Forums

The absolute is another term/symbol for the noumenon. It is in the mind where it exists and is fabricated by simplifying/generalizing the fluid, the cosmos in flux, into a thing, an abstraction.

To negate an absolute one must do so with another absolute, creating linguistically based conundrums, such as 'there is absolutely no absolute', and/or 'truth is there is no truth'.
This is a product of mistaking the representation, for the real, and of not defining the words being used.
For example, although the term 'truth' refers to a subjective interpretation of the world, held to be superior, it has come to mean absolute knowledge, omniscience, completeness, wholeness.
Although it simply expresses conviction, subjectivity, it has come to mean an objective absolute.

Like I said earlier an absurd proposition can only be contradicted by an equally absurd proposition, when the onus is o the one proposing it to prove it, and in the case of absolutes, to prove it absolutely.
If the user is sane, and rational it is already implied in the symbol 'truth' that a personal judgment is presented, and this judgment is incomplete, and metaphorical, and that it refers to a fluctuating cosmos - it alludes to the understanding, or the discovery of patterns relating to patterns, or patterns within the patterns (inter)acting, and a superior understanding, or a superior perception of meaning.

When a dis-eased mind, like the modern, uses terms it uses them and understands them literally and absolutely. For them the term 'god' is an absolute (omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent) thing, and as such is, by definition, non-existent.
Pagans use 'god' to relate to relationships in world, to nature.
Pagan gods are metaphors for patterns, or congruity of patterns' (inter)acting, and therefore metaphors for natural processes.
This is why pagan gods were imperfect, knowable, because order can be known, and at the same time mysterious, because randomness cannot.


'Truth' for a Modern, infected by Nihilism, which is a memetic virus transmitted linguistically, semantically, is also a term implying absolute, complete, perfect, knowledge/understanding, and as such an absurdity, an arrogant insane proposition, it can only be negated with an equally insane antithetical proposition, such as absolute ignorance.
This is how Nihilism pulls you into its manufactured paradigm, setting up the binary logic, and dualities of either/or, good/evil, etc.
Opposites are constructed by using the conscious mind, and its self-knowledge, as the standard, then dividing patterns into faster/slower, beneficial/costly, good/bad, attractive/repulsive.
Opposites are synthesized in the mind as noumena, reflecting a relationship, an (inter)active relating, of phenomenon to noumenon, via a medium, such as light, or air, and/or directly such as with the sense of taste, touch, using electromagnetism.

For the mind opposites are how patterns are interpreted by it, via the body relating to world.
It as the central point of measurement, the point 1, in the standard, when self-consciousness is present, or point 0 in more primitive minds which have no sense of self and their senses are outwardly focused.
0 is a measurement of self-knowledge, making all external phenomena 'ones', and/or multiples of it.
When self-consciousness emerges it starts with 'one' as the beginning point of reference, and otherness in relation to it as multiples or divisions.
But all this is complicating the subject.

Basically words and how one uses and understands them is dependent no how the mind relates to world and how self-aware it is.
For a healthy mind 'truth' means a subjective interpretation of an unknowable cosmos, that can only be known in degree.
For a dis-eased, infected by Nihilism, mind, 'truth' is defined literally, using Abrahamic concepts of absolute, omniscience, where subjectivity IS world, and words ARE the patterns they refer to, and not representations of them. Only in the Modern mind does the word 'truth' acquire the absolute state of a noetic abstraction, mistaken for the phenomenon themselves.
To put it another way....only in the Modern's mind do words usurp the real, and eventually replace it as a 'higher' reality. Only in such a dis-eased, mind, driven by emotion, primarily the mother of them all 'anxiety/fear', is the noetic abstraction mistaken for a universal absolute.
Some, because they are genetically unable to think beyond a certain level, and for others because they are too cowardly to dare.

For a healthy mind using the term 'truth' need not be accompanied by a disclaimer.
It means a subjective interpretation of the objective, the world, which is held to be superior, not omniscient, and it is held to be so only until a superior to it, is found.
for a dis-eased mind, still reverting to Bicameral confusion, or fleeing into it, to hide from a world that frightens it, the term 'truth' always implies an absolute, static, complete, perfect, whole, knowledge and understanding....it always refers to a godliness, as it has been raised withing Nihilistic spiritual teachings, such as Abrahamism, and have only progressed to a secular form of it, into Alexandrianism, believing that the world is knowable, and knowable absolutely, in some coming future time.
This 'coming time' is a secularized form of the concept of 'paradise, in the beyond...and the theoretical state of absolute knowledge is but another way of saying 'mind of god'.
The phrase "there is absolutely no absolute" begins with the absolute as a self-evident fact, to which only an absolute negation is possible....when the concept of absolute, if taken literally, is the absurdity which needs to prove itself.
This follows the methodology of Christianity, and its One God.
The concept itself is contradicted by reality, as there is no one, anywhere, and no omniscient, no omnipotent, has ever, or will ever, be found, and yet they propose it as a concept negating the experienced, the perceived as "TRUTH", to which one can only respond by lowering one's self to that level of 'thinking' and to negate it by adopting its absurdity as if it were 'fact'.

to the proposition ' there are absolutes' one can only respond with ' Show me one. Do not tell me of a theory, or a hypothetical, show me one absolute, that is one instance of perfection, indivisibility, wholeness, oneness. Do not present words, present acts', because even the concept of universe is an abstraction, alluding to a oneness,. by noetically going 'outside' space/time to perceive the 'totality' as a 'whole'.
The Modern proposes a concept contradicted by its parts.....that it it ignores the present, or considers it an illusion, or a complexity hiding something from him, to justify an abstraction which is contradicted by the experience of it.
It believes the noetic concept of a 'whole' the mathematical abstraction of 'one', is more than a human method of conceptualizing the fluctuating cosmos, but that it is an underlying, or overarching more REAL reality, to the one experienced.
It convinces itself that the way its mind can make sense of a fluid world, by using simplified/generalized, static mental models, called abstractions, or noumena, is more than an evolved method of coping with a fluctuating cosmos but it is, itself, the real universe.
In other words, that its own ideas, theories, usurp the experienced, and therefore an absence of absolutes, in the experienced, the sensually perceived, can only be hiding a yet to be discovered absolute, given such names as God, One, Whole, Here, Now, Self.
The absence of such absolutes it calls 'nihilism' , expressing its own emotional reaction to its inability o find it ready-made. It negates the experienced when it refuses to offer it 'meaning', 'purpose', 'direction', 'certainty', comfort.
Just as with the Abrahamics, it awaits a coming salvation, a time the future, where the absolute will reveal itself, releasing the world from the certainty, anxiety, of fluctuation...on other words from existence.

When a mind uses a symbol, a word, in an absolute sense, he is referring to his own abstraction of it, which may, or may not, have a reference outside it, and he is understanding it literally, not as relationships but as a whole, which he cannot justify, nor prove.

Linguistic confusion can be the product of a lack of talent, an inartistic mind, or of a motive, fining in its own freedom, form the limitations of world, a relief from a dissatisfying world, filling it with anxiety.

I would say that this linguistic confusion, or lack of talent, is a continuance of the Bicameral minds primitiveness.
The Bicameral mind confused its own self-consciousness for an external being, and its internal dialogue for a alien voice.
The Modern, has advanced, but not by much. It confuses its own representations for external phenomena, and its own noetic constructs it mistakes for something external.

That such minds cannot advance beyond the paradox presented by the statement "There is absolutely no absolute", or "Truth is there is no truth", unable to understands why its own error is at work, points to a genetic deficiency, or a psychological one.
It is so desperate for a certainty, an absolute end, that it deliberately, or mistakenly, confuses the word 'truth' and 'absolute' as something more than a noetic construct, and though it has never experienced such a concept, nor can it define or justify it, despite its absoluteness, it continues to hold onto the word, as a drowning man holds onto a life-jacket wrapped around his head.

It holds onto a definition of 'truth' as a completion to knowledge/understanding, and to absolute as a mathematical concept of 'absolute zero temperature' or the theoretical singular point in space/time, represented by the Big Bang, or it uses such methods as "bachelors are absolutely not married", purposefully ignoring the human constructs in the statement, to continue believing in an end, as certainty.
Human evolution went through the confusions of an emergent self-consciousness, to the present state of confusion the method, the means, for the end.
Like I said, in most cases there is no will at work. Most people are simply not intellectually sophisticated enough, not self-aware enough, to comprehend how paradoxes are linguistically based, and why the cosmos is counter-intuitive, and to them we can ascribe trait of 'innocence', the but some are guilty, as they willfully remain obtuse and worship their own delusions, because they've discovered that the world does not yield to their will, unless you detach form it and replace it with an esoteric reality, where will can manipulate symbols, words, and make any connection possible, creating meanings that have application in world, but only among humans, similarly motivated and dis-eased.

