Psychology 101

Satyr wrote:

It's all in the psychological approach.
For the Pagan, it all begins with what he never had. He advances, incrementally towards greater, knowledge, more awareness.  

For the modern degenerate it all begins with what he's presumed he always had, the absolute.
All pales in comparison to this perfect, wholeness, and its certainty.
What fails to meet this standard is equally imperfect, equally dissatisfying.
The average, born and raised on nihilistic mind-control, the belief in the Abrahamic God, filled in this void - surrender to it equalized all in its name.
For others the death of this God, its discrediting, left them with this emptiness, and this addiction to absolutes. Nothing short of it would never be enough.
The absence of perfection was a 'perfect' excuse, or a void to be filled in with semiotics, and confident declarations simulating certainty.
For a few the absence of absolute evidence, absolute proof, absolute certainty, was 'perfect' to reject all, and to settle for one's own ignorance.        

I have been dismayed in recent years, at how common this mentality is among the Christian and Traditionalist rightists I have come to know.

It's something I cannot explain to them. It's only something they can learn by paying the consequences of it. And maybe not even then.

You can't reason with someone who emotes.
For him it's a matter of life or death - a survival issue. He places nothing above his survival...survival at all costs. He sacrifices reason, ego, anything to increase its possibility.
Truth has no chance. It's the  easiest thing the coward is willing to sacrificed...the easiest thing to give-up.
He may consider it as evidence of his 'belief', his loyalty to the absent absolute.
Like all sacrifices it is supposed to offer something as evidence of loyalty, as an offering of appeasement....payment, bribery grovelling for salvation.

Other do the same with free-will. Their desperation, their desire to escape responsibility, to sneer and laugh at everything, as inevitable, as unavoidable, as what could not have been otherwise; their desperation to avoid the implications of holding yourself accountable, overwhelms their reasoning.They would rather live as incarcerated souls, than take responsibility for their choices, and actions.

Two sides of the same coin.

Satyr wrote:

Which will dominate the feminine, the poet, the artist, or the masculine, the scientist, the philosopher?

It doesn't seem like masculine/feminine is the distinction here. Aren't the vast majority of poets and artists men as well? Especially the best ones.

I think it is more of a distinction between that which relies more on intuition/instincts, so basically primal and largely subconscious forms of thinking and expression which are usually vague and unclear so the artist often creates without even knowing how or why, and that which relies on reason, which developed later on and is mostly conscious and deliberate, and more precise.

But yes, of the two, the latter would be more masculine while the former is more neutral as both men and women evolved their respective instincts/intuitions, which they express in different ways.

Males have a feminine and a masculine side, as do females.
Men have a feminine side....which is dominated.
Degrees.
Females have a male spirit, which is dominated by the female spirit, in more feminine females.
This is why we have degrees of femininity and masculinity. Weininger went through this when he formulated the mathematics of attraction.

According to him a female who is 20% male, 80% female will be attracted to a male who is 80% male and 20% female.
A homosexual male is a biological male that, fro whatever hormonal and environmental conditioning, is more feminine than masculine.

The feminine is primal....of the body, intuitive, emotional, instinctual. The masculine is cerebral, more noetic.
Nihilism is a masculine ideology, that negates, challenges natural order to the point of nullifying it....and so attracts more feminine spirits.
Nature is associated with the female spirit, the chaos/order interactivity....flux.....so it attracts more masculine spirits.  It was said that a philosopher was a hybrid...part poet part scientist, in other words a masculine/feminine balance where the feminine was controlled but not denied, not repressed.

Hyper-Masculinty is the reverse. It exaggerates the masculine, inside of it, because it is insecure, knowing it is dominated by the feminine....it is emasculated.

Jung used [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]...

How do we detect a lie, or when someone is pretending, acting, imitating?
How can we spot an actor's act?
By how he exaggerates, putting too much effort to control self, or allowing hyperbole to compensate for the pretence.
We compare it to his previous behaviour; his normal behaviour, what comes natural to him/her.

When imitating, pretending, the actor either understates or overstates the behavioural markers he's perceived and wishes to imitate.
Hyperbole or Hypobole, is a sign of faking it....pretending.
the individual does not have a personal understanding, so he bases his pretence on external factors....which he cannot accurately measure.....he cannot get the degree perfectly right.
In an effort to make it believable, he either puts too much effort in repressing his natural behaviour, producing a overstated lowing of his normal behaviour, in an effort to hide the imperfections, or he attempts to hide them by turning up the value, overstating what he cannot understand and has no intimate relationship with.

