Absolute

Conventional definition of the concept of an absolute...

Dictionary - Online 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"

My additional qualifications:
Indivisible, Immutable, Eternal, Whole, One/Singularity.

As such all descriptions of absolutes are linguistic expressions, used as emphasis, as an exclamation, as metaphor, as an expression of preference, of satisfaction/gratification, satiation (pleasure), or is an abstraction referring to a contained space/time with ambiguous boundaries, such as bottle, box, room, pocket etc.
An absolute is always an abstraction, a simplified/generalized noumenon...an idea(l), or a reference to a relationship between patterns or congruities of patterns.  

The absolute, if taken literally, and not as a figure of speech, as an allegory, metaphor, a artistic representation of the internal, results in nihilism.
It's absence leads the mediocre mind to declare the world negative if it is lacking in this mental construct.
It becomes an expression of dissatisfaction with reality, with how the world is, when it is missing the projected mental constructs.  
The absolute is always expressed using symbols/words, and has no reference to anything outside the brain/mind.
Nobody has ever presented an indivisible, immutable, whole, nor a singularity, a one.
It exists as an ambiguous noetic construct in the minds of degenerates, as linguistic representation, and nothing more.
This makes it useful to the spiritual nihilists who can use this theoretical concept to create esoteric alternate realities where the absolute is present outside the brain/mind.

The term is often used to express conviction, certainty...which is never certain, but only in the minds of simpletons.
Absolute certainty would require absolute knowledge, and absolute understanding, or Omniscience.
Certainty is always so for simpletons and always not completely so for those who are more humble and who understand how little they know and understand.

Patterns, such as the speed of light, are not absolutes, they are patterns: repeating, dynamic, consistent, energies.
Patterns are what we call order.  
Order is what we perceive as energy/matter.

The word/symbol 'God' can be defined in any way imaginable.
For the pagans it was defined as natural forces....the Abrahamics defined it as an absolute one, an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, singularity.
An indivisible, immutable, eternal, whole, complete, Being.
No such thing exists. it is, in fact, a contradiction of all that does exists, because existence is interactive, and so it is mutable, divisible, ephemeral.
The concepts of complete and whole do not even apply as they presupposes a bounded space/time that can then be said to be filled, or completed, total...an end.  
All containers, are porous, ephemeral, and therefore never complete.

To say that a bottle is completely full is to indicate a factual; relationship between a finite amount of liquid and a degrading porous material shaped into a container.
It describes a factual relationship, not an absolute.
Both the container and the liquid are divisible, mutable, ephemeral, contingent, and neither is a singularity, or a whole.
Whole is a human concept.
Like one.
Like perfect.

Dictionary - Online wrote:

per·fect
adjective
ˈpərfikt/Submit
1.
having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be.
"she strove to be the perfect wife"
synonyms: ideal, model, without fault, faultless, flawless, consummate, quintessential, exemplary, best, ultimate, copybook; More
2.
absolute; complete (used for emphasis).
"a perfect stranger"
synonyms: absolute, complete, total, real, out-and-out, thorough, thoroughgoing, downright, utter, sheer, arrant, unmitigated, unqualified, veritable, in every respect, unalloyed
"she felt like a perfect idiot"
verb
pərˈfekt/Submit
1.
make (something) completely free from faults or defects, or as close to such a condition as possible.
"he's busy perfecting his bowling technique"
synonyms: improve, better, polish (up), hone, refine, put the finishing/final touches to, brush up, fine-tune
"he's busy perfecting his bowling technique"
nounGRAMMAR
ˈpərfikt/Submit
1.
the perfect tense.

Perfect expresses approval of something either because it gratifies a physical or a mental need.
In the case of physical approval it indicates the gratification of a need, in the case of mental approval it meets the set of criteria that gratifies a mental need...need for understanding, for example.

Free of faults is another way of describing the absolute, which is nowhere to be found as it is defined.
Everything is superior or inferior in relation to something else.
In the case of mental gratification one juxtaposes the phenomenon experienced with the mental model in one's head, and judges it as more or less close to the mental model.
The phenomenon is named 'perfect' when it approaches the 'perfection' of the mental model...it indicates approval in relation to one's own understanding.

The name perfect is not evidence of perfection.
Calling something perfect, baptizing someone perfect, approving of something or someone using the metaphor 'perfect/ is not evidence of it, is not an argument.

The word 'perfect' like the words 'absolute', and 'one' are metaphors, that are used to apply to anyone and anything.
Saying someone is 'one' does not mean he is a singularity.
Calling a stone 'one rock' does not make it a whole, a singularity.
It is representative of your own conceptions.
It is used to differentiate an ambiguous selected time/space in relation to all time/space.

We say 'one stone' describing one among many in a stone pile, or on a mountain cliff.
We say one grain of sand, to differentiate one grain form myriads of others.
This description does not prove a singularity.

Similarity we call something or someone 'perfect' to differentiate them form all others, in relation to our own desires, expectations, and understanding.
We may call the universe perfect, converting it into a whole, to express our appreciation and approval of the conditions that made us possible.
The description do not prove a perfection or a whole.they describe a whole which is our understanding and knowledge, in relation to all other possibilities.

If we are going to succumb to the self-serving way degenerates misunderstand and misapply language, then we ought to prove a singularity by the fact that we perceive one world, or one dog, or one particle, or are prone to watch one movie, or listen to one song, or are given to prefer one and only lover, or friend, or be given to the fact that there is only one self.

Emotions are a state of mind.
Automated reactions to specific stimuli, reactions to particular phenomena.

Confidence, insecurity, are also states of mind, constructed by  consecutive successes and/or failures, over a short or long period of time determined by the fragility, the constitution of the mind in question.

Confidence can increase performance.
Insecurity can decrease performance.

Why does nature evolve species who err on the side of caution?
Why are we prone to be afraid, or less confident in darkness?
One reason is lack of light, and so diminished perception.
But this becomes irrational when we fear what we have no reason to suspect...as an automatic state of mind in a dark environment.

