Psychology 101

The recent new Zealand events must make us consider how 'morality' though not accepted as universal, is implied as being so.
Since all is determined then man's moral sense, and his moral laws, are part of a Universal inevitable process - determined by the order of it all.
So, man, as agency of the absolute, is expressing universal order, which includes a universal morality. Otherwise why would the man who killed so many be held accountable, and for what, if all is part of a grand scheme, part of an inevitable determined process?
The Universe is described not only as cannibalistic and masturbatory, but also as self-punishing - masochistic.
It determines actions which it then holds itself accountable for, via man.

The implication is that there is, indeed, universal morality, though the degenerates claim not to believe in it, otherwise how would the moral sense evolve as part of what has already bee determined and is inevitable?
Morality, it is implied, is part of universal order.
The one-god, the Abrahamic god is not dead.
He was not killed, as Nietzsche wrongly claimed. He went into witness protection, changed names, surgically altered his appearance, and is now returning....like the living dead. they cannot be killed. They resurrect and reanimate.

See virus cycles.
It's part of the nature of a virus - in this case a memetic one.

Nietzsche, the favourite icon of men-children around the world, also failed to find the source of his diagnosed Nihilism.
Granted, most of his aphorisms were Schopenhauer,. Wagner, and Heraclitus, through the prism of Hindu cosmology - right down to eternal recurrence - but he was a gifted psychoanalysts, and he did diagnose the psychosomatic dis-ease that plagues Modern man.  
Even his preferred mode of communicating his ideas, in the form of aphorisms, were inspired by Heraclitus.  

That he updated pre-Socratic and eastern spirituality, is certain. It's why men-children are so seduced by him...in a Feminized world.
And, because Nietzsche has had such a profound, and lasting effect on mostly young, inexperienced males, with no father-figures to be proud of and to relate to, he's become synonymous with everything that has a psychological effect. Some coveting it, others deploring it in themselves.
Anything that hints at a psychological impact is accused of being Nietzschean, just as some, in a previous time, thought of Freud every time the word 'ego' was mentioned.
It is clear that in time of decadence external icons and idols replace intimate paternal and family figures - lost minds seek something to idolize, and it is usually some authority, widely respected and admired. Like a pop-star.
The idol acquires a magical aura. Each follower - each lost soul - claims to have a more intimate relation to him/her, or to be channelling his essence.

Some find it in popular culture, reflecting their simplicity; others find it in intellectual idols, reflecting their complexity; a rare few seek it in the quirky, reflecting their self-assessment, and their goals.
In all cases, it is the absence of rituals of ascent - coming of age via a mentor - which is sought.
Psychology retarded, needing some father-figure to surpass and become a man.
The problem here is that the idol is either dead, or entirely idealized, so there can be no overcoming, as would normally occur. The man-child is trapped in a perpetual state of adolescence, unable to surpass the reality of his father-figure, because it is entirely idealized, prefect in theory, sanctified in death.
The boy cannot overcome, and become a man.

An animal knows not what it does but only how it feels.
It has no concept of the consequences, other than of the most immediate gratification of a need/suffering.
It is entirely focused on pleasure.
This presupposes displeasure, discomfort as a pre-existing condition.
One occurring, spontaneously, and the other requiring actions. Already the former is presented to be more powerful than the latter. hedonists imply displeasure as more intrinsic a state than what motivates them, and the universe, presumable - the drive towards greater pleasure.

Schopenhauer described 'pleasure' as a 'negative' state - nullifying the natural state of need/suffering, which is nothing other than the experience of existence, if by existence we mean a dynamic, state of fluctuations (inter)Actions, usually called Flux, so as to include both order and chaos, or both patterned and random energies.
Hedonists insinuate, without knowing it, that existence is need/suffering, forcing life to be constantly striving towards pleasure, or the gratification, placation, of the experience of this need/suffering.
Interactions = attraction/repulsion, implying stress, tension, and/or friction. Friction is what life experiences as need/suffering.
So, pleasure is only meaningful in relation to a pre-existing state. It can never be a telos, never completed, but a constant striving.
If we put it in Heidegger's terms, then life (consciousness) awakens to its 'throwness'; awakens to itself as dynamic momentum, among other momentums.
The difference between life and non-life is memory. in this case memory informs the will's choice-making.
Life has no choice whether to be born or not, because the choice was made for it, by its parent.
The individual finds itself within a dynamic movement, a momentum, which it must gain some control over. This movement/momentum alludes to Flux, as the dynamic essence of existence.
Will, constitutes in directing this momentum, not in choosing weather it exists or not. Freedom describes a relationship with other.