This is obvious in cRap music.....but in anyone who worships and imitates the idol representing what he/she wants to pretend to be.
The icon of his obsessive worship, is either overstated, or understated. An external hyperbole or a resort to esotericism.
both tactics used to mask the fact that he cannot relate, cannot understand, but can only know, can only imitate the effect of what he covets and admires and wishes he/she were.
A tactic that can be successful when dealing with those like himself/herself, but having the opposite effect when dealing with the 'real deal'.

Starting premise:
Addiction is to body, what obsession is to mind.
Gene to Meme.
Same cause within different contexts.
Additional factor:
Two kinds of need.
Lack, and excess, the latter the by-product of the former, from the perspective of a living organism awakening to its condition - both an awakening to Flux: constant (inter)activity of order and chaos.
Absence of absolutes is what is evaluated, intuitively, as 'lacking'.
No omniscience, no omnipotence, no omnipresence, no absolute order. An unceasing, relentless, fluctuation, interpreted in degrees, relative to what is needed/desired.

When one addictions is 'overcome' another takes it place, or addiction converts to obsession and/or obsession converts back to addiction.
The physical precedes the mental.
Addiction/Obsession is defined as any need/desire that proves to decrease the individual organism's relationship with reality, or it decreases its potentials, its probabilities, in space/time.
We must make this distinction, otherwise we must include feeding in the category of addiction/obsession, which we might when the environmental circumstances that made them 'positive', from austerity to manmade superfluity, now alters the relationship and makes them 'negative'.

What is exposed, in all cases, is the relationship of the particular organism with its environment.
Hunger/Ennui are expressions of this relationship - the world is 'too much' to cope with, or 'not enough' to gratify.
Stress is the product of the body's reaction to fluctuations.
Hunger is to the body what boredom is to the mind.
When need is lowered, in the body, it is increased in the mind.The body produces excess energies, which the mind must expunge.
Body craves what it lacks, and must continuously replenish, due to (inter)active and the attrition this causes. If it is successful it accumulates excess energies to direct towards growth, or play, or reproduction.
If it cannot expunge such energies effectively, or quickly enough, because the environment produces and provides excess, and ease in their acquisition, the mind needs to deal with them using art, or via artificial methods, such as sports, and pornography, or it must deal with them using narcotics, alcohol etc.
Another method is to obsess over a trivial objective, or one that it can never satisfy, creating a constant expenditure with no hope of a reward.
The ideal can serve this function.

We covet what we see, not what we are, nor what we have.
When we covet we focus on a few traits which identify the core of what we seek in other, because we have it not.
What we are, or have, we admire....we do not covet it.
We covet what we need/desire....we seek it out and find it.

What we need/desire becomes exaggerated in our psyche. Yearning multiplies our evaluation. We ignore all and everything, including about the object of our desire, because we are overwhelmed by the characteristics we need/desire.
The object of need/desire is reduced to those few traits, characteristics, and all else false aside or is deflated in our conciousness.
Whether hate or love governs our coveting, we are entirely focused on the traits that trigger attraction or repulsion.
The object of our need/desire can do no wrong, has no imperfections, no blemishes, or the object of our repulsion can do no right, there si nothing about it we can appreciate, it is entirely bad, or evil.

This is how idols and icons are fabricated. The cult of celebrity.
Usually part of the past, because the absent cannot contradict our judgements of them....or distant, inaccessible, like singers, ro actors. we confuse the act for the actor; the pretence with what lies underneath it all.
We do the same with historical figures or civilizations. The more alien they are to us, the more they become an object to be caricatured.
The absent becomes a god of evil or good...like a dead or absent father becomes a figure to be reviled or adored in our imagination.
We want to associate with what we covet, and disassociate from what we are repulsed by.
Unable to understand the stranger, because we haven't shared the costs, the journey, we use its presence as our guide, reducing it to a few traits and characteristics to imitate or mock.
The best actors are the ones that can incorporate into their imitation the many identifying traits; the bad actor can only incorporate few, making the imitation shallow and funny in its exaggerations of those few traits.

We covet the outcome, the benefit, but not the cost, the journey towards it.
Unable to entirely understand it, share in it, the actor uses hyperbole to hide his ignorance, accentuating the few traits the object he admires or despises, is identified with - inflating them beyond realistic proportions, because he can only know of them know.
The stranger the other is, the more different from us it is, the more we caricature it, unable to become it, we imitate.
Our language and body movements exposing how different we are from what we want to embody.
Such an actor usually overstates his performance because he can only know and not understand, so he must focus on the few traits and characteristics he knows, and overuse them because there is nothing else as a counterbalance.
What we covet attains mystical dimensions, placed on pedestals it does not deserve.  
If it is dead, it can never challenge our judgements, but if it is it may prove a disappointment that may shatter us.
Adoration turning to condemnation. We accuse it of not living up to our judgements of it,

Desire seeks out an object promising expunging of accumulated energies - frustration, neurosis - what we've repressed, kept bottled in.
Need seeks out an object to compensate for what we lack, or to replenish what we've lost.
Even losing what we had makes it an object to be exaggerated. We imagine it as more than what it actually was.

