Nihilism: Signs & Symptoms

Either/Or, in the absolutist paradigm means if nothing "absolute" can be proven, then all is equally inferior.
The Hierarchy is avoided in the absence of an absolute authority.
The tragedy of determinism of an inheritance one cannot change but only endure, mask, compensate for, can no longer find relief in a coming after-life, which erases it all as if it were nothing but a test, so now it finds relief in the absence itself, in the negative - If there is no omniscience then gradation of consciousness is irrelevant; if there is no omnipotence then degrees of power is inconsequential, the modern tells himself.
If you cannot be God then you must be only human.

The fluidity of a standard against which all perspectives stand dependent is incomprehensible,; the idea of an indifferent world, is terrifying.

Either the absolute (God, order, quanta, thing, substance, one) is in the behind, the Creator, Primal One, manifesting in multiplicity (the illusion of existence), or it stands as a coming end, an immanent Being.
The in-between phase, of existing, becoming, is remedied, explained, rationalized...it is known in reflection upon this God of the past or of the coming future.
In this age of Modernity, Nihilism has become "progressive" - this is the essence of secular humanism, and Marxism, and Transhumanism.
Not a Being, commanding from behind, underneath, beyond, but a Being yet to be, inspiring, urging is to reach, to Become, to attain its end - Paradise is now Utopia.
The in-between is the illusion, the necessary stage, what has to occur, has to be endured, paid, for the rewards to matter.

Masculine/Feminine Nihilism has been defined in accordance to these binary psychological tendencies, corresponding to sexual perspectives, a intuitive relating, to life and existence, our of which life emerges.

The Modern could never understand a standard not attached to a will, to an order, to a consciousness.
In the "reality" of inter-subjectivity the "I say so, He says so, We say so" echoes the "Might is Right".

Subjectivity means someone says so, because there is no standard of evaluating what is more probable outside a human subjective opinion. No outside the mind method...no objective world against which all subjective opinions can be evaluated.

Therefore if the institution, such as the Catholic Church says  that God exists, and the majority are integrated into this belief, then God does indeed exist: Might is right....subjectivity of "I say so" translating into "We say so".
And if against this shared subjective view a Bruno says "Mmmm, excuse me....I don't think God exists" then they burn him, because the "We so so" outweigh the "He said so" since all is subjective and nobody can find an objective way of determining who is more probably correct - politics.
And if Galileo says "No the world is not the centre of the cosmos" it is because "He said so" and that contradicts "God's words", His "I say so".

We're coming close to chimpanzee territory now....because without God who will be the "I say so" everyone agrees with, or submits to?
Again...for these retards, there is no standard outside ALL subjective views to determine what is more, and what is less, probably so.
All is subjective, so all is determined by "I say so" or as it first began "The Word of God".

The Modern retard needs someone to tell him what to think.
To every opinion he asks: "Who says so?"
not a comparison to his own experiences of the world, but always in reference to another subjective opinion.

Is it a sanctioned authority, a God, a famous respected somebody, like a movie star, or an infamous guru with a huge following of imbeciles, or a nobody?
Has he the authority to speak on behalf of them all?
Has he the right to speak his mind, outside another subjective opinion, or contrary to the shared "We say so"?

Who has the "might" to determine what is "right"?
The majority....not the king, not the king of kings, no, nowadays it is the majority.
They have the quantity, the might...and there is no quality that can outweigh it.

In the past who could doubt that if the "expert" said that that strange spinster with the cats, living in a shack by the river, was a witch, then she was, most probably, a witch.
He even had tests to determine what a witch is, and how to recognize one.

A retard thinks..."Is it better to be a retard, ro smart?"
It has no way to decide what is better....
No God to tell him...
the world is kept from making his stupidity pay the price, so he wonders if there is any way to decide what is better and what is worse: stupidity or intelligence.
Either/or.
Is it better to be crippled or able bodied?
No God....who can say.

With God dead, his good/bad decrees hover up there...as it were.
Who can give meaning to these words now?
No god...no world outside subjective perspectives...so we have reached an impasse.
A very satisfying impasse.
with no way to decide what is more probable than not, and no God to declare it as Truth, all is equally ignorant....all equally retarded.
The retard finds salvation.
He's disappeared in a uniformity of stupidity...nothing to be ashamed of, nobody to call him sinner.

Outcrops of Modern degradation...

Might is Right is rooted in Nihilistic subjectivity in that it implies that whomever has the power is automatically correct about everything he says and does.
The "I say so" of subjectivity, going back to the "Word of the ONE God"
In other words, his subjectivity overrides all others.
A reversal.