The difference between more sophisticated life, compared to less sophisticated life, is to what degree experience informs choice-making, and is not entirely directed by genetics, or by memories that are inherited and not accumulated during a lifetime.
The second advancement in sophistication is understanding, rather than simply knowing - enabling the organism to project, in space/time, beyond the immediate, i.e. foretelling, predicting.

There are no absolutes, only degrees, gradations - superior-inferior.

The definition of 'self' as a continuum, held together, as a 'singular entity' in the mind, through memory, finds no agreement from those on either side of the bi-polar Nihilistic dis-ease.
For the 'positive' Nihilist, it is not 'spiritual', theoretical, 'esoteric' enough to allow for verbal exploitation and manipulation; for the 'pure' Nihilist it fails to provide a absent absolute in order to ridicule and dismiss, so as to remain fixed in the belief that 'self' is an illusion, or 'nil'.
The world is for the first ' not enough', to gratify the ego, and for the other 'too much' for it to endure.

Both want to reject the apparent, that which is present, on those grounds - both exposing a deep dissatisfaction with the real - a dissatisfaction they may not even admit because this would also threaten the ego.

Unwittingly bot sides of the bi-polar Nihilistic paradigm find in each other, an ally, against the real.
Both, for their own reasons, what to ignore or annul it.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]: the conventional, Modern, definition and understanding of the cocnept.

On-Line Dictionary wrote:

ni·hil·ism
[ˈnīəˌlizəm, ˈnēəˌlizəm]
NOUN

the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless.
synonyms:
negativity · cynicism · pessimism · rejection · repudiation · renunciation · denial · abnegation · disbelief · nonbelief · unbelief · scepticism · lack of conviction · [more]
philosophy
extreme skepticism maintaining that nothing in the world has a real existence.
historical
the doctrine of an extreme Russian revolutionary party c.1900 which found nothing to approve of in the established social order.

The definition of a cocnept, and the 'word' used, and how it is applied, determines the outcome.
The Nihilist does not want to engage reality, because it is the source of its distress. It would rather 'sacrifice' reason, integrity, to 'save itself' from reality.
This is the root of Abrahamic 'inversions' and linguistic evasions, using obscurantism, and detaching language from reality, so as to slander and dismiss it, altogether, or so as to 'fabricate' alternative 'realities', hidden in a 'beneath', 'above', 'beyond', 'inside', 'outside', 'immanent' 'future' etc.

The motives can be divided into two general categories, corresponding to masculine/feminine psychological dispositions, because Nihilism is a psychological reaction, attempting to 'protect' the ego from increasing self-awareness, i.e. juxtaposition of awareness of self, with awareness of otherness, world.
Self, and how it relates to world, is the source of anxiety/fear, the Nihilistic method attempts to deal with.

The original 'Nihilists' projected their own abstractions, named 'god', 'morality', 'self', 'purpose', meaning' - all concepts entirely detached from world, and so entirely theoretical, ideological - into world, and when they failed to perceive them echoed back, they either made excuses, or dismissed world as a 'negative' state, preserving their original understanding of the words they were using.
They sought no fault in themselves, but in other, because ti is the 'her' they wish to negate, so as to 'protect' and 'preserve' self, understood as 'go'.
Here the Greek term is used to refer to the 'lucid, conscious, part of 'self', because 'self' is defined as a triadic phenomenon, corresponding to mind/nervous/system/spirit, or to Father/Holy Ghost/Son, and/or to the platonic reason/Will/Pathos.

This three-dimensional representation - with the fourth being momentum/movement referring to (inter)activity or Flux - is entirely biologically based.
A three(four)-dimensional organism attempting to survive within a multi-dimensional cosmos.
Dimensions increasing, in time - fragmentation = expanding space/time, where 'space' refers to 'possibility' - adoption Heidegger's definition.

Plato's psyche is applying language - semiotics - in a way that absolutely inflates and/or absolutely deflates' the continuum of self: exploding it as God, infinite, or imploding it into a singularity, which can then be hidden, or absolutely dismissed.