These dis-eased minds become staunch defenders of social conventions, or humanity, because without it the world would force upon them a price for their detachments, and their confusions.
Codependency is how they ensure a protective shield, which will mitigate between them and a world they dismiss, preferring heir own personal, subjectively detached one.
Parasitism where reciprocity establishes a relationship excluding all that does not fit into its dynamics.
Their only interest is to maintain and reinforce the co-dependencies they depend upon to remain safe, in their own private universe.They become fanatical humanists, egalitarians, social warriors, defenders of "justice", as a way of increasing participation in their protective cocoons.
They have no real interest in reality. All they care for is to expand the protective network, and compete their way for the coveted middle ground, the center of the herd, where it is the safest.
for such despicable cowards, 'philosophy' is nothing more than politics, towards this end: a way of understanding humans, to exploit them, and to manufacture mental models to seduce them and keep them 'around' - buy their presence.

A Modern imbecile see absolutes everywhere because his mind can only make sense of the fluid by reducing it to abstractions.
He has about the same ability to show us a one as he has of showing us a unicorn.

Saying all relative does not mean all is equally valid, as some abstraction (noumena) refer to phenomena and others refer back to other noumena, with no contact with reality.

An abstraction is created, in the mind, by simplifying/generalizing sensual input into a thing, an idea, a concept, a mental model.
For instance he reduces a horse, the congruity of patterns/processes called horse, to an idea, an image, a concept, and then he symbolizes it with the word 'horse'.
The horse itself is not static, but a dynamic, ever-changing phenomenon, but the concept horse is static, and can be used to refer to any horse, as if they were absolutely the same, when, in fact, even the same horse is not the same with itself, at any given time.
What is reduced to a static image is a continuity, of memory, connecting all the processes as a singular event, a presence.
This is a direct reference to the phenomenon horse...but in the mind no such reference is necessary, as the simplification/generalization can persist even if the horse, the phenomenon itself, is not present....therefore we can have an idea of horse, which can then be deconstructed into parts, and combined with another phenomenon, a goat, let's say, or a human, and construct an artificial concept, such as a CENTAUR, which is now an abstraction, a human artificial construct, an idea, with no reference in reality, other than in parts.
This method can be sued to also construct completely detached from reality concepts, like equality, or absolute, or god, or justice.

Consider the symbol #1.
It is a theoretical absolutes, negated by an equally theoretical absolute the 0.
These symbols are useful, as representing phenomenon. the utility of mathematics is that they can be applied to represent any phenomenon, whereas a word is limited by its definition.
Numbers are good for representing processes.

Yet, where is a one outside the mind?
Nowhere.
It does not exist outside the mind, as it is a symbol used by the mind to reduce fluidity to a thing, to simplify/generalize the fluctuating imploding it to a level the brain can process and save,a s memory.

To say there are no absolutes can be reworded as there is no ONE, or there is no perfect, whole, no indivisible, no static, no complete, no end, no god.
One is the most abstract representation of the theoretical, noetic, absolute.
As a representation it can be used to refer to processes, such as an organism, or to differentiate parts of the Flux as in 'stone', or 'particle', or can be used to implode a causality to a presence, such as Rex the dog is one dog when one means the totality of processes past,, and present, and future, held in memory, genes being memory.
As anything other than representation it is non-existent.

To better understand this I will use a metaphor I've used before.
The noumenon is like the snapshot.
The image is not the phenomenon itself, but a frozen, in space/time, representation of it.
Frozen meaning simplified/generalized, interpreted in a way the camera can process and then replicate.
The picture is of an absolute, as it is complete, static, and seemingly unchanging, even if the film is deteriorating and (inter)active at undetectable speeds.
The picture of a dog is not the dog itself.
We can store the picture, put it in our pocket, use it to recall a specific moment in time, but it still is not the dog itself. The dog is a process, bound by memory.
It is the brain that perceives it as a thing, a unity. When perceiving unities as organic it is accurate, since the memory binding the unity is in the unity itself - as DNA, but when applying this to inanimate objects, such as a stone, or a particle, or a cloud, then you are projecting memory where there is none.
In fact you are projecting your own memory, and then confusing it as belonging to this phenomenon.
A cloud is held as a unity by the mind. It is a singular cloud only in the mind, as it is the mind that has reduced it to a one thing.
If I take a picture of a cloud then this oness is preserved when the cloud itself is lost in time.
It is the mind that reduces world to absolutes, to abstractions, which may or may not correspond to actual phenomena.


Furthermore, an organism itself is never a static thing, similar to itself at any given time. It is also continuously dynamic, changing, because it is interacting, and so when i say Rex, my dog, I am not referring to absolutely the exact same dog every time, no more than you, as self are not the same as you were a yer ago, ro a second ago...all being process.
What is marinating my dog Rex as a singular being, same as itself, is memory. Not only my own, of it, but in Rex itself, an organism held together by the memory of DNA. Rex is a continuum, i relate to in space/time as an appearance. I recognize Rex as being the same, sensually.
Although Rex is dynamic and is changing as i look at him, he is not changing at a discernible rate - my brain cannot see all the minute processes I call Rex, changing the phenomenon. I only see a generalized/simplified representation my brain has fabricated, base don sensual input.
This is why appearance IS the essence of phenomenon, and not a covering, not an illusion.
Every trait Rex has is a product of my mind interpreting the essence of Rex to a form my mind can process and store in memory.
The only way to corrupt this is I willfully construct a covering, such as clothing, to hide the essence of Rex, which is apparent in form, smell, sound, colour, texture etc.

Rex is not an absolute as the organism, the continuum, I named Rex is dynamic....it is never static, complete, perfect, whole, never one, in the literal sense, because every time I say I have "one dog and his name is Rex" I am applying the symbol to refer to a slightly different Rex.
I am actually referring to as continuum, a becoming, I've named Rex, and i think began at its birth and will end at its death....which only refers to the congruity of patterns, processes, I call Rex.
Rex may die, end as a congruity, but the patterns that were part of it do not end with Rex's death.
They continue on, recombining into new congruities, and also slowly deteriorating in time....due to entropy.

'There are no absolutes' means there is only superior/inferior, and this only within a spatial/temporal limit.
To determine superior from inferior one uses world, of interactive patterns, called phenomena, as a measuring standard.
It is in reference to world, or reality, where superior/inferior is revealed.

Our subjectivity is tested against the world. Subjectivity is an interpretation, a relationship, with this shared world.
How accurate this interpretation is is determined by the consequences of actions based on judgments - judgment = interpretation.
A judgment is not automatically 'correct' or no different than any other, because that would make consciousness, and judgment, superfluous, useless.

We call superior subjectivity 'objectivity', when it approaches the phenomenon with no corrupting emotion, self-interest, or any other motive than clarity.
The outcome of the application of judgments. based on this subjective relationship with world, is how the quality of our interpretation, our understanding, is made obvious.
Still, a theoretical approach can be used, if the mind is honest and courageous enough to avoid emotional and egotistical corruptions from infecting the outcome.
The advantage of this practice is that the individual avoids the costs of application, yet the price for this is reduced certainty - the outcome is less obvious.
The practice entails a continuous reference of one's abstractions to phenomena outside the mind, and the intervening influences of other minds, particularly humans.
Reason is that humans minds, in particular, intervene upon reality projecting there their own constructs, and not all humans can be trusted to seek objectivity, as most are motivated emotionally and by self-serving goals.  
The referencing of noetic construct directly to phenomena, in time, reduces error caused by ignorance, or lingering emotion, ego, so that a superior clarity can be achieved....a clarity not necessarily beneficial to the organism as the world is indifferent to human needs, and to deal with world honestly means you are willing to see it as it is, and not as you prefer it to be.
Some insights are unbearable to the average mind, and this is why Nihilism is so seductive and why not all can be philosophers, in the purest definition of the term.

The only evidence that can contradict the absence of absolutes is its presentation, not as words, but as something tangible, outside minds, to be perceived sensually.
Short of this the word absolute refers to nothing more than a human idea, with no reference outside of it.
Theory, words, are not evidence.
Until an absolute is discovered, outside human brains, they remain theoretical abstractions used as tools, and now as toys for play or to masturbate.

All is divisible, all is fluid, changing, dynamic, interactive, ...all is in Flux, which is a metaphorical way of saying there is no end, no absolute anything.
All is process reduced to things, waves/vibrations, reduced to particles, to abstractions and then given symbols.

The brain is dependent upon and limited by its own methods.
To even attempt to describe reality one must use human abstractions.
This is why words cannot be taken literally but artistically.

When I say cosmos is counter-intuitive, I mean it is fluid, when the brain needs statics models; it is dynamic and changing, when the brain needs complete, simplified/generalized models.

To use the previous metaphor, the brain relies on photographs, can only produce photographs, when the world cannot be reduced to a picture.