The objectivist, the Pagan realist, in touch with reality, places the standard of determining power outside himself.
He who is most correct, most right, about the world, or about a particular situation, gains the advantage, which is called power.


The Modern mistakes the interactivity of a phenomenon for an attribute, independent from it.
He presumes that all traits, characteristics, are add-ons to a secret hidden thing - a unity, a one.

A planet's mass, (inter)acting with a satellite's mass is something the planet does to the satellite.
The pattern planet is acting upon the pattern satellite, not that the planet's pattern is this acting with the satellite's pattern also acting, and so (inter)acting.
The acting is other than the pattern, not the acting IS the pattern.
The act is something other than the being, the presence.
This, in his mind, holds true for all appearances...which are superficial, meaning they are shallow representations of a deeper truth, a hidden core being, an immutable spirit.
Therefore all (inter)actions, all change, is illusionary, a game.
The kosmos is an immutable thing, a one, a Being.

Not that the appearance, the presence, IS the manifestation of the past/nature, but that the past happened to the present.
The present being the passive, static, thing, which is affected by the past, or by all other presences.
Need/suffering happens to the individual; time/change happens to the individual; flow happens to the particle, the thing; appearance is added to the phenomenon.
 
Consequently, for the Modern need/suffering are not the experience of existing, but something that the individual is forced to endure, implying that an existence minus need/suffering is a desirable ideal: paradise translated as utopia.
They are not interpretation of the individual awakening to his own existence, but traits independent from this existence, forced upon him, by some evil entity, or the product of this spirit's ignorance, sinfulness - salvation in gnosis (education), enlightenment.
In other words, there is a hidden core, a thing-in-itself which suffers, and acts, but is independent from this suffering and acting.

The Pagan knows that need/suffering IS the experience of his (inter)acting, and his (inter)acting is his existing.


The Modern always places the plan, his own objective outside his judgement.
for him the absolute is out there awaiting discovery, or the ideal is already decided and awaiting for him to find it, somewhere out there.
He makes of himself the priest, speaking on behalf of an absolute all will eventually discover for themselves. The Modern hides himself in fake humility, claiming only that he is the gifted one who has peered into the Godhead, and is now offering its message.
He is a coward trying to pretend he is only speaking on behalf of a truth he has no participation in constructing and maintaining.

For the Pagan the ideal is his own projection, and he says so openly.
He calls his own, to share, or who do share, in his projection and in his evaluation that it is a desirable objective.
The Pagan is honest about his motives, and does not mask them in priestly declaration of universal truths, and cosmic absolutes.
For the Pagan the absolute is what is absent, and he is the creator of all absolutes, each with its own agenda and its own collateral effects.


The Modern thinks in absolutes which only exist in his own mind.
All is, after all, subjective.
His nouemna ARE the cosmic absolute, and his brain is this absolute's conduit.
He is the priestly brain acting as means for a Divine power to appear. He is one of the chosen.
In his either/or universe the absolute either can only be replaced with an absolute or, where both either & or are abstractions detached from reality, or subjective.
Therefore, for him, all opinions are words, declarations, which only acquire value through popularity, or multiplicity, or numbers.
Numbers (symbolic values) are his only method of deciding what is superior and what is inferior.

The Pagan decides inferior/superior based on pragmatic application, and if this is not possible, through the quality of reference points his abstractions have to what is perceived, as phenomenon; to what appears.
By the quality of the arguments and the evidence, and not only the quantity.  


For the Modern the past is what happens to this spirit, implying a pure soul made evil, soiled, by existing.
What diverts form his ideal is ill. He always asks: "What happened to you?"

The Pagan does not separate the past/nature from the presence, the appearance.

To the Modern's question "What happened to you?"  he replies "I happened."
There is no "you" independent from happening.
The happening IS you.
The acting IS you.
There is no positive/negative relating, there IS relating, and it is positive/negative in relation to the ones participating, if they be conscious of this relating.
Every trait, observed/interpreted, by another IS you being interpreted, and in the interpretation lost.
All speak but not all speak clearly and wisely - all interpret, observe but not with the same clarity and sophistication.
All exist but not all are equal in existing.
All are ignorant and weak, but not to the same degree.
All are born, but not with the same potentials.

Inversion of nihilism: over-complicating the simple, and over-simplifying the complex.
When Nihilism morphed from its religious form to its Modern, secular, form, as any virus would, it retained many of its past structures, metaphors, methods, altering them only symbolically, changing the words they are expressed through.