The reason is that nature must take into account the worse case scenario, as a means of ensuring a higher percentage of survival success, in organisms that lack the sensual acuity to be comfortable, confident, in low level environments.
To make a mistake expecting the negative can only result in the worse case scenario of an unexpected nice surprise, but to err expecting the positive is to risk far worse than disappointment...it is to risk the worse case scenario of death.
This is why anxiety/fear is the mother of all emotions. It had to have evolved first, in response to an unknown world, where any error in judgment has severe negative consequences.
All other emotions evolve in reaction, as a means of coping with it, or in combination with anxiety/fear - adjustments of it.

Why is this so?
Because no matter how many experiences an individual has, how much he knows and understands he can never be sure of any outcome.
There is no guaranteed conclusion to every situation.  
There is only a higher or lower percentage, making intelligence, good judgment, crucial in increasing the percentage of a successful outcome, or a more accurate prediction.
In a perfectly ordered universe absolute certainty would be inevitable.
An organism, if not human, would eventually attain a state of godliness - omniscience, omnipotence.
Life would be boring after that.
But in reality there is also the element of chaos, randomness, where nobody can ever know anything to be absolutely certain, but only to have a higher or a lower probability.
Absolute certainty would demand absolute knowledge and absolute understanding...which is how the Abrahamics define their god.  

It seems that if they are not worshipping such a delusion, presenting themselves as a seer or god's mind, they are presenting themselves as the development of God himself.
This is typical of secular nihilists or positive Nihilists.
They either declare that they know the absolute, god in other words, or that they are the absolute.

They are fortunate they declare such things in controlled environments where stupidity is protected from itself.

*edited...

All concepts, opposites, value judgments, are based on the organism using itself as the standard.
It's easy to forget this and to then jump to the conclusion that the entire universe, all of existence, is cantered around life, and the living. From there is an easy few steps towards the assumption that life is the goal of existence, its highest achievement, its telos.

Once this step is taken, far more easier to then declare your interpretations of reality, as an alternate, better, more profound reality, and your symbols/words, your semiotics, the creative code of all existence.
Reversals...inversions.
The abstraction as representation, interpretation of reality, makes of reality the representation of its abstraction - madness.

Then language is the creator of worlds, and all theories need not refer to anything but to internal desires and needs.
Then all interpretations need not be tested and validated against an indifferent world, but believed in with passion and conviction, validated by becoming popular.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] principle.
There is no such thing as certainty in a fluid time/space, outside the fanatical minds of simpletons and morons.

There can never be an 'exact match', but only an proximate match, a more similar to our perception, contextualization of that which we match.
An idea(l) is so vague, so general that it finds matched based on similarity, while excluding all other data as unknown or as divergence, as difference.

100%
The concept of 100% is built no the myth of the one....one-hundred.
It is an insinuated singularity that eliminates, noetically, theoretically all dimensions, or implodes them into a one.

How does the mind apply this?
Let's take 'one' bottle of wine.
We've already cut it away from the world to make it into a singularity, a one-bottle, the boundary of which is the glass.
Everything beyond this porous boundary is excluded...so we've already prejudiced our assumptions with a selection of time/space wanting to measure the contents of said glass boundary.
In the meantime there are all sorts of cosmic particles entering and exiting the container.
So, we can never be entirely certain what we mean by 'inside' as this is changing in infinitesimal yet consistent rates.
But let's say we wish to measure the liquid inside the bottle.
We've generalized the content to mean what is in what we call liquid form, but it is not entirely the same.
As the pseudo-intellectual Abrahamic mind on ILP James says....it is affected and it affects. The bottle is not static thing, outside our minds, but it is affectance.....or in my more precise language it is (inter)active.
We are generalizing a container and its contained space/time which is constantly changing.
to accomplish this we must arbitrarily freeze time/space, or cut it into a segment to be measured....the segment is not entirely arbitrary since it is determined by our evolves sensual acuity and the rate of our brain's processing - metabolic rate. Our biology determines where we cut away segments of reality to reduce to abstractions, or to measure, to judge, evalaute.

If it is water, there are minerals, other elements in it. If it is wine the same thing...it is not 100% the same element.
The liquid is also infinitely divisible. Do we measure the gram, or go further and measure the electrons, the particles, or do we have the means to go further and divide it more?
So what exactly is the 'one' as our starting and end point?
The reason it is infinitely divisible is because the brain uses static abstractions to make sense of fluid existence.
What do we do, once we've arbitrarily used the porous glass as a boundary?
We decide to stop dividing at a point determined by our biological limits, or by convention. For liquids we humans stop at grams, or milligrams.
Is what to be measured entirely of the element we wish to measure?
no. There are other elements, particles in water, or wine...it is not a uniform substance.
So, when we say 750 ml of wine do we actually have that?
Not exactly, but approximately.
100% is more correctly defined as 99.999999999......%
Uncertainty, approximation....never absolute.

But when some moron, like James claims to know EVERYTHING with 100% certainty, we is implying omniscience....the knowledge and understanding of everything, made whole by imagining a boundary....like the glass of the bottle, or the skin of a bovine, or his own, creating this inside/outside dichotomy.
He's implying he is God, or knows the mind of god, and has seen a whole universe contained by some outer boundary, and he's overcome the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
Very remarkable claims to make when you're a moron on some forum posting your bullshyte day after day.
What people like him help us understand is what this nihilistic dis-ease is, and how it manifests as judgment, opinion.
There are many variations of this mental dis-ease, and we all know that on ILP there are more than the Jame's type of Christian claptrap.....but we have a variety of Abrahamic crap.

What does the mind do to make sense of a fluid, fluctuating world, and how does the primitive intellect mistake this for an absolute?
The mind is like a camera....taking snapshots of reality, and then splicing them together, in the sequence it created them, to crate what we understand as consciousness.
Now, this process can get fucked-up, as any editor knows, when the snapshots are cut and then mixed arbitrarily.
What is this snapshot?
It is what we call an abstraction = a generalization/simplification.
What is simplification/generalization?
The cutting away of dimensions, where space = possibility.
So, the mind cuts away possibilities to construct a static containment of possibilities, the boundaries of which can be any time/space, but it is usually based on biological metabolic rates, determining the brain's systolic/diastolic rates - or the brain's processing speed.
This we call the here/now.
In relation to the self, which is a continuum or a sum of all previous nurturing, we call it an 'I'.