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

Directly linked with the difference between sympathy and empathy.
An undeveloped psyche attaches itself to the first individual that inspires in it a sense of self, or fulfils what is absent in itself.
Ducklings when they hatch imprint on the first living organism.

The degenerate spirit can only understand other in relation to what it knows and understands about self.
It cannot separate its judgements from its self-assessments - sympathy.
as such, the liberal can only explain resistance, the alien other, using herself as an example. So she accuses other of hate, fear etc.
The mind prone to admiring and worshipping personalities is prone to desire to be admired and worshipped, as a compensation for its own submissiveness.
The weakling wants to be admired as strong; the imbecile as smart; the coward as courageous.
The first strange otherness that triggers feelings of admiration, slavishness, femininity, becomes an icon to emulate.
The degree of slavishness and submissiveness it triggers in him/her has to be compensated with an equal or superior submissiveness and submissiveness from others.

The moon unable to produce its own solar brilliance, reflect it down to earth, and then declares itself a sun.

Whoever has followed my reasoning and the metaphors I use will have picked-up on the allusion that judgements expose a relationship of the mind, with the world, represented by symbols, language being a conventional set of symbols.
Art, in other words.
The dictionary is a limit to their interpretation.
Each symbol representing a concept (abstraction) as in ancient linguistic forms, or a sound, as it has developed up to our time.
The word is a sequence representing a concept. A sentence is a sequence applying a synthesis of concepts.
I also place art, and language, as the expression of the nervous system, either when drawn, written, or spoken....each sequence of sounds, forming a word, representing a physical (inter)action of organism (mind/body) and medium. The spoken word interacts with atmosphere....the written with light.
The apparent (phenomenon) interacts with the sense organ, is transmitted to the brain, where it is processed, either as sensation or abstraction, assimilated into a synthesis of abstractions we call an idea(l), a concept.
Art, including written language, repeats the process but in the reverse, externalizing the idea(l), via a medium that is not the same as the medium used to assimilate the data, in the form of stimulations.
This inversion is where Nihilism takes root.
When we express ourselves using any form of art, we are expressing a reaction to what we've perceived.
Our motive is part of the expression, limited by formal linguistic rules and definitions, accumulated over centuries.
Our choice of words, our placing them within a sequence, their repetition, is limited by language, but some language are richer than others, allowing a variety of options to represent the same concept with slight nuanced modifications.
The fact that we speak about a specific concept, already exposes a interest, an esoteric need, an internal secret process externalized.
The choice of words, the sequence, like I said, and the context, and pretexts, along with sub-textual insinuating meanings, all expose a need/desire.

I've already explained how I separate need/desire:
Need = lack, due to attrition. The sensation of existing, because existence is constant (inter)activity, necessitating constant struggle (agon) which deplete the organism's energies.
Desire = a by-product of the first. If energies are successfully and continuously replenished this may produce a surplus which requires to be periodically expunged. Life directs these excess energies, product of fitness, towards self-maintenance (survival), towards expansion (growth), and then towards self-reproduction, which is an extension of 'growth'. In humans or more sophisticated organisms it can be directed towards art = externalization of growth.
We can include technologies in this last category.

Art, is therefore, libidinal, or an expunging of energies, similar to the fight/flight mechanism and sexual intercourse.
This is how meme evolves to reflect genetic processes; the idea(l) mirroring real organic processes.
If we follow the reasoning we realize language is en expunging of repressed, accumulated, nervous energies, founded no need/desire. Linguistic intercourse.
What was the original intent of proto-language, like cave paintings?
The passing of an idea from one mind to another, via a form - its fertilization using shapes representing mental forms, produced when light interacted with phenomena, like animals, and then the sense organ, the eye.
The artist transmitted the metal abstraction inverting the process and using a different medium.
instead of light he vocalized, using atmospheric vibrations, and then developed the ability to use rock on rock to form shapes.
When reversing the process the mind cannot help but also include his reaction to what was perceived and reduced to memory.
When processed and stored as neural clusters the abstractions is corrupted by feelings, other abstractions, personal desires, etc., so when it is returned to the outside it now also expresses the individual's reaction to this perceived phenomenon.  
For example, when vocalizing the organism's distress will be included in the vocalization. You can hear the internal processes expressed in the vocalization, so that even if the vocalization becomes standardized, over time, as it is, the individual's own internal workings will be included as subtle divergence from the usual - slight fluctuations in tone, duration, crescendo, etc.
Therefore, every opinion, either formed personally or adopted from another, carries with it a plethora of information, along with the concepts.
The use of language pinpoints the individual's vulnerabilities, or where it feel most insecure, in relation to a sensually experienced world.