For instance, when Marxism took over from Judeo-Christianity, it maintained the holy mysticism, the monistic hierarchy, and the propaganda, the linguistic imagery for passing on its message to the masses it infected.
Convoluting the simplicity of what is being proposed, with jargon, referring and deferring, to the point where if the participants lack the knowledge they can be dismissed as not worth listening to, the usage of flesh and blood idols, as if they had been sanctified by some god, turned into political saints whose mere naming would suffice to imply a point the speaker cannot clarify himself, obfuscation, avoiding clarification, trying to make what is being proposed appear so complex only the chosen, indoctrinated, and trained in the scripture, and part of the holy family tree, can dare to intrude upon.
The concepts are not complex, but trying to keep track of the noetic-strings connecting one definition, with another, a response to it; who said what about who, and what another responded, is the "complexity".
At its base this type of "philosophy" is gossip, remaining completely abstract, never connecting the noumena it is linking together into a webbing, to the real, not because it can and refuses to, but because it cannot, being involved in pure noetic discourse, pure Nihilistic word-games, with no reference to the world outside human contrivances.

If you listen to Communists speak it would seem like they were speaking about something profound, deep, intricate, when it has no more intricacy than Christian rituals, and chants.
Keeping track of the saintly interpretation of the shared Idea(l), it being nihilistic, is the only thing complex here.
You would have to study for a long period to grasp what each idol represented within the internet of Nihilism, and how each one participated within the noetic solar-system with the bright sun, in the middle, being the Nil, the life-negating energy of eros/thymos – the passion of construction/destruction.
The web of connections are exclusively noetic, never approaching the phenomenon directly.
An inter-subjective matrix of nouemna, words, definitions, redirecting back to other noumena, other abstractions, some stronger, hubs, from which more connections emerge, attaching to a nexus; the world itself skirted around, knitting a cover to enclose it and never touch it.
The inter-subjective cocoon is a shell hovering around the real, avoiding contact with it, because if it would come into contact with it the Nihilistic shell would shatter, like an empty rotting egg of idea(l)s with no substance, no appearance outside the human SuperOrganic world.

The word referring to an abstraction, is a representation of that abstraction that Noumenon.

The noumenon need not refer to a phenomenon, or what appears in space/time and is simplified/generalized into the abstraction, into a thing.
The word is a tool, a symbol, and it may very well refer back to itself and other abstractions, connected and integrated into a bigger abstraction, a larger idea(l), or, it may very well refer to an abstraction in an other's mind, transferred linguistically to one's own.

If the abstraction, the noumenon, and the word representing it, has no reference outside minds, to the apparent sensual world, the real, then it is ambiguous, and if taken literally, and not as a tool, a representation, it can function as a nullification of the real, the apparent.

The abstraction is a static, simplification/generalization, of a (inter)active, a dynamic phenomenon, and, as such, its effectiveness is determined by how well ti serves its function, how good of a tool it is, and how well it simplifies/generalizes the dynamic.

By understanding what the word is, and how it relates to what it is supposed to represent, and simplify/generalize, one is not dismissing its function, but one is clarifying, it, sharpening the tool, as it were, and one is also throwing away words that refer to nothing but back to human constructs with no reference outside minds, sharing, perhaps, a common definition, along with the imagery, to make the word functional within the human world of communication, exploitation, hierarchies.
Confusing the representation for the represented, is idolatry, and in this nihilism is a form of idolatry which with its representations annuls what is perceived and replaces it with symbols, numbers, concepts with no reference outside the mind, constructing an ideal, idealized, inter-subjective alternate "reality".
Once it assimilates, indoctrinates, enough minds into this alternate noetic universe, it can begin to self-refer, self-validate, relying, now, upon numbers, or popular appeal, referendum, to validate or to dismiss an idea(l).
These Nihilistic memes require a certain number of subjects, to inappropriate into its alternate universe, for it to become viable, and so population control and seduction, is its primary usage of words.


This is why you will find in Nihilistic discourse, this endless chatter using words detached from reality, but continuously referring and deferring to others minds, from where the participants have adopted them, with little effort of their own.
They approach world not directly, as it appears, but via proxies, and working backwards.
Philosophy has become a continuous talk about someone else's talk, about someone else's talk.

The Modern is obsessed with politics, because here the inter-subjective chatter, reaches the apex of its self-referential dialogue, within a shared memetic context where the words need only remain true to a certain Book which lends them meaning.
Communism was the first secular form of this Nihilistic trait. A secularization of its Judeo-Christian inheritance, which then submitted to the superiority of method Capitalism offered.


The mind's entrapment within its own abstractions, is what produces these linguistic paradoxes, these fools carry out o their mind's cave to expose how unable to think outside this binary system they are.
The Modern is unable to think in degrees, as the mind is a tool that fabricates absolutes to make them useful to the organism which need not think of anything beyond the simple satiation of needs.
Lacking any artistry, it relies on artists to feed it inspiration, but it can only appreciate them in a very simple/general literal way.