Colour is how the brain interprets a particular vibration.
The vibration (pattern) is how the phenomenon (inter)acts with the medium of light, and then the sense organ, in this case the eye.
This stimuli is then translated into a form the body can process, such as neural pulses, which are then transmitted, via the nervous system, to the brain, where the final processing takes place.
The brain accumulates stimuli, and then converts them to abstractions, based on the rate of vibration, based no how the patterns (inter)acted, first with light, and then with the sense organ, based on its own metabolic rates establishing processing speeds.
This last determines if the phenomenon will be interpreted as matter, or energy.
Colour is one of the ways the brain interprets stimuli - the visual kind.
Using other sense organs the interpretation takes another form, such as sound. With sound the medium is atmosphere, or air.

The mind perceives in accordance to its sophistication, and that of the sense organ, and in accordance with the organisms' metabolic rates, or the osculation rates (systolic/diastolic rhythms) of the congruity used to process data - i.e. the brain.
For example, the degree of details within a congruity a mind perceives determines how much of the particular patterns, in a congruity, it can differentiate.
In the case of colour, a phenomenon, such as a rock surface, may be perceived to be uniformly grey, and yet with higher acuity the mind would perceive gradations of hues in the rock, representing the variety of patterns in congruence.

Dictionary wrote:

ab·so·lute
ˈabsəˌlo͞ot,ˌabsəˈlo͞ot/Submit
adjective
1.
not qualified or diminished in any way; total.
"absolute secrecy"
synonyms: complete, total, utter, out-and-out, outright, entire, perfect, pure, decided; More
2.
viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative.
"absolute moral standards"
synonyms: universal, fixed, independent, nonrelative, nonvariable, absolutist
"absolute moral standards"
noun
1.
PHILOSOPHY
a value or principle that is regarded as universally valid or that may be viewed without relation to other things.
"good and evil are presented as absolutes"

Whoever claims to see absolutes "everywhere" is either an imbecile, or a liar.

All is dynamic.
All is contingent.
Nothing it eternal and/or universal.
Nothing is perfect, or complete, or whole.
Nothing is final, certain.
All is degrees, establishing hierarchies.  

The Laws of Physics man invents to make sense of existence, are laws describing patterns, and how hey relate.
As we know the Four Forces of Nature...
...represent how ordered patterned (inter)act - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
And although they were 2, when the Big Bang occurred, they have splintered, in space/time, into 4, and will then splinter into 8, and so on...
These represent the level of human awareness of reality, categorized according to type of (inter)action.
Quantum Physics indicates that much of what is called world remains, for man, mysterious, or rather mystifying, as it contradicts his method of understanding - contradicts Newtonian Physics.
Reality is to a large extent counter-intuitive, not only because it is in Flux, but also because it is not all ordering - chaos, randomness, being a increasing state, describing it.
Timeline = from near-absolute order, towards near=absolute chaos.

This hints at the existence of randomness - chaos.
Without it order is meaningless, and valueless, and the emergence of life impossible.
In String Theory the metaphorical representation of a strong, vibrating, must exclude the string, leaving only vibration, as a way to conceptualize what is occurring.

A particle, is an imploded wave - it is wave simplified/generalized into a 'thing', a one, a whole.
It is the brain that simplifies/generalizes a 'wave' of dynamism, a vibration/pattern, to a thing.
It is theoretical - a human construct (abstraction, noumenon).
The brain cannot process fluidity of constant (inter)activity unless it reduces it, by simplifying/generalizing, to a 'thing'.
Thing is a mental qualia, a mental metaphor.
It is the lowest form of interpretation.

There are no participles, there are patterns (inter)acting, that is relating, as attraction/repulsion, then coming into congruence, momentarily, or for longer periods, if the level of attraction is higher than the degree of repulsion.
When this is the case we call it 'harmony'.
Balance is what we call a near-perfect relationship of attraction/repulsion, creating stable tension.

There is no such thing as absolute harmony, as there is no such thing like absolute, complete, total, attraction/ and/or repulsion.
Attraction/Repulsion indicates how a patterns (inter)acts with another patterns. When their vibrations are closer in tune, they are in closer to harmony, they attract.
There are only degree of attraction/repulsion.
Every patterns both attracts and repels another if it is different in vibration.  

All absolutes are human constructs (abstractions - interpretations, translations, metaphors, symbols), meaningless outside human minds and how it relates to cosmos (Flux), or to other human minds.

Vibration = oscillation, continuous, (inter)activity.
If the patterns is ordered, then it is also repeating. The same oscillation repeating.  
If the patterns is random (chaotic) then there is only continuity, no repetition - energy shifting from one rate of oscillation to another, dropping in and out of awareness, as if magical.
This has been metaphorically described as "quantum foam", and the notion of order emerging out of chaos describes it.
Scientists also call it background radiation, describing a state where space is not void of energy, but only subsides to a degree where man cannot perceive it ....ergo there is no absolute zero degrees of temperature.
Absolute Zero, is a human construct, a metaphor.
Absolute Zero if realized would mean non-existence.    

With no memory there is no emergent unity, for even organisms are emergent unities, incomplete, striving towards being, yet not being - becoming.
When interpreting lifeless matter, or congruities that are not self-maintaining, such as a rock, it is the mind that reduces them to 'things', by differentiating parts of reality, from the background.
For example, a particular stone, "one stone" is not one, in itself, it is the human brain that separates it from a pile of stones, as a 'one'.
The stone has no part in this unification. It has no motive.
Man is the motivator, distinguishing a particular piece of a pile of stones, as a one stone, to study it, to clarify it. The level of acuity determines how much further he can go in distinguishing new 'ones'....as he then perceives a bump on the stone, or if using a technological device that multiplies his visual acuity may perceive particles in the stone.
Infinite divisibility indicates consciousness, converting dynamic patterns into 'things', concepts, ideas, that can then be divided, according to man's will, his motives, or his level of comprehension, sensual acuity, knowledge.
Divisibility is how the human mind can understand eternal Flux.

The term 'fundamental' implies absolutes, but it is really the highest degree of awareness man, with the aid of his technologies, can perceive.
Man, then, divides what he can perceive into categories, according to their patterns and how they (inter)act, how they relate.
Adding the 'fundamental principle' of patterns following the path-of-least-resistance, we can say that this may be true in the present state of the cosmos but it is not to be considered eternally so, as the cosmos is altering as we speak.
Furthermore, the path-of-least-resistance is followed by non-living congruities, whereas living organism will choose a path-of-more-resistance as part of their competition with other life-forms - a way to outperform other organisms. Only life can choose a path-of-more-resistance, directing its aggregate energies with - Will. This is part of how organic life, living congruities, differ from non-living circumstantial congruities.

Technology/Techniques = man translates memories/experiences, into a code, such as mathematics/geometry, to externalize his abstractions.
This externalization of man's understanding of internal processes results in machinery. Machinery mirroring organic processes.
Man, essentially, externalizes what he can perceive and understand, of the patterns in congruence, participating in the emergent unity he calls 'self'.

Understanding = awareness of relationships, between different patterns - giving a congruity meaning.

Math is a language.
The most abstract form, as its symbols can apply to anything. We can say 1 tree, 1 forest, one area, one continent, on 1 planet, in 1 solar system, in 1 galaxy, in 1 universe.
It is the absolute reduction of existence to a static form.
The logic of 1+1=2 is found in its staring proposition, the 1.
It is logical because ti is consistent with its own starting premise..
There is no one, outside the human brain.
One is a metaphor applicable to anything, because unlike other symbolic forms, like words, it is the most abstract symbol man has constructed.
Mathematics is a language, and like all languages it reflects the organism that uses them to understand, interpret and transmit knowledge.
There is no 1 outside human brains, and in the brain it is held in a constant state of ambiguity, as nobody can define one without referring to something outside the brain.
One simply represents the abstraction.There is, nor can there ever be a one.
language is a method, a tool, a translation of the fluid into a manageable simplified form.

Within this context subjetivity defines the evolved a priori methods of interpreting, transmitting, and processing sensually gathered data.
Finding patterns in the data establishes understanding, and meaning.
Objectivity defines a quality of subjectivity, just as strength does not describe omnipotence, but a degree of weakness.
It defines an understanding of world which has been achieved by eliminating corrupting factors, such as ego, emotion, and self-interest - all motives other than towards clarity, an approach to world as it is, and not as we prefer it to be.
As such 'objectivity' represents a higher quality of subjectivity.

All judgments are not absolute truths.
To say someone is 'taller'' does not describe absolute height.
To say someone is intelligent, does not mean omniscient.
To say someone is strong, does not mean omnipotent.
To say someone is beautiful, does not mean absolute symmetry, perfection.
All value judgments are juxtapositions, of the perceiver with the perceived, or one phenomenon with another....in relation to a standard.
The standard may be external, as a average of all similar phenomena, or it can be self, as much of self is perceived honestly. Nihilists prefer the last, and they interpret self dishonestly because they do not like comparing self to an average other.
All is degree.
Degree of awareness, degrees of understanding, degrees of perception, degree of beauty, degree of strength, degrees of courage, degrees of power, establishing the hierarchy of superior/inferior.