The appreciation of Beauty:
Beauty has two components.
Symmetry, indicating order within a world tending towards chaos - linear time.
Proportionality, indicating potentials, within a world tending towards chaos - Probabilities in expanding possibilities.

Symmetry is about health.
Proportionality is about functions.

Organism is a hierarchy or organs, each serving a necessary function for its preservation and growth (reproduction).
Growth is the appropriation of space/time - of possibilities. An organisms physical dimensions encompass space/time, attempting to order/organize it in accordance to its needs - will.
Reproduction is a forced compromise due to the limit of cellular divisions, and due to the constantly fluctuating real - each replication suffering trauma,  producing a mutation that may prove advantageous in a changing cosmos.
Heterosexual reproduction streamlines this process of division (mitosis), accelerating possible variations and mutations.

Proportionality indicates  an organic compromise sacrificing symmetry to the preservation of the organism.
Organ proportions indicate an organism's survival and reproductive strategy, and its probabilities within the possible expanding cosmos (health).
'Space' being the projection of possibility, and 'time' being the measure of movement/momentum through it.
'Order,' within these contexts, is 'probability'.      
Organism, within an organism, and how they inter-relate (interact), their synthesis/sequence within the body, and their proportions, in relation to other organs, are the essence of the organism, called 'nature' = past made presence - appearance.
The strength of each organ, within the hierarchy, indicates the particular individuals psychology, - its personae.
'Character' is the external projection of this personae, that may be selective, when dealing with other.
Character = public, worldly, exoteric, self.
Personae = private, esoteric, self.
self = continuum of organized processes held together by memory (DNA, experience).
Memories are (inter)actions translated to organic code and stored as first-hand and second-hand knowledge, or as genetic memories - information.
Self extends back further than one's birth.
We can divide 'self' into two sequences of memories, one held together by experiences, stored in mind, and the other held together by memories, stored as genes.
Here is where Nihilism is rooted - in the conflict between genes and experiences - meme/gene, mind/body.

The body automatically reacts to beauty, viscerally and intuitively appreciating the potential it represents.
The mind, infected by nihilism, or controlled by anxiety, may ignore it, or pretend it is not attractive.
The appreciation of possibilities means the possibilities for self in relation to world (flux).
We admire the symmetrical in form (beauty), sound (music), in a natural scene, sensing and/or projecting the probabilities within the possible.
The varying proportions indicating virility within the momentum toward increasing chaos (passage of time) and its strength to resist change (flux) - we are inspired by it, heartened.
Higher, superior, order is beautiful for an organism founded on ordering.
The feminine spirit wants to give itself to it - be integrated with it, merge with it, through copulation - mental and physical.
The masculine spirit wants to assimilate it, own it, control it - make it its own, through intercourse - mental and physical.

From genes to memes - from body to mind.
What applies for the physical applies for the mental.
Real/Ideal = phenomena/noumena.
Beauty in the context of mind should be translated into noetic contexts (idealistic):
Symmetry corresponds to intelligence - perceptions and appreciation of order in their dynamic form called 'pattens'; perception of patterns in the patterns, underlying the apparent.
Proportionality corresponds to demeanour - application of intelligence: manner in which patterns are evaluated and applied - wisdom.

Advancement (evolution) from plant to organism is accompanied with the advancement of possibilities, in space/time.
Organisms are not static upon a specific locality, but move within it.
The gradual emergence of a nervous system allows them to develop the ability to gather and store data and use it to project further in space/time, beyond the immediate: adding future to organic past made present.
This constitutes a ‘liberation’ from the ground, and from the moment – liberation of will from the determined past.
The nervous system is the dynamic (re)action to (inter)action, and with the evolution of the brain, and mind extending from it into space/time, the organism frees itself from the immediate, the here/now; the ‘will’ partially freeing itself to explore possibilities/probabilities outside the dimensional field of possibilities called ‘present’, and along with it a gradual and partial liberation from ‘past’ – the ‘present’ is always the ‘past’ manifesting as presence/appearance.


This gradual liberation is what manifests as self-consciousness and in the delusion of absolute freedom from the past.
Words/symbols are representations of the mind's sense of 'liberation' from a limiting, immutable, past.
Announcing the death of god is a premature pronouncement of liberty from a 'authoritarian', often brutal past.