What makes abstractions useful in relation to world, survival, makes them useful when world, survival, is guaranteed, protected, ensured, and the mind can direct them, their usage, to escape world, and/or to masturbate, to pleasure himself using these abstractions, these detached from world idea(l)s.
hedonism is the quintessential foundation of Modernity. The sensation of satiation, of release of gathered energies, but with no outcome, no natural consequence.
Communism and then Capitalism takes these energies, these libidinal energies with no product, and redirects them towards other objectives, most based no abstractions with no reference point.
We can reduce the conflict of right/left, between the Nihilistic binary political poles of Communism/Capitalism, to a symbolic struggle; a fight over who decides where to direct libidinal energies toward abstractions which have to reference point outside human brains.
This exploitation of libidinal resources, taken away form the individual who is not neither female nor male, neither black nor white, but worker, or number/word, is how elites manipulate human resources to their own ends, while selling inter-subjective delusions, nihilistic constructs, internally.

Mind = noumenon (abstraction)

Body = phenomenon (appearance, apparent, presence)

The Noetic (abstraction) can detach itself from the world, and be pure abstraction, such as the mathematical linguistic form.
The Body (physical) is (inter)activity. It cannot escape the Flux; it IS the Flux, or a part of it having reached a certain level of order.
The mind can combine its perceptions in any way its imagination/creativity permits....it is not bound by reality, by physical ordering. This is why the noumenon can become nihilistic, replacing the phenomenon with words totally disconnected from any phenomenon...from anything present, apparent.
Universal morals, meaning, purpose, and God as the anthropomorphic representative of all this human artificiality are examples of noetic constructs with no preference to anything outside the mind.

Abrahamic Religions = Judaism, Islam, Christianity - the modern triad of spiritual nihilism.
The worshipers of nil, proposing an alternate world, a world above, beyond, with all the human constructs "missing" from the world: universal morality, meaning, purpose, God, - a realm withing which the absolute is not absent - singularity, later to develop the "nil" to explain the sensually perceive, casting the world as the "negative" that which is to be escaped, denied, forgotten (lethe).
Worshipers of death - the death wish.
These religions usher in the age of Nihilism, in the west; age of inverted definitions for words, and their detachment from any reference to the apparent so as to accomplish the inversion.
Religions of the word, by the word, for the word..and the First Word is...GOD.

Modern = current, socioeconomic, cultural manifestation of the nihilistic psychology.
Secular Humanism = A characteristic of the Modern Age, the Last Man age of Nihilism.
It replaces the terms, flips them around, adjusts them to altering socioeconomic circumstances, due to advancement in techniques/technologies, and the capacity to bury away the world and repalce it with a manmade world.

Nihilism defining Nil - Modern = What lacks a universal morality, meaning, purpose, in other words a world lacking an absolute (absent absolute).
Nihilism (proper) = What denies reality, as it is, and projects human artifices, such as absolutes as the necessary correction for what is lacking, in reference to human needs (emotions).
God can be included in this absent absolute which is missing, for the Modern Nihilist to consider the world "positive".

World = Flux - ceaseless (inter)activity never settling upon a singularity/absolute.
World is "positive" in that it is what offers possibility, within which probability emerges.
This space/time of the possible, the (inter)active, is what makes life possible, and as a consequence consciousness, giving rise to mind, the noumenon.

World (Modern) = the inter-subjective world of man and all his artifices, including morality, universal meaning, purpose, truth, and his techniques/technologies manufacturing absolutes, and/or literally interpreting the words being used to represent the world.

Probability = a restriction of possibility, also called "order".
Order = the inter)active exhibiting a persistent, repeating, predictable, pattern.

Chaos (Modern) = complexity, that within which no pattern is perceived - the Alexandrian mind-set, expressing the faith based Judeo-Cristian past assumes a pattern behind, beneath, all dynamic (inter)actions.
The Christians assumed a God, of Order, of Absolute oneness.
The secular forms of the same psychology assume a particle, a substance, an order beneath all which exists.

Chaos (proper) = that (inter)activity which lacks all pattern - randomness.
Unpredictable, inconsistent, non-repeating.
chaos makes life impossible, since life is ordering - self-ordering as a reaction/resistance to the increasing entropy, chaos.
Life is (re)active. It begins by sustaining itself within the Flux - preserving what order it has attained, and then, with the excess energies it has appropriated in its need to self-preserve, it directs itself towards: growth, procreation, then becoming creation/creativity,.
Art is a product of excess...or leisure, as the Marxists/Capitalist duality of economic Nihilism have called it.