As I see it, quantum physics and even much more mundane physics is counter-intuitive because it's not our experience growing up and how we experience our body and some intuitive understanding formed in our minds through evolution in a given environment. Like the fear of falling off from (great) heights or fear from getting crushed under an unstable looking boulder or something.


For example, when we lift up an object and hold it straight in front of us then our arm gets tired rather quickly. From that experience, we could assume that holding an object in place requires an expenditure of energy. If we were to hang this object from the ceiling on a thick wire then it would remain hanging there for a very long time. If it's a stainless wire which is thick enough to hold it without reaching critical levels of material strain then probably for hundreds of years without any energy input whatsoever.

But the expenditure of energy in our body is real on a microscopic level in our muscles.
We don't freeze our muscles when we hold an object. Actually they are always slipping and slipping even when it seems we are holding our arm steady. What happens is that this constant ever slipping of the muscle fibres in compensated by actively contracting the fibres all the time which requires energy.
Kind of like a car trying to drive up an icy mountain road where it's so slippy that it would glide down the hill if it wouldn't constantly spin its tires to remain in its place.

At some point the immediate energy reserves in the muscle cells are depleted and we have to relax the muscle. At least if you are not some mystery yogi in India with his petrified arm, lol.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Typical physics question for basic mechanics. (I got it wrong myself the first time I heard it)

2 spring scales in series.
What are each of the spring scales measuring?

A: Both measure 10kg
B: The top one measures 10kg and the lower one 0kg
C: The lower one measures 10kg and the top one 0kg
D: Both measure 5kg

The answer is the first letter in this post.

Yes, intuition evolved to serve an organism in what Dawkins called the 'middle world', where 'middle' is the human condition, or the average organic metabolic rate, or speed of perception.
Towards the faster speeds of vibration and the slower all is interpreted as darkness.

Our senses and brains did not evolve to perceive anything beyond the simplifications/generalizations necessary to survive, but as man evolved beyond survival, he became curious as to the nature of existence in general.

Weight is a relationship between phenomena.
In the example it is the weight and earth (inter)acting or attracting repelling one another.
Scales are also part of it, made to measure the tension repulsion and attraction produces.

Typical mistake made by a mind evolved on earth, is the non-existent dimensions of up/down.
Up/Down are abstractions representing a relationship to earth.
Outside this relationship the concept is meaningless.
It is based on attraction/repulsion.
Attraction = down, or towards.
Repulsion = up, or away

Concepts of subjectivity/objectivity refer to the division between interpreter and interpreter, or perceiving mind and perceived body.
The abstraction is real, in that it is an arrangement of neural cells, creating a mental image. But this is a representation of what stimulated its creation.
Painting of a horse, and the horse are both real, but one is a representation of a organic congruity, using alternative materials.
The idea, abstraction of the horse is not the horse itself - noumenon representing a phenomenon.
The phenomenon can be perceived because it is (inter)active, in other words it exists, because to exist means to be (inter)active, and not simply active for active implies a singularity, whereas (inter)active includes another, a perciever and a medium such as light, atmosphere.
What is perceived is how the phenomenon (inter)acted with the medium, and then how the medium (inter)acted with the sense organ,. transmitting the original (inter)action to the organism.
This is why I titled my metaphysical positions Interactions & Interpretations.


This method of perceiving is successful, this is why it has survived time/space, and it has evolved.
It becomes problematic in a increasingly self-aware organism, such as man, facing itself and an existence that dissatisfies it......Nihilism is rooted in human anxiety, cowardice, offering relief.
As I've explained before, the problem, the error, begins when said organism mistakes its interpretation for the actual, either because ti lacks the acuity or the courage, intentionally or not.
This simple mistake is the beginning of Nihilism, because what it does is it allows the organism to begin believing that by manipulating its own constructs, its abstractions and then its symbols, its words, it can master the cosmos.
At first this is not problematic, because thee symbols used are conduits attaching mind, or its constructs, the noumena, to the world, to phenomena, but in time when the mind begins to completely detach from reality and immerse itself in its own noetic construct Nihilism emerges.
This last phase demands a intervening force, such as a social system, institution, mitigating between organism and world, to protect it from its own errors in judgment, to allow it to live within the benefits of its own artifices, such as techniques/technologies, and to exploit its increasing dependence and detachment, retardation.
Of course the individual itself feels this as a 'positive' because it reverts to a infant-like state of dependence and protective assurance, free to play with minimal consequences.

This is why Moderns are always passionately pro systemic interventions, such as access to abortion, policing, justice, common morality, consensus, compromises. these assure ti that its own poor judgment calls will not result in severe costs, or death, but only in minimal ones it can survive and 'learn from'.
thing is learning without severity is incomplete.
Need is the mother of invention, as as need diminished innovation, invention, seriousness, diminishes.
Nothing really matters because nothing, in the mind of a modern, is severe enough, in costs, to matter - he is retarded and maintain in a perpetual state of adolescence.
Feeling invincible, experimental, brave, playful.
Cynicism is I the infantile state prolonged for so long that the mind loses respect for everything...it mocks and belittles and disregards everything, other than methods of play, distraction, to alleviate the only need that still plagues its mind - boredom.
Ennui is a product of safe, predictable, superfluous, low risk, environments - manmade ones.

With diminishing severity the mind convinces itself, or begins to believe, it is powerful, that its judgments are equal to any others.
Mind becomes demanding, with an increasing sense of entitlement - it deserves parity, or access to techniques/technologies to achieve parity, to compensate for its own inferior genes.
Linguistic, semantics, is how it cynically, convinces itself that its playfulness is serious.
It uses words as toys, and not as tools, for dealing with world.
World is dealt with, by another - System.
It's only interest in it is to find pleasure, to entertain itself, to find an identity missing.

It can explore, make mistakes, and laugh, because nothing it does has a severe cost.
This is considers evidence of its bravery.

The organism when protected reverts to an infant state - it retards.
It become s a subjectivist.
All is a matter of perspective, I the 'eye of the beholder' because no choice has a cost so great to be taken seriously, and when it does, because human systems are also imperfect, it demands systemic intervention o save it from the severity of the unforeseen costs, since it only focuses on benefits.
A child does not have to foresee anything, its imagination now turning inward and becoming fantasy, to play within.
It becomes introspective, forever navel gazing, because world has ceased to be demanding, threatening.

Knowledge = data collection, and translation into a form the organism can process.
Energies, a medium, interacted with, and assimilated by converting the stimulation interaction produces into neurological pulses, in the case of mammals and/or higher organisms.

Understanding = perception, or recognition, of patterns in the data, resulting in meaning.
The organism judges hat the phenomenon means, projecting from this future behaviour.
In lower life-forms on such projection occurs, as they possess no brains, or no nervous systems sophisticated enough for such work. They React to stimuli based on a genetic code - memories passed ion as automatic reactions to particular stimulation. This, in turn, triggers a response, an action.
In higher life-forms it sets up the necessity for a choice, a course of action - a judgment call.

The quality of the interpretation and of the judgment determines the success or failure of the subsequent actions taken, or choices made.
The degree to which the organism perceived the correct meanings, or the relationships between patterns, determines the outcome as cost/benefit.
This evolves better judgment within a trial based mechanism - evolution.
Sheltering, institutionalization, produces atrophy, a dysgenic deterioration of judgments, and of the quality of organisms - stupidity increases when there is no stress; dis-ease increases when there is no severity in the costs/benefits the organism produces with its own judgments.

No matter how comprehensive an explanation for Top-Down/Quantificating/Reifying thought, the simpleton will always demand others simplify to a level it can participate in.

Your recent posts (last 25ish, week or two) have been comprehensive and pertinent to my own study, Satyr. Thanks.

Slaughtz wrote:

No matter how comprehensive an explanation for Top-Down/Quantificating/Reifying thought, the simpleton will always demand others simplify to a level it can participate in.

Your recent posts (last 25ish, week or two) have been comprehensive and pertinent to my own study, Satyr. Thanks.

No problem. Like I've told many others before...do not just take my word on it, take my positions, and validate them yourself, in your own environment.

Test my views and your own, against reality.

Nature = sum of all past nurturing, or simply sum of all past, so as to include all (inter)activities influencing the causal chain of development, of evolution.
Nurture = immediate effects of (inter)activity, both willful, and not.

Nurturing cannot erase centuries of nurturing, it can only teach a method of coping, of hiding, of adjusting it to the immediate.

Pertaining to the immediate, what we call present but is really the most recent past, due to the lag produced by the time/space required for the brain to collect and process data, nature describes the sum total of (inter)actions affecting the organism directly. In essence the difference between the first and the second definition is one between deep past and shallow past.

Past is stored in code, which we also call memory.
Even organisms with no brain, such as plants, inherit memories through their genetic codes, informing them how to grow, how to react to stimuli, how to process nutrients, and in higher organisms with brains, how to process data, how to translate to a form it can transmit and process  stimuli, and how to convert them to abstractions.