Most Moderns want to believe that simple mechanisms like 'pleasure' and self-preservation, or using self to evaluate other, are profound truths, hiding deep universal meanings.
They always stop there, in self-comforting, self-flattery, and delve no deeper than what they can endure, without risking their well-being - they remain comfortably within the comforting, or only dare to advance up until the point where discomfort forces them to turn back, giving all sorts of excuses as to why they went no further.
This is what they mean 'all is subjective': everything remains within their personal spiritual level of endurance and of understanding.
Their genetic limits are universal rules.

It's typical of the female psychology to function on impulse, with no regard for the 'bigger picture', or with no foresight.
A female's mind works on the immediate, which is always a society, a group.
She demands parity with males, for instance, with no interest or ability to analyse the possible consequences - she's only focused on the immediate 'benefits' unable to process the 'negative' costs, the collateral effects.
Her increasing social emancipation has resulted in unforeseen, by her negative effects, and her first reaction is to assume that others are at fault.

This 'be careful what you wish for' applies to the 'parasite-meme' infesting the European spirit.
The parable of the fox and the scorpion exemplifies this shallowness.
The scorpion bites the fox it convinced to help it cross the river, condemning it to death. The fox asks..."Why , did you do this? Now you will also drown." to which the scorpion replied, "It is me nature".
It is in the nature of the parasite-meme to gradually kill the host it needs to survive.
While it promotes principles that erode the host, and slowly kill it, it suddenly awakens to the fact that its influence is also threatening its own well-being, and that by killing the host it is killing itself.
Then it contradicts itself, by promoting the opposite of what it promotes for decades, setting-up the curious state where it occupies both sides of the political spectrum.
The principles used to pretend it is part of the host, so as to exploit and manipulate it, becomes a threat no the host's well-being, and, subsequently, on its own.

We can decipher neo-con Trotskyism in that light.
Trotskyism was a internationalist version of Marxism, contrasting with Stalin's nationalist version, explaining the Cold War, his purging, and his vilification.  
The basic tenet of Troskyism is perpetual revolution. A method of preoccupying the hosts awareness by focusing it outward, towards enemies, so as to not become aware of what is occurring inward - the parasite evading detection by keeping the host in a perpetual state of stress.
Trotsky's internationalist perpetual revolution became neo-con perpetual war, now practised by the US.
A method of mass mind-control.
Both sides of the political spectrum are occupied by the same parasite-meme.

In this case the 'virus,' i.e. Nihilism, is weaponized by the parasite-meme.
It embraces the disease rather than fighting it, establishing a symbiosis with it.
The virus-meme, i.e. Nihilism, makes its parasitism more effective and efficient. The host is confused, preoccupied, made so ill that it cannot diagnose the cause of its illness.
The parasite-meme has confused it to the point where it believes it has always been a part of its original meme.

Because we are analysing a meme, all language must become metaphorical, symbolizing psychological,ideological, theoretical relationships and interactions.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

If you do not fear being censored then there can be two reasons:
1- you do not exceed the conventional moral standard.
2- you do not exceed the intellectual standard.

It's usually the impoverished who benefit from imposed uniformity - this is true of communism where the masses have to be degraded to the level of knowing that they have nothing left to lose, before they rise up in rebellion.
The intelligentsia know this and this is why they try to degrade the masses to the point of desperation.
The ones who feel the most powerless are the ones willing to sacrifice what little power they have in the hope of increasing it.
The most un-free are willing to sacrifice what little freedom they have, to reduce all to their level or in the hope of attaining greater freedom.
Those who have the least to be proud of are the ones ready and willing to shame and degrade themselves.

It's always the lowliest of the low, the degenerates, who lower the average.

But only when you take them seriously and you respect what they have to say.
Otherwise, they do not matter.

A man may use quirkiness, alluding to a refinement of taste, independent from conventional trends, to mask a mundane spirit entirely dependent on authorities.

Why the coming Dark Age renews my hope...
When your life is on the line, gone are your nonchalant, carefree cynical remarks, and your 'devil may care' tolerance of idiocy - primarily your own; everything acquires a dire severity that leaves no room for comic relief; when your every decision is a a matter of life or death, then all debates over the reality of 'free-will', and all respect for the feelings of your fellow sufferers, vanishes in a heartbeat, replaced by a vicious stringent precise evaluation of probabilities, information and their sources, and your own capacity to come to lucid objective conclusions.  
That's when the true leader arises among the degenerates.
He's the one they are willing to stake their lives on, having proven himself, in the past, when they mocked and disregarded his caution as exaggerated and a product of cowardice. Their own fear takes over and their mind becomes as clear as can be.
Everything is slower and more clear when life is on the balance, and every second stands in the way of continues consciousness and a an abrupt end.
There are no equals in the foxholes and no word-games are tolerated from charlatans.
All becomes severe and discriminatingly cruel.
Only then, and only then, do words suddenly, as if magically, become clear as daylight, and nobody is ever confused by terms such as, 'male/female', 'weak/strong', 'good/bad', 'true/false'.
Every age brings about decadence and decay, and a subsequent fitness and clarity never experienced before.
This age is due for a 'reality check', because its art, including its language, is displaying a disease it cannot and should not survive.