Real = That which refers to world.
The subjective approaching the objective...also called Truth in reference to a perspective of the real.
Idea(l) = A mental model (abstraction, noumenon) representing the world.
Used to orient the organism and to direct it towards an object/objective.
An (idea(l)s objectivity is gauged by the quantity and quality of reference point the abstraction, the noumenon, has to the apparent, the phenomenon.
The cost/price and the benefit will only affect the organism using the noumenon to orient and direct itself within the world of (inter)activity.
The idea(l) for a non-nihilist is a signpost, a direction, an objective to focus upon so as to direct its aggregate energies (synergy), in relation to what is valued, what is most desirable, appreciated in self and in otherness. It is not something to be attained, but only moved towards, struggled for - agon.
For the nihilist, obsessed with escaping a world of no absolutes, and wanting to escape the immutability, the determining indifference, of past/nature, the "Idea(l)" is always world negating, world denying, self-hating, forever detaching self from world suing words: noetic detachment, self-retardation, self-narcosis etc. This is only able to sustain itself if there is a mechanism, an institutionalized cocooning world of man protecting such minds from a world indifferent to their methods of self-medication.
For the Pagan the Idea(s) is to be known (know Thyself), accepted, coped with, because it will not be pleasant, and used. The Idea(l), for him, is the incorporation of past/nature, sharped and tested in the immediate, presence/present, outside human artifices, outside the socioeconomic cultural realm of inter-subjectivity, so as to achieve clarity, lucidity, objectivity.
The ability to restrict the effect of corrupting elements in thinking (emotion, ego, self-interest, the death-wish) will determine the quality of the outcome in relation to world. then, the Pagan moves towards incorporating into his Idea(l)s manmade constructs, which are no more than parts of nature, not nature itself, and with Nihilistic socioeconomic cultures they may even be contrary to nature.
This is the Bottom<>Up method of thinking.
The nihilist, the modern, is obsessed with the Top<>Down method...where one begins with the Idea(l) and then works backwards trying to justify and maintain it, preserve it within a world indifferent to his tricks.

Subjective = the interpretation of the (inter)active - the simplification/generalization of the Flux into a form the brain can process and use; a form to incorporate into an abstraction, a mental model, a noumenon so as to orient and direct its aggregate energies.
Objective = Another word for world - the world made as a destination, a desirable contact between the subjective interpretation and that which is interpreted - harmony.

Objective (Modern) = A socioeconomic cultural objective - ambition.
Within manmade inter-subjective "realities" the objective only has a Nihilistic definition of finality, singularity, an absolute: happiness, love, wealth, life, God, status, materialism, hedonism.
When Moderns speak of an objective, in reference to philosophy science or religion, they always mean an absolute which is missing, but is "possible" within the realm of inter-subjective nihilism.
A final solution would be omnipotence, absolute power...omniscience, a final knowledge of ALL, absolute morality, a universal rule of behavior, purpose, a universal cosmic telos, end, singularity.
meaning ceases being a (inter)action of fluctuating patterns and become the absolute defining Word of God.

Another way to understand the Subjective/objective relationship as it pertains to Real/Ideal.

Objective = world, as in past/nature.
The past is immutable, in that it cannot be altered only uncovered, known and if patterns are perceived in this past/nature, understood.
All absolutes are description of this past/nature which is immutable, unalterable, and so "absolute" in a noetic sense...as memeory, recall.

Subjective = that which is interpreting what manifest as present, and is the past/nature becoming apparent.
The past does not exist in the sense of being a thing, or a sum of things in a previous time/space, but it existed in the sense of presence, appearance, phenomenon.
Past/Nature does exist as presence....that which appears IS this past/nature manifesting as presence.

The amount of time require to perceive, using a medium, and then process (convert to bio-energy, and then abstract, convert the data to a nouemnon), makes the mind lag behind the existing.
The noumenon is a step behind the phenomenon, the (inter)acting, and this is is why intelligence/imagination are so fundamental and dominant in reality, because they find patterns in the past/nature to use so as to predict, project probabilities, into the future overcoming this lag.  

The Idea(l) is this projection, where if it is dismissive of the past/nature, or rejects it or is ignorant of it, it is a projection of the nonsensical, the absurd.
To Know Thyself is to know this past/nature so that the subjective interpretation of the objective world is in harmony, accurate, or as close as possible.
Truth, Reality are words denoting the bridging of this gap between subjective and objective.