Here & Now is a segment of time/space cut away and interpreted, translated into a thing.
Like a movie is a series of photos, and each photo is a frozen piece of time/space, its boundaries determined by the camera's shutter-speed.
the photo can now be cut away and examined as a singularity, with the films' boundary being like the bottles glass, containing a representation of time/space.
This is the map territory analogy.
The picture is a map, representing a geographical, a segment of a planetary environment.
It helps the organism orient itself and cope with its lot as a becoming awakening to existence, later its own existence, or as Heidegger metaphorically said it - thrown into world, being there - Dasein.
The snapshot, nor the movie, is the world. It is a depiction, an approximation of the world.
Much of what is occurring in reality is not caught on tape, cannot be represented in a movie.
The picture as part of the movie is also deteriorating....because the material used to represent reality is also part of reality....just like the thought in our brains is a representation of reality, and both our thoughts and the world are in dynamic flux...one as objective reality and the other as part of objective reality representing a segment of it.
Like how man is part of world awakening to a small piece of the world, and where world has no outer boundary. But the mind has to give it an outer boundary to process it, to make sense of it.

Moderns are so obtuse, so terrified by a world of fluctuation, and uncertainty, that they must run to language to hide.
Their theories are language based.
They cannot show a perfection, an idea(l) but they can speak of it as if it were something outside their pathetic little minds.
They refuse to even attempt to understand what language is, because that would shatter their language-based absolutes, and the word-games they use to fabricate and immerse themselves within - matrices of code.

Their, so called philosophies, are mental masturbation, suing symbols/words, suing images...like pornography.
Nothing comes from masturbating to porno, other than self-gratification, and relief from stress.
They spill their words like they spill their seed....with no possible utility other then self-pleasuring.
They imagine fertilizing the cosmos with their ideas when they are wasting it away, because ti can never find an ovum....a reference in the world.

ILP is a specimen jar full of such Abrahamic psychologies.
There we can study the abuse and misuse of language, the way symbols/words are literally understood, and not artistically, figuratively, as representations.
This is the dis-ease I've been talking about...Nihilism.
Feminization, this current identity crisis of transexuality, are symptoms of this mental virus.
It because infectious thousands of years ago in Abraghamism.
It is the virus of the catacombs, the downtrodden, the lost in the desert desperate for a a master, a way to invert shame to pride, desperate for an honourable, powerful identity.
Human existential terror, psychological feebleness, hyper-displaying, surrendering to superstitions, enveloping themselves in symbols/words to feel safe.

The word 'one' is not an absolute.
The symbol '1' is not an absolute.
Using it to refer to 'one cat', does not make the cat an absolute.


One is a term referring to a piece of time/space, arbitrarily chosen to refer to one particle, in one grain, in one rock, in one mountain, in one continent, in one planet, in one solar system, in one galaxy.....in one universe.

One is a tool...a representation.
Ana abstraction that can refer to anything the organism distinguishes from the background.  
It is the bracketing of existence, using noetic borders, encompassing a noetic space/time whose beginning and end are determined by the mind's synaptic processes.
It's a snapshot of reality; a three dimensional reduction of a multi-dimensional world.

Space being possibility, makes the one a contained noetic box of possibilities, the boundaries of which are vague.
When referring to one organism, such as a cat, we mean the cat between the time/space of its perception, up to a point in space/time, such as its death, where the patterns participating in ts unity will disperse, or return back to the fluctuating world - no longer restricted by the ordering of the organism.

The symbol/word/number one is not a singularity.
It is not indivisible, not eternal, no immutable...it is an idea existing in the mind as a concept that is vague and ambiguous...a representation.
No one has ever, will ever be found.
But one is a useful tool.
It refers to the mind's abstraction, its simplified/generalized representation, interpretation, of a fluid existence.

Simplification/generalization is the reduction of dimensions, to construct a idea(l).
It is the separation, detachment of a piece of existence from existence.
Like a photo is a reduction of time/space to three dimensions and its conversion into another form, suing another element, such as paper, film, plastic etc.
A picture of an elephant is not an elephant.
The word elephant is not an elephant.
Calling something elephant does not make it one.

Elephant refers to a particular combination of patterns, with particular behaviours, interactions with environment.

Saying "That is absolutely an elephant" expresses a certainty, within reasonable doubt, that your senses correspond to the definition of the organism.

There is no perfect circle because a circle is a mental construct, based on how the mind processes data.

Absolutist psychologies tend towards the extremes - the either/or binary.
Unable to understand degrees - though they know what the word means - they tend to ascribe the worse attributes upon others, while retaining the best noes for themselves.

1/0 - either/or.
Worship of the 'one', God, whole, while accusing other of Nil.

This is the nihilist mindset.
Absolute one, order, against absolute chaos,nil.
The dis-ease of mind, the memetic virus, acquires its title from the 'nil' because both extremes contradict the experienced real.

The self-contradiction 'positive' Nihilists (1), and the self-consistent, but world contradicting 'pure' Nihilists (0).
Nihilistic paradigm is encases within this bipolar psychosis.
Such individuals usually ascribe the absolute positive to themselves, so when thinking of a man the absolute manly attributes are given to the ideal, whereas the female is the absolute negative of the ideal.
The ideal can vary. It can be manliness, or femininity, one or nil, god or Satan.
It's always complete, whole, total, absolute lacking all variants, all degrees.

The real, which is a synthesis, is replaced by a mental ideal that nobody can be, except themselves, in the case of narcissist, or some other worldly god, in the case of self-haters.
If not God, then man is God.
Both examples of 'positive' Nihilism.
Singularity - uniformity of the probable. Absolute certainty - doubt negated.
Degree of interactivity - existence - implodes into a singularity; space/time implodes into a cognitive oneness - abstraction.

Pure Nihilists exhibit the opposite extreme.
They negate themselves, absolutely, and try to bring the world down around them.
If the absolute one is impossible then all must be absolutely nullified, so as to protect the ego.
Absolute scepticism - absolute uncertainty, insecurity.
Therefore, if absolute free-will is impossible, then absolute determinism can be the only alternative - the only relief.
If they cannot be absolute masters - god, then all must be slaves, like themselves.
Uniformity in the negative.

In the either/or dichotomy the enemy can have no virtues, but be the personification of absolute vice.
Similarly, a woman can have no intelligence, no innate power, she must be a personification of what the male fears, in himself; she can have no virtues, dependent on males, she is absolute vice.