Skin is a flexible exoskeleton, permitting more fluidity.
In some species the skeleton is externalized.
Early life had no skeleton, only a porous membrane containing the organism’s organs.
This membrane is the movement away from spatial possibility (space/time) – an elementary boundary attempting to selectively exclude possibilities so as to internally promote the selected possibilities, increasing their probability degree.
The porous incomplete boundary can never be finalized, can never be absolutely completed, forcing compromises upon the organism.
Internalizing the skeleton creates a rigid frame for the organs to organize around. Nervous system attaches itself to it, as it is the most fragile collection of organs, and has to remain sensitive & flexible.
Skin is the fluid (gelatinous) extension of organic will, extended further through the nervous system; matter in-between liquid and solid, creating a flexible ‘sack’ encompassing the organs.
Higher life forms, make use of a hybrid method: skeleton is the frame all the other organs wrap themselves around, configuring themselves in accordance to each species survival & reproduction methods.
Each organ’s dimensions, and placement determines by the particular strategy evolved – called species. The ideal dictated by the efficiency/effectiveness in relation to these evolved strategies – fitness.
Nervous system wraps around the skeleton, extending into the other organs, gradually evolving a central hub (brain) at the end of the spinal cord – the centre of the skeleton.
Skull creates an exoskeleton to protect the more vulnerable organ, and most costly in energies: brain.

Some animals, including mammals, adopt a hybrid skeletal structure: body externalized, wrapped around the skeleton, and brain internalized, encased within an exoskeleton.
This creates some psychological effects, reflected in human dualisms, and binary logics. A lot of the mind/body conflict can be traced back to this factor.
The brain’s sheltered position, fed energies that seem inexhaustible, is comforted by a body that is exposed to the elements, vulnerable to the ‘outside’, foraging constantly to preserve itself.
This mind/body dichotomy produces the need/desire division: one an interpretation of lack, the other an interpretation of excess.
Organ hierarchies must be factored in, because these determine the psychology of each species and individual within the species.
Developing brains begin dominating the organic hierarchy, which experiences itself as enclosed within a protective exoskeleton, and with access to seemingly endless energies; when a particular organ dominates the organism experiences this as an identification with its specific needs, because it dominates the neurological transmissions.
Specialization determines which organs will evolve to dominate, facilitating the particular survival and reproductive methods, and this will establish an organ hierarchy specific to the species.
We may call this the species psychology (personæ), expressed through its behaviour, and its demeanour.

The modern feminised mind is always looking for guilt.
Who is guilty, who is guilty of making me/us suffer.
If we have established the guilt, we can demand from said culprit or from another authority figure to do something about it, to help us.

If you tell them some reasons as to why they are suffering in a certain way they always jump to the idea of attributing guilt as well.
The lion is guilty of killing the sheep. There is something morally wrong about this, obviously. Somebody better do something about it to sooth the suffering.

It's not even that it's mostly about the actual physical suffering, a lot of times it's the mental suffering of living in a world filled with lions and people or other who/which doesn't care about their wishes, dreams, demands.
That's the most time-intensive source of suffering, followed by looking for a guilty party as to petition some god or god-like figure to do something about it and sooth their eternal suffering of an indifferent world.
It just never ends, until it ends.

My positions is that need is the way a living organism perceives interacting, and the consistent loss of energies this entails, and suffering is an extreme of this, if and when the loss cannot be replenished.
The desire to stop suffering, rather than become stronger, able to endure higher levels of it, is a Abrahamic expression of the victim/slave psychology.

Christianity weaponized guilt/shame.
Judaism internalized it, converting it to neurosis.
Islam externalized it, converting it into rage.

Christianity had to affirm free-will so as to cast blame, and to internalize the guilt/shame as the Jews did.
Shame wasn't invented by the Christians, it was manipulated to produce sheeple.

In Paganism guilt/shame act as a self-disciplining mechanism. One judges self, through the eyes of one's own ancestors - holding oneself accountable to them.
Shame could be corrected.

In Christianity it is eternal, due to a primordial sin, one inherits and can never correct, except after death and a lifetime of contrition.
And what is this 'terrible sin'?
Self-awareness, gained by contradicting God's rule. Exercising free-will, in other words.
Free-will acts as bait to trap the psyche in a cage it can never escape. Even death cannot help, because eternal suffering is the price for exercising the Christian version of free-will.
Whatever small amount of 'freedom' man can exercise must be sacrificed as evidence of his surrender - his trust/faith in the master, the only permissible masculine entity.
It's a mind-game using words.

Obsession is for the mind what addiction is for the body.

When one obsession/addiction is given-up, it must be replaced with another, of equal effect, or a different, less harmful effect.
Abrahamism cannot be given-up cold-turkey.
When a Christian becomes sick of his addiction to the absolutist allegories in Christian dogma, or he outgrows them, and they no longer give him the same 'high', the same 'fix', then he has to find a better more potent replacement.
Marxism has become the favourite alternative for recovering Abrahamics.