The more in harmony the interpretation, the subjective, is to the fluctuating, the objective world, the more accurate the projection, the more noble the idea(l), used to direct the aggregate energies of the organism.
Identity has to do with this projected Idea(l) and how it compares to the past/nature. The intent of the organism to move towards an object/objective, an Idea(l), is what identifies it, and its mind/body relationship.
Here, in this mind/body dichotomy relationship is where psychology/personality is determined, and how this relates to the past/nature and its projected objective is what determines this personality's character...its essence.  

Words/number are, therefore, symbols of noetic abstractions - artistic tools, representing the past/nature and the projected Idea(l), depending how the organism uses them at any given time.
a tool has no meaning outside its utility, without a mind to use it, direct it.
So, numbers and words are meaningless if there is no mind present to apply them towards an object/objective...they have no innate meaning.
A hammer with no hand to yield it is not a hammer; without a purpose, given to it by the mind using it, the tool hammer is not a tool, it is a stick and a head of metal: a configuration of elements, (inter)acting with no telos, like every other (inter)action.

It is the mind, the organism which gives meaning, purpose, within a world with no meaning and/or purpose.
It is a noumenon projecting an objective which gives the world a telos, an end, a universal order.
Numbers/Words are tools used to represent...they are not what is represented.
There are no particles, no ones, no nils, no things, no quanta, no substance outside the mind that reduces the (inter)active to an abstraction: simplification/generalization.
If these tools are taken literally then the mind is entrapped within its own artifices, its own noetic devices...it is caged within its noetic universe...solipsism, or inter-subjective reality. It, then, exists within manmade construct, where all is equally subjective and no superior perspective is admitted.
Though, how subjectivity can reach this level without the evolutionary rule of 'survival of the fittest" is a paradox these stunted minds are trapped in.
If superior intelligence, superior judgment, was not selected for, then what does Natural Selection mean, and how did intelligence evolve at all?
does evolution work only on the body, leaving the mind at peace, at rest, in perpetual repose?
If stress, the stress of an (inter)active objective world challenging the subjective interpreting mind, does not participate in evolution then, without God, what determines species and which ones will survive as others go extinct?
What role would sex have without the imperative of selecting for the fittest?

Before we advance up to the level of man and his social economic strictures and hierarchies, we must begin at the foundations of existence, then work ourselves up to life, of which man is simply a part of.
From the bottom upwards we must find patterns that remain true for longer periods of time.
Only then do we proceed to analyze human social, economic political relationships as these were determined by this past, this natural past.
our analysis, in every stage, should not be dominated by our emotions, our desires, how we can apply what we perceive, but first we must appraise it independent of all application, all need, desire, emotion.
Only then can the mind find an application, if at all possible, a utility in what it has perceived objectively, by excluding its hopes, and desires and needs.
But data is not always useful, it has no solution...one cannot correct the world.
It may be useful and only in relation to self...man changes himself in relation to world, not world in relation to himself
His civilization is a microcosm of self, expanded into a artificial reality, which may be Nihilistic or Realistic, more or less objective in comparison to another.

Nihilism...
as noted, the modern invention of the concept was in relation to an undesirable wold, one void of meaning, purpose, morality, absolutes. The definition expresses the Russian spirit's seeped in Judeo-Christian dis-ease, explaining, also, why they took to Marxism.

Marxism is the quintessential secularization of Judaism and its daughters Christianity/Islam: both western expressions of a dis-ease also emerging in the east as Buddhism, in relation to Aryan Hinduism.
Marxism creates an inter-subjective, noetic space-time alternative, rejecting the world.
it cancels race, sex, and identity as sum of your past, reinventing man as "human" or "worker", in relation to state.
Man as (inter)active phenomenon, the sum of nurturing appearing as presence, becomes worker. Activity is transformed to labor, and identity goes through others, belonging to the same SuperOrganic body, the Communist State.
A worker's only identity is in how useful he is to others. The connection between himself and past/nature, outside human artificial environments (nihilistic space/time continuum), is severed, and it is replaced with a prosthesis.

In Judaism, and Christianity/Islam the same process severs the individual form his family - see Jesus and how he seduces the Apostles - the prosthesis, the identifier, is sinfulness, chosen to suffer no behalf of God, for being born human.
death is the gateway to an alternate "reality", a Supernatural World = Paradise.
With Marxism and later Trasnhumanism Paradise is placed "in the space/time" continuum of experience, but as either immanent future...Utopia.
Capitalism also adopts the Marxist identifiers, but only applies them using more "natural" methods. it retains hierarchies but determines them via service, utility, the erotic principle: seduction, marketing, selling your work, your talents, your services to those you share nothing but the same space/time continuum and the values Idea(l) the market supplies for you...now called ambitions.