The bipolar oscillates from one extreme to the other.
The surfer is rigid, a block of ice, or he sinks into the abyss, indistinguishable from the water he drowns in.

Absolute is a kind of idealistic-trap.
A mental construct that captures and pulls into its singularity's 'gravity' all of time/space possibilities. The real implodes into the mind's ideal.
Some fight it, and may break free or be pulled asunder; others surrender to its pull, wanting to be taken out of existence, and its uncertainty.

No matter what word/symbol they give the absent absolute, it is described and felt in the same way, particularly among Modern infected by the same viral strain.



They change the semiotics but never the concept, the ideal, it refers to. This, they think, makes them progressive, open-minded, enlightened, when all it does is expose the degenerate desperation dominating their psyche...seeking self-comforting, self-numbing, self-aggrandizing, self-flattery, even self-negating ideologies to relieve themselves.

The common factor is always an absolute, all-encompassing, omnipotent, omniscience, enclosure to climb into and safely disappear and/or conceal.

If we want to understand spirituality and some of its basic tenets, we must analyse temporality and how activity participates in creation and in the manifestation of a consciousness that becomes aware of it. A foundational component in the entire paradigm is the past – history being the official documentation and interpretation of the past.
The past is what has occurred and cannot be returned to; it is that sum of (inter)actions which cannot be altered. It is therefore immutable, in relation to the living conceiving organism. Not only is it immutable but it is also determining as it is what manifests in the present, as presence.
We have the two starting elements for the conception of a Deity. A god, as Moderns insist on understanding the concept, is to be changeless and also determining. They ‘overcome’ their one-god as a symbolic detachment of the immutable determining past, conceiving it as a product of absolute order.
Unable to accept chaos, they simply overcome the infantilism of anthropomorphizing the concept of absolute order – this is the extent of their declared ‘progress’ towards maturity, and away from Christian iconography.
They simply replace Abrahamic iconography and idolatry with new and updated icons and idols of their submission.
Herd psychology adopts Nietzsche as the symbol of its surrender to the same concept he, supposedly, exposed.

If entropy is increasing, as it is in current cosmological models, then the increase of chaos insinuates a past of more order, deteriorating towards a future of less order, i.e., we call this linear time.
Looking back is, in essence, a looking toward near-absolute order, or towards the God principle of its absolute convergence into a singular point in space/time, as it is conceptualized by an organic mind, i.e., an absolute which is never finalized so it can never be found, nor proven, but only approached.
My own position on the absolute is that it is non-existent – it is absent; more than this, that it is the very nullification of existence. The absolute refers to the noumenon, which negates the phenomenon when it is adopted as being literal, and the mind searches for it outside itself, when, in fact, it only exists as a vague, theoretical obscure concept inside it, i.e., noumenon is abstraction, and only an abstraction can claim to be absolute, e.g., idea/ideal.

Who is this tyrannical Deity I pay homage to and bow low to? He is an anthropomorphic symbol of an inescapable, unchangeable, past.
A past imagined to be entirely ordered, and/or following a teleological path towards a predestined inevitable objective.
To love God is to love all the factors that determined my appearance on the world stage; it is to accept this past, no matter how brutally it reveals itself to me.
To want to be with God is to want to join myself to this past, and become, for another, a tyrannical burden, (s)he must come to terms with.
My god tells me all I need to know: Know Thyself. I am imperfect, mutable, incomplete, therefore I do not believe in what contradicts me on any level.
Moderns fail to accurately define and understand chaos, preferring to define it as occult order, giving it the air of scientific justification by calling it ‘complexity’ – using a feminine method that tries to evade giving explanations and evidence.
They simply rename their Abrahamic one-god, to make their herd psychology less shameful and less obvious; prostrating themselves, like women, before a noetic construct that has no external validation. They project themselves ‘outside’ the cosmos to redefine it as universe, a contradiction to experience.

The negation of the present, of presence, by using a noetic construct, is the epitome of Nihilism. An expression of distress before the reality of incompleteness and uncertainty. It is a construct that absolves them of all responsibility, returning them to an imagined state of childlike innocence; a desire to not be held accountable for anything to anyone, at any time – a noetic absolute offering absolution.

When natural boyhood development is disrupted, or never passes through all the necessary phases of maturity of 1-worship, where the male figure is the example to be imitated (eros: infatuation) 2-realization, where the masculine figure is recognized as imperfect (thymos: rebelliousness) and then 3-maturity, where a clear and honest appreciation of self, in relation to world, can produce a renewed appreciation of the masculine father-figure (agape: appreciation), the boy can be affected in many ways, depending on the quality of the mother-figure, the presence of siblings, and so on.
The stages correspond to distinct psychological stages of self-exploration, self-evaluation in relation to otherness, and self-acceptance that may or may not be accurate.
In some cases the natural progression splinters in two, during the rebellious stage, when other males, reminding an immature boy of itself become surrogate father-figures, and/or representations of an absent masculine figure, are attacked, externalizing self-hatred so as to retain the erotic element for self – an alienation from self to create the distance required for eros to develop.
At this stage self becomes the figure worshiped, and can do no wrong; deified and inflated into a hyperbolic representation of what it wishes it were; appearing pure and unblemished form a distance. This self-idealization compensates for the absence of an ideal, and of a past – the biological male being, for all children, a representative of a noetic past, a culture. Its absence as a living breathing idol/icon forces the child to seek it elsewhere.
Of course, with the emasculation of males, and their indoctrination into Nihilistic systems, even a present father can be unable to fulfill this important role – stunted in development males remain adolescent in their psychology, and so have never progressed into the stage of maturity.
The boy, having splintered (schizophrenia) in two, supported by a Nihilistic system that divides mind/body (noumenon/phenomenon) so as to promote the purified noetic as a way of establishing internal control, associates self with the erotic (fitting into the general feminization proposed as the ideal), and the concept of another is associated with the thymotic (casting it as the carrier of all its inherited faults).
Some boys will latch onto the abstraction of maleness, the only one permitted, which is the institution, or the State, or the idea(l) it represents, because at this point the noumenon dominates and the phenomenon is but an illusion to be ignored and/or overcome. An absent corporeal father leaves room for any theoretical, idealizes paternal-substitute.
To this absent father figure we must add the present yet inadequate, feeble, weak, father type; present but incapable of offering the child something to emulate, or a connection to a past it can feel proud of, i.e., a substantial identity. Any abstraction of an absent father-figure is, now, what the boy relates to as son to father, going through the three stages of development.
But the abstraction is too perfect, too complete, to theoretically absolute to be overcome, so the child remains trapped in adolescence, unable to go through the maturation process.
Past offers a theoretical immutability; an absolute determining power, associated with the father-figure, who is its corporeal representation. Eliminating the reality of the corporeal father-figure allows the mind to idealize the past, effectively erasing it – referring to ‘pure Nihilism’ – or conceptualizing it as void of imperfection – referring to ‘positive Nihilism’ – yet, in both cases retaining the power of a determining omnipotence, conceptualized as a oneness, i.e., an absolute, which is absent in the present, as presence. This was Spinoza’s great leap forward from Abrahamism towards Modern Nihilism.