What we call 'present' is in fact the past manifesting as appearance, then interpreted by a conscious observer using its own apriori methods.

Code = in its fundamental level code is an arrangement of molecules creating what we know in mathematics as an algorithm.
Every experience, every (inter)activity, in the course of an organism's lifespan, affects it, and this affect is stored as code, passed on to its offspring.
This is what creates the continuum we refer to as self.
Ego, is its immediate manifestation.

Scientific terms, like species, types, breeds, kinds, would be meaningless without this continuum.

What we call world is another term for nature, though we usually use the latter to differentiate between animated and inanimate congruities, of living and non-living phenomena.
Reality is another word used to describe the same present sum of all (inter)activities.
What is 'real' is what can affect us and can be affected by us - what is (inter)active.

Phenomena = pattern or congruity of patterns perceived as a unity.
That which appears - the present manifesting as presence.
Noumenon = abstraction.
How the brain interprets patterns (inter)acting with a medium, and then with a sense organ (sight, sound, smell), or directly, via the nervous system (touch, taste).
The noumenon is NT the phenomenon. It is a representation of it, with varying degrees of accuracy.
Therefore a word, which is but a symbol of the noumenon, is no moire than a mental construct, that may or may not refer to a phenomenon outside the human mind.

Abstractions can also be constructed by using memory.
The abstraction can take any imaginable form, because the order of nature, is not a limit to how the mind manipulates its own constructs.

Order = probability.
Order is not necessarily manmade. In fact manmade order is subservient to natural order, and any challenge to it results in dire collateral effects, such as pollution, suffering, error resulting in death.
Nature is an order man must submit to.
This is why Abrahamics converted this natural order into a singular God, contradicting nature's multiplicity, unlike the Pagans that preserved it in the form of pantheism.
Objectivism describes this natural order, it does not intervene or create it.
Moderns unable to believe in an order other than God or State, must believe that all Order is conscious, or a product of consciousness, when, in fact, it is natural order that produced consciousness.
Moderns are Nihilists inverting causality to attain a fabricate salvation. They believe they are tricking reality using these linguistic methods.

Choice is a word given to the act of directing an organism's aggregate energies.
This action, and/or focus upon an objective, is what we call Will.

All is in flux, means nobody chooses to be (inter)active, or to exist.
Choice is associated only with living organisms that can self-maintain and direct the processes, to whatever degree they can.

In actually there is no choice to choose, there is only choice of an organism thrown into world or awakening to its condition as organism within fluctuating (inter)activities.
Choice emerges from "within" is a metaphorical way of saying past/nature manifests as presence.

The"within", the esoteric is a term referring to the past, the sum of all (inter)actions that made the organism's presence possible.
most moderns define it as some mystical "internal" to differentiate it from the illusory "external".
The past is never not relevant. It is presence itself.
The appearance of a phenomenon indicates its past, is a schematic of every event, every circumstances, every choice made by it and by its ancestors - it is a map of its past.
To know self is to know, as much as possible, and to understand, all these past (inter)actions manifesting as presence, as appearance.
Self is the psychological term given to this organism's sum of past - its nature, its nature.
Other words commonly used is 'spirit' or 'soul'.
'Ego' is a term used to differentiate known conscious awareness of the continuum we call self, which is a term used to represent the unconscious and/or unknown past/nature, and past/nature that preceded the birth of the individual.  


Choice is directed by need, which is the organism's experiencing existence as a (inter)activity that drains its aggregate energies.
The organism chooses in accordance with its needs, whether it realizes it or not.

The term usually means the organism taking the path-of-least resistance, or most admirably, when it chooses to ignore its natural tendencies and choose, wilfully focusing its energies, to take the path-of-more-resistance, so as to gain an advantage.

Individual is a term given to a continuum, a causality chain, held together by memory, whether conscious, in the form of experiences of (inter)actions stored in the brain, or in the form of DNA, which is how memory is stored in the body.
The latter presupposing the first.
There is no individual without memory, therefore when man speaks of individual stones, or clouds, it is his own memory he is transferring into a phenomenon.

Memory is patterns translated into organic arrangements.
Memory stored in the brain are neurons arranges to reproduce particular sensations, feelings, and images in more sophisticated brains.
DNA is memory stored as nucleotide, arranged in particular combinations and proportions, by (inter)activity in the past.
Past = Nature = sum of all nurturing = sum of all previous (inter)actions = causal chain.

Self = the term given by a self-conscious organism to this causal chain, and then also used to refer to non-living congruities to represents a continuum of memory not present in the apparent.
It is consciousness that discriminates a particular piece of reality, based on attraction/repulsion dynamics it interprets as similar/different.
For example, it is a conscious mind that distinguishes a stone from a pile of stones, or from a mountain, or distinguishes a grain of sand on the seashore, and then imagines the chain of events that resulted in its presence, its appearance, as an intentional unity - its projects its own intentions into what lacks it, or transfers memory from self to other.
The apparent, when non-living, is simply pattern, coming into congruence with the particular way each pattern (inter)acts with other pasterns - attraction/repulsion following the path-of-least-resistance. As such a congruence of patterns, such as a grain of sand, is the manifestation of all past (inter)actions, but there is no intent, an no memory in its presence.

Ego = a term used to refer to the most immediate manifestation of Self, and to the awareness of of the processes associated with the continuum of Self.
Where 'self' refers to memories built over time that may produce consciousness, or may remain on a primal state of unconscious reactivity, 'ego' refers to the part of 'self' aware of its memories, in others words 'self' awakening to itself thinking, recalling - awakening to the automatic processes, the automatic (inter)actions of attraction/repulsion, that make it possible.
'Self' is what the 'ego' calls the still unknown, uncontrolled, processes and memories - what it calls the past/nature yet unknown to it.
Therefore Know Thyself is a challenge ego puts upon itself, urging it to know more, and through this knowledge understand more, and control more, through the practice of asceticism - mind/body askesis.

The concept of 'self' is meaningless with no memory, manifesting as intent.
It is the ego interpreting the sum of all (inter)actions intending to produce self, when, in fact, the opposite is true.
Self perseveres despite (inter)actions
It is not only the relationship of attraction, but the relationship of repulsion that produces the emergent unity, the continuum 'held together' by memory - the memory of being repulsed by patterns and congruities of patterns disharmonious to its own congruity.
It is this repulsion by other that helps it overcome its own internal repulsive forces.

In other words, although attraction/repulsion is part of all pattern (inter)actions, a congruity is maintained not only by the superiority of the attractive over the repulsive relationships between the patterns participating in its congruity, but also by the repulsion of patterns outside the congruity.

The fact that consciousness begins the process of understanding other by first understanding self, man builds techniques/technologies based on this increasing understanding of self - converting genetic code to mathematical code to externalize what it knows and understands of the processes participating in its congruity.
It follows that man would also project his own intent, into congruities that lack it, and that he would impose his own memory, his own knowledge of the continuum he calls self, and of his ego, into world - or insert the known into the unknown, and by doing so he would see himself mirrored in everything.
The same confusion, of the Bicameral Mind, that produced gods speaking to men, and the mystical as a product of external wills, is now at work in man's still infantile relationship with himself, in world.
It is true that the same patterns man perceives outside of himself, in living and non-living congruities, are part of his own emergent unity, his own self-sustaining congruity, and because of this he also assumes that his own memory is present in all otherness, or that because he is awakening to his own memories and intentions, that these memories and intents are present in all congruities.
Where primitive man mistook his own consciousness speaking to him for an alien other, Modern Nihilist man mistakes his own noetic abstractions for the phenomenon itself, or his own memories and intentions as belonging to another,

Man abstracts phenomena, reducing them to a thing, to a noumenon.
When man recognizes a congruity, a phenomenon, he recognizes its pattern of (inter)acting, its behaviour.

For example...
When man recognizes a horse, a particular horse in a drove of horses, or a horse in relation to a herd of bovines, or horse in the forest among the trees, he does not perceive every process, every pattern (inter)acting, in the congruity 'horse' he recognizes the manifestation of all these patterns (inter)acting, all the processes as individual horse.
The particular horse, is reduced to a thing, though it is a multiplicity of processes, most of which the observer is oblivious to, and cannot perceive, and some, such as those included in its internal organs, are hidden.

The 'horse' is multiplicity of processes, patterns, acting in congruence - a relationship of attraction AND repulsion having attained a imperfect state of balance, representing a continuum of memory. It's appearance is the same as other horse because they share a past, a memory - DNA.

Man reduces all this (inter)activity, past and present, to a 'thing' and calls it 'a horse' or give sit a more intimate name, representing his own relationship with the particular horse.
The horse is not a 'thing' it is a multiplicity.
It is man that simplifies/generalizes this multiplicity of dynamic, ongoing, processes, of patterns continuously (inter)acting, into a idea, a concept, a type,- he abstracts it, and calls this abstraction a 'thing' or symbolizes it using some other code representing this abstraction.