Marxism retains the same Christian ritualization of relationships. It has its priestly class, its believers, and saints emerging from this communion of body, beneath the Church of State.
It also has its sacrificial rites, which are the sacrifice of blood-ties, freedom, natural identifiers, ancestry as manifested presence. They wear uniforms to pretend the past/nature has been buried, forgotten.
It fails for this reason.
Retaining the populations in infancy, with no sense of self, and no way of knowing self other than through parent/State and others, the population becomes lethargic, irresponsible, childlike...remedied only by a steady as enforcement of State violence.
The outcome is that of a State run orphanage, where the orphans with no biological parent cling to the teachers, seeking approval, love, from their harshness.
In Capitalism the orphans, having been taken away from their family's are allowed to run free - divide and conquer, providing them with distractions, and goals that direct their infantile play.
If not from the state, or some church Father, the orphans seeks approval from each other.
The other validating their self-worth...popularity, marketability.

Mixing, "melting pot" ensures that this condition is made permanent.

Tridimensional Nature of Nihilism: Intellectual/Spiritual/Physical corresponding to Mind/Nervous System/Body.
State/Institution/ideal

All three as One = singularity in three parts; manifesting in three dimensional space with the fourth being the movement of the absolute within them, transmutation.
The monad, the absolute particle, shifts essence as it moves through the three states.

Satan representing the five-dimensional space/time of (inter)active Flux = nature.
In the Nihilistic paradigm Satan, the real, plays the role of dividing partitioning, place holding, nil.
The triad of nihilism is subdivided into three by the satanic.

A tactic I'be observed among the Modern Nihilists, the most recent, most obvious, example being shit-Stain, now off enjoying the lifestyle of the world's most interesting man:

>>First you declare yourself genius, or something approaching it.
An expert, you mention your credentials, your stuff, how much money you make...etc.
The tactic is a first intimidation attempt. An attempt to impress...to imprint in the other. . 

>>Then, if challenged, defer and refer to a famous thinker, considered by the majority as a genius, or, at lest, a notable intellectual.
This step will intimidate those who find such famous names challenging to understand. 

>>Then, if challenged, refer to a non-famous intellectual, implying that you know of his work inside and out and that you have proceeded out of the mundane, mainstream and are now in uncharted waters, where the many do not follow. 
This step will give out homework, thusly breaking the exchange until the other reads-up, understands, and, if still interested, returns to challenge once more. 

Each step preserves the facade of superiority without having to prove it.
See, for the Modern having read a famous intellectual means you immediately are his mouthpiece. 
Then, the debate might become a struggle over who understood the famous thinker the best...this is typical among Marxist who spend hours debating over who is the best representative of Trotsky, or Bakunin or some such Communist Saint....just as communists spend hours debating who got the world of Aquinas, or Jesus, precisely.
The conversation settles on interpreting the Biblical, or Manifesto text, the best...or upon which version of the interpretation should be the official version, setting up the splintering-off of factions, and/or denominations.
The fact that each reader of an author immediately becomes a representative of his understanding of said author, and any subject, consequently dealt with, need not refer to the original author, because each reader IS the interpreted, and the understood, applied. 

For example, each reader of Kant has understood Kant in his own way, or has adopted a more popular interpretation of Kant, found in many books dealing with interpreting Kant.
Same goes for Hume, Spinoza, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer etc.
Most are too cowardly to posit their interpretation directly, and so they will defer to the original as if to imply they and the author of like mind, or that in whatever way the other understood Kant, that is what is meant, without having to display an equal understanding. 

Now, in the case of referring and deferring to relatively unknown thinkers the one referring is using the author's obscure work as a reason to dismiss the other, as in "you are not on my level of knowledge...understanding" when the one using this method may not even understand the author cited himself.

The fact that if the one proposing a source as evidence in support of an  argument should also be able to apply the reasoning directly, does not register.
The one trying to evade will use this ruse to break-off from the other, dismissively.
If personA, for instance has read Nietzsche and has understood his reasoning and arguments, then personaA when faced with a challenger personB, would apply said reasoning and arguments directly himself, without having to refer, or to defer, but only as an acknowledged mentor, or a source.  
 

Having read an author, the author and the manner in which you've interpreted him, understood him, become part of you, and your thinking in relation to any subject. 
If this is not the case, then you will refer to him, trying to present the author as intimidation, or implying that the author's reasoning, as understood by the other, is also your own. 
A sly trick.
If you defer to the author you are simply avoiding the challenger, the other, by forcing him to debate the famous author directly, while you hide behind him.  

Referring to an author as a supporting element, is natural, doing so without any accompanying arguments of your own, in reference to the subject being discussed, is hypocritical, and cowardly.