Absolute is Absent, is the very definition of absence, though the word 'absolute' can be used, so it has presence as a symbol, an idea, an abstraction, referring to nothing outside the mind that holds it in vague obscurity.
It is intuitively pleasing, because the mind is an ordering organ, sampling patterns, seeking them out, crating them when they are missing.
The body feeds on organisms to sustain itself, and the mind feeds on ordering, to sustain itself.
It is, therefore, beyond the ability of the common mind to escape this subjective entrapment - the desire to do so is also absent, as it may prove detrimental to the well-being the mind/body is desperate to preserve.

To proceed towards greater clarity, understanding, necessitates a leaving behind of comforting ease - it requires a transgression, and a transcendence.
How can the mind conceptualize the random; how can it intuit what is counter-intuitive?
The antagonism of life and cosmos is immediately evident, in the very experience of need/suffering and the mnid's desperation to remain within its comfort zone, its own noetic limitations.

Without chaos the meaning of order is diminished; without chaos, properly defined as randomness and not with the comforting description of an occult order, there is, indeed, no possibility for freedom, i.e., free action, free-will, making existence a farco-comedy implying a universal state of masturbatory cannibalism.
Modern feel comforted by this, because a negative order is preferable to the slightest hint of chaos. They instinctively recoil feeling the void closing in on them - their herd psychology preparing to fight/fight their way clear.

Moderns think they've transcended Christianity, or any previous version of the absent absolute, desperate to create the image of enlightened progressiveness, advancement, growth.
They cast aside previous icons and idols to maintain their trendiness, adopting more advanced replacements.
Convinced they have overcome herd psychology they reinvent the herd definition to accommodate a return to it.
though they profess to admire Will to Power they imply their own powerlessness, surrendering to an external source, seeking power through association - choosing icons idols to stand behind, because they are terrified of standing forth.
Women....men-children....they declare an end to shame and guilt, wanting to deny it in themselves.
They want to be innocent in their ignorance, so as to finally find bliss.
Their lifestyles contradicting their professed empowerment and happiness - their actions contradicting their words. They lie.....but first to themselves.

Spengler, Otto wrote:

HELMHOLTZ OBSERVED, in a lecture of 1869 that has become famous, that “the final aim of Natural Science is to discover the motions underlying all alteration, and the motive forces thereof; that is, to resolve itself into Mechanics.” What this resolution into mechanics means is the reference of all qualitative impressions to fixed quantitative base values, that is, to the extended and to change of place therein. It means, further — if we bear in mind the opposition of becoming and become, form and law, image and notion — the referring of the seen Nature picture to the imagined picture of a single numerically and structurally measurable Order. The specific tendency of all Western mechanics is towards an intellectual conquest by measurement, and it is therefore obliged to look for the essence of the phenomenon in a system of constant elements that are susceptible of full and inclusive appreciation by measurement, of which Helmholtz distinguishes motion (using the word in its everyday sense) as the most important.

Decline of the West

Movement is existence, i.e., interactivity.
The absolute is a description of a theoretical end....anti-existence.
Even when it is conceptualized as an unmoving mover, as it is in Abvrahamism, its contradicts itself, presenting a circularity, essentially a movement that goes nowhere but returns to itself, so in fact it describes a contradiction where the 'whole' is nullified by the parts.
A self-contradicting nonsensical abstraction, i.e., a noetic abstraction annulling an experienced phenomenal reality - an idea/ideal negating the real.
It describes an enclosure (veritas, i.e., absolute truth as a protective enclosing) as immutable, immortal, indivisible and static...conflicting with the experience of it as mutable, mortal, imperfect, active - contrasting with the Hellenic 'aletheia,' describing an uncovering....expanding towards the unending, revealing itself.    

Spengler, Otto wrote:

Only physiognomic tact can, if creative, succeed in this, and in fact it has done so from time immemorial in the arts, particularly tragic poetry. It is the thinking man who is perplexed by movement; for the contemplative it is self-evident. And however completely the former can reduce his perplexities to system, the result is systematic and not physiognomic, pure extension logically and numerically ordered, nothing living but something become and
dead.
It is this that led Goethe, who was a poet and not a computer, to observe that “Nature has no system. It has Life, it is Life and succession from an unknown center to an unknowable bourne.” For one who does not live it but knows it, Nature has a system. But it is only a system and nothing more, and motion is a contradiction in it. The contradiction may be covered up by adroit formulation, but it lives on in the fundamental concepts. The shock and counter-shock of Democritus, the entelechy of Aristotle, the notions of force from the “impetus” of 14th century Occamists to the quantum theory of radiation, all contain it. Let the reader conceive of the motion within a physical system as the aging of that system (as in fact it is, as lived experience of the observer), and he will feel at once and distinctly the fatefulness immanent in, the unconquerably organic content of, the word
“motion” and all its derivative ideas. But Mechanics, having nothing to do with aging, should have nothing to do with motion either, and consequently, since no scientific system is conceivable without a motion problem in it, a
complete and self-contained mechanics is an impossibility. Somewhere or other there is always an organic starting point in the system where immediate Life enters it — an umbilical cord that connects the mind child with the life mother, the thought with the thinker.
This puts the fundamentals of Faustian and Apollinian Nature science in quite another light. No “Nature” is pure — there is always something of history in it. If the man is ahistorical, like the Greek, so that the totality of his
impressions of the world is absorbed in a pure point-formed present, his Nature image is static, self-contained (that is, walled against past and future) in every individual moment. Time as magnitude figures in Greek physics as little as it does in Aristotle’s entelechy idea. If, on the other hand, the Man is historically constituted, the image formed is dynamic. Number, the definitive evaluation of the become, is in the case of ahistoric man Measure, and in that of the historical man Function. One measures only what is present and one follows up only what has a past and a future, a course. And the effect of this difference is that the inner inconsistencies of the motion problem are covered up in Classical theories and forced into the foreground in Western.
History is eternal becoming and therefore eternal future; Nature is become and therefore eternally past. And here a strange inversion seems to have taken place — the Becoming has lost its priority over the Become.
When the intellect looks back from its sphere, the Become, the aspect of life is reversed, the idea of Destiny which carries aim and future in it having turned into the mechanical principle of cause and effect of which the center of gravity lies in the past. The spatially experienced is promoted to rank above the temporal living, and time is replaced by a length in a spatial world system. And, since in the creative experience extension follows from direction, the spatial from life, the human understanding imports life as a process into the inorganic space of its imagination. While life looks on space as something functionally belonging to itself, intellect looks upon life as something in space. Destiny asks: “Whither?”, Causality asks: “Whence?” To establish scientifically means, starting from the become and actualized, to search for “causes” by going back along a mechanically conceived course, that is to say, by treating becoming as a length. But it is not possible to live backwards, only to think backwards. Not Time and Destiny are reversible, but only that which the physicist calls “time” and admits into his formulas as divisible, and preferably as negative or imaginary quantities.