It's only is superfluity that nihilism, and clowns and cowards, flourish and expand, in quality and quantity; it's always when cultural decay has just begun that liars and hypocrites have their way.

Therefore, the psychology of Modern right/left politics can be reduced to a simple abundance/austerity context, and man's emotional and intellectual relationship with both.

Self-Hatred must find external outlets to harmlessly vent itself.
Increasing self-consciousness exposes the mediocre mind to its own quality, in relation to other, and the world, at large.
This can lead to self-destructive behaviours, so it is expunged outwardly towards other.
It's most revealing focus is towards anything and anyone that reminds it of itself - and/or what it most despises about itself.
A parent and/or sibling, a member of the same culture, sex and race, anything and anyone that hints at itself.
Liberals and their self-hatred exhibit this psychosis, but this is a fact about the majority of Moderns.
Their self-despising becomes an aggression towards their own kin, which can be exploited and manipulated, by parasites, and charlatans, for example.

Europeans are the most glaring example.
They have been turned into the worse enemies of their won kind.

There's always a ready and willing pool of individuals ripe for exploitation and manipulation of this kind - nihilism is defined as self-awareness exposed to the 'reality' of self compared to other, something that can easily be directed against its own past, represented by all those who are most like it.
Some have equated it to r/reproductive strategies, but this goes deeper than sexuality. It has to do with existential anxiety and how self-consciousness awakens the individual to its own vulnerability, producing insecurity.
Sometimes over-inflating, exaggerating self, is the preferred defensive method, but the most popular is the projection of self-hatred towards another who represents 'self' externally.

This is where the virus-meme emerges as a defensive reaction to this ward off self-destructiveness, taking the form of a projected idea/ideal, named 'god', in the Abrahamic definition, or universal morality, or purpose and meaning externalized as a pre-existing 'truth'.
The parasite-meme takes advantage of this, manipulating and exploiting it as it emerges in the host it infests.

As natural identifiers decline in relevance, much to the relieving convenience of these increasing numbers of souls intentionally seeking relief from themselves outwardly, they begin to experience this 'freedom' as a lostness, a sense of existential limbo - lacking past, i'e' nature, heritage, genetic continuance. Desperate for an alternative they can be directed to adopt any ideology that compensates and feeds into this resentment of self.

Addictive/Obsessive Personalities
The impulse to idolize another iconic figure is a product of feminization.
Feminine spirits desire to become a means, a representative, of another idealized entity and/or cocnept.

It's the same process as is at work in imprinting.
The mind associates quality with worshipping, and seeks to become an icon of worship as a way of overcoming its own obsession/addiction to another; it strives to overcome its own submissiveness by becoming a master inspiring submissiveness in others.
Addiction is to the gene, i.e. body, what obsession is to the meme, i.e., mind.
This is another example of a weakness attempting to liberate itself from itself, by projecting its weakness upon other.
The individual's addiction/obsession is projected as a reflection through another, trying to make itself the icon/idol of worship.

The ease with which the feminine psychology becomes infatuated with an idol of her worship is balanced by an ease with which she can lose her infatuation, i.e. sanctifying and then demonizing what triggers her imagination, to spontaneously cope with her insecurities and vulnerabilities.
This is prevented only when the idol of her worship is somehow beyond scrutiny, or it cannot contradict her imaginative idealism, viz., its absence in death or due to some other form of space/time distancing.
Then she cannot be 'disappointed' when the idol of her obsession fails to agree with her fantasies of it.
Of course when I speak of feminine/masculine I do not man only a biological identity but a psychology - both biological males and females are a fluctuating synthesis of masculinity/femininity, i.e. it is possible for a biological male to be more feminine than a biological female, and vice versa.

