Are you s…sure?
That those are the options? No. Wanna answer?
Answer what question?
I don’t speak geek code.
I don’t even know what ‘s’ means.
A letter?
Spiderman?
Superman?
Schopenhauer?
Well, that’s an answer, actuallly, thanks.
Suffering succotash, something sure smells something stupendous.
S-aright!
Absolute power of the nil.
If the absolute one is non-existent, then the absolute nil must be worshiped in its place.
A slight flaw only proves the absolute power of the nil.
If absolute evidence of the singularity is offered, then we must admit that the absolute nil is the fabric of reality.
example
If absolute gnosis cannot be proven - omniscience - then we are all equally ignorant.
If absolute power is not evident - omnipotence - then we are all equally powerless.
Nil creates a negative uniformity.
Gotta check in on your various ‘its’ in the sentence. The nihilist projects into reality the absolute that his own philosophy denies the possibility of?
IOW ‘it’ nr. 1 refers ‘reality’, ‘it’ nr. 2 refers to nihilism?
Yes. the noetic is projected into reality to “correct” its absence.
I don’t know which one you label #2.
The power of nil is founded on the absence of absolutes:
absolute gnosis; absolute power, absolute oneness (singularity).
The positive psychosis takes advantage of this absence to declare its own abstractions the hidden absolute, using language to substitute for actions; using noumena in the absence of phenomenal (empirical) evidence.
The pure nihilist psychosis takes advantage of this absence to selectively deny and dismiss what si threatening to tis well-being, on the ground that it lacks absolute evidence, and to remain true to his preferred ideology, on the grounds that is is as plausible as any other, given that there is no omniscience.
To put it another way…in th absence of a one-god (anthropomorphic absolute) - omniscient omnipotent, omnipresent - the desperate mind declares himself a god, ro declares all men equally powerless and ignorant.
If not absolute one, then absolute nil.
The concept of absolute can be renamed ‘universe’ or ‘one’ (singularity), ridding itself of the infantile anthropomorphosis but retaining all other traits and implications, such as the absence of free-will to maintain “innocence” as a substitute for salvation.
by nihilists, not, say, religious people?
The second it, the red one.
My definition expands to include secular forms of absolutism.
I acknowledge the origins in psychology, which develops into spiritual nihilism - religions like Abrahamism’s triad - and then evolves into secular forms, like post-modernism, Marxism, etc.
I trace the origins back to emerging self-consciousness, exposing the ego - lucid part of self - to a reality that distresses it, producing existential anxiety.
It gradually becomes aware of how it compares to other, producing insecurity and vulnerability, which nihilism acts as a defence against.
What does existence deny existence to?
Absolutes, i.e., certainty, perfection, completion, wholeness, omniscience, omnipotence, or any term understood as an absolute, including ‘god’, ‘truth’, ‘morality’, ‘self’…
Absolute = indivisible, immutable, singularity.
The mind fabricates these concepts - abstractions - and then demands them to be in existence - projecting them as already existing.
When it fails to discover them, or when faces with the possibility that they be entirely of tis own making, it calls the cosmos a ‘negative’.
So, nihilism, the concept itself, is an expression of nihilism.
A cosmos void of a one-god, universal morality, universal purpose, is not a negative but a positive, because it makes life possible, and because it exists, as it is, without requiring these noetic absolutes.
The projections themselves, if taken literally, and as what they are, becomes expressions of nihilism as they would negate the cosmos as it is.
But my positions proposes a cleansing of language from these corruptive elements and the appropriate definition of words, by understanding what language is and why it evolves.
For example, the concept of ‘morality’ need not a one-god to have meaning, nor is it entirely subjective, but refers to a kind of behaviour we witness in many species, and not only in the homo sapient.
What is common between these species?
They all use cooperative survival and reproductive strategies, necessitating tolerance and sympathy to facilitate the process and to overcome an already present fight/flight mechanism.
Morality does not require a god, nor is it subjective, or a social construct.
We must differentiate ethics from moral behaviour, as we have between genetics and memetics.
I use ethics to make the distinction clear.
Ethics evolves as an addition to the already evolved moral behaviour, as a way to facilitate coexistence on a human scale - and not a tribal one.
But this requires unpacking.
My position claims that much of modern language use is infected by nihilistic understanding, due to the effect of Abrahamism over the past 2,000 years.
To make it more clear…I claim that because language is infected by nihilistic defensiveness, much of what passes for “philosophy” is nonsensical debates over ideologies, and psychological fabrications.
More politics and marketing, if not psychological expressions of anxiety.
We are so used to this misuse of language that we adopt obscurantism as a profound insight, because it allows us to project into the vague poetics our own psychological issues and find relief in how they are reflected back in an endless dialogue over nonsense.
Occultism was a primitive way of converting the unknown, which produced anxiety, into something intimate - by naming it. Now it has become an argument in itself.
We accept nonsense using occult insinuations because we fear that what we perceive to be true is, in fact, so.
We secretly wish to erase the obvious…and this ‘secret’ is what makes the occult so effective.
It seduces and exploits human frailty and need/desire.
Just to tie a few threads, so to speak, together…
Nil is essential to life, because it delineates self from other. This occurs organically with the emergence of the membrane/skin/exoskeleton.
Self-Awareness begins with a simple premise: I am what I am not because consciousness is outwardly focused - it evolved to deal with world.
The negation of other is essential to preserving self.
But where it becomes psychotic is when this negation dominates reason.
Nil becomes a weapon to deny whatever threatens and chalenges the organism’s well-being and it becomes a emptiness it believes it can fill with tis own abstractions - to ‘correct’ the absence of what it needs and desires.
Words/Symbols become representations of these esoteric constructs - see the neurotic iambiguous - which can now be sued as defences or to construct alternate realities - Paradise/Utopia.
This is why language is fundamental to nihilism. It has no external grounding so it compensates with the projections of language.
See how ‘logos’ was corrupted by Christians into ‘god’ - words are now divine, magical expressions of a godly mind - a creator.
Instead of representing reality they construct it.
Because words are abstractions they can describe reality as some want it to be rather than how it actually is
The interpretation of reality then becomes more important than reality itself even though we all see the world through a subjective lens
Everything we experience and everything we know is filtered through that lens so any expression of the absolute cannot really be known
The metaphysical unfalsifiable Abrahamic God is the supreme example of this for it is so perfect that it can only be a conception and not a reality
The secular version of this is the concept of Universe which does actually exist in reality but can only be experienced at a very infinitesimal level
And one other version of this is mathematical infinity which is only a concept but one that can also only be perceived at a very infinitesimal level
Words are representations of abstractions.
Any expression of an absolute is in our own head but we mistake it as being in the world, or we intentionally convince ourselves that it is - self-deceit.
It would be like an artist mistaking his painting for the real thing…or painting something non-existent and imagining that is was in the world.
Yes.
The confusion of the representation for the represented is exploited by charlatans, hypocrites, and those who exploit human fears, needs and desires.
It’s the second oldest racket.