The 'a' in 'a horse' or 'the' in 'the horse' indicates this reduction of its multiplicity, its fluidity, to a singularity.
But even the term multiplicity implies 'things' exposing the minds dependence on abstractions, demanding a evolution in conceptualization.
Patterns (inter)acting cannot be reduced to the statement 'things interacting', because a patterns is not a thing, but a vibration, with a consistent, repeating rate and rhythm....it is this consistency, that the mind interprets as 'thing', as singular object, as one.
One is the noetic implosion of flux, suing similarities/difference, or attraction/repulsion, to distinguish, to discriminate, to differentiate.

This consistent repetition is ORDER.
It is order, or more precisely order-ing, that is implodes, noetically into an abstraction.

In the case of a horse, to return to the previous metaphor, it is a congruity of orderings, imploded into a 'thing', an abstraction, and then given a symbol, a name, a word to represent this implosion, this simplification/generalization.
We distinguish the particular using similarities in behaviour, in patterns, representing its continuum - the memories participating in its congruity.  

When we differentiate a cloud in the sky, from other clouds, or a stone from a pile of stones, or a grain of sand on the beach, in other words when we differentiate non-living congruities, it is we who are injecting memory and intent into the presence, taking ourselves as an example.
The stone made up of a variety of patterns, (inter)acting in accordance to how said patterns (inter)act (repulsion/attraction), have no intent.
Their congruity has no memory producing a continuum.
The same pattern in past and in future will behave in exactly the same way when (inter)acting with another patterns.
Although, due to entropic decay, this is also not entirely so, as patterns deteriorate, producing what we humans experience as time - increasing entropy being how we experience the timeline of past, present and future.  

A pattern, a vibration, has no intent, and no memory. It is a pattern and it can ever be a pattern.
It does not intentionally adjust its behaviour when (inter)acting with a particular kind of other pattern.
(Inter)action is the relationship of attraction/repulsion, of harmony/disharmony between patterns.
There can never be absolute harmony as the patterns are, by definition, not the same. They may be closer in rhythm and rate of oscillation, but never completely so, otherwise they would not be different patterns, and no (inter)action and no existence.
Every divergence, everything we see is a product of disparity, of differentiation.
Similarity is a word we give to describe a degree of difference, similar to how we use strength to describe a degree of weakness, and gnosis to describe a degree of ignorance, and consciousness to describe a degree of unconsciousness.
Everything in relation to increasing chaos.

Chaos is the endless repulsion produced by the absence of pattern.
Randomness can never be in harmony with itself.
There's no consistency, no repeating, reliable, predictability - no rhythms, no possibility for harmony, as harmony is order.
Chaos is the very definition of disharmony.
Randomness = inconsistent, unpredictable, unreliable, non-repeating.

Oder = probability.
Chaos = possibility.  

Probability being a degree of possibility.

Jayne's Bicameral Mind, described a nascent consciousness confusing its emerging inner voice for an external agency. From this primitive man invented gods as the source of this alien, external voice.
Modern man, infected by the memetic disease of Nihilism, confuses his symbols, words, metaphors for external phenomena, projecting the source of his own symbols into an external agency – mistaking his own noumena for the phenomena that triggered and stimulated the process of their emergence.
In some this is a regression, due to cowardice, or a retardation due to protective social sheltering, but in the majority is a product of lower cognitive potentials inherited genetically as a limit to their ability to conceive.

As in the past, the latter group has been exploited by the former group that have presented themselves as the 'knowers' of this external source – priests.
Fools manipulated by cowards, or minds stunted due to stress, or atrophying due to sheltering.
The retarded coward convinces himself that he knows what the source of his confusion is. He does not question his confusion, he embraces it as a sign of his awakening, a sign that he is enlightened – that he is coming into a profound source of wisdom.
The fool sees in the coward's conviction the solution to his own confusion.
Symbiosis.
Nihilism needs other to affirm itself, because it cannot affirm itself against world directly. It cannot validate tits ideals without believers, without followers, without fools.
Its conviction that all is order, and knowable, stems from being surrounded by organic followers.
Therefore, the coward, the priest, the retarded in development, or what I've called the man-child, NEED the fool, just as much as the fool needs the priest (guru, shaman, leader, knower).
Their shared confusion, wilfully, or not, embraced... finds in one another a comforting reaffirmation, that indeed the 'voices in their head' are coming from an external source and, their own abstractions/noumena are, indeed, more than just representations, translation, of phenomena, but are more real than the phenomena that triggered them.
All is subjective because all data is affirmed against subjective minds.
When the noumenon usurps the phenomenon in significance, because its intimate, malleable, certainty soothes the anxiety associated with the phenomenon' unkowabilty, its implied threat and mysteriousness, then we enter the cognitive realm of Nihilism.
The fool becomes addicted to being given meaning, purpose by the cowardly charlatan, to the point where he cannot appreciate insight unless it provides, for him, an external source for what he cannot create for himself.
The cowardly charlatan, in turn, alleviates his own uncertainty, his own insecurity before the real, by the dependence and worship of the fool – increasing in proportion to the numbers of fools affirming him as the external source, or the conduit through which the external source is validated.
Priest and Believers become, for each other, the external other, resolving the self-referential loop of their noetic echo chamber.
The source, whether it be voice in the brain, or abstraction, finds in the other its exterior affirmation.
Solipsism escapes awareness of its condition.
The same confusion is created with the utility of techniques/technologies.
The Modern copies his own processes, converting genetic code to mathematical and/or linguistic code, constructing external copies of his own abstractions of them.
If he is talented and successful he manages to create copies of his own understanding of his own patterns, processes; he considers this evidence that he is in possession of universal 'truths', when all he's accomplished is to understand himself to a degree that allows him to make a replication of himself.
Successful because he, as organism is successful by being present.
As of yet he has been unable to accurately clone all the processes/patterns participating in his congruity, to replicate the iteration required for the externalized copy to become self-sustaining.
The only models that succeed are those placed within limited, controlled computer models that cannot integrate randomness into their artificial environments.
For this reason all technologies produced, as replications of human processes/patterns, remain dependent on human updating and upkeep, within real world conditions.
Still unable to fully understand how iteration works, he ascribes to his ignorance a mystical source – an external will, directing and determining his congruity; he ascribes to it a motive, an intent, outside of his own patterns.
He seeks for an external will determining the process of iteration, which is called self-preservation (survival), and when he cannot find it, he ascribes it to all phenomena, as an underlying mechanism with a universal intent.
Man’s own obsession with his self-preservation he makes into a universal truth, a universal motive.  
He takes himself out of the causal chain, as creator of the abstractions he then externalizes in the form of machines, and/or ideas, and places there a God, or a less anthropomorphic variant which, nevertheless, retains all of the traits he ascribes to himself as living organism. Modern man erases the image of a God, but retains the essence of a God (absolute, universal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, conscious, intentional, caring, whole, unity, one) – this is the secularization of Nihilism.
It's evolution from less sophisticated to more sophisticated, being an advancement from less abstract (anthropomorphic), to more abstract, with no form, no materiality/physicality, pure noetic idea, pure theory – allowing for the abstraction to acquire any form.  
Nihilism advances from a more centralized authoritarian form (Abrahamism, Marxism) to a more individuated form, (Protestantism, Liberalism, Humanism, Transhumanism).
The ‘authority’ of the cowardly Priest/charlatan gives way to the friend/guru, directing/exploiting the follower/fool without making it obvious, as it was in the past.
We see the same at work in Democracy, applied within heterogeneous populations, where the illusion of common ground (lowest-common-denominator), common absence of identity (past/nature – identifying with the absence of identity), shared choices, and freedoms is maintained – exploiting human frailty and then determining how and what he will choose. Illusion of consumer multiple choices, hiding the absence of real choices.
Modern citizens believe their choices are free, when they've been trained, manipulated, from birth.
In marketing the same manipulation creates artificial needs that are not actual needs – manufacturing want.
The Modern consumer wants things, without actually needing them, and cannot justify why he does so. This maintains him in a constant state of artificial confused stress, which keeps him working – easily directed, exploited, manipulated.
Detaching him from himself, essentially makes him more vulnerable to external manipulation.

Nihilism resolves the linguistic conundrums its own ideology produces, and the solipsism inherit in its detachment from world, by containing itself within a self-referential, inter-subjectivity.
Lacking an external reference it substitutes it with an external mind, indoctrinated within its paradigm.
It's power extending only as far as these participating followers permit, making the expansion of power a matter of popularity; its relevance only within the confines of those integrated into the memetic alternate reality (using its own specialized language, or prearranging preexisting language/symbols, to produce distinction), creating the illusion of uniqueness, distinctiveness, choseness.  
An detached noetic construct finds its connection outside the mind, in a hypothetical mind (God), or in the noetic copies of the like-minded.
Nihilism compensates for the absence of an external reference by infecting masses, by reproducing itself.

