rejecting all forms of gradation.
All perspectives must be equalized, even creationism must be at par with evolution theory, because then god's will can be replaced by cosmic will or what they call hard determinism - going above and beyond causality by claiming that living agencies do not participate, with their conscious choices, in what is being determined.
They need ambiguity, so as to preserve parity of absurdities - eliminating all uncomfortable, "unjust" concepts of right/wrong, superior/inferior, probable/improbable.
They need absolutes....so it is either certain or all is equally uncertain.
They need to get rid of natural selection and its gradations between absolutist poles: fit/unfit.....good/bad.....true/false...
If you cannot meet their absolutist criteria, then they will declare their absurdities as being just as possible as anything you have to say.

Equalization then leads to the emotional egotistical, narcissistic criterion....
If all is made equally possible - another way of describing the cosmological state of chaos - then how can we break out of the dilemma?
Pleasure.

Degenerate nihilists want to exist in the polis. they want to enclose themselves within manmade and maintained environments, where politics have an effect.
as if their urban utopias can ever exist in a place other than within nature.
Nature is what we call perceived existence, and none of it is changed by human political discourse.

When a man leaves the city, his intersubjective enclave, political leanings become irrelevant, and his words become impotent.

As I've said ....when the one-god of Abraham was declared dead, men who could not deal with the implications declared mankind a replacement.....some went further and declared themselves gods, denying all mediators and collectives.
God of Abraham, like the Jew god, was a representation of collectives.
The Jews just made theirs just as elitist, envious, totalitarian, and petty, as themselves.
Whereas the Muslims and Christians insisted their own adjustments were more inclusive, but no less envious and totalitarian, and definitely no less a representation of their collective spirit.

When such a god is torn asunder, then the represented it was concealing, is exposed.
These same 'recovering Abrahamics' have sought refuge in a reimagining of the same envious, totalitarian, petty god...as a lord of urbanity and modernity....lord of those who exist within human artifices, and resent anything outside tis periphery, which is no less than the world at large.
They've chose a tiny little speck of existence to feel safe and powerful within.
A place where their semantics, and petty ploys, and clever antics can still give them the impression that they matter.

Where do such circumcised 'men' seek power?
In cities, in crowds....where their words can still make an impact.
Outside they remain as impotent as ever.

There' a reason many consider Plato's Socrates a prophet of Abrahamism.
He was a harbinger of future urbanite sheltering, where nature is pushed on the periphery and forgotten it exists or given minimal importance.
A coming world where words can alter the 'world' within the polis, and magical spells can mesmerize the masses.
A world where artists finally gain power - bullshyte artists - and pretences can sway.
A world where men can feel like they were god, verbally creating reality in hears & minds.

They forget chaos, imagining the world as completely ordered. Their ambitions are based on this selective forgetfulness.
If they do not fantasize about an absolute god of order, omnipotent and omniscient, then they imagine themselves as future gods.
But the objective is never absolute, and if it is imagined to be so then it is unattainable.
It is a method of seducing the powerless with dreams of unlimited power.