Masculinity/Femininity are inherited potentials, cultivated by environmental conditioning, establishing psychological disposition that mirrors the biological reproductive specialized role.  
Feminization of Mankind, implies that biological males and females are all being forces to cultivate their feminine traits and surpass their masculine impulses.

A similar pattern is followed across the emotional spectrum, e.g. an envious spirit, is obsessed with making others envy it; a fearful spirit dreams of being feared; a mind prone to idolize and worship will be driven by the ambition to be idolized and worshipped; the victim herd psychology will have as its highest ambition the goal of becoming a victimizer, a predator, and if it cannot it will settle for remaining a scavenger.

The antagonism between life and the living, wanting to preserve itself indefinitely in a cosmos that remains indifferent to its plight, is the source of Nihilism and the division between nature and artifice. It is where the very essence of artist and artistry commences, and where it find and directs its end.

On a very vague level, 'artificial' describes an organisms desperate desire to 'correct' and transcend natural order, which would make Nihilism the highest level of artificiality man can envision, for it does not even attempt to integrate natural materials but remains entirely theoretical and abstract, i.e., entirely in the mind.

Nihilism is technique/technology pushed to its conceivable end.

Shame and guilt are not human inventions, they are the product of coexisting within a community upon which you place your trust and cultivate trust - reputation is how trust is spread across the community, indicating your spirit to those who must place their lives and welfare upon your possible actions.
Shame is how an individual controls himself, not wanting to embarrass himself nor those who made him possible, beginning with his/her parents.
Shape is a quintessential component of cooperative coexistence.

Something Christians weaponized and Jews converted to a neurosis, a guilt that had to be reaffirmed and never overcome; a guilt based on their survival strategies, forcing them to become shameless before others and ashamed before their own; a contradiction that cannot be fully expunged.
But Abrahamics didn't invent shame.
It goes back to the beginnings of man, when a young man did not want to show cowardice before an enemy or during a hunt.
Shame driving him to overcome himself, as it would be reflected in the eyes of his comrades.

Shamelessness exposes an individual's disinterest in the judgment of those it pretends to be part of their group.
Shamelessness shows a sense of defensive indifference - most of the time faked - at the prospect of embarrassing himself and his entire family, either because there is no family to speak of, or because the family that there is there is is denied, or hated - self-hated directed through those most like one's self.

There was shame before the Christians manipulated the emotion, as they manipulate and exploited the emotion of 'love'; there was shame before the Jews mechanized it into a self-indentifier, permanently feeling ti as an unresolved guilt.
The Christians gave their guilt a 'reason', calling it primordial; the Jews wallow in it, suffering it as neurosis.
Guilt for having invented a God as a representation of themselves, nd then weaving a narrative about how their God, was rejected by all tribes except them; i.e, they chose themselves as gods over all earthly kings, and over all tribes - their globalization is rooted in this tale; guilt for having built power on selling themselves as the eternal 'victims', setting them upon a historical path they cannot escape from.

Shame is the feeling produced when an individual holds himself accountable to something and/or someone outside himself.
It is the essential component for the development of culture and civilization.

If Christianity corrupted it, as it corrupted the feeling of 'love', and like Freud corrupted the concept fo 'ego', does not mean shame is connected with the Christian corruption.
a mind that is trapped within conventions, even when it pretends to be free and a 'rebel, always defers to icons and idols, either to sanctify and surrender to, or to demonize and reject, exposing a mind entirely dependent on others, unable to understand words outside their most current and popularized definitions and associations.
Christianity no more invented shame and shaming - or guilt-tripping was invented by the Jews - than thy invented the concept of 'love'.
They corrupted and manipulated feelings to control the masses of desperate degenerates, upon which they built their power.
Defining the non-existent and incomprehensible into a comprehensible emotion is how all Nihilistic variants disconnect words from their worldly references and reconnect them to emotions and human contrivances, giving the wrong impression that something profound has been revealed, when nothing has been accomplished but circular reasoning, referring to emotionalism, i.e. love numbs fear/anxiety.

Love is also a evolved mechanism enabling heterosexual reproduction and then cooperative survival strategies. That some mystify and sanctify the emotion is part of the brainwashing.

Without shame there is no possibility for Nobility.
Man degenerates to the modern state of shamelessness, debauchery, self-degradation.