Decline of the West

Existence is counter-intuitive because intuition evolved to aid an organism to navigate its energy tides - ordering by enclosing, so as to construct an enclosure separating into an organism; evolving the ability to construct noumena, as a simplification/generation a reduction of phenomena to a level that can be processed.

Within the realm of the counter-intuitive that contrasts fluctuating space/time with a static conceptualization of it, we can place chaos, defined as randomness, with which the absolute is negated permitting the development of life and free-will, within its necessity - otherwise existence is a self-cannibalizing, masturbating unprovable nonsensical essence - a joke only clowns can believe in. Clowns dominated by cowardice and idiocy, or by the regressive retardation of feminization.
Even the ancient-Greeks were prone to be immersed within their feminine proclivities, especially during times of prolonged stability and dominance, producing excessive luxuries and comforts - the cesspool out of which decadence festers and flourishes.

An open-ended spirit - what Spengler calls Faustian - the notion of an end, a telos, whether it is admitted or given some hypocritical alternate title, is fundamental.
An open cosmos not an enclosed Uni-verse, is not for the feint of heart ....not for children and women.

It doesn't negate a cycle, it simply negates an absolute cloning of existence, where it repeats as a clock turns.
Each phase in the cycle is never absolutely the same as its previous phase - eternal returning is never an eternal cloning.
Each turns slightly modified by the previous....some with no life, some with no possibility of life....some almost identical, some completely different - multi-verse are a continuum, evolving, like organic life...with no end.
Never imploding into a ONE, nor exploding into NIL...a tenuous state between the two absolutes.
Eros....or more precisely Ananke - necessity.
We experience existence as need....suffering being need left unsatisfied over a period of time - pain being determined by the constitution of the organism within which need manifests into suffering. The experience of Flux by an organism - a self-organizing life.

I prefer (inter)activity of pattered (order) and non-patterned (random) Energies to deny cowards and hypocrites the anthropomorphic insinuation thy can exploit and manipulate by their human weaknesses and anxieties.
The use of anthropomorphic terminology may incorporate life within the non-living processes, but it also tempts cowards and retards to self-medicate with projections returning us to Abrahamic Nihilism. Lies are always more palatable to the ones who find truth deplorable, and unbearable.

Denying the absence of an absolute is what produces the contrived perfect certainty of the ‘positive one,’ and the vengefully comforting uncertainty of the ‘negative nil’.
Intentionally mistaking semiotics for the missing immutable, indivisible complete and perfect thing – the theoretically sanctified and idealized absolute one and/or nil.
A seductive ideal, most men-children – not yet able to advance out of their feminine phase – will predictably be swept away by – attracted by the promised ‘power’ of its implications (i.e., its implied fantastic possibilities) – imagination wilfully filling-in, with trembling pathos, what is missing and what is contrary to the perceived; their immature feminine spirits attracted to what is lacking in themselves: the courage to see, to create, and to grow despite it all.

The absence of an absolute means that, though organic life can only conceptualize in abstractions - mistaking them for absolutes, that existence is in a state of eternal fluctuations, tending towards absolute randomness - creating linear time - but never attaining it, moving away from near-absolute order, which was never finalized - never completed; if it had there would be no existence to speak of.

It is within the presence of fluctuations that the determined past interact with random energies, allowing the expression of 'free-will, expressed as choice.
But the human brain - especially when it is of low quality - cannot conceptualize anything beyond its either/or, 1/0, binary logic and dualistic thinking; it can only conceptualize literally, and not artistically, mistaking its own abstractions for the real, and not as representations and interpretation of the real. Therefore, the simple mind can only conceptualize 'freedom' or any concept, as an absoluteness - if not absolutely free then man is absolutely unfree; if not for the restricting authority of an absolute one-god then all is chaotic arbitrary immorality; a world where nothing has any meaning, all is permitted and all is a fabrication of the human brain.

This is a phase in human evolutionary development, partially the product of human cognitive limitations and partly the product of human anxiety/fear.

The Christian version of the Abrahamic concept of a one-god has been defined as 'absolute good' and 'absolute love' - the latter being the emotional antidote to the automatic reaction of anxiety/fear - love evolving to deal with this emotion so as to permit the evolution of heterosexual reproduction and the later to evolve cooperative survival strategies, i.e., social instincts.
By sanctifying 'love' man idealized what offered him a relief from the 'evil' of anxiety/fear, triggering the emotion of hatred.

Nihilism is rooted in self-awareness, and this gradual awakening was accompanied by anxiety/fear - a sense of insecurity, in relation to the unknown and to the stranger, the other, producing the automatic reaction of hatred.
Lust, and then love, evolved to deal with this automatic reaction to organic self-awareness - an intoxication, that associated self with other, eliminating strangeness, or difference, by focusing on similarities; identifying with them.