In the realm of Moderns inversions, the idea(l) becomes real, and the artificial becomes natural.
This is the inter-subjective "world" of man: supernatural, and surreal.

Within its man-made, and maintained, boundaries, organs are tools; not self manifested, but extensions of self, add-ons, a covering...

Anus, vagina, penis, lungs, eyes, ears, all parts of a cyborg.

Hellenic cosmopolitanism was polyglotic, multiplicity of expressions rooted in a shared identity.
When Judaism came into contact with Hellenism the birth of Christianity inverted the expression of cosmopolitanism turning it into a Monistic idea(l) rooted in a multiplicity, polyglotic, identity.
For the Pagans identity found in the past, and self was its product.
For the Nihilists the past/nature is a multifarious “evil”, directed towards a singular future.
Hellenic cosmopolitanism was polyglotic, multiplicity of expressions rooted in a shared identity.
When Judaism came into contact with Hellenism the birth of Christianity inverted the expression of cosmopolitanism turning it into a Monistic idea(l) rooted in a multiplicity, polyglotic, identity.

For the Pagans identity was found in the past, and self (ego) was its product, its presence.
For the Nihilists the past/nature is a multifarious “evil”, directed towards a singular future. Identity, for the Modern is “coming”, a immanent event for which he must work by stripping himself nude of all past/nature to reinvent himself as something new.


For the ancient-Greeks that world [kosmos] was a jewel, and they the appreciating mind.
Living on the shores of a sea-basin populated by different peoples, with different cultures, turned them into harvesters of idea(l)s.
These they assimilated into their shared heritage, their identity which was in their common past/nature, turning them resistant to dilution.
The Greeks never lost their sense of self, and never confused barbarian for Greek.
Modernity offers an inverted Cosmopolitanism, as one would expect from the culmination of the nihilistic meme.
Its identifier is always beyond, immanent, in the future, and it can take the form of an absolute, a Utopia/Paradise. The past is the multifarious converging upon a singularity, a monad: God, Idea(l), Humanity.

The Greeks produced a multiplicity of ideas, based on their shared past/nature, harvesting, assimilating alien elements; absorbing them in their common heritage.
The Jews were spiritual elitists, a closed cult of “chosen” by God, and when they were affected by Hellenism the Christian outcome became a reflection of Judaism, inverting Hellenism into Nihilism.
The Christian/Islamic spiritual Cosmopolitanism began with multiplicity of sinners, of the “fallen” funneled towards a singular salvation, a one path.
Marxism, Humanism, by eliminating the God element had to replace it with an alternate mono-Idea(l).
The numerical value of One, became the perfect mathematical replacement of God, where the anthropic representation was lost in abstraction. The mathematical value of one, was accompanied by its Satanic opposite, the Nil, and geometrically it was converted to the point that could be connected with lines to produce shapes of orientation.
The Marxists, being the intervening stage towards this mathematical point in space/time, had found the concept of Human to be its perfect replacement for the God who was overcome.
Human as an abstraction of the species type, the reproductive type. The abstraction, stripped of its past/nature, was expressed in the concept of Party/State, and sin became work, converting the evil world into a Paradise on Earth, a coming Utopia.  
“Workers of the world Unite!!!” expressed the Christian idea(l) of sinners finding salvation in God, in whom their sins, their busy hands, were put to productive work.  
Christians found salvation in Jesus; Communists found it in Marx.

Inversion is the symptom of Nihilism; it is the calling-card of Modernity.
A world inverted is a world annulled.
The absence of universal meaning, purpose, telos, and morality is translated, in Nihilistic mindsets, into a negative, when it is the very definition of positive, in that it makes life possible.
The Nihilist inverts identity placing it ahead, rather than behind, as a coming, a future, rather than a determining past/nature.
The Nihilist inverts the process from gene to meme, converting it to meme to gene.
The Nihilist inverts the timeline, beginning with the word, rather than the action described, represented by words; symbols of reality become reality of symbols.
The Nihilist inverts reality, converting it into subjective, rather than objective interested, understood, engaged with subjectively.
The Nihilist inverts interventions, claiming he is intervening to return the world to how it is, which, for him, means how it “ought to be”. He deludes himself that sexual roles, race, organs were manufactured by human systems, when it is he who is trying to erase the function so as to replace it with utility, with social conventions, with cultural eugenics.
The Nihilist inverts abstractions, absolutes, mental models, placing them ahead, outside, immanent, when it is he who is producing them in relation to the outside, ahead, immanent, as a (re)action to it.
The Nihilist inverts the relationship of noumenon with phenomenon. Instead of the noumenon representing the phenomenon, the idea(l) imposing itself upon the real, the opposite is so, for him.