Christians reduced 'love' to a whore's love, i.e., all deserved it, it became all-inclusive.
Originally love was a sign of discrimination, directed only to those who deserved it, who were of your own kind; reserved only for the worthy and to what honoured you with its behaviour and its presence.
They also corrupted shame, making it a tool to cultivate slavishness, when it was a feeling of showing reverence towards your peers, whose judgement you valued because you depended on them, and they depended on you - a feeling of 'letting them down', risking their welfare and your own.

Feelings are what Nihilists manipulate and warp, associating them with concepts they cannot prove not justify.....it's how they construct obscure, occult concepts, selling them as 'profound' by associating them with emotions, hoping to seduce emasculated men-children and prissy girls.
it's the oldest racket in human history - anthropomorphizing or justifying absurdities with word-games that insinuate organic connections.
the mystification of 'love' is still part of Modernism. Th majority just cannot break free from the romantic idealism, in its secular form, or its spiritual mystification, in its religious form.
They need 'love' to be something supernatural, or, at least, something too mysterious to be fully understood - a power that can save them from the mundane world, and their mundane lives.

If what is shameful to most humanity, is an inextricable nature; then would not a tribe justifiedly feel it as 'unable to be overcome'? Therein the demoralized experience guilt. Therein they think there's "depth"; which is nothing more than depravity.

If it inextricably distinguishes them, and they have no opportunity at redemption, then what care do they have for being depraved? Jesus was the savior.

Being a 'rebel', talking at all, demonstrates a weakness. Why talk with what isn't convenient? You are either an outsider or attempting a break inside.

Every one you communicate with demonstrates something. Whom you identify, or if using another as an example, the audience (and their potential). If one is an outsider, they only speak to those similar. Not that a family should or shouldn't disconnect or compromise.

Slaughtz wrote:

If what is shameful to most humanity, is an inextricable nature; then would not a tribe justifiedly feel it as 'unable to be overcome'?

It is an inexorable aspect of the nature of social species, not only of man. Reputation is only fundamental in in-group dynamics. A species that practices no cooperative survivals strategies feels no shame because it has no reputation, no social status, to preserve.
Shame is the beginning of overcoming. An individual does not strive to overcome his/her inferiorities unless he first feels embarrassed about them.
Here self-consciousness accentuates shame in ways no species, other than the homo sapient, can fully experience.
Self-awareness juxtaposes self from other and shame becomes a strait-off comparison, or the comparison to an ideal.
Only man can feel ashamed in relation to his own ideals.

Slaughtz wrote:

Therein the demoralized experience guilt. Therein they think there's "depth"; which is nothing more than depravity.

If it inextricably distinguishes them, and they have no opportunity at redemption, then what care do they have for being depraved? Jesus was the savior.

Shame and guilt, among Abrahamics is innate. They are born and raised to feel it without justification.
Christians feel guilty of an event they were told about but never experienced nor participated in - they carry with them, in theory, primordial sin - Adam & Eve's indiscretions.
There is no possibility of 'overcoming', in this case - the individual carries his shame as part of his contrition, absolved in death, to gain an 'after-life.
Existence is the state of suffering for this primordial sin, which only death can cleans - rebirth as pure idea.
So, it is the body's baseness that is to be 'cast away' in death - and with it its sinfulness.

Difficult time quoting from my phone, there was an easily misinterpreted sentence on my part in regard to 'to most humanity. This was in reference to a group having inexorable traits; if pygmies were guaranteed to cause what they rely on to flee (if it were non-short people, who flee short people when they reveal they're short). An inexorable nature, causing guilt.