Dualities evolve first, because they are the simplest form of division.
One merely adjusts the original.
ergo male/female evolves from a simpler form of reproduction - mitosis - and binary thinking evolves as a manifestation of I/Other which is the basis of life, gradually developing self-consciousness in relation to consciousness.
Unsophisticated organisms can only conceptualize in dualities because its simple and easy to establish - using self as the standard to which other stands apart.
Only more sophisticated organisms where self-consciousness begins to emerge can triangulate, and seek refuge from the reality this exposes it to - fleeing back to the simpler and less stressful dualities.
Watch any Hollywood film and the lines between 'hero' and 'foe,' are clear and distinct, and of course the hero, defending the 'good' always comes out the winner in the end.

Binary thinking is a reflection of a simple metabolic mechanism. The mind settles for its simplicity, its habitual comforting certainties.
Grey areas produced by the black/white - one can evaluate how much black - darkness - is participating in the particular grey he is perceiving, or how much white - light. Systolic/Diastolic rhythms.

Dualities help the mind orient itself in a fluctuating, fluid existence - Flux - helping it direct the organism towards a desired objective - triangulation makes the orientation more exact, an evolution of a predatory conciousness.
But some man desire to return to the simpler plant-like passive method, requiring nothing more than binary either/or, edible/inedible, friend/foe....freedom/unfreedom.
If not God then Satan.
It identifies with the 'positive' part of the process - the diastolic - this it calls the 'one', the foundation of the unity, absorbing the systolic into its inflating oxygenation.
Between absolutes the mind prefers the 'positive', the one.
In not absolute 'freedom' then it must be absolute unfreedom; if not absolute order, then it must be absolute chaos - if not God then Satan.....which many convince themselves does not exist.
Black/White....all derivatives an evaluation of how much 'white' is part of the grey.

They have no issues with the 'ontology' of 'will to power' but they become sceptical when it comes to 'chaos', defined as randomness.
The Devil does not exist, no more than 'human nature' for those afraid of the implications, or chaos.
The positive - God - must reign supreme - it must be retained as an absolute standard. The I denying the existence of the other.

This subjectivity has been manipulate and reinforced by institutions that want to exploit what is promoted as non-existent.
Binary logic and its dualities implode into a singularity that is either, and most often, 'positive' or, less often, 'negative.
This is the institutionalized cell of nihilism - the bipolarity of absolute one, and absolute nil.

Yin/Yang.
Order/Chaos.

If the cosmos were governed by a singularity there would be no existence.
The Big Bang refers to a near-absolute state - a binary of order/chaos - not a singularity.
If it were a singularity there would be no interaction, no conflict not tension.

The ideal that everything is ordered, and chaos is simply complexity, implies a one-God, or simply baptises existence as a singularity, and existence being some undefined manifestation of its absolute wholeness, its complete 'perfection'.
This is like justifying the perfectly good one-god, allowing evil to exist, as a 'mystery, a product of his mysterious perfection.
It pretends to be offering an explanation when all it is doing is declaring and renaming - baptising concepts as one and the same and justifying this 'synthesis' as a product of mystery, obscurantism, the occult.  

How the theoretical 'whole' can be contradicted by its parts, is the mystifying.
How man is 'perfect' by simply calling himself that, is contradicted by man's awareness of self.
If man is 'imperfect, incomplete, existing in a cosmos that lacks these human concepts, which is then declared whole and complete, is what has to be accepted on faith.
I've explained the process, as I understand it, about how a mind can produce this contradiction - this mind/body, ideal/real dissonance - noumena conflicting with phenomena.
The concept of 'uni-verse' is a product of a imaginative projection, which then considers the noetic product the 'fact' and the apparent the illusion.
The universe can only be thought of as a 'whole' when the mind projects itself 'outside' space time.


Natural Laws are not Biblical commandments. they are manmade laws, attempting to describe and predict observable phenomena, within a Newtonian context.  
These 'laws' are not divine.
The Quantum fails to adhere to them, and this coming M-Theory has yet to materialize.

The idea that all is ordered, implying that all is knowable, is what has been called an Alexandrian world view.
Omnipotence and omniscience are not openly declared as possible, but they are implied.
In theory if one were know every factor that participated in a coin toss, would be able to predict the outcome 100% of the time.
Heisenberg principle aside, this implies that omniscience is possible.    



Quantum weirdness, describe the chaos on a quantum level.
On that level chaos/order interact, but we can only experience the outcome on the Newtonian level, through order. because Newtonian physics describes and efines order, as it appears.


Observation - will - affects the outcome.

The 'particle' is the human concept - a noumenon - representing the 'point' where sense organ (eye), medium (light) and measured phenomenon (particle) coincide - triangulation.
All is process, waves - vibrations/oscillation - and we convert these to 'points in space/time' when we perceive - measure - them.
The triangulation is of subject/medium/object.
Past/present/Future
Body/nervous system/Mind.

The mind is the source of the projected 'divine - the absolute - channelling past (memory) via the nervous system (interaction, dynamic fluctuating present/presence).

Man participates, along with all other energies - or unities of them - in his own destiny.
He is not a passive observer. his input may be small but relevant.
He experiences past as a imitable whole, yet past is continuously manifested as presence, which is 'growing, increasing....distancing from the near-absolute point.
Man interprets this presence as appearance - after-the-fact - producing the delusion that someone else is interpreting and choosing and reacting.
He then projects his conclusions as a future destination, an ideal, an objective.
Now most of the choosing has been tested and made automated - evolution, survival of the fittest - but these automatic reactions cannot deal with the unforeseeable - which is present in a cosmos where order is not absolute.
This is the advantage of higher-life-forms in relation to lower-life-forms, such as plants, as an extreme example.
Plants have no ability to react to the unforeseeable - they rely on mutations that develop through interactivity of chaos/order. The mutation that offers an advantage in relation to the unexpectedness, survive, those that are neutral or offer a disadvantage, perish.
This process is time consuming....so evolution develops conciousness to deal with the unexpected immediately.

Using the representation of the wave as representative of order then chaos would be a wave with fluctuating distances between crests and fluctuating wave crest heights.
A symmetrical distance between waves and similar wave sizes would indicate order - symmetry, a vibration that is consistent and repeating.
An asymmetry between waves and fluctuating wave sizes would represent randomness, i.e., chaos. Inconsistency.