All is approximately identical, never absolutely so.
Everything is different to one degree, or another.

What you call 'self' is not the same as it was the moment you spoke the word describing it.

If this were not so, existence, life itself, would be impossible.
Natural selection, Evolution Theory a joke
The value of the same would be inconsequential.

Flux implies that all is dynamic, and (inter)active - changing.
Man can only conceive by abstracting - abstracting means cutting away dimensions to produce a simplified/generalized model - a mental model.
Cutting away dimension is cutting away time/space - possibility.

When he does so man constructs an absolute space/time.
For example, when man says 'self' he has contained the continuum of (inter)actions manifesting as presence, within a time/space box.

Even the concept of a 'box' is a construct, as it implies a space/time contained within borders, and is static, unmoving.
Imagine a man inside a room, a box.
for him reality ends where his perceptions end, at the surface of the walls that contain him.
within this time/space nothing is perceived as changing, as all the components are slow moving, such as the concrete, the table made of wood....all seems static, unchanging....more than that, the room is on a continental shelf, on a planet rotating around a star, moving around a moving centre of a galaxy.
Furthermore, he is also changing, aging, the physical body deteriorating, processing.....
nothing about him or his situation is static, whole, perfect, complete, yet his sensual awareness cannot perceive (inter)activity below or above a certain level.
For him all seems stable, static, unchanging, substantial.
The molecules that make-up the matter that he calls wall, are dynamic, but he cannot perceive their movements - the wall seems unmoving.

He exists within the abstractions in his brain in an immutable environment where nothing appears to be moving, yet everything is moving.
His brain evolved not to perceive anything above what he requires to survive in world.

Therefore any statement using words claiming that the room is an absolute space, and he is within it is describing a part of space/time, or a relationship that is not eternal.
He relates to the material that make up what he calls a room, and restrict his movement and perceptions as if they contained him within a space/time that is static.
His words describe his relationship, and yet they are not describing an absolute state.
He is not eternally or perfectly within a time/space box. The box is not a static place - there is never an absolute here he is occupying when inside it.
He is within the room is a fact, but not an absolute truth because nothing is ever the same as it was a millisecond ago or after.
All he describes is the congruity, he calls self, unable to perceive and move beyond the congruity of walls that encircle him. There is no eternal perfect self eternally contained within a eternal perfect room.
There is a ephemeral relationship of man to matter called walls.
he is actually in a relationship with walls that limit his moments and perceptions, but this relationship is not eternal, perfect, complete, fixed, non-variable, independent, universal.
Walls are deteriorating....and require maintenance....but they are deteriorating at a rate that will a human lifespan cannot surpass.

"I am trapped inside a room" describes a factual relationship, an actual circumstance - not an absolute one.
I will not be forever inside the room, for even if I am trapped I will die...and the walls, if they are not maintained will crumble.
The room and I are not absolutes....we are congruities of patterns that relate as attraction/repulsion, and in this case the congruity of wall repulses the congruity of self not permitting it to pass - it denies to it access to the possibilities it momentarily occupies.

Quote :

ab·so·lute
ˈabsəˌlo͞ot,ˌabsəˈlo͞ot/Submit
adjective
1.
not qualified or diminished in any way; total.
"absolute secrecy"
synonyms: complete, total, utter, out-and-out, outright, entire, perfect, pure, decided; More
2.
viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative.
"absolute moral standards"
synonyms: universal, fixed, independent, nonrelative, nonvariable, absolutist
"absolute moral standards"
noun
1.
PHILOSOPHY
a value or principle that is regarded as universally valid or that may be viewed without relation to other things.
"good and evil are presented as absolutes"

Rational - An individual, or a position that can refer to phenomenon outside its head, to validate its theory, or hypothesis.
A hypothesis grounded in perceivable, and replicated, evidence.
Irrational - a position or an individual basing its hypothesis on non-perceptible, non-replicated, internal abstractions with no external references, other than his own words.

Books and book reading does not make you smarter, and neither does google and data mining...no more and no less than eating makes you stronger.
Stress makes you stronger.
Stress producing fissures that will heal, by consuming data....same as when we damage muscles, by lifting heavy weights, that then consume energies to heal bigger...if they do not entirely tear.

Data = knowledge.
A commuter can store and regurgitate data at speeds no human can match.
Is a compute intelligent?
No.
Because intelligence is not only information gathering and storing.
It is finding patterns within the data, or what we call meaning.
This can either be given, by an external source, or discovered on your own....the latter is intelligence, the former is intelligence through association, or imitated.

Finding patterns can be trained into an individual increasing his preexisting potentials, but it cannot be taught exceeding his inherited/genetic potentials - there's a limit to how smart you can become, just as there's a genetic limit to how tall you can become, or how strong, or fast.

Finding connecting patterns (meaning) is about discerning similarities in the divergent complexity.
It, already presupposes order, as the limit of understanding.

Again...
The burden of proof lies with the one making a proposition. In the case of absolutes it is the one claiming to believe in it, to show an absolute.
Not a word, not a sentence, not a theory, not a hypothetical, not an abstraction, not a symbol, not a scenario, in his tiny mind... but an actual, observable, testable, absolute.

It is not up to the one who disbelieves to prove a negative.

Same goes for the Abrahamic God.
It is they who must offer proof equal to their claim. they claim an absolute Being, and offer nothing but hypotheticals, words/symbols, feelings, and noetic constructs.
not beyond reasonable doubt, because the claim is of on absolute, therefore only absolute certainty is acceptable.
It is not the disbeliever who must prove the non-existence of God.
It is not the one who does not accept a delusion, an irrational proposition who must offer evidence that it is nonsense.  

Now, in the case with the concept absolute, the definition is...

Quote :

ab·so·lute
ˈabsəˌlo͞ot,ˌabsəˈlo͞ot/Submit
adjective
1.
not qualified or diminished in any way; total.
"absolute secrecy"
synonyms: complete, total, utter, out-and-out, outright, entire, perfect, pure, decided; More
2.
viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative.
"absolute moral standards"
synonyms: universal, fixed, independent, nonrelative, nonvariable, absolutist
"absolute moral standards"

Therefore the one claiming that absolutes are more than just noetic human constructs, should offer tangible evidence, of an immutable, indivisible, perfect, whole, total, certain, fixed, non-contingent, immortal/eternal, singularity/one.

But as is the case with many words they are often used metaphorically, or to emphasize, or wrongly.
I might say anyone who claims to know an absolute is an absolute moron....but this does not mean he is infinitely stupid...only that he is so in relation to me, or compared to the average.
Therefore a moron might say that a sentence is absolute truth when he means it is factual, even though it is ephemeral, imperfect, complicate, contingent.

The sentence "I am in a room" is not an absolute...it is a factual statement, because neither the room nor I who am in it are eternal, perfect, complete, whole, perfect, a singularity, indivisible, immutable.
The function describes a relationship which is not eternal.
The room is on a planet, rotating around a sun, spinning around a galactic core, moving in space/time.
Nothing about it is fixed, independent, unchanging.

Factual within a specific time/space period - temporary, not eternal, not universal.

Is it an absolute that the person proposing an absolute must present evidence for that absolute? (Sarcasm)

And Chimp would say "Therefore the one claiming that sex(being for reproduction)/gender/race are more than just noetic human constructs, should offer tangible evidence of an immutable, indivisible, perfect, whole, total, certain, fixed, non-contingent, immortal/eternal, singularity/one."

Daniel Dennett wrote:

A deepity is a proposition that seems to be profound because it is actually logically ill-formed. It has (at least) two readings and balances precariously between them. On one reading it is true but trivial. And on another reading it is false, but would be earth-shattering if true.

What determines whether one is proposing a deepity or something trivial is measured by the seriousness with which they treat what they communicate. Because language is a human tool, character infests its context where limits of its usefulness are reached. One can measure the character of another by empathizing with them - through language this is an exchange and agreement upon prior 'premises', basic 'truths'. When a person is inclined not to agree with anyone, nor attribute their ideas to having learned them from others, those who purposely treat language with the least charitable stance and get offended when people treat it charitably - or fight them as if there were a personal grudge - this is when you may get a sense for their character when it involves language.

The least charitable are always the most skewed by need. In their desperation, they don't interpret what the other is saying charitably.

In the Chimp's case, early on, he was interpreted charitably (by myself) and I said he was saying things no differently than most at KTS do. His conclusion of the destruction of 'self' is what made it ridiculous - because the destruction of self would mean a denial of the senses. This is why if the Chimp wishes to consider such positions and discuss them, it should be done within a circumstance where the inevitable conclusion of 'idealism' is able to be discussed. That is, the method of delivery of such a message should be done through a means other than the fingers/mouth. Language must be disconnected from nature.