The ancient-Greeks had three terms referring to the concept of attraction, and its conversion into bonding; what Anglophile Moderns, products of Roman limitations, only use one word, ‘love’ to describe, with a second, ‘lust’ used as a primal, derogatory term, to refer to one of the other three.
Those terms were, Eros {ΕΡΩΣ}, Agape {ΑΓΑΠΗ}, and Philia {ΦΙΛΙΑ} – the fact that it is a triad is indicative, referring to the Christian corruptive adoption describing their synthesis into a singularity, as ‘God’, also named ‘Love’.
For the Hellenes the triad corresponded to three distinct stages of the same process – mutually supportive and district - in fact one 'eros' negating the other 'agape', with 'philia' playing the mediating conversion stage of one into the other.
Eros referred to the power of attraction, as opposed to the power of repulsion; agape referred to unity, harmony, congruence; and philia referred to the mitigating power that converts one, (eros), into the other (agape), corresponding to body/mind/nervous system.
Agape eradicates agape, because the distances requires – the necessary tension of divergence – is eliminated by unity, i.e. close proximity, harmony. There is no erotic tension where there is agape, a fact lost to Freud’s Afro-Asiatic mind – either intentionally or not, infecting Indo-Europeans with the wickedness of parent/child eroticism; there is no agape where there is erotic tension. The former negates the latter, as distances are bridged, but not absolutely eliminated.
The three types of ‘love’ correspond to four different types of attraction, e.g., physical, mental, spiritual, intellectual, referring to the four-dimensional space/time human (inter)activity extends into.
The missing fourth refers to the lag between existing and experiencing existence. We moderns only have two, displaying our regression. ‘Friendship’ is what converts ‘lust’ into the bond of ‘love’. The fact that Christianity only had one, all-encompassing concept of ‘Love – in the absolute – exposes our infection and our entrapment in self-enclosed singularities, an antithesis to Hellenic eros which necessitates contradiction, a distance to be present. Christianity, as a variant of Abrahamism, offers the negation of eros, and the implosion into Agape, i.e., a singular unity – as noted the negation of eros is agape, as every married man and woman knows, and as Freud should have known before he equated the bonding similarity of parent/child – a genetic intimacy of identity – with eros and lust, taking his own Magian alien spirit as an example of a universal ‘truth’.
The Greeks used ‘eros’ to describe the teacher pupil relationship, as an indication of distance, and of attraction, between one that needs, and or seeks, and one who offers, and/or guides, i.e., the law of attraction. Once this distance falls beneath a thresholds and becomes ‘love’, through the mitigation of ‘philia’, i.e., friendship, there is no more eros, ergo philosopher, describes a state between attraction, towards what is needs – subject to object – and synthesis, unifying balance, a product of intimacy.
Where there is only ‘love’ there is no movement, no pathos, and no attraction/repulsion, in constant tension, i.e., there is no existence, no ‘Will to …’ anything, as all is one and the same.        

Hellenic triads are mirrored in Hellenic differentiation between the three distinct phases of what we Anglophile Moderns simply call ‘love’ – a second word is used to refer to ‘eros’, i.e., lust, reducing it to a primal derogatory, animalistic concept.
Body/Nervous System/Mind, corresponding to Plato’s Rider/Reigns/Stallions, a.k.a., Reason/Will/Pathos, with the last divided in two (duality), to produce the fourth, referring to the four dimensional extension of human awareness, i.e., height, width, length, and time.
Love/Philia/Agape (lust/friendship/love), corresponding to physical, converting to mental congruence – movement from attraction towards unification, without achieving absolute merger.
The Hellenes, in contradistinction to Christians who warped the Hellenic spirit, did not describe the cosmos through the metaphor of ‘love’ but through ‘eros’ – a distinction that exposes the corruption produced when trying to synthesize Judaism with Hellenism. For the Christians the universe – a corruption of the concept cosmos – was created by and through ‘love’, whereas for the Greeks it was eros, and before that Ananke (necessity), preserving intact the ‘distance’ of pathos, indicating attraction with no resolution – love/hate tension.

The Afro-Asian Hebrew, Freud, manipulated this reduction of discrimination between eros and agape to insinuate an erotic tension between parents and their children, and history, reflecting this parasitical infestation, described the Hellenic eros between teacher and student in the same warped degenerate manner.

There is no physical erotic attraction between parent and child because there si no distance to produce the required tension; there is not enough differentiation.
The member of the parasite-group, seeded the minds of billions with this degeneracy, reflecting his own psychology and that of his own kind.
There is no attraction because there is too much similarity, and not enough divergence to produce tension between attraction/repulsion.

Abrahamism eradicates eros completely by declaring all as one and the same - a singularity of no distances - all is one.
The negation of Hellenism.

This is why intimacy extinguishes pathos....and modern marriage eradicates passion.
The ancients housed and fed the sexes separately, maintaining a distance to cultivate the mystery that stocked the pyre of eros.
Where there is no philia to convert eros to agape, eros is extinguished with daily proximity and too much intimacy.