Since only order can be measured - because measurement requires juxtaposition, therefore only order can be measured and perceived - human technologies imitating man's understanding of his own processes - ergo the measuring tools are imitating the human sense organ, multiplying its acuity, but not contradicting its methodology.

Absolutism is a mindset. A retardation of mental development, that starts with the idealization of the parent.
For a child the parent is like a god.
He or she produce food, shelter, they know everything. They are literary, for a child, omnipotent and omniscient.

This psychology is what Abrahamism exploits.

In Modern nihilistic systems psychologies are maintained in a perpetual state of infancy - the more rebellious advancing to adolescence with its usual anti-authoritarianism.

If you listen to moderns degenerates speak it's always in deference to an authority figure - an iconic idol.
They cannot recover from centuries of Gods absolute authority. They need a comparable alternative.

Part of growing up, gowning through the ritual of 'surpassing your parent' is the understanding that he and she are not omniscient and omnipotent, as you believed in your youth, but fallible.
But Moderns are never permitted to go through this 'rite of passage', primarily because 'God's absolute perfection can never be surpassed, so they are retained in a state of retarded development.
Even if they get over the Abrahamic version, they cannot shake free the absolute, and their need for it.

It is a comforting ideal.
It offers certainty, for one....but also reason. Everything has a reason, a purpose, a telos - everything, including one's own suffering, is rational, and therefore something is present that can be reasoned with.
Without this they feel lost and are terrified.
The idea of a counter-intuitive, unreasonable, irrational, cause, is so disturbing they cannot even consider it.

Their fate is left to the unpredictability of something incomprehensible.
They cannot function under such duress.
There's nothing to blame and to accuse; nothing to feel a victim of; nothing to beg and plead before.
It's all relatively uncertain, and they add to it with their own imperfect judgements, self-deceptions, and delusions.
But they cannot hold themselves accountable for what is incomprehensible.

So, they believe the absolutes in their head are really channelled from some external source, and that they are mere conduits for a supreme order - if not god then the idea of order itself.
This is intuitively comforting. They can live with that knowledge.
When all goes to hell they have something to blame, if only in the privacy of their own mind - something to absolve their ego from all implications.
it's not that they are inferior, but that the absolute is so superior - making all inferior by comparison.

Equality via the nil.

I've explained my positions on how the concept of 'nil' is comforting.
It not only erases all, producing parity in nothingness, but through it alternative realities can be justified.

If there is no absolutely objective reality, then any absurdity is as relevant as any reasonable theory.
If there is no objective absolute then all subjective possibilities are equally possible - infinite possibilities.
If nothing can be absolutely proved nor disproved, then anything is equally possible.

Since absolutes only exist as ideas/ideals, in the mind, then perceived reality can be absolutely overturned, because there is nothing comparable in existence.

It doesn't matter if it's absolute one or absolute nil....because both annul the perceived existent.
Actually, absolute nil is more powerful an idea, since it is indivisible, and requires no reasoning to support it - it simply negates all it comes in contact with, given that nothing can theoretically match its criterion of absoluteness. It laughs and rejects all, on the ground that it is imperfect.

The absence of tangible absolutes, in existence, is what makes the ideas of absolutes so seductively powerful. They 'correct' what is lacking.

Delusion becomes its own reward - if you're convinced that another is responsible for your suffering then you'll behave with depravity when confronted on your responsibility. The depravity is avoided ('by others'), as a cornered animal is vicious. The side effects are the degeneration of wider society; the descent into thoughtlessness, as all thought discriminates and discerns cause/effect.

Your 'depravity' is unloaded upon another. It's an existential relief, if you consider the implications of being born of poor genetic stock.

Ironically, the same individuals that have no problem adopting the ontological veracity of 'Will to Power' - with its erotically arousing implications - suddenly become dismissive and sceptical about the ontology of chaos - defined as randomness.
If you cloth the most presumptuous hypothesis in linguistic insinuations with a positive insinuation, they are accepted with little to no scepticism; if you expose a negative, in the raw, the mind recoils, repulsed by the implications.

Christianity is being rebooted, and Nietzsche is used as an apostle of the new rebirth.
It's all so fascinating.
Human psychology is so fragile, the ego so vulnerable, that it exposes the fact that man's mind has not evolved to go beyond a certain level of comprehension.
Defensive mechanisms kick-in and it creatively returns back to its comfort zone - its safe area.
Brain did not evolve to expose the organism to reality beyond what is necessary for its survival.
The binary method suffices for pragmatic necessities, but it is rarely overcome - in fact those who did overcome it went insane, or were otherwise detrimentally affected. Their exposure denying them simple animalistic pleasures others take for granted.

It's like opening a door to a dimensions that reduce the mundane four, to a level the mind can no longer return to - once you know you cannot un-know; once you see you cannot un-see.
But you can flee, and forget, or seek refuge in chemical Lethe.

Th word 'absolute' can be used to express certainty, above and beyond a personal doubt; used to express an emotional state, a hyperbole, ....all mental reactions.
But place the concept outside the human mind.
Where is the indivisible, immutable, singularity?

Spinoza claimed that much Biblical confusion is based on the use of the word 'god', which was a Hebrew expression of something exceptional, e.g., god's bush, god's battle, god's voice, god's fire etc.

Same has occurred among the children of the book, by the book, for the book, with the word 'absolute'.
It is used as a euphemism, a way of expression private certainty, appreciation, etc...all mental reactions....none can show an absolute.
This they call 'existence'.
An abstraction in the head, exists....like painting of a tree exists.
But the painting is not the tree, no more than the word 'absolute' is an absolute.

Again....in the way I use the word, and how I try to use every word, absolute refers to a theoretical immutable, indivisible, complete, whole, singularity - a one.
I use many words after I reconnecting them to the world - bringing them down to earth.
My standard is not a book, or another's opinion....but the world as everyone experiences it.
I've done the same with the words 'love', 'morality', 'free', 'will', 'existence', etc.  

So far I've not found this elusive absolute.
It hides....in the 'beyond'?
In the 'occult? In the 'obscure'?

It hides in the mind....as an abstraction.