I've explained what I think nihilism is and how it emerges.
If we begin there, then we realize that getting over a vice does not mean you got over the cause of the vice, and why you became addicted/obsessed with it.
If the root cause is not dealt with, then the addiction/obsession may change, but the cause remains, forcing its replacement with a new obsession/addiction.

I've said it before:
The Abrahamic God did not die, but the metaphor was discredited, or it was outgrown, and it had to be updated.
The basic characteristics remain the same, whether you call it absolute, or one, or nil; the core principle is the same.
It's no longer dressed-up in a grey beard and a male body, or any body....but has become more modern, more abstract, more noetic, ideological...vague.
They killed the image, the Christian anthropomorphism...but the ideal is still alive in the hearts of minds of those that cannot live without it.
It's 'progressed' as an ideology....its become more sophisticated, more effective among more literate, educated populating with access to data unimaginable to their ancestors. The metaphor had to be upgraded to accommodate the Modern Age.

First came the word....the Bible says...but it does not say which word. It says God, but not that this is the only word, and God is an obscure term...not used in the Greek manner....just as 'veritas', meaning 'truth' is not similar to how the Greeks named 'truth" = aletheia....unforgetting...just as in Greek it is named Cosmos not Uni-verse. We've inherited the Roman misinterpretations of Greek concepts. Latin failed to reflect the Greek - meaning were corrupted, slightly modified...and this makes all the difference.

In Greek the Bible says 'logos {ΛΟΓΟΣ}' = reason, speech.
It's vague enough to accommodate alternate words/symbols.
Why not 'order', 'one', 'whole'?
Why not 'absolute'?

Stoicism is currently in-fashion.
A way to affirm what one had no lucid part in creating.
Moderns 'know it all', but understand little.
Their cluelessness is hidden behind trivial data, deferences to iconic name-droppings and date deluges burying themselves in information.
You can discern their lack of comprehension from the outcomes, and how it compares to their intent, forgotten in time. But you can discern its traces in the present, from their attitude towards the consequences.
Though they've learned to hide it, or to accept the unforeseen circumstances, as if they were intentional, or by comforting themselves with the wisdom that nobody's circumstances could be absolutely intentional.
But you can tell.
The degree of negativity they inadvertently expose towards their life, indicates that most of it was unforeseen, but must now be endured under the pretext that it was all inevitable. None of it could have been any other way.
And though this is, somewhat, the case for everyone, its the degree that exposes how, despite all that knowledge, the individual remains clueless, lost in his own mind; unable to formulate an understanding, through the knowledge he possesses, most of it second-hand, adopted from some iconic figure they idolize as a parent.
He may try to cover his tracks, claiming with conviction that it was intentional, after-the-fact, pretending he's a 'master of his domain', or he may go the other route and claim all of it is out of his power to change, so he must wait to find out what happens to him next, and then come to terms with it, slavishly affirming it, as if it was inevitable, because for him it was.
The path-of-least-resistance leads towards predictable, repeating outcomes. if you surrender, or remain clueless, like a simple animal, then automated biological reactions, govern you.  

Awareness of too much information can confuse the mind, stress it to the point of submission.
Unable to discern patterns in the patterns, it regurgitates wisdom, unable to internalize it.
It knows, but it does not understand.
Defensive nihilism can help it endure, but it cannot save it.
It may know the theory, but it is unable to apply it, or fully comprehend it in a way to make it pragmatic.
He finds a kindred soul in Job, and dedicates himself to a job, losing himself in it.
The clueless, after years of mistakes, may experience a slight insight, which they will flee from.
How can they come to terms with a lifetime of errors in judgement, when the time has passed for corrective measures?
How could they accept the weight of responsibility, without being broken?
They need to unload it on another.
The mass pushes them to their knees, forcing them to surrender their last will and testament to the winds: a vengeful cry against the world; a desperate last effort to bring it down before the end.

Whatever twists and turns we take, in life; whatever distances we place between us and that which we want to escape, our essence, our core, brings us back where we feel most at home.
It's simple magnetism, body dragging along a screaming mind, denying it has anything in common with its appearance.
Birds of a feather...always....always, flock together.
A few may take a long-route, stopping among strangers to associate with what is not like them, but time and age, makes resistance to the pull difficult to endure.

The Abrahamic will find a common ground with the Marxist, and the Nihilist with another Nihilist.
Strange companionships are made when self-declared atheist, finds a kindred spirit, and a common ideal, in a Christian he once wanted nothing to do with.
What's the divisive issue between a one-god and a one-ness?
Semantics.
Call his God, call it Absolute; name the faithful believers, or proletariat; call it paradise or Utopia; name the icons/idols saints, or State Heroes.
Call your submission piety, or call it humanism.