All forms of inebriation confuses the distinction between exoteric & esoteric sources of data, i.e. influx of information. What is called a 'high' is really a low – mind introverting, flooded by internal sources of data, as the senses are made less sensitive to external stimulations – similar to the state of sleep when the mind is almost totally cut-off from external stimulations, allowing internal processes to dominate it. A chemically induced numbness is experienced as a wakeful dream-state, producing similar side-effects.
An individual feels relieved from the uncontrollable and unpredictable external world; entirely dominated by internal imagery.
The esoteric has no stored experiential memory, other than DNA, therefore it adopts external memories (appropriates them) to make itself present to the wakeful mind; brain is flooded by internal stimulations that trigger imagery, sensations, from stored experiential memories, manifesting as imagery, strange sequences of synthesis that do not adhere to linear space/time, nor to causal chains. The release is felt as a state of mystical enlightenment – a wakeful dream-state.

Eros was the Greeks metaphor for the tension of attraction/repulsion, or what I describe as (inter)activity.
chaos/Order in constant conflict, never releasing the tension, as is implied by Agape, harmony of patterns that have achieved equilibrium, i.e., an excess of attraction, overpowering repulsion but never completely eradicating it....for that would be an absolute, the creation of an absolute, i.e., a singularity or absolute order. Neither can repulsion completely overpower attraction for that would produce absolute chaos.

A continuous growing and waning, creating an ebb and flow, experienced by conscious life as need/suffering, i.e., existence.

The absolute is described as a final chaos or a final totalitarian order - an end, i.e., telos, even by those who profess to not believe in telos, nor in one-god.

Dispelling Freud's corruptive influence, i.e., Oedipus complex – part of a parasitical method of making the host soft enough to be harmless to the parasite – is a method of psychosomatically debilitating, making the mind impressionable in its uncertainty, in its guilt and shame; a way of dumbing-down, emasculating, making the mind distrust its own impulses.
There can be no eros between parent & child; no physical attraction, because the distance required is missing – there is intimacy, connection, via the genes – similarity shatters eroticism, slackening the necessary tension, leaving only love in its stead; love for what is 50% like one's self. There can be no erotic pathos directed towards self, because there is no space/time distance, and no differentiation.
All else is a sickness coming from a sick mind, expressing the virus' effect on its degeneracy.
Freud is the perfect specimen to use if one wants to analyse a real-life example of the symbiosis of Nihilistic virus-meme with a host that incorporated it into its parasitism. A troubling symbiosis, manifesting in a variety of neurological conditions – wanting to have sex with his own mother was but a symptom of this psychosis – projecting it upon others, was a typical behaviour, unloading the 'negative' upon others so as to preserve the delusion of personal piety, cleanliness, goodness, i.e., the idealized positive. To hide his own sickness he had to make the world believe it was sick; that his own degeneracy was a part of the human condition.
The dissonance between Nihilistic meme and genetic impulses can only be sublimated through linguistics, it cannot be entirely expunged – it is internalized, manifesting in neurosis and emotional turmoil, such as inexplicable existential guilt, spontaneously rising from inside where the synthesis fails to produce something substantial externally. The sickness seeks to relieve itself by making the world sick with it – normalizing its own psychosis, its own internal disjunction.
The symbiont suffers the symptoms of this dissonance between virus-meme and its repressed genetic identity – a neurotic symbiont, full of vengeful anger, masked and redirected as victimhood.

As any parent that has dealt with a child knows, what verbal acrobatics and linguistic webs can be woven when the mind wishes to confuse and escape responsibility.

We can be sure that whenever we come across convoluted corruptive language games, there is nothing more of substance than a child wanting to escape detection, or an adult wanting to mask his own childishness.
Tangles webs are woven to entrap, whereas the truth is clear and obvious - expressed in a multitude of ways, all directing the mind to the same; whereas a lie has only one way to keep in mind, and no other will do, because then it is exposed as what it is.

So, whereas I can say (inter)activity, intercourse, relating, or pattern, order, consistency, predictability,and so on....it is only because all words refer to the same external phenomenon.
A lie, on the other hand, can only use one, or two, because tis lie is contradicted by external phenomenon, and exists as idea....with a specific motive, which is other than clarity.
It is this motive that is occult.

A homo believes that the only reason all men do not have sex with other men is because they are sexually repressed and afraid of true intimacy.
that's what a junky says about those who frown upon drug use.

Some Christians say the same about their opium of choice, God.

Moderns use fear and repression to explain anything that exposes them to the fear and repression in themselves.
Therefore, for them any truth about homosexuality, is....homophobia, and any rejection of migration is....xenophobia....and anything honest about races is....hatred...and anything true about females is....misogyny.
Their drug of choice....love, i.e., god.....lust....a secret desire to disappear in other or through other.