Rational objectivity

Can one fix themselves into rational objectivity, fixed going as far as dominating mental flow.

Yes.
Brain is part of body.
Mind is part of the nervous system, directing data from inside the body, and from outside of it.
Inside the body it can both flow to brain and from brain towards the organs - towards the cells.
Mind can affect body, and body always affects mind.

The data coming from outside, via the sense organs, are not so 'submissive'.
Here acts, not words, must direct the body/mind - Will.
Words shape actions, they do not determine the action's success/failure but only in that they are more, or less accurate.

If the proper word, referring to the specific phenomenon, is not applied, failure is inevitable.
Proper application of words creates a web of relationships we call meaning.
If this application is not precise and accurate, the meanings are also not precise and accurate - we fail to recognize the relationship between phenomena.
So, even if we can control body, using mind, our orientation, the actions we direct the body to, will fail, because we've failed to accurately and precisely understand world, within which the body acts.

Does emotion work against word world relation or instinctively with it?

I imagine it's neither of them specifically, but possibly both, as a meme can clearly access emotion...so the better question would be where does the emotion fit in, if you think of it in terms of layers?

Are emotions necessary for a healthy rational mind?

Emotions are automatic, complex, reaction to specific stimuli.
An advancement of the automatic fight/flight mechanism.
Emotions evolved for a function, and they serve this function well.

In relation to my positions emotions can serve to accelerate or to inhibit the usage of word to connect noumenon with phenomenon.
As pathos/passion they serve as neural multipliers, helping the will direct the organism's energies, or serving to redirect them so as to permit heterosexual reproduction, and then social cooperative groups to emerge.
For example, although I posit anxiety/fear as the mother of emotions, I consider lust/love as the chemical method of dealing with the automatic, and more primal, flight/fight mechanism.
Without it, heterosexual reproduction and mother/offspring bonding, that makes nurturing and weening possible, would be impossible.
Love is a more complex emotion, reflecting the attraction force which is part of (inter)activity, with hate being the repulsive force.
Both of these forces represent the harmony-disharmony balance between patterns.

Lust is the primitive foundation of love. In simple organisms its a form of intoxication, placing the animal in a state of frenzy, un-contained excitement - libidinal energies driving the organisms towards a form of madness: irrational, instinctive, intuitive behavior.
In heterosexuality the penetration inherent in the act of copulation is possible when both intruder and the intruded can deal with their automatic fight/flight mechanism.
For a female to be able to accept a foreign body inside of her requires her to be placed in a state of receptivity.
Lust is the primal state, and in more sophisticated organism it becomes the more complex emotion we call 'love'.
Love is a form of losing yourself in other, until the boundaries ween 'self' and 'other' merge.
The ego has to be quieted.

In relation to the meme it serves to bond self within a community, a population of genetically homogeneous individuals.
The meme serves as the idealistic expression of this shared past.
Genes being memory encoded and passed on via sperm and ovum.

Nihilistic memes also use the emotion to validate their ideals, because they lack a external reference point.
So, emotion, like love, or the sensation of pleasure, validates an abstraction, because it lacks any other external form of validation.

Noumenon reconnects to noumenon, liking a phenomenon to refer to, to attach the symbol/word to.
The noumenon is either attached to a noumenon in another mind, resulting in a collective, or it reattaches itself back to another noumenon, or to a sensation or emotion.

To put it another way....the abstraction which I call noumenon, having no external reference must attach itself somewhere.
The symbol is the conduit, through which this attachment occurs. Normally the symbol/word attaches the abstraction, the concept, to an external reference, like the symbol 'tree' refers to the phenomenon we call 'tree'.
With no such external phenomenon to attach to, Nihilism attaches its abstractions, its concepts, to others abstractions, existing in other minds, creating the collective, the herd...or it attaches itself back upon itself, in a looping solipsism, wither to another abstraction, or to an emotion, or sensation.

So, the symbol, word, love is detached from its function outside self, and is converted to a pure abstraction - an ideal.
This ideal is nowhere to be found outside of the mind. So what does the nihilists do, instead of correcting its error, its self-referential, convenient mistake, it either attaches the abstraction to another abstraction, or it a it attaches it back, upon the body, to a sensation an emotion.
Mind connecting via the word to the Body, as if mind and body were different from self.
Mind/body dichotomy serves the purpose of maintaining the illusion that the detached form reality idea, represented by the word, has a reference point outside the mind.

Don't know if I explained it clearly.

If we take another example it might help to clarify. I've sued this one before, because it is part of modern mythology.
Let's take the word 'human'.
Originally human referred to a species, independent from mind, just as canine refers to a species.

A species is a reproduction designation.
It refers to a population of organisms that have evolved the cooperative method of replicating their shared genes.
This later evolved to a memetic replication.
In a species like the primate homo sapient, or human, this sexual designation is characterized by two specialized sexual roles: male/female.
Human is meaningless without this.

What does nihilism do?
It detaches the concept human, by ripping the word/symbol, representing this concept, from its reference outside the mind/body.
Now the word 'human' has a dictionary definition with no reference anywhere outside the minds that share this detachment.
It has become pure noumenon, or an idea, a theoretical concept. It has become divine, if by divine we mean spiritual with no corporeal essence.
It has an emotional, a sensational, reference, because the word can trigger these automatic reactions through teaching/training.

But the concept has to refer somewhere, or risk exposing itself as delusional, or solipsistic.
Where is the word attached to?
To another mind, sharing the same concept, sharing the same training - indoctrination.
The word 'human' has ceased to refer to something outside the mind, to a reproductive type, and now refers to a pure theory, a pure noumenon. It has become divine...or a romantic ideal, a pure ideal that can only trigger emotional responses.
The concept human has been abstracted out of existence and converted to a pure symbol/word with no external reference, except in minds sharing the same training/teaching, and triggering in all the same sensations, emotions.
This teaching/training can also associate words with particular imagery.
The word 'race' for example can trigger certain automatic reactions, sensations, imagery, emotions, and the individual has no reasoning, no explanation, no justification for it, outside emotions and what it has been trained to imagine, when it is triggered by the word. It's instinctive, automatic.

In most cases the concept becomes vague, confused, paradoxical, as a self-defence. Rather than hinting at an error the paradox becomes a argument in defence of the concept.
for example, the paradoxical essence of the Abrahamic concept of god, only reaffirms its mystical power, enabling faith to become a measure of the individual's commitment, surrender, to this vague, irrational, nihilistic concept.
The concept God, in the Abrahamic traditions, of nihilism, with no external reference, in fact contradicted by experience of world, must find in the emotion a validation.
So god = love.

The means has become the end.
and with no external reference Abrahamism compensates with converting, assimilating, indoctrinating as many minds to its detached definitions.
unable to validate itself in world, it validates itself in other, sharing the same nihilistic detached, pure noetic fabrication.
Number of believers becomes a validation of the shared belief.

And what is the only reference point: a Book, full of words. The word, in fact, becomes its prime mover, the first cause.
Without it, it disappears.
To survive a world that contradicts its beliefs, it must lie....to itself, to others.
The community, now, becomes about a shared lie.
I will validate the lie, in you, and you shall do the same, for me.

it seems to me that's what it all comes down to, there being an absolute or an absent absolute..

What would you consider as evidence for an absolute?

Indivisible, eternal, independent, whole, singularity/one...
In other words everything the abstract, the noumenon, is.

The absence is due to the mind's expectation or confusion of its own mental abstractions for the phenomenon itself, or the confusion of the noumenon for the phenomenon, rather than being aware of it being a representation.

noumenon = abstraction.
Abstraction = simplified/generalized representation.