Labels cannot divide what has so much in common.
At the heart of them all is the unifying core belief. An ideology with no empirical evidence.....an ideology that contradict or is contradicted by empirical evidence.
This ability to stand solid before so much contradiction is a matter of faith.

Concerning criminal behaviour...

Nyborg, Helmuth wrote:

Herein, we propose that at least three existing theories of criminal behaviour may provide insight into these relationships. First, moral development theory asserts that there is an intimate link between how rapidly individuals develop intellectually and their development in moral reasoning. This implies that how the brain confronts intellectual tasks of several types may overlap with its ability to make moral decisions.
Second, hemispheric functioning theory focuses on evidence that the two hemispheres of the neocortex reason differently, with the left hemisphere being more adept than the right hemisphere at linguistic reasoning. Together with moral development theory, hemisphere functioning theory suggests that a failure in the normal development of brain centres that manage linguistic thought is important for understanding criminal/antisocial behaviour.
Regarding the third theory, several researchers in the past decade have couched scientific explanation of criminal/antisocial behaviour in an evolutionary framework. Central to most of these proposals has been the idea that individuals can successfully reproduce either by emphasizing mating effort or by focusing on parenting effort, and that criminality could be a manifestation of mating effort. Theoretically, individuals who focus their reproductive time and energy on short-term mating efforts need to obtain resources quickly, and they should avail themselves of as many mating opportunities as possible by whatever means. If so, criminality should be most characteristic of males. In many males, an early emphasis on mating effort may gradually give way to parenting effort later in life, although some of the least intelligent males may not make the transition until old age.

-The Scientific Study of General Intelligence – Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen

From nature I emerge and back to nature I return, in between I seek, and plot, and lie, and crave, and wonder, knowing that it is all of my past, preparing for my future.
My time is as limited as my freedom. I contribute to the future generations what little I inherited and acknowledged as my own. My small choices shaping future options, for others to acknowledge and contribute to.

Bipolar psychosis of Modernity
In the contexts of human psychology the one/nil refers to the absolute and/or its absence:
1= present absolute
0= absolute absence

The one/nil, 1/0, serves two purposes, each corresponding to the two poles of the Nihilistic paradigm = pure and 'positive' nihilism.

Psychologically these two poles refer to Cynical/Sociopaths & Narcissistic/Schizophrenics.

The nil, is the basis of them both.
...In the first, more authentic form, nihilism negates all hypothetical on the grounds than none can meet the criterion of Absolute Truth, supported by Absolute Evidence, using Absolutely Indisputable arguments.
A reference to the absent absolute, in the image of a one-God (Abrahamic), which has been discredited and exposed....by many, but primarily by Nietzsche.
This one develops into cynical-psychopathy in its extreme forms.
Denial of all theories that cannot match the criterion; ridicule and rejection, off-hand, because they know no absolute can be provided.  
A psychological method of remaining static in one's beliefs; unmoved, untroubled; settling down.
The absent absolute is reason enough to dismiss any theory, any opinion, out of hand...without even considering its veracity.

...In the second, more duplicitous form, the absent absolute becomes an argument for any proposed alternate absolute. This is the foundation of Abrahamism and Marxism.
The absence of absolute is used to discredit all natural order, and to invent an alternate to the now 'dead' one-God.
The fact of no absolutes makes all hypothesis equally plausible, shifting the criterion to how it 'feels": how pleasant, or empowering, or flattering, this alternate absolute, replacing the absent one is, how self-consistent, determines how 'true' it can become.
The absence becomes a clear field for the human to invent his own 'reality'.
Lacking evidence, and often empirical validation, these types use obscurantism to imply what they are unable to offer, relying of the placebo effect to do the hard labour.
They have an effect among recovering Abrahamics that are desperate for any alternate version of their debunked one-God. they are willing to sacrifice reason, self-esteem, anything for the sake of their 'salvation'...just as Abrahamism was totally reliant on faith, using reason, as a necessary sacrifice proving noe's commitment to the absolute one-god.

The Modern is unable, or unwilling, to overcome his addiction/obsession with the absolute.
Having lost confidence in the Abrahamic one-God, it will settle for nothing less than an absolute replacement - even if it be an absolute nil, expressing his disdain towards the discredited one-god.
Disillusioned Abrahmics run to Communism.

Addicted to absolutes either/or he cannot settle for gradations, approximation, for the superior/inferior judgement which places him in the role of culpable participant.
Absolute sinfulness must be replaced with absolute innocence.
Thinking in gradations exposes him to the fluctuations of a dynamic existence - Flux - and to uncertainty, making his own will responsible for its own fate to a degree.
Such a psychotic cannot accept his own lifelong failure to perceive - his own gullibility. He must make the error a universal truth; his slavishness a cosmic truth.