The minimization of self is not the destruction of it. 'Self' does not fall apart. At least, not self which isn't nihilistic in nature and has nihilistic foundations to begin with. What falls apart is the perception of self, when one concludes that neither "choices" (in Chimp's words, he could have "chosen one way or another") nor arguments are more convincing and/or probable than the other. That is, because there lacks an absolute objective foundation for making the judgment. The method used is classically idealist, but the Chimp just decides to choose to arbitrate what positions are or are not 'natural' or 'objective'.

The Chimp's alternative to human behaviors being fundamentally selfish in nature is to destroy the self altogether through didactic renditions of:

What does that even mean?
Yeah, right.
That's preposterous.

This is absurd. Since he confuses his own perceptions with the hubris of 'common sense' as justification means there is no method now of reflection which doesn't always affirm anything he wishes to believe.

Then, in response, a nihilist might say that it is delivered a priori, like Plato's assertion that knowledge comes from recollection. The attempt to disconnect self and be objective about self to some degree is completely neutered, following the Chimp's line of reasoning.

What requires justification is the Forms. Equating the Forms with the ability to detach from or objectify self through perceiving ones own patterns - and then further detach from that into an absolute/absence numbness/woundrousness by trying to perceive ones own internal processes with the same imposition of reduction/simplification which gets performed upon flux. The brain self-reflectively leads to further radicalization/absolutes because the first imaginary step was taken.

I believe in the level of cognitions by Satyr, the fourth level is what is simplified to 1/0, because keeping it simple is what enables dialectical survival strategies - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

Person 1 subjectively interprets world and decides, judges, that a polar bear is a harmless creature, that only wants to be loved and taken care of.
Person 2  subjectively interprets world and decides, judges, that the same polar bear is a man-killer and dangerous, and one should stay away form it.

Both have a perspective on the phenomenon polar bear based on their experiences and upbringing and dispositions.

Guess the outcome.
Perspectivism is not a 'free pass' out of bad judgments, or the world that forces them upon us all.


Person 1 subjectively interprets world and decides, judges, that there's no such thing as gravity, and that it is relative to the individual attitude, so he decides to jump off a cliff having mastered the ability to approach height with a 'positive' attitude.
Person 2  subjectively interprets world and decides, judges, that gravity has to do with the earth's mass  and rotation, and believes height it dangerous unless one invents a mechanism or a technique that can use atmosphere to counteract it, for short periods of time, tot to control its effect on the human body.

Guess the outcome.
Everything is relative is not a 'get out of reality with no costs card'.
It means that all, by living within the same reality, judge this same reality differently and each faces the consequences, the costs/benefits, of their own understanding, interpretation, judgments of the same reality.
Every thing is 'relative' does not mean in relation to ones beliefs, or ones ideas and theories and hypothetical,s but relative to their physical existence - not relative in relation to their noetic constructs, their personal abstractions, but relative to their phenomenal presence, their physical body.

In relation to one's thoughts one can err with minimal damage, especially when there are others present, who are willing and care enough to intervene preventing any severe costs as a consequence of a bad judgment.
In relation to the phenomenon, the body, 'everything is relative' means everything is a relationship, following similar rules...not all is equally valid, or equally true, or equally real.

In short...there are CONSEQUENCES to subjective interpretations of a world that does not care about our private hopes, dreams, expectation,s delusions, judgments of it.
Every judgment, if it leads to a choice, an action, a behaviour, has costs and ti has benefits, the costs exposing the accuracy of the judgment, if we are to assume that the mind is always striving towards what it thinks is 'good' or 'desirable' or 'beneficial' to it, and it is not psychotic.
Every benefit, whether accidental, unforeseen. intended, or not, is a validation of an action taken, a choice made, a judgment founded on an interpretations of relationships.  

Costs/Benefits accumulate, until the organism judging faces their aggregate impact upon its existence, its well-being, its potentials.
everything is relative to the organism's particularities in relation to world, and in relation to the organisms judgments of these particularities in relation to world.

Of course, imbeciles born and raised within sheltered environments would disagree, because for them none of their bad judgments ever resulted in a severe cost, because they live within a protective system that intervenes, for its own reasons.

And what's the favourite response from those trapped in their own minds, but one based on their own self-evident truth, that all is relevant and that this means all is equally valid, but "That's only your opinion" or "That is only your subjective view".
With no costs, it's all benefits, making perpectivism a self-contained system of thought - called Nihilism.

Entirely word-based, completely noetic, because it cannot, even if it dares, enter the real world with such self-referential delusions, all that is left to it is a self-referential noetic world of theory and hypothetical, where nothing can be validated, nor can be limited by anything external to its self-containment.
As it is entirely word based it can also be contradicted verbally, dismissed based on the irrelevance of language, within its protected premises.

What's left then, when there is no world to measure the validity of a verbal statement, expressing a subjective view, but to affirm a belief based no emotion, on how it makes the minds feel - its seductive promise.
Nihilism becomes hypocritical because seduction always contains an element of lies, or hyperbolic exuberance.
This becomes a hedonistic paradigm, based no the pleasure one gains, the benefit, from a judgment, and since good feelings validate, bad ones contradict.
The criteria for determining the quality of a judgment change, from rational, connecting noumena to an indifferent world of (inter)acting phenomenon, to one based on esoteric feelings of pleasure/pain.
If it feels good, it is 'true', if it feels bad it is 'false'.
The antithesis to this, exposing a rebelliousness, is the reverse - if it feels 'bad', if one 'suffers' it is true, and if it feels good, if you are pleased, it is false.
The standards remains esoteric - feelings, emotions, and how one remains cold, or hot/passionate in relation to them.

Moderns do not intend to sue words to find direction.They prefer words to remain ambiguous, mystical, malleable.  
If they were sailors on a boat, lost at sea, they would not tie the sails to the mast, but leave them flapping in the wind, and they would not use the rudder to steer the boat, they would abandon it to the tides.

The modern loves the idea of chaos, when every shore he washes up upon, by chance, could be claimed as intentionally discovered and rightfully his.
The modern always has faith that no matter what, all will turn out alright.
He is driven by the conviction that whatever happens it will be for the better.

But, at heart he fears that he has no muscle for the rudder and no mind for sailing.

If anyone sees me post pictures of my breakfast or lunch or dinner, and it looks remotely like [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], vomit inducing plate....take me out in the back shed and shoot me.

MENSA genius and what's left to contribute to a forum hypothetically about philosophy, but a dish so lacking in creativity and presentation as to look like something one feeds a homeless person at a community soup- kitchen, risking his rejection of that pig slop as beneath even him.
This is something worth showing to others, indicating the quality of life I am living.
I throw together simple meals daily...I do not feel the need to share it with everyone...as it is not interesting.  

Mindless banter, gossip...sharing mundane personal crap.
ILP found its niche.

"Philosophy" in the title is how it attracts those a bit embarrassed about being so mediocre, but are still only interested in the base and everyday networking we call socializing, of a higher calibre.
Something above platitudes and obvious bragging and posturing...something more subtle, more delicate.
That's what they call "intellectual".
The subtle.
Emotion sharing on a sub-conscious level.
I seek approval, and comforting... but I do not want to expose myself and be vulnerable.
I want to give myself to someone more deserving of my weakness. Someone smart enough to appreciate my dimness, finding complexity in my dullness.

It's an indirect way of admitting that the immediate environment is lacking something they cannot fully understand, or pinpoint.
When, in fact, it's them who is lacking something.

Satyr wrote:

If anyone sees me post pictures of my breakfast or lunch or dinner, and it looks remotely like this, vomit inducing plate....take me out in the back shed and shoot me.

Looks pre-chewed.

The fact that there are hundreds of thousands of websites and apps available on the webs that are designed for this sort of mundane shit, many allowing for a wider audience and increasing the chances of being more deeply and intimately integrated into their communities and yet they make a decision to do it on a philosophy related forum speaks a lot about their motives too, just as much as them ignoring this fact or shamelessly choosing to carry it out despite their knowledge of this too.

Even the title I love philosophy is already an early indicator of the sort of an individual and a community you are about to enter, like I am lovin' it, making a generalization and mixing thought with 'love' adding a positive vibe to it.

Agreed...
I fear the title exposes their western based ignorance.

Φιλισοοφια is a Greek term made up of two words...

Φιλος = friend
Σοφια = wisdom

Nowhere is there 'love' which in Greek would be eros [ερος] or agape [αγαπη].

The correct translation would be...friend of wisdom, not lover of wisdom.
We must understand the high esteem the ancients Greeks held for friendship.

That small difference makes all the difference.
Love is often blind, irrational, whereas friendship is based on self-awareness and commonality.
To be a friend is not to be blind to your friends faults.
To be a lover is to be taken over by passion, by emotion, my preference and self-interest.

As lovers of philosophy they profess an erotic pathos for the friend of wisdom. They don't actually love wisdom nor are they friends of wisdom...they love the friends of wisdom.
They harbour an erotic passion for those who are friends of wisdom.