Does it matter if they try to escape personal culpability by laughing and ridicule?
Does it matter what method they use to escape their own personal responsibility, and the necessary step of admitting they were sub-par intellectually, and/or spiritually?
They need to dilute their feebleness in universals, before they die.
The alternative would be facing the facts about who and what they are, using precedent, using a lifetime of choices and judgements.

When the end approaches the mind wants to give value to its own life. If it has failed to pass-on his genes, reaffirming life, he or she has to find something to make its lifetime something that was worth living.
If nothing else, the individual wants to comfort himself that it could not have been any other way.
Eternal return is affirmed as an inevitability.

This is how a slave validates his submission, and justifies his inability to escape.
In the past slaves explained their slavishness as Divine Providence; Modern Nihilists use absolute order, finding comfort in its universal implications.
Without the certainty of an outcome, how would they dare make any move?

The irony is that these same types ascribe a motive on others that they derive from personal introspection.
Their secret desire to change the world is unloaded upon others who simply describe the world, as it is.
They cannot think outside absolute either/or, nor outside universal consciousness; they are unable to comprehend a world with no motive, no will, no intent, and no pathology.
They project into everything their own intentions and their own methods, and conveniently see themselves reflected back.

Insanity is the noetic equivalent of the phenomenal concept of ugliness.
Both describe asymmetry and disproportionality within the context of mind & body.
Both describe a relationship with reality that exceeds natural order; both referring to exaggerations that imbalance the organism, expressed physically/mentally – as the manifestation of past stressors that were overcompensated – like trauma that shatters bones, healing them thicker where the break was made, or like a deep cut that leaves a scar that disturbs the original smoothness of the skin.

Only the possession of wealth permits the individual to publicly express his hidden self; personæ peaking from behind character.
How much is tolerated depends on the wealth available to soften the confronting display, and the degree to which it diverges from the median.
The average modern has very little personality to hide, so he assumes that all are the social caricatures they pretend to be. His own shallowness and blandness, is mistaken for a universal fact.
Self-repression and hypocrisy is easy when there’s little to hide, other than the adopted social role one is given.
‘Freedom’, for the common Modern, involves nothing more than remaining true to one’s adopted social pretence.

Freedom is now to gladly adopt the social persona you are told to be.
Something like that.

Yes...and this necessitates uniformity.
Those burdened with the higher cost are those with more personality to suppress so as to perform the character/caricature successfully and convincingly.
The dim-wit has no personality in excess of the character/caricature. For them the performance compensates for the absence of substance.
The social performance is the only substance they have that makes them proud.
Their true personae to dull, and mediocre, that there's nothing there to feel good about.

Popular trends, fashion, are, for them, a way of adopting substance.

A variant of this is the narcissist/schizophrenic.
This type over-inflates the character/caricature to hide hos dull and unimpressive his true peronae really is.
Usually adopting some iconic figure to emulate, coveting the icon's effect no the majority of mediocre minds.
He imitates a rich & famous social idol.

In some way Abrahamics do this.
They worship iconic figures which they try to emulate.
Marxists replace the messianic figure with a 'cult of personalty'.

The pater is absent, or discredited, so the man-child grasps upon any alternate father-figure he/she is given. For the Abrahamics its god, for Marxists its any iconic political figure representing the ideal communist.
This is why Nihilism can never entirely disappear. It constantly manufactures and updates variations of the absent-absolute feeding a deeper existential psychosis.

Narcissism is the corruption of empathy. An overcompensating mind cannot place itself in another’s position without defensively deflating the other, and inflating self.
It's a partial, and selective, projection of self, where the inferior parts are unloaded/uploaded upon another, allowing the preferred traits to remain purified, as the only ones identifying the ego.

Nihilism is a by-product of emerging self-awareness.
The individual can juxtapose self with other, and compare = this is what values and judgemental refer to.

This emerging sense of self, separates ego from self - mind from body, form the perspective of mind.
This is what Modern call 'freedom.
Nihilism prefers mind, because there the idea is purified, made divine, and the body is dismissed as a 'prison', or an insignificant superficiality that is 'overcome'.

The entire Abrahamic canon is about this purification of identity in mind.

This refers to the persona/character divide: private/public identity.
Modern preferring the public indemnity, as the only one, the authentic one, because this one is a social construct....it is chosen, whereas the persona is of the body, and it is imposed as a manifestation of an immutable past.

Moderns are always 'looking for themselves,' code for updating their caricature, the role they play, to social norms.
The mind can pretend and lie, the body cannot...so it must be covered up, or dismissed as